Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
This is the widely believed definition of theft used on the internet, and while it is a common definition of theft, it is not the only one. Several jurisdictions do not require proof of deprivation of the item, but just some part of its value, for theft.
But it's really most analogous to "Theft of Cable Services", which involves, well, stealing cable services without paying for them. This crime has been routinely prosecuted as such over the past 30 years, despite the cable company not being deprived of "The Golden Girls" by people who commit the crime, and without anyone offering the justification that they wouldn't have subscribed to cable anyway because it's too expensive.
(However, it does have its own proof problems, most notably being "I thought/assumed/believed that cable was included in the rent." This isn't a Perry Mason (or even Johnny Cochran) class defense, but in most cases it's sufficiently troublesome that cable companies will just shut it off and not try for a prosecution.
If you're actually caught in the act running a cable from the pole to your house, "I thought cable was included in the rent and they forgot to run the line" doesn't work nearly as well.)
|
That rational doesn't change the fact that it's not theft. It's quasi-theft.
rjb