Telly 'Addict' Threatens to Sue Cable Company

Is the story satirical, or is it for real? Is the man joking, or is he serious? Who can tell anymore?

The best part is the official response from the cable company: "Even though we consider our services to be a very powerful entertainment product, I don't think it's reached a medical level yet where it could be proved to be addictive."

[Thanks to Jeff Schaler for the link.]

Comments

[Ayatollah Usoe]

Is TV addicting? I bet Americans can go longer without alcohol than without TV. (Remember, addicting means pleasurable, not habituating.)

[StMack]

This is the perfect example of the New American Dream. Take no responsibility for you own failure - and try to collect on it from someone else.

More here

[yelowd]

If you had the cable hooked up to your TV and then cancelled service, that should be sufficient. Why should I have to unplug the cable from my tv, I have everything routed through the vcr and receiver so it would actually be a hassle to move the entertainment center and all of that. Will the cable co, reimburse me for the work i do? Especially, since vcrs and tvs automatically program the channels. I just don't see the cable co having a legitimate lawsuit. In fact, couldn't you argue that they were "invading" your home?

[D Lusional]

The kind of laziness evidenced in yelowd's post illustrates why there are stupid law suits like this for us to rant about. If you've got everything running through the VCR and receiver, you've got 1 cable to disconect and you're done. How much compensation do you want for all that work..

[yelowd]

I take personal offense to that remark, D Lusional. The protestant work ethic flows through my american blood.

First off, I have never sued anyone for anything.

Second, it is a legitimate point. I was going off of what Greg had to say: "This is not the same as receiving an unpaid magazine or CD becasue to send those back requires an active obligation, such as the price of the mail."
ON that note it seems to me that moving my entertainment center (that can be a real pain) and unplugging the cable and then getting everything up and running again is an active obligation and is surely more work than putting a stamp on an envelope or writing "Return to Sender" on an envelope.

Finally, I should be praised for the efficiency of my entertainment system's operation.

[Gene Berkman]

Sounds like a plot for a made-for-cable movie.

[greg]

yelowd:

I am not saying that it is not a pain in the ass to move your TV. I know it is. Mine is wicked big and complicated with the surround sound and all. My point was more about the fact that the cable company could sue/prosecute under the current law, regardless of whether they should or not. Then I said they should sue or at least threaten to because he was threating them with an equally crazy "cable addition" lawsuit; a decidedly un-protestant work ethic type suit.

So I did some quick reserach

Never underestimate that lobbying power of cable.

U.S. Code Title 47 (Telecommunications), chapter 5, subchapter 5A, Part IV, Section 553 states -

"(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; ''assist in intercepting or receiving'' defined

(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."

If unauthorized is interpreted by the court to mean "not-paid for" it is both a Federal crime and a civil action is allowed in Federal Court.

Later, this reading of the term unauthorized is supported by the following clause under damages -

"In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100."

In this case, the judge can lower the damages to $100, if the person didn't know they were unauthorized. I am sure a cable company will assert that any person not paying is "unauthorized" to receive it regardless of them not actually shutting off the signal. They will just argue that is was an accident or a technical flaw and that the customer should have know that receiving programming not paid for is de facto unauthorized. They will argue that your stereo rearranging is not sufficient to overcome that burden of unhooking the one cable.

Irrespective of that - section 943.46(2)(d) of Wisconsin law states that is unlawful to

"(d) Make or maintain a connection, whether physical, electrical, mechanical, acoustical or by other means, with any cables, wires, components or other devices used for the distribution of cable television services for the purpose of obtaining cable television service without payment of all lawful compensation to the company providing that service. The intent required for a violation of this paragraph may be inferred from proof that the cable service to the defendant's residence or business was connected under a service agreement with the defendant and has been disconnected by the cable television company and that thereafter there exists in fact a connection to the cable system at the defendant's residence or business.

Although the statue lists one way to form intent by showing that the cable company disconnected the cable but the person still receives it, that method is listed as just one of many options, not the only way to prove the theft. Under the letter of this law the cable addict is guilty because he maintains it and doesn't pay for it, a fact he is fully aware of.

I know this would be dubious on the part of a cable company to bring suit under the circumstances but it is certainly less dubious than him suing over being addicted to cable.
Mr. cable addict is an ass.

