 javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
3 edits | reply to Gandalf1315
Re: theft! said by Gandalf1315:said by javaMan:One might reasonably try to argue that the neighbor is a thief but as I've said this would be a stretch. What you're really talking about is the provider suffering loss of potential revenue. Personally, I have a hard time accepting that someone is a thief because, through inaction, they prevent someone else from becoming richer. You're a thief when your actions make someone poorer not richer. A line from one of Bob Dylan's songs says "when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to loose." If the cable provider has never had an account with a person I don't see that one can argue either morally or legally that that person has stolen anything from the company because, for whatever reason, they don't or won't purchase their service. You would naturally assume a company would make an argument that it is theft but simply because they do doesn't mean it is correct.
JavaMan, That is crap. You are only a thief when you make someone poorer? Crap!! Like the baby Rose bushes that were sunning on my front porch. I was given them for free. They got stolen. It did not make me poorer so I guess who ever took them was not a thief? Get real dude. Perhaps you don't see it but you were indeed made poorer and the person who took the roses was certainly a thief.
Also, you are getting a service without paying for it and you do not consider it theft? Because they don't want to purchase it, for whatever reason, and they were never a customer, it is ok? Dude, if you take something that does not belong to you without paying for it, it is theft. Plain and simple.
The lengths you people go to to justify theft is mind boggling.
I'm not trying to justify anything. It is only plain and simple if one is to plainly and simply ignore the facts. Unless the provider can demonstrate they have suffered a loss, in this case bandwidth, which is what the customer is buying, there has been no theft. If the customer agrees to share that bandwidth with his neighbor, in which case it is he who suffers the loss (bandwidth), this is a breach of contract; a different legal issue albeit a similar moral breach. In either case, it is irrelevant whether the neighbor is getting "something for nothing," he has never been a party to the contract. Theft is personally odious to me, one I consider to be an offense above everything with the exception of murder. So you should understand that I am not flippant about the use of the term.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
2 edits | reply to Gandalf1315
said by Gandalf1315:Your TOS allows you to redistribute your connection to other residences other than yours? BULL!! I use DSL so I can't comment about cable but I may share my bandwidth with as many people I choose.
Post a link to the TOS showing that. You can not take a companys service and redistribute it without that companys permission. Even if you are not profiting from it. And yes it would be considered theft in a court of law not just a violation of the TOS.
You cannot redistribute if the company forbids it in the TOS, yes. But I disagree it would be legally considered theft. It is a civil not criminal violation and is considered so because someone has broken a promise made in the contract not because they have stolen something.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
 Gandalf1315Freelance Philosopher
join:2001-05-23
Indianapolis, IN | reply to Gandalf1315
Show me a link to your DSL companys TOS showing you are allowed to share your DSL account with other residences. Show me. Who is your DSL provider? I will call them personally and ask.
Yeah that is why you see those commercials saying that it IS theft to steal satellite, cable, Internet and other signals. And not just a local offense but FEDERAL. With fines and PRISON sentences to boot. They don't send people to prison for civil violations.
--
No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.--- Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA | said by Gandalf1315:Show me a link to your DSL companys TOS showing you are allowed to share your DSL account with other residences. Show me. Who is your DSL provider? I will call them personally and ask. SBC. The bandwidth is regulated so the total number of users aggregate bandwidth never exceeds that cap. It is not relevant where the connections occur whether in the same house or out in the yard or next door. It is the total bandwidth that's important. As users, we all agree to take a loss in bandwidth. If I found a way to exceed that cap without being detected so that anyone connected could get a full pipe then I'd be stealing.
Just to clarify, it is not what the TOS doesn't say that matters but what it does say that regulates your use. If the TOS doesn't state that you may not share bandwidth you are not restricted from doing so.
Yeah that is why you see those commercials saying that it IS theft to steal satellite, cable, Internet and other signals. And not just a local offense but FEDERAL. With fines and PRISON sentences to boot. They don't send people to prison for civil violations.
If I were to patch into a cable line and hookup service without paying for it then I am stealing. Perhaps you can't see the distinction between this and the present argument over bandwidth but there is one.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
 Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | reply to CadesDaddy
said by CadesDaddy:As somebody who formally got paychecks from numerous cable companies I have to ask, does anybody else see that sharing internet access via a wireless router with somebody in another apartment, or your neighbor is plain and simple THEFT! Let me break this down nice and simple for those of you who still think this is theft...
There is NO difference between me sharing my DSL with a neighbor (and not charging him) than there is me buying a gallon of milk and sharing that.
It REALLY is that simple. The key is not charging him. I'm paying for what is coming out of my wall, what I do with it, once it leaves that jack, is my business. We are splitting bandwidth that I have already purchased. It doesn't matter if I use all of it, or he uses half and I use half, the ISP already has their money for it.
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me. |
|
Gandalf1315Freelance Philosopher
join:2001-05-23
Indianapolis, IN | reply to javaMan
This is not about bandwidth usage. It is about redistributing your Internet connection to others outside of your residence. You have no legal right to redistribute your signal outside of its intended audience. Which is your residence. If you are allowing other residences to utilize the Internet connection intended for your residence you are redistributing you Internet connection. Which is a form of theft and is against your TOS. I know, I just called and talked to SBC about it and was asked to send an email with a link to this thread. Which I did.
