Is unrequested, unpaid-for cable TV legal?

Factual Questions
21

I don’t think it’s as clear as Bromley suggests.

As previously mentioned, if you receive a package unsolicited in the US mail, you’re free to open it, plug it in, modify it, throw it out, whatever you want, with no legal obligation to the sender.

Another parallel situation is an athletic event. If I walk by a small stadium, I’m free to stand at the fence and watch the action without buying a ticket. I can also bring binoculars, or climb on my uncle’s shoulders, or sit a folding chair on the roof of my van to do this. If the folks running the stadium don’t like it, they can build the wall higher, or plant trees, or whatever.

All of this addresses the morality of Valgard’s situation. It may have no bearing on the legal situation, which was the question raised in the OP, and which is likely to be clarified by case law.

22

From this site.

It looks like the cable company considers it piracy.

23

A couple snippets of case law I just dug up (apologies for my lack of knowledge of legal citation format)

In both these cases, the impoverishment was tangible - money paid, time spent, etc, which would not have occurred had the defendant not taken its action.

Certainly, one can argue the cable company became impoverished in money and resources in maintaining the cable line and sending the signal, and even liability for the lawsuit that dmartin29 is threatening. But all of this impoverishment was already in the works. I think it will be difficult to prove to me, as the judge sitting on the bench without any legal background :wink: , that Valgard is responsible for this impoverishment.

Hopefully more legally trained minds can set me straight on this.

24

Just because it’s there doesn’t mean it’s yours to use, does it? I mean, if I leave my cellphone at your house accidentally, you don’t have a legal right to use my cellphone as much as you want, just because I accidentally left it there. It’s one thing for a company to actively mail you something you didn’t request, addressed to you, clearly intended for you, and then never to bill you. It’s another for you to use something that clearly was never intended for your (free) use.

Although, I do disagree with the “Al Capone left his money in the house” analagoy… He sold me the house the way it is, I’m keeping the money.

If I found a broken doorknob after purchase, he isn’t going to come back and fix it for me, is he? :wink:

25

I have an answer to the OP. It lies not the concept of unjust enrichment in common law and derived case law - where I still think I’m right, but I hope a lawyer will render their opinion.

Rather, Valgard’s action is specifically criminalized by statute.

26

I don’t think this kind of thing is going to be pursued under a tort concept like unjust enrichment. There is most probably a state law prohibiting such activity. For example, in the chapter on “Stealing and Related Offenses” in Missouri statute, Mo. Rev. Stat.

27

I don’t think this kind of thing is going to be covered by a tort concept like unjust enrichment. Most likely there is a state law prohibiting it.

For example, in Missouri statutes, in the chapter on “Stealing and Related Offenses” there is a crime called “Theft of Cable Service.” Under this provision, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 570.300(3), it is a crime to “knowingly connect to, tamper with or otherwise interfere with any cables, wires or other devices used for the distribution of cable television if the effect of such action is to obtain cable television without paying all lawful compensation therefor.”

So, even though the cable is in your house, it seems to me (in Missouri, anyway), if you hook it up to your television and you find that you’re getting the signal, then you are stealing cable because the effect is that you are obtaining service without paying for it.

I haven’t yet been able to track down an equivalent in California law.

28

We rented a house in a rural area outside of a larger town. We were in a neighborhood, but the houses were actually some distance apart. We never saw or spoke to any neighbors. Since we worked in a different town, we were never there to socialize with them or anything. Our friends lived in another town (where no rental property was then available).

Anyway, upon moving in, I plugged the TV into the cable outlet just to see what was there. Sure enough, there was service. I knew the service was not coming from the dominant cable service (TimeWarner) because the channels bore no resemblance to the advertised listings for TimeWarner. None of the channels identified the name of the cable company. I looked in the phone book and there were several companies (and I later discovered that none of those were the one that served our neighborhood). I assumed that the cable would eventually disappear when the previous tenant’s subscription expired. I admit that I did not turn over every rock trying to find the cable company, but I did try.

Well, the service never died. We had cable service for about a year. Then, apparently some other subscriber requested service, or something, so the cable company came out and looked at the pedestal. We got a polite letter from the cable company telling us that service would be disconnected on such-and-such date. If we would like to subscribe, we should call before that date and set up an account. I called them, set up an account, and everyone was happy.

29

I’ve been having trouble finding equivalent statutes in any jurisdiction, except the ones already posted (then again, I’m lazy).

