(Gary, I shifted this back into CLUG-Talk - where it was meant to be.. :) Theft is bad. Agreed.
Where we don't agree is if any theft would have occurred in the case of an Open WiFi. For a regular Shaw residential account, the terms of service would not be favorable to you "sharing" your connection with others. In this case, Shaw has the right to terminate your service, or otherwise penalize you (likely a crippled/throttled connection). But I still do not see a "theft" per se. I see a violation of contract. I do not see a criminal act, so a fine, or jail time is not suitable - unless a fine were detailed in the contract / agreement. For a Shaw business account (which is what I was thinking in my post), the lines are even more blurred. I am paying for the right to host my business Internet connection. If I were to market my business through an Open WiFi, well, haven't I paid for that right? (granted I'd have to check the terms of service, but I'll assume for this argument that a business account does not prohibit this). So the question still stands - where's the theft? Lost resources for Shaw? Nope, those resources are paid for. Lost customers? I don't think so. The customers are either transitory (i.e. Neighbor's friend visiting and needs to check mail), or not willing to pay for the connection. If they ARE willing to pay for the connection, they have done so already. Lost bandwidth? Nope. I only have X amount available to me at any given time. Even if my network was flooded with Open WiFi users, I still cannot exceed X. And the onus would be on me to rate limit the WiFi so my network (and Shaw) were not abused. I'd likely limit the connection speeds such that checking email occasionally is fine, but playing an online video game would be very slow - thereby discouraging abuse, and encouraging customers to get their own connection. Terms of service are much like a click-through End user license agreement. We have no choice but to accept them, and they can change without our knowledge. If they change without me agreeing to those changes (because I was not notified of the changes), do I still have a contract? There's a reason click-through EULAs have not been used as a legal hammer very often. Your points are mixed. You argue "theft" with a "terms of service" violation - which is a contract issue, not a theft issue. Your water analogy makes sense - but only when dealing with physical property, like water. Funny though, I had thought of a water analogy earlier (thinking a pond replenished from a natural spring), but I don't think I posted it. Even so, it was only a way to express a point. We cannot treat an Internet connection like water. hmmm.. ok, the connection yes, the bandwidth no. These analogies break down when you are talking about a virtual, non-physical thing. And that brings me back to the intellectual property thing again - how can you "steal" an idea? Corporate espionage is one thing. But If I have an idea for a new mouse trap, and at some point you have the SAME idea, but independently, did you steal my idea? This is the core of Patents, Copyrights, trademark and the collective "intellectual property". You seem to be applying the arguments for intellectual property to an internet connection and bandwidth. I think this is flawed (as is the idea of intellectual property with regards to software or virtual things, but that's a different discussion). This is the success of the PR of companies that have a vested interest in the idea of intellectual property. But it does not mean what they want us to believe is morally wrong, or even the law (in some cases). It's in their best interests to cast as much doubt as possible, just so the masses will give them more of what they want - money and control. So my question still stands. Where's the theft? I can see arguments for contract violations (and only if the contract declares such a violation), but theft? Not at all. (If there's anything I've learned for SCO and Groklaw - if it is not in writing, or part of the record, in a contract, then it is not part of the contract - implied or not. with a dose of common sense of course.) My thoughts. Shawn PS. You're making me think out my position. Gary Z. (Forward; Do Not Reply) wrote: > Hey, your challenge is OK. I stated my views strongly. So did you. A-OK. > I'll intersperse my comments below preceded by '***'. > I do think though that we're at the stage where we're going in circles - I > feel like I'm around the second time. > Gary > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Gary Z. (If forwarding, PLEASE delete address from body of e-mail!)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "CLUG General" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 10:46 AM > Subject: Re: [clug-talk] Open WiFi (shift from clug-tech discussion) > > > Perception. What you see as theft of resources can be seen as paid for > services (i.e. no theft occured). > > *** You seem to be ignoring the AUP quoted in a previous reply. It was > clear. It is theft, perhaps within the house, but surely beyond the house. > It's called a contract. Implied perhaps but a valid, legal, contract > nevertheless. The solution though is easy - to find another provider who > does not make similar demands or to pay for a line and contract that permits > external usage. Perhaps your business line is one such solution. > > Granted opening a WiFi connection could result in more bandwidth being > used, but only the bandwidth that has already been paid for and rate > limited anyways. For instance, I *know* what my maximum up/download > speeds are. I *know* I cannot exceed those. I also know this is a more > or less arbitrary limit set by the ISP. In other words, I can't use > more maximum bandwidth than I'm allowed. > > *** The subscriber not only is restrained by bandwith and monthly allotment > maxima but also personal useage (and others in his home, likely) - not > external. This seems to me so obvious that I don't know what else to say to > convince you. See my comment to your analogy below. > > As for overall volume, I know a lot of people who hit that volume limit > (i.e. 50 GB per month) easily just playing games or downloading TV Shows > (ignoring any legality issues in doing so, for now). > > *** And that is their right, all within their contract and Acceptable Use > Policy. > > What I'm perceiving from your stance is that you have adopted the same > view that the music/movie industry, and even the commercial software > industry would have us believe - that is they had an idea, and we the > unwashed masses must pay for that idea ad infinitum. Can you tell me > how using an internet connection - that is already paid for - is theft? > Assuming of course that the person providing the open WiFi had the > right to do so? (not in