Justify all you want, twist it any way you want, it really does not matter. You are wrong and my conversation with SBC just provided all of the facts I need to hear. What you say and how you want things to be does not matter. All that matters is what SBC says is acceptable, and what they say is that redistributing their residential service is not allowed and is in fact a crime. That came straight from the horses mouth.
--
No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.--- Benjamin Franklin |
|
Gandalf1315Freelance Philosopher
join:2001-05-23
Indianapolis, IN | reply to Wills
The difference being is that you bought an item, a gallon of milk. That is now your milk. Internet connections are a service. You paying to use that service does not make it yours to do with as you please. Unlike the gallon of milk, you did not obtain ownership of the Internet connection. See the difference?
Look, I am no angel nor do I live a life of complete righteousness. I am just stating the facts of the matter.
--
No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.--- Benjamin Franklin |
|
javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
2 edits | reply to Gandalf1315
said by Gandalf1315:This is not about bandwidth usage. . . Well, that may be where and why we disagree.
Actually my only point has been that there is a difference between theft and breach of contract. You obviously disagree and I will in no way convince you otherwise so I will not belabor the topic further.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
| reply to CadesDaddy
Ok, like Gandalf 1315, I called my service suppler and asked what their opinion was on this topic. Their reply was that they were delighted for me to share my wireless connection with my neighbors. After all, they contend, the range of my wireless router, supplied with INTERNET service that can only come through my phone line attached to my house could not reach enough people to cause a disruption of their service. They seem to think it is a great opportunity to show potential customers the power and effectiveness of a high speed connection. They look at it as a great way to advertise their services and hopefully get more customers in the long run. "why else would our company offer a modem/wireless router combination to our customers if we didn't expect them to share their INTERNET connection?" |
|
 vangoateePool's ClosedPremium
join:2001-02-06
Newark, OH | So that other computers in your own house can share the internet connection.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time buying your story. If someone did tell you that, they should be reported and fired for encouraging people to go against their service agreement.
said by OceanaJones:"why else would our company offer a modem/wireless router combination to our customers if we didn't expect them to share their INTERNET connection?" |
|
| reply to CadesDaddy
Not all ISP's have these term. Take a look at the one from SpeakEasy:
Speakeasy's Wireless Sharing Policy
-----------------------------------
Speakeasy has been an outspoken supporter of Wireless technology and services for quite some time and has one of the most progressive wireless sharing policies in the business.
Wireless networking and publicly shared wireless networks present exciting new opportunities to share information and connectivity resources with one another - we encourage you to explore it!
Speakeasy believes that shared wireless networks are in keeping with our core values of disseminating knowledge, access to information and fostering community, provided this usage does not have an adverse impact on the services of other customers, does not involve any illegal activity and is not otherwise in violation of any aspect of our existing Terms Of Service. Please remember that the Speakeasy account-holder is responsible for all activity originating from their DSL line, even if it is the result of other users on a shared wireless connection. |
|
| reply to wwdubbia
yup... just someone else trying to rationalize the 'sharing' side... they have no clue as to what it takes an isp to stay profitable and make up these pie inthe sky "5.00" a month figures... |
|
| reply to CadesDaddy
Lets get ONE freaking thing strait... everything that comes out of a providers mouth will be THEFT.. why becuase they make more money from 2 than 1... now with that said... If I pay a fair price and share bandwidth with a neighbor I say SCREW them it's my bandwidth and I will do with it as I want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(also how will they know??:D) |
|
| reply to LeeBee
no,it's not...because you agreed to broadcast it in your home,, yuo can have friends over to watch it no prob..trouble would come if you charge them for it |
|
| reply to sargeeld
unable to understand that the ISP says use is limited to the premises? |
|
| reply to CadesDaddy
As for the laptops in the backseat of a car...
Using that analogy for a wireless network you would have to add to it that you left the car in that person's garage with doors wide open. If the use is unauthorized you should make at minimum an effort to show its unauthorized. Stealing cable is theft of service. You can't move into a house plug cable into your tv and "POOF" you have HBO. But in almost every area of america you get 3-4 channels free through radio frequencies. If you leave your wireless lan completely open to me while I'm sitting in my living how am I supposed to know its unauthorized. Now, YOU may have legal problems with your provider for letting the world steal your bandwith... but I won't. And I'd like to see a court judgement from a similar situation show otherwise. |
|
1 edit | reply to CadesDaddy
1. Analogies are a WASTE OF TIME in this thread. Anyone can prove any point they want with the right analogy. It is sufficient to examine what you are trying to do, the Terms of Service agreement you signed with your ISP, and the laws of your state. Please stop posting analogies people!
2. There is now just a greasy spot where a dead horse once lay. Read the previous 10 pages and you will see every idea has been expressed at least twice. |
|
| reply to CadesDaddy
SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS so to help those who don't want to read the whole thread - with my opinion following.