Passive cable theft isn’t a crime per se, at least not at all what the cable companies contemplate. Passivity implies lack of intent to steal cable, as demonstrated by the OP. Now that he knows, is he going to get paid for his time auditing the cable company(ies)'s records? To continue receiving cable in this fashion may not be moral, but it’s not clear that it’s illegal.

IMHO, neither the Fed or the MS law cited is particularly good law. It does not account for the special circumstances (the technology inherent within cable tv) or lack of proactive duties (all the stories of doing nothing when it comes to disconnect) or the history of the cable companies (particularly the monopolistic environment in which they thrive). Note: these loosely based ideas are more grumblings than any real anaylsis, however:

The law does not contemplate other real life circumstances:

a) situations where people call the cable company to disconnect, and it never happens. Should the cable companies now have the full force of the law, years down the road to extort maximum fines and penalties?

b) situations in multi-unit/single unit dwellings where antennae access and cable access are one and the same? I’ve known tons of people, particularly in the city, but this happened at my folks’ home, too, where cable is running through the antennae, and by using the antennae to get publicly broadcasted channels, you get cable for free. My parents switched over to satellite, called to cancel, and it was never shut off. Then, the local cable company got bought out, and they started getting better, higher tiered service. Now, my dad can watch satellite, and tape my mom’s shows at the same time.

How is the OP’s situation different from someone throwing seed on your fertile soil, and telling you that if you reap what you sow, you have to pay the man?

How is the OP’s situation different when a salmon farm’s fish swim into his pond or lake?

Or any situation where something is left or delivered to the wrong property, but for the act of delivery, it cannot be recovered? Is the receiver automatically forced into a contract?

In other words, the law seems to be too in favor of the cable companies.

I don’t have an answer, just opinion and conjecture.

30

OK by this logic, if you drop your wallet on my property, then I can rightfully use the contents of that wallet. Cash, credit cards, etc. Because it’s not MY fault you dropped it there. Why should I be burdened with returning it to you? Aside from any ethical or moral reasons, do I have a legal obligation to a) return you the wallet or b) refrain from making use of its contents? It’s not any less legal for me to use your credit card, knowing that it is not my credit card, regardless of whether I pick it from your pocket or find it in my bushes.

31

Sorry, fix that to say “it’s not any less illegal”

32

Whether it’s a crime per se in the literal sense really seems to me to be besides the point. Either it’s illegal or not (under either federal or state statute). Obviously, the cable company itself is going to puff its own Web site up to the maximum extent, which is why I haven’t bothered to look there for the right answer.

This is a stretch, to put it mildly. Time involved? I doubt it’s going to be worth much. At the very least, it seems to me, that under the Missouri statute he has a duty to unhook the television from the cable line, or report his roommate for stealing cable.

It’s only unclear because we here don’t have an encyclopaedic knowledge of state statutes. Either it’s illegal under statutory law or it isn’t. It isn’t a philosophical matter, that’s for sure.

“MS” is Mississippi. I cited Missouri law. See, this is why I think we should do away with those stupid two-letter postal abbreviations.

Yeah, it’s really just grumbling. Because in real life it’s not that much of a hardship to refrain from hooking into an unpaid-for cable line or calling up to ask for a legitimate subscription.

I haven’t seen it demonstrated that a prosecutor or a court is going to come down hard against a genuinely innocent home-occupier in such cases. Isn’t this all a bit overwrought?

33

OK related question…

We switched cable companies about 8 years ago and signed up for 3 premium channels. When they converted us, we had 4 premium channels. So I called the new cable guy and said that we didn’t order HBO, please disconnect it. They apologized profusely and said they’d fix it.

4 years later, we started having freaky interference and had to have the cable guy visit. While he was in the house, I pointed out that we didn’t pay for HBO, but it had never been disconnected. He said that we were the only house on the street that had premium channels but not HBO. He *could * disconnect it, but it was easier for him to just let us slide… something about filters and climbing up to the box, whatever.

So last year, we cancelled all premium channels. I pointed out that we got HBO along with the channels we paid for and would they please take that off too.

So now… Expanded Basic only - no premium channels - and we still get HBO.

At what point is it their problem, not mine? I don’t want to get hit with 8 years of monthly fees.

34

Not a bit. If I drop my wallet in your property, then it’s possible for you to return my lost goods to me via a very simple and painless transaction.

If I beam my cable signal into your house, there’s absolutely no way for you to return my lost goods to me. You can’t pick up the cable signal and hand it back to me. Once I’ve sent it to you, it’s irrecovably lost to me; the only question then is whether anyone will benefit from it.

