Free newspapers / magazines - what's stealing?

Sully

In Waterford there are at least two free publications that people can pick up in their local shop and bring home to read. One is a local newspaper and the other is a magazine with news (not in the same line as a newspaper). Now as these publications are free, the producers get paid via the adverts within.

If I walk into a shop and take several copies of the free item, or if I take every single copy available in a number of shops - can I be arrested and charged for stealing if the production is free for me to take? The obvious answer might be to say "No" - there is nothing to say I can take 50 or 100 copies. But surely someone taking a large number of the copies in circulation, or all copies, would be damaging the publication and their advertisers - as advertisers are guaranteed X amount of readers and the assumption is that there mostly unique. So, in that sense, has a crime been committed?

If the answer is Yes, its illegal, than say if the production wasn't free and I paid for every single copy - can I be again accused of stealing even if I paid for it simply because the advertisers were not guaranteed unique readers per article (or on average)?

The above questions can be posed on the basis of malicious intent, to either damage the production company or to remove the articles to censor content within from as many people as possible.

Newspapers cannot guarantee advertisers that the X copies distributed and the Y copies 'picked up' are read by someone different each time. Either accurately or on average - its impossible to give figures so you go on the assumption that a large part of the readership is unique. So personally, I fail to see how anybody could possible be accused of committing a crime if they buy or take all the newspapers (paid and free).

I'm creating this topic as a similar incident happened recently where someone removed a free newspaper from circulation to avoid an article being read and thought it was worthy of a discussion.

Tom Young

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001


PART 2

Theft and Related Offences

Theft.

4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person does not appropriate property without the consent of its owner if—

(a) the person believes that he or she has the owner's consent, or would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation of the property and the circumstances in which it was appropriated, or

(b) (except where the property came to the person as trustee or personal representative) he or she appropriates the property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,

but consent obtained by deception or intimidation is not consent for those purposes.

(3) (a) This subsection applies to a person who in the course of business holds property in trust for, or on behalf of, more than one owner.

(b) Where a person to whom this subsection applies appropriates some of the property so held to his or her own use or benefit, the person shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) but subject to subsection (2), be deemed to have appropriated the property or, as the case may be, a sum representing it without the consent of its owner or owners.

(c) If in any proceedings against a person to whom this subsection applies for theft of some or all of the property so held by him or her it is proved that—

(i) there is a deficiency in the property or a sum representing it, and

(ii) the person has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the whole or any part of the deficiency,

it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, for the purposes of subsection (1) but subject to subsection (2), that the person appropriated, without the consent of its owner or owners, the whole or that part of the deficiency.

(4) If at the trial of a person for theft the court or jury, as the case may be has to consider whether the person believed—

(a) that he or she had not acted dishonestly, or

(b) that the owner of the property concerned had consented or would have consented to its appropriation, or

(c) that the owner could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps,

the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the court or jury shall have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether the person so believed.

(5) In this section—

“appropriates”, in relation to property, means usurps or adversely interferes with the proprietary rights of the owner of the property;

“depriving” means temporarily or permanently depriving.

(6) A person guilty of theft is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

See parts re. Consent of owner.

One paper each.

hullaballoo

Tom Young wrote: »

See parts re. Consent of owner.

One paper each.

Newspapers are bailments though... :pac:

Tom Young

Come on, that's too easy. Explain - Coggs v Bernard (1703) 2 Ld Raym 909.

brian_t

Sully wrote: »

I'm creating this topic as a similar incident happened recently where someone removed a free newspaper from circulation to avoid an article being read and thought it was worthy of a discussion.

I presume you are referring to The Lucan Gazette. http://www.gazettegroup.com/news/garda-inquiry-launched-after-removal-of-newspapers/

Cathyht

Free? and Advertising.

The free newspaper can have hidden charges when it's left hanging out of your letterbox if you're out. It negates having the heating turned on, in the hall, staircase and all rooms leading off these areas with a door open. Unfortunately this happens a lot in winter, when I'm dying to get home after working/commuting. It's a very successful way of Advertising that no-one has been there all day.

Losty Dublin

Cathyht wrote: »

Free? and Advertising.

The free newspaper can have hidden charges when it's left hanging out of your letterbox if you're out. It negates having the heating turned on, in the hall, staircase and all rooms leading off these areas with a door open. Unfortunately this happens a lot in winter, when I'm dying to get home after working/commuting. It's a very successful way of Advertising that no-one has been there all day.

Some ludrachaun dropping in one of these free papers actually broke the draught excluder on my letter box last year.

brian_t

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Some ludrachaun dropping in one of these free papers actually broke the draught excluder on my letter box last year.

Can I claim for this. What are my legal options?

fyp.

hullaballoo

brian_t, there isn't any need for that sort of posting. There is nothing in the post you quoted to suggest that is what the other member was getting at.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Pretty sure it was a joke...
and a decent one at that :pac:

brian_t

hullaballoo wrote: »

brian_t, there isn't any need for that sort of posting. There is nothing in the post you quoted to suggest that is what the other member was getting at.

I did not mean to suggest that this was what the poster was getting at nor was I making a joke.

I genuinely thought that the posters experience raised the following query :-

"A letterbox is in your door to allow An Post to deliver letters to you.

If a third party decides to use your letterbox to deliver a free newspaper and by doing so causes damage - would/should they be responsible ?"

I should have just made the query in the body of my post.

Cathyht

yes, good point, I just recycle that stuff anyway.


"I should have just made the query in the body of my post." read differently the first 3 times I read it. Bedtime.