conflict with their acceptable use policies...) > > *** Let's not paint me in another light. If you have problems with the > movie/music industry, that is another issue. Hell, I bought DVD's at Pacific > Mall in TO that I know are pirated, but I will not pretend that I was > ethical in that purchase. I'm sure I'm within the law for buying (but not > selling), but I would never pretend to be ethical in doing so. I'm not > exactly sure what the issues are around movies and software, but if one > wants to argue that reproducing movie and proprietary software DVD's and > spreading them around are ethical, they are not. If one doesn't want to > agree to the usage, the solution is simple, don't buy them. Or if you do and > further distribute them, don't claim to be ethical in this matter. > > The only argument that I can see here is that each "freeloader" *could* > be deemed a lost customer for the ISP. But in reality that would be a > very small percentage I think. For instance, how often do we ourselves > go to a CLUG meeting, connect to a WiFi hotspot and surf the web? Are > we not stealing bandwidth from DeVry then? (using your arguments) - or > even DeVry's ISP? (btw, DeVry has blessed the use of their bandwidth > like this). But we are not a lost customer - we are only transient > visitors to a location, looking for an Internet connection. > > *** Yes, lost customers could be an increasingly important issue which would > mean that paying subscribers would end up paying for theft of services just > as you do today when you buy goods in a store. The ISP's might have to > update their equipment (in a throughput sense) which would further increase > the costs to the paying subscriber. But that is not the crux of the issue > here, only the offshoot. The DeVry case is a wrong choice. DeVry likely pays > a fixed cost to its ISP for WiFi use by anyone in the building. This is > reflected in the cost of the contract. Would you expect otherwise? If DeVry > does not want CLUG to make use of its WiFi while we are in the building, it > could certainly make that stipulation and I would expect members to abide by > that, wouldn't you. > > Take the argument even further, what if instead of an Open WiFi > connection, someone just wired up a switch in their front yard and > invited the public to plug in as needed. How is that any different than > the WiFi approach? How is that theft when you are only providing a > connection to your network - which in itself still has a maximum > capacity on the Internet connection? > > *** It's not different and would violate the AUP equally. This may not be > the case if you invited the world to walk into your livingroom and connect. > You would have to ask your ISP. There are also grey areas and common sense > should prevail. Some houses in Calgary still pay a fixed price for water. > These are being slowly eliminated, but assuming some houses still are on a > fixed contract with the Utilities board, would you take exception if people > in the whole neighbourhood drew water in the summer for their lawns from > this house (with the owner's consent) and even water excessively - hey, > after all the water is free. I mean, the guy pays a fixed price for water > consumption. Hell, let the whole city tap in. Let's include sending water > tankers over. > > To put it very simply, why is it illegal to share something I've paid for? > > *** Read the AUP/contract. That's why. It's called ***personal usage***. See > water analogy above. > > The real answer is "consult a lawyer". > > *** Agreed but there is something to be said also for common sense and > actions taken detrimental to others. > > (apologies if I seem confrontational, I'm not trying to be. Just > challenging your view - in hopes that I see flaws in mine, or we just > come to a realization that we see things differently.) > > ***Hey, go for it. There were no four-lettered words. > > Shawn > > Gary Z. (If forwarding, PLEASE delete address from body of e-mail!) wrote: >> I hope those in the discussion yesterday also subscribe to clug-talk. I >> could not, in all conscience, continue the discussion there. It was the >> wrong group for it. >> >> In the light of a new day I re-read the Wired article by Schneier, i.e. >> >> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/01/securitymatters_0110 >> >> He gives a whole host of reasons to open up your WiFi. He is more >> concerned by computer security, by illicit use of the connection coming >> home to haunt him and by those 'stealing' (if that's not a laugh, I >> don't know what is) too much bandwidth but he is not at all concerned >> with theft from the ISP and possible degradation of services to other >> (paying) subscribers on his node. He even has the gall to say: >> >> /The RIAA has conducted about //26,000 lawsuits/ >> <http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/02/Business/Minn_woman_takes_on_r.shtml>/, >> and there are more than //15 million music downloaders/ >> <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_0703141.html>/. Mark Mulligan >> of Jupiter Research //said it best/ >> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/22/musicnews.newmedia>/: >> "If you're a file sharer, you know that the likelihood of you being >> caught is very similar to that of being hit by an asteroid." / >> >> In other words, go right ahead and do something criminal and unethical >> because your chance of getting caught has a probablility approaching zero. >> >> Great moral suasion, man. And this in what is supposedly considered a >> leading magazine. >> >> BUT, and this is why I am sending off this response, this time I read >> the comments following his article. >> >> NO ONE, not a soul, mentioned anything about the ethics of stealing >> resources/services. The Robin Hood Syndrome was in full effect. It is >> extremely unsettling and morally repulsive that the readers of Wired >> that chose to comment were UNIVERSALLY OK with theft. True, they were >> concerned with illicit use of their IP (but not illicit theft) and too >> much of their monthly allotment taken, but they could not see that they >> were advocating crime if it hit them in the face. >> >> What does that say about the ethical standards of today's Internet savvy? >> >> Now admittedly, it is dangerous to use this small cross-section to >> generalize to a whole generation, but there was NOT A SINGLE comment in >> three pages that addressed theft of resources. Surely this paints some >> kind of a picture, doesn't it? >> >> Gary >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> clug-talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca >> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) >> **Please remove these lines when replying > _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