***NOT THEFT!
1. because broadband (cable or dsl) cost too much and that's not fair - stupid argument, not even going to comment on this one.
2. I'll do whatever I want with my connection - again, stupid argument, not going to comment on this one.
3. My TOS allows it - then this is perfectly OK, not theft, or anything at all wrong with it.
4. I'm paying for a given amount of usage or bandwidth cap and as long as I don't go over that cap then I can do whatever I want with my connection - If there are no other stipulations in TOS that say something regarding all usage must be done within residency grounds then this is OK, but MOST (not all) TOS agreements specifically state that service is to be used at the residency it was sold to, and if this statement is identified then sharing/leaching is theft.
4. No difference between sharing broadband connection via wireless or otherwise then if I were to buy a product like milk and have somebody share it, or to rent a movie or just watch a regular show on Cable/satallite and have somebody come over and watch it with me, or to buy a pay-per-view and have somebody come over and watch it. - I say the difference is all of these are 1 time purchase and use items that are not an ongoing relationship/ongoing SERVICE like an Internet SERVICE providor which has a contract (which is what a TOS agreement is) and none of them specifically state where the item is to be used like a ISP TOS agreement does, so again this argument doesn't sway me.
5. Sharing my connection may be morally, ethically wrong, but at most it is a TOS violation that will cause me to get some type of punishment (for lack of a better word) from the ISP - I say this is right and wrong. From what I'm hearing it depends on the state laws - I would like to see more on this honestly.
6. I'm not sharing my connection with anybody but somebody is leaching it off of me - then I say you don't have anything to worry about at least legally, but the leach is stealing.
***IS THEFT.
the arguments saying it is theft don't outnumber the arguments against theft but they all sum with the following:
you agreed to the TOS contract and regardless of justifications you use, if you share outside of residency (as identified as forbidden by TOS) then this is a theft of service, ****because the word "SERVICE" is not like the word "product" because a product is what it is, a physical thing, but a "SERVICE" IS DEFINED BY WORDS MADE UP INTO CONTRACTS, and if you go outside whatever your providor defines as its service, then you are breaking the contract at a minimum, and stealing at a maximum.****
and for all of you who still think my reason for posting this to begin with was to gripe about salleries, I again have to say that I regret that I put that in there because it has nothing to do with the reason for my post. |
|
2 edits | reply to brewcrewxl
said by brewcrewxl:
If you leave your wireless lan completely open to me while I'm sitting in my living how am I supposed to know its unauthorized. Now, YOU may have legal problems with your provider for letting the world steal your bandwith... but I won't. And I'd like to see a court judgement from a similar situation show otherwise.
Here's an old story for ya, if you think you are somehow magically immune from prosecution for wardriving onto someone's network.
»'Telecom Theft' or War-Driving?
Perhaps you'd better check the laws of your state.
In a similar vein, some students around here were very surprised to find themselves in prison after their computer breakins weren't taken so lightly by the authorities. Arguing that it was so easy that you hardly had to do anything to get access didn't work so well. What you would call "common sense" and make analogies to excuse away doesn't carry much weight in front of judges and lawyers.
If you haven't knocked on your neighbors door and asked approval before ACTIVELY USING THEIR network then what you are doing is intruding on their network. The lot of you on this thread who can't see this distinction are quite frankly FARKIN IDIOTS! Playing the odds or trying to make it sound innocent doesn't fly. It's wrong, and you know it. All else is window dressing as people try to make excuses for cases like you describe, which are quite clearly wrong. Several variations on this thread of "well they didn't make it hard enough to break in and use their net to download my movies! It's not my fault, it's society!"
Let's differentiate this quite clearly from the START of this thread where the person providing the WiFi access had agreed to do so, and knowingly provided it to someone else. This is quite different. You want to start a thread about the morality of war-driving, go for it. But not this one. |
|
froggy58
join:2002-05-07
Cape Canaveral, FL | reply to JohnInSJ
Actually you're only part right in the understanding:
Q's from this website: »www.sonic.net/hotspots/faq.shtml#acct
--------------------------------------
3. Do I need to have a Sonic.net account to use a Wireless Web Hotspot?
Yes. All active Sonic.net accounts can make use of this network at no additional cost. Authenication via VPN is required to make use of a Hotspots connection.
--------------------------------------
The statement above specifically tells me you have to be a paying customer of Sonic to get access to a hotspot someone put up using a Sonic connection.
--------------------------------------
8. What's in it for me if I host a Sonic.net Hotspot?
Sonic.net DSL customers who share their connection over WiFi will be compensated with a pro-rated daily share of 50% of the Sonic.net basic Internet service fee for any others who use it. This is about $0.31 per Sonic.net customer that makes use of your Hotspot per day.
If your Hotspot is located in a busy area, this can help offset the cost of Sonic.net DSL. With some dedication and enough WiFi users, you could turn a profit on your DSL account.
--------------------------------------
This specifically tells me, the only way I get paid the $0.31 per Sonic customer is if the Sonic customers that use the hotspot are real Sonic Customers.
True, Sonic promotes the installation of Hotspots, but not for free. The ones logging in are required to have Sonic Accounts(means they are paying customers).
K |
|
