Satellite CS Legality discussion

[lincsat]

I know there is a lot of criticism about pay CS servers, but TBH, 99.9% are pay servers. Some you pay in cash, others in kind by buying a subscription to something and sharing that to the server or amongst others.

OK, so some pay cash servers are liable to vanish and you can get onto several card-swap servers at once, but it's still pay - unless you can find some kind person to offer you access to their card for nothing.

[Rick]

You can't make a comparisson between individuals sharing cards, and commercial servers. The two are completley differant.

Lets look at senario A, 4 friends sharing between each other. They all pay for their own subscription for their home country, they allow the other 3 access to it in exchange for access to their subscription. A subscription they are not supposed to be able to buy. If it all falls apart they dont loose anything financially as they still have their own sub to watch. The TV providers don't really loose financially either as 99% of people would never buy subs to 4 providers anyway, they would only ever buy the one.

Whereas senario B, 1 scum of the earth Payserver, who charges 300 or so people £20.00 per month for access to a subscription that they can legally and easially buy. The thing never works properly and then the server disappears, usually after they have a few people who have paid up for Year long subs or get busted.

If everyone opted for Option A, I very much doubt the providers would have quite the same interest in anti-cardsharing measures. As usuall the greedy few spoil it for everyone else.

I am not saying that any of it is legal or OK to do, but you cannot compare the two and say that they amount to the same thing. One is a hobby the other Is Not. As I have said before anyone who gets involved with pay servers in any way deserves everything they get when they either loose their money or end up with the old bill knocking at their door.

[TheCoder]

Originally Posted by Rick

You can't make a comparisson between individuals sharing cards, and commercial servers. The two are completley differant.

Legally speaking, there's actually no difference. Its the same offence one way or the other. But, as you suggest, the bulk of provider attention will be focused on the commercial setups. That doesn't preclude them going after the smaller shares if they get the oppertunity though.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by TheCoder

Legally speaking, there's actually no difference. Its the same offence one way or the other. But, as you suggest, the bulk of provider attention will be focused on the commercial setups. That doesn't preclude them going after the smaller shares if they get the oppertunity though.

The only differance legally is that no money changes hands, which as far as my understanding goes, does lessen the seriousness of anything you might be charged with, and any sentence you are likely to recieve. For example, without money changing hands Fraud cannot be charged.

Though I never meant to imply that either were legal or that providers would leave hobbiest sharers alone, Just that they would have less financial incentive to prevent it, on the simple equation that it isn't worth spending £100 a year to fix something that is only costing you £50 a year.

[TheCoder]

Originally Posted by Rick

The only differance legally is that no money changes hands, which as far as my understanding goes, does lessen the seriousness of anything you might be charged with, and any sentence you are likely to recieve. For example, without money changing hands Fraud cannot be charged.

In this case, money doesn't really apply as the charge usually involves copyright offences (specifially - conspiracy to defraud the copyright holder or their agent). The defraud bit means your depriving them of money, not necessarily that your making money !

I suspect your correct about any sentence though - A Judge would no doubt differentiate between a bit of local group sharing and a multi-million pound commercial racket. You'd effectively get hit by the same charge, just a far less severe sentence.

The problem might be damages. If found guilty then you could be open to some hefty compensation claims.

Though I never meant to imply that either were legal or that providers would leave hobbiest sharers alone, Just that they would have less financial incentive to prevent it, on the simple equation that it isn't worth spending £100 a year to fix something that is only costing you £50 a year.

Probably true to an extent although I still suspect they will have you if offered up. How long is it going to be before some disgruntled ex group member grasses the rest up ?

[Rick]

Originally Posted by TheCoder

In this case, money doesn't really apply as the charge usually involves copyright offences (specifially - conspiracy to defraud the copyright holder or their agent). The defraud bit means your depriving them of money, not necessarily that your making money !

My sources suggest that It would be hard for a prosecuting barrister to make a charge of fraud stick without money changing hands in the case of people sharing with people in other countries, though not impossible. On the basis that the people in other countries should not have the ability to purchase that subscription anyway. As the provider would not sell to a person in another country the burden of proof would be on the provider to show a loss. I don't see how they would do that if the foreign person was paying for a subscription of their own in their home country. Certianly where it was within the same country it is easier for the reason you gave.

Though until a case such as this is put infront of a judge for a decision it is very difficult to predict exactly what the outcome would be. Certianly there would be charges that could/would stick and carry some form of scentence, regardless of how severe that scentence was.

[nanochickin]

Blimey is this thread still going

For smaller servers, say a few friends together Sky usually just kills the card and blacklists the person and address then sends them a rather nasty letter stating what they could do and thats usually the end of it

Never happened to me but i do know someone that it has happened to



Nano

[kerrywez]

Originally Posted by nanochickin

Blimey is this thread still going

For smaller servers, say a few friends together Sky usually just kills the card and blacklists the person and address then sends them a rather nasty letter stating what they could do and thats usually the end of it

Never happened to me but i do know someone that it has happened to



Nano

Yes Nano I read that on another forum too, they could not be bothered, but if there were more than a few then they might get a bit more serious. If they thought that their services were being used to make money then they would go ballistic I would say.

Regards Wez

[waqasahmed]

I know Im the evil muppet from cable invading the satellite side lol, but even in the cable world, the police and VM decided to go after Rayonnics and not the general public and not even the small time dealers.If you do have lots of people paying in to your server, the likelihood is that you are going to have to explain yourself. If you just get a few friends, and split the costs, then you are less likely to have your server targeted

Also, with payservers, you can always have the possibility that someone from the police/sky pay in to it, simply to gather evidence

[lincsat]

My point was that even if not paying cash but offering a access to a local card that you have paid for, there is still a payment involved.

Referring to all payservers as "Scum" is misleading and inaccurate.