I am unsure how a law could ban the use of open AP's. Maybe that will take some research.
I too am impressed with your light analogy, except for one thing, and you alluded to this in you message. The legal concept is actually a Trespass. I know it is weird, but things such as smells, and even light, are considered trespasses on land. The issue then becomes one of legal "standing." Who has the right to sue for a wrong that has been committed. As the land owner next to Yankee stadium, I have the right to the quiet enjoyment of my property. If Yankee stadium lights my property, and I am bothered by it, I can sue them, and get an injunction to stop them from "polluting" my land. However, I can think of no legal theory under which Yankee stadium can force me to cover my windows to block out their pollution, or cause me to change something on my property to stop me from being polluted on, or cause me to pay for the light I use, assuming they could somehow quantify the amount that I "use". In the end, I guess it is a matter of action. If I live next to Yankee stadium, and I get the light in my apartment, I am doing nothing. I have taken no affirmative action to make use of the light. I am just doing normal actions, opening up my blinds, we all do that. However, to use someone's AP, there is an action. One has to set up my WIFI card, I have to snoop, I have to do "things". That is where the theft occurs. I think also people are getting caught up in "the airwaves are free, and belong to everyone" thing. If I am correct, the issue isn't the airwaves, even though those can be regulated by the FCC. The issue is the underlying use of bandwidth which is not "airwaves". Verizon "owns" the bandwidth. It supplies the equipment, and it maintains the infrastructure. They have the right to charge for every last "bit" of information passed along it. They do that by charging their subscribers. If you borrow, take, or use any of that bandwidth, with out paying for it, no matter how you got it, that is a problem. Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Thor Kristjansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Yellin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Goal Accomplished > > I think your analogy is better than some of the others, I find using > open access points that aren't explicitly sharing troublesome ethically, > but think that a law banning their use would be even more troublesome. > > There is another way to look at this, 802.11b uses the electromagnetic > spectrum, much like the stadium lights at Yankee Stadium. Now keeping > the lights on at Yankee costs money, probably a considerable sum. But if > you live in their glow you can probably get away with not turning on the > lights in your apartment at night. Now the city owns Yankee and could > come to your door and tell you that you must put up thick curtains and > keep them closed at all times to prevent theft of light. Now you might > do this anyway because you don't like the harsh light and would rather > just use your reading lamp for light, but if the city is concerned with > you receiving the glow from their stadium shouldn't they be responsible > for preventing some of the light pollution first, before asking you to > keep it out of your little piece of the world? This is not the same as > tapping into their electrical supply to keep your refrigerator humming, > they are broadcasting that light and then complaining that it doesn't > just light their grass. It's within their rights to ask you for payment > for them not to only play day games, but you should have the right to > refuse to pay them. > > Under the FCC Part 15 rules for 802.11b you could complain to the FCC > and the stadium would be forced to turn off the lights until they could > insure that very little of it reached you. So we've already got this > idea in law, it's just not really been refined. Probably because it > isn't really a big deal in the real world. > > -- Daniel > << When truth is outlawed; only outlaws will tell the truth. >> - RLiegh > > On Tue, 27 May 2003, Michael Yellin wrote: > > ] > ] > ] Let me preface my comments by saying I generally don't watch the message > ]list very closely, but for some reason, this caught my eye. I am also not a > ]frequent commenter, so that may diminish my comments in your eyes, but, > ]here goes anyway. > ] > ] I am Kinda in the legal field. While some things I agree with about the > ]law, others I don't. However, h00man being 2, again, your analogy isn't on > ]target. It isn't a matter or being able to reproduce them cost free, or if > ]it will be wasted, and I guess according to you, if it will be wasted, then > ]WHY CAN'T I HAVE IT. Simply, it's a matter of who is paying for it. The > ]person who pays to raise the crops, maintain the tree, water it, whatever he > ]has to do to keep it alive, is entitled to decide what happens with the > ]tree, and it's fruits. > ] > ] Here is my attempt at an analogy. Here in California, and I assume many > ]other states, residents must pay for their water. So, lets say I pay 50 > ]bucks a month for all the water I can use, coming down the 4 inch pipe > ]coming to my house. But, what if my neighbor, for what ever reason, decides > ]that he is gonna tap into my line, and since I am already paying for the > ]water, and he can easily "tap" into my line with out me knowing, and he > ]figures I won't be paying anything extra, and since I haven't done anything > ]to guard the pipe, even though I may easily do so, that he can siphon off > ]just a couple of gallons a month, or week, or day. The fact remains, that > ]someone is paying for that water, Me. Now truth be told, I may not care if > ]he takes some of my water, heck, I might even set up a well in yard so > ]everyone can take some water for free, but it should be my choice. Not the > ]choice of someone else. And, if he does siphon off some of my water, with > ]out my permission, he has "stolen" from me. If I use very little water, and > ]he uses a lot of water, then most of my money, since I have paid for the > ]water, has been stolen. But even if I use a hell of allot of water on my > ]own, and he uses just the tiniest bit, he has stolen from me, just much > ]less. Now, is stealing allot of money worse then stealing a little bit, > ]well, stealing is stealing. The punishment should be different, but the > ]crime has occurred. Is it ethical to take someone's paid for property, even > ]though it doesn't cost him extra, and he can get as much as he needs no > ]matter what, well the answer to that is NO, it is not ethical. Ethics > ]aren't based on what happens to others, it is whether what you are doing, is > ]right or wrong. What is right it to pay for what you receive, unless it is > ]given away. What is wrong it getting something for free, from someone who > ]either hasn't given it to you, or doesn't even know you have received it. > ] > ]Well, my .02. Hope no one minds. > ] > ]Michael > ] > ] > ]----- Original Message ----- > ]From: "h00man being 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ]To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ]Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:05 AM > ]Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Goal Accomplished > ] > ] > ]> >Please consider your argument when someone drives away with your car or > ]> your > ]> >bike or your TV or stereo! > ]> > ]> I'm tired of this comparison of getting free things on digital things that > ]> cost nothing to reproduce, to stealing actual hardware. > ]> > ]> The comparison just doesn't stand up. > ]> > ]> You could compare it to taking a fruit in a tree that isn't obviously > ]isn't > ]> going to get picked, instead of letting it fall to the ground, too. But > ]> there's a grumpy old man who won't let anyone have them, falling rotten or > ]> not. > ]> > ]> And then he calls you a thief. > ]> > ]> In any regular town, it may not be strictly legal, but the policemen will > ]> gladly jump the fence and take the fruit too, if they can. And they > ]> certainly won't arrest the twelve-year-old kid who took one. > ]> > ]> Software doesn't grow on trees, you say? Yes it does. Look at all the > ]free > ]> software you can get. > ]> > ]> The fruits, in fact, have now been successfully regulated, and are no > ]longer > ]> free, and you now will actually get taken to jail for taking one from the > ]> market, hungry or not, children's prank or not. > ]> > ]> Laws are made to protect and increase the established wealth, and you are > ]> just one more of those become poor and more unhappy in the process, > ]whether > ]> you realize it or not. > ]> > ]> -- > ]> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > ]> Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > ]> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > ] > ]-- > ]NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > ]Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > ]Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > ] > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