[yelowd]

Greg-
Thanks for the statutes. I will definitely agree with you that the lobbying acumen of the cable companies is evident in those laws.

The guy is definitely an ass, though a variety of arguments can be made regarding cable entering your house.

I say get a jury trial and put the law on trial.

[dhex]

what puzzles me is how moving the tv downstairs would be a disincentive to watch tv. are they afraid of stairs? do they have a monster in their basement?

[JSM]

Let see, this week I paid my $85 cable bill. I sat down this nice friday evening to see what's on, and low and behold, NOTHING!

So I sat there and thought why the hell do I keep paying for this service. I thought about some realistic answers but still come up with NOTHING!

Maybe this guy is actually onto SOMETHING! Besides suing the cable company, maybe he needs to indict all 122 channels as co-defendants as well! Futhermore, maybe he should also charge them with causing him to pirate unreleased movies. In my desperate search to find something to watch, it did occur to me to go seek out this MysticVCD, as posted below in H&R, and see if they have something I could watch!

Happy Friday!

[ed]

$85, jsm?!
Jesus H!
Where do YOU live?

[ed]

Sounds like a simple case of extortion to me. But you're right: who can tell any more?

Hard to feel sorry for the coercive cable monopoly, though.

[josh]

Love the quote:
" I don't think it's reached a medical level yet where it could be proved to be addictive."

Yet? Hahahahaha.

Frankly, this guys case is just as sound as anyone else's.

Which reminds me - you guys at Reason will be hearing from my lawyers soon. "Hit and Run" is so addictive, it's ruining my sex life. I have no time to download porn anymore!

[greg]

He asked for his cable to be turned off in 1999 and they kept it going till 2003 anayway. If he sues for addiction, they should prosecute him for theft of services.

[JSM]

"Desperate to cure his self-described "addiction" to the tube, Dumouchel put the family TV in the basement, only for his wife to undermine his efforts and re-install the set in the living room."

Desperate times call for desperate measure. Take said TV and 12 guage shotgun out for a nice drive in the deep woods....The end result is actually pretty entertaining itself!

[Rick C]

How could there be theft of services? If anything, it's whatever the opposite is. The guy repeatedly asked to have service terminated.

If someone mails you something you didn't ask for, it's a gift, and they can't charge you for it or dictate what you do with it (see Cue Cat).

[Rick C]

Oh, forgot to say--that doesn't mean I don't think this guy's a loon.

[Ron Bailey]

Don't laugh now, but Scientific American published an article "Television Addiction is No Mere Metaphor" in February 2002.

[Jason Ligon]

Lemme guess, 'TV activates the same areas of the brain as heroin!'

[dhex]

our brains are a bunch of sluts. everything gets them going!!!

[greg]

Rick C

It may be theft of services under the way the law is written because he is accepting the services and enjoying the benefit without payting. It sounds like entrapment, but the law is written vague enough that the cable lawyers could make an argument.

He knows he is receiving the programming unpaid but yet he kept his connection hooked up anayway. This is not the same as receiving an unpaid magazine or CD becasue to send those back requires an active obligation, such as the price of the mail. All he had to do was unhook the cable. Repeatingly, asking them to turn off the signal is ridiculous, all he had to do was pull ou the wires, or unhook the set.

I know, this is all asinie, and would be a tough sell on theft of services, but then again so is his addiction to cable claim. If he uses terriblly over expansive tort law to make his claim, then I hope he is hoist by his own pitard (Sp?) and kicked in the ass by vague cable theft statutes.

[Will Spencer]

It seems to be that we would benefit from a law or a Constitutional amendment preventing frivilious lawsuits of this nature.

No one should be allowed to *file* a lawsuit where they charge "Hey, I bought this thing and it does exactly what it was supposed to do."

Maybe we could convince McDonalds to fund the fight to get this legislation enacted.

[AJMB]

If/when this fucknut loses, he should not be dinged for court costs, or anything of that nature. Rather, he should be strapped to a gurney, a la Alec in A Clockwork Orange, and forced to watch Oprah 24/7. That'll cure the bastard.

[dhex]

why bother spending over a thousand dollars a year when you can buy the shows in six months to a years' time on DVD?