I therefore don’t see this as unjust enrichment. Sure, I’m impoverished by the amount that it cost me to send you the cable signal; sure, you’re enriched by the amount of entertainment you get from watching it. But there’s not a direct connection. If you don’t watch the cable, then I’m still impoverished; if you watch it 24 hours a day, then I’m still impoverished. The amount by which you’re enriched has nothing to do with the amount by which I’m impoverished, in other words.

The other statutes mentioned may apply, but I can’t see how this one would.

Incidentally, four years ago I had a somewhat similar situation. I moved into a new apartment and discovered that the cable guy had left a note on the counter. “Hi!” it said. “I’m going to go ahead and leave the cable on. Call me within a couple weeks if you want me to leave it on, or else I’ll come by to turn it off.” When I moved out six months later, I still had cable, though I’d never called him. Not my fault, I thought, that his sales technique needed work.

Daniel

35

Um, no, it’s a bit different. If you want to convert the chattel to your property, then there are requirements, usually by statute to do such. If you don’t want to tell anybody, but then, make no use of it, that’s different – you needn’t tell anyone. If the chattel holder comes on your property looking for it, then you have to let him look for it (and pretty much have to give it to him to avoid the notion that you are going to covert it later.) There are already laws for credit card fraud and identify theft in place.

However, this situation is different from cable tv b/c of the technology involved. [I would make an analogy between MP3s and file swapping, but don’t get me started.] Unlike the wallet, delivery of cable service directly to your home automatically creates a conversion (see my first sentence in my third to last paragraph). The OP doesn’t have the option of gathering all the previously delivered cable and giving it back to Cable Company. What’s he supposed to do, tape everything and hand back tapes? No, he’s forced into a contract, required to pay back rates, and on top of that, fines because the cable company didn’t do its job in the first place. If you believe the cable company’s reasoning, then, by your example, the wallet was found in the OP’s tool shed eight years later, then the OP would have to pay 8 years of interest, and go to jail for the state’s version of conversion of chattel.

36

From my studies on this subject (something I do sometimes on my down time, who knows I may write a law review article), it was the FCC who garbled this whole thing up. On top of that, the Cable Companeis are partly to blame b/c of the hard cost it takes to undo all those illegal hook-ups. The cable companies are really giant redistributors and one giant billing mechanism. A large majority of the field work is outsourced (third party contractors, indie contractors, other cable companies, phone people, etc.); obviously, unions don’t help either. It’s much easier to leave up service then to actually do the work, thinking that most people will call in right away, rather than wait 2 weeks for the cable guy to come out. Or, bill them later when they conduct an audit. Not that I’m accusing anyone of anything…(so no cite, except personal experience of no one unhooking anything).

Easier said than done. My friend’s house is newly built and all cables are completely underground. He has the same set up as my parents: he needs to use the antennae to get regular tv. What is he supposed to do? Dig up his own yard? Illegally open the box and unplug his house? Besides, isn’t our duty in zealous representation to stretch when needed, and closely crop the facts, conversely?:slight_smile:

D’oh :smack: Should be MO, I type too fast.

What if you don’t want it and it’s already there? What about the monopolistic practices by the cable companies? What about the easement on my property I provide so that the cable companies can dig their line? Where I live, you can only choose from one cable provider. There are three (4?) in my area. I’ve dealt with two of them, and I only like 1 of them. If I move, I’m forced to take one of the other ones. I’ve talked to many people at the CC that I like, and they pretty much told me that they are unable to enter the any other region b/c of Comcast. However, with my home phone, I can have the regional bell company or I can have crap-ass Verizon home. Again, more grumblings. The more important question is: if the CC isn’t going to do anything about it, why should I?

My sister, my parents, and some people I know all got angry letters saying that they have illegal cable (from AT&T and Comcast), and they are to cease and desist. I’ll skip the theatrics, but they’re all baseless. I’m more upset at the bullying than anything. If I wasn’t an attorney, my dad might have hired someone expensive like you (;)) to make sure he was compliant. There are other costs to consider, like the costs of trying to not go to court. So, no, I don’t think this is overwrought.

37

I don’t think anyone is stating that the OP is liable for the previously potentially deliverable cable (which he had no knowledge of and, consequently, did not use), but the issue is whether he has a duty to inform the cable company once he acquires knowledge.

The wallet is not a good analogy. That is a physical object with a definite existence, whereas the cable is an ongoing service. The same with the seed and fish. Cable is a service, not an object.

TellMeI’mNotCrazy Although, I do disagree with the “Al Capone left his money in the house” analagoy… He sold me the house the way it is, I’m keeping the money.

If I found a broken doorknob after purchase, he isn’t going to come back and fix it for me, is he?
[/quote]
The purchaser has the duty to inspect the house, so, unless otherwise provided, he isn’t, but a wallet containing money is not part of the house. It is not realty in any sense of the word. It is not real estate or a chattel real. It has nothing to do with “the house the way it is.”

38

Ok, I was going to stay out of this, but it’s beginning to get to the point of silly.

  1. You move to a residence that is wired for cable. Previous owners had the service turned on. When they moved, for whatever reason, service was not disconnected. You don’t hook up your TV, not aware that the signal is flowing. Have you done anything wrong? Of course not. No unjust enrichment.

  2. You move in, and on your first day in the new residence, on a lark, you hook up your TV and find out that the basic service is still connected. You call the cable company, tell them you don’t want cable, and they come out and shut it off. Have you done anything wrong? No.

  3. You move in, hook up, see the service running, and call the company and ask for cable service, whereupon the company starts billing you the monthly fee for basic. Have you done anything wrong? No.

  4. You move in, hook up, see the service running, and don’t call the company, figuring, what the heck, why not watch the good stuff? After a year, they come looking for you, having discovered that you have a television hooked up, and you cheerfully admit to using the service for a year (this helps avoid proof problems). Have you done anything wrong? Yes. Will you be charged? Yes. Will the company be able to enforce this through civil court action? Likely. Will there be potential criminal charges? Possibly (in Missouri, the answer by statute is yes). You have received a benefit, for which you should have paid. The fact that the signal was incoming already through the failure of the cable company to turn it off is irrelevant. The choice to hook up and not call the company was yours.

Murky areas would be: you call the company and report the service is still on, they don’t do anything about it. In Missouri, it wouldn’t make any difference according to the cited statute; Missouri puts the onus on the receiving end not to use something of value without paying for it. Other states might view it otherwise, though in the end, let’s face it, the final decision was yours for tapping into a signal you knew you hadn’t paid for, and which you have to take an overt action to receive. Differentiate from this the situation where you ask for a premium service to be turned off, and it isn’t. Also, I suppose one could devise a scenario whereby the new resident didn’t realize cable was being received; furnished apartment, TV already hooked up, nothing to denote a cable signal. Pretty far-fetched.

I never quite understand the mentality that says a person should be able to get away with getting something for nothing. Of course, the OP confined the question to the legality, so I won’t address morality. But those who want to try and twist a way out of legal liability for use of something valuable are simply dreaming. The law understands that we each of us bear responsibility for our actions.

Having said all that, let’s look at the practical side to situation number 4. In the absence of someone admitting to the time frame of the theft, how in the world would it be proven? I suppose police with a warrant could search for videotape of shows cabled in the past year, in an attempt to establish the minimum time hooked up, but I doubt anyone would bother. In Missouri, of course, you’d still be liable for one day’s theft; the statute doesn’t appear to address time factor. In such a state, your best bet would be, don’t do it. Of course, the moral answer is (or should be) obvious. :slight_smile:

I’m not sure quite what lawboy sees as so hard about this. No digging involved; just don’t hook the coax from the TV to that little bump in the wall. Duh.

39

From what I understand of premium cable (mind you this is 2002 info), you cannot easily subtract HBO from the rest of the premium service. The basic cable is on a lower tier, as mandated by the FCC (1992 act, I forgot the full name) and, the rest of it is on a higher tier(s). The filter is done at the box. It makes more sense to let you slide, b/c it’s more of a cost, in this case, it seems, to the installer (3rd party contractor most likely), so that he could free time to get more installs done. From what I know, all filters are pretty crappy, and depending on what channels fall on the tier(s), those channels are going to come in the crappiest, unless you have service with no filters.

Depending on the law in this matter (if any), I would say that you responded in a reasonable manner. But, who of us are going to log phone calls, and keep correspondence, to ensure that we successfully communicated our intent to not have cable?

40

The purchaser has the duty to inspect the house, so, unless otherwise provided, he isn’t, but a wallet containing money is not part of the house. It is not realty in any sense of the word. It is not real estate or a chattel real. It has nothing to do with “the house the way it is.”
[/QUOTE]

Just for the record, I was just being a smartass on this point, thus the :wink:

Although I still like the idea of coming across 50k of mob moolah :wink: