Bad Ideas: Stealing Products That Can Be Tracked Wirelessly

from the just-a-suggestion dept

Slashdot points us to the amusing story of technology "solving" a theft of an irrigation controller on a farm, thanks to a wireless connection. The irrigation controller was stolen, which was first noticed when it sent an error message to the guy who runs them. A few weeks later, though, he was surprised to get a signal from the controller, and he was able to communicate with the device and get the company that supplied the wireless connection to triangulate and reveal the general location of the unit (the guy had the maker of the controller, who obviously contracts with the wireless provider, request this info to make sure the request was legit). From that, the guy used Google Earth to figure out where the controller must be -- and went to the local police. After investigating the person whose property it ended up on, the controller went missing again... only to turn back up in its original location a few weeks later.

While it's a neat story of technology thwarting a theft, there are a few questions raised by the story. To be honest, the full writeup so pumps up this particular brand of irrigation controller system, that it almost sounds like an apocryphal story made up to hype up how much better this controller is than competitors (look, it's theft proof!). Also, despite the "happy ending" -- the actual thieves were not apprehended, and future thieves will simply learn to disable the wireless communications ability. In the meantime, though, it's a reminder that technology is making the job of the ordinary thief somewhat more difficult these days.

Filed Under: irrigation controls, theft, tracking, wireless

On The Criminality Of WiFi Piggybacking...

from the is-it-really-a-crime? dept

It's been many, many years since we first asked the question of whether or not piggybacking on an open WiFi network was a crime. Since then, we've seen plenty of people arrested, and wide ranging discussions on the ethics of WiFi piggybacking -- with various ethicists noting that simply using an open WiFi network doesn't seem unethical, assuming you don't significantly slow down the connection by uploading or downloading large files. However, we still see people falsely referring to it as "theft".

The latest comes in a short column for Time Magazine, where the author admits that he was a WiFi "thief" for many years in his old apartment. In the article, he claims that it is against the law, noting one of the stories of someone being arrested, while quoting Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, which deals with anybody who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access." Well, that sounds good, but there's a big problem with it. If the owner of the WiFi access point left it open, then they have, by default, authorized access to that device. So it can't possibly be a violation of that law.

Of course, there will be those who say that the owners didn't intend for the network to be open -- but that's really besides the point here. The only information a user has is does the network say: "you're welcome here" or not. If it's open, it sends out an invite that specifically says: this network is open, come use it. That's authorization, and using such a network is not "theft" in any sense.

Filed Under: authorization, ethics, piggybacking, theft, wifi

Rep. Berman: Those Who Don't Like The PRO IP Bill Just Want To Steal Stuff

from the say-what-now? dept

Now, we all know that Rep. Howard Berman, who represents a district right next door to Hollywood is in favor of strengthening intellectual property laws. He's made absolutely no secret of that. It's quite questionable then, as to why he should be considered an impartial overseer of intellectual property laws. But, in a talk on Friday he made some very bizarre statements that make it clear he doesn't care at all what those who disagree with him think. First, he claims that there's not much controversy concerning the PRO IP bill, which is a huge understatement. However, the real kicker, is that when asked about the groups (like the EFF) opposing the bill, he brushes them off as follows:

"There are people who want to steal intellectual property. Their lobby is distributed, diffuse, but unfortunately very popular."

This, ladies and gentleman, is the guy who's in charge of determining our intellectual property laws. He simply assumes that anyone who disagrees with him "wants to steal intellectual property" (which, of course, isn't possible -- you can infringe, but not steal it). But, even more to the point, the folks he's talking about are most certainly not even defending the infringement of copyrights. They're talking about trying to bring the laws more in line with what's reasonable. To paint them all with the brush of defending "stealing" isn't just wrong, it's rather obnoxious.

Filed Under: copyright, howard berman, pro ip, theft

Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question

from the more-than-just-a-semantic-argument dept

Jon Healy, whose writing for the LA Times I admire quite a bit, has written up a very balanced discussion concerning whether or not file sharing equals theft. He links to some of my writings on the subject, as well as pointing to the views of two Nobel Prize winning economists, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, who both point out that copyright is not property, and treating it as such causes problems. He then presents the entertainment industry's view, which (of course) is that copyright is no different than traditional property. Then he brings in legal scholar Mark Lemley (of whose work I'm also a fan) who tries to bridge the gap by noting that copyright isn't property, but that infringing it "is wrong, and should be punished." However, Lemley also points out that most people recognize copyright isn't traditional property, and the entertainment industry's insistence that they're the same works against the industry, as most people recognize immediately that this argument is false, taking away credibility.

Healy comes out on the balanced side himself, suggesting that infringement is close enough to theft. He does so by comparing it to "theft of service" for cable companies, and noting that "you're still acquiring something of value without paying for it, and you're doing it without the seller's permission." This is a commonly used argument, and seems reasonable at a first pass, but I'd like to address why it's incorrect. Just because you acquire something of value for free (and without the original seller's permission) it doesn't automatically make it "theft." Let's run through some examples:

• I go to the pizza shop and they offer me a free soda with two slices. The soda has value, but I just got it for free, and did so without Coca-Cola granting permission. I don't think anyone would claim this is stealing or even wrong or immoral.
• My friend lets me borrow a book, which I read. The book has value. I got it for free, without the permission of the book author or publisher.
• I get on a train and pick up the newspaper that a passenger left behind. The newspaper has value. I got it for free, without the newspaper company granting permission. I don't think anyone would claim that's stealing.
• I go to the beach. The people sitting next to me are playing music on their stereo, that I can hear. The music has value, but I just got it for free, without the permission of the record label.
• I go see "Shakespeare in the Park." I get to see something of great value for free, without permission of William Shakespeare.
• Verizon sees that Sprint is going to announce an "all you can eat plan" and decides to introduce its own similar plan. Verizon got that idea for a bundle from Sprint for "free" and certainly without Sprint's permission. Yet, we call that competition, not stealing.

You can come up with your own examples. Now I'm sure people will start picking apart each of these examples. They'll say things like in the pizza/soda example, the pizza shop has implicit permission to resell the soda at any price they deem reasonable, since they paid for it in the first place. But, if that's the case, then we have another problem for those who claim that copyright is real property -- because the same thing isn't true with copyrighted material. Those who insist that copyright is the same as real property break their own rule by also insisting that they retain perpetual rights to the good, even after it's been sold. If copyright were like real property, after the creator sold it, the buyer could do whatever they want with it, including giving it out for free. Yet, it clearly is not like that. Coca-Cola sold soda to the pizza shop and the pizza shop can do whatever they want with it, including giving it out for free. So, if the entertainment industry wants to keep insisting that copyright is just like real property, and therefore infringement is theft, then they should also agree to let anyone who has bought their works do whatever they want with them, including give them away for free.

In fact, each "but, this is different because" explanation for the examples above can easily be turned around to prove the point that copyright is different than real property -- because it applies the same rules differently and deals with fundamentally different types of goods or services. What it really comes down to, yet again, is that this is a business model problem. For years, an industry that relied on artificial scarcity is discovering that it's hard to keep that artificial barrier in place. It can't pretend something is scarce when it's really infinite -- and trying to limit it will only backfire in the long run. What you need to do, instead, is figure out new business models that embrace the infinite nature of the goods, and focus on selling additional scarce goods, preferably additional scarce goods that are made even more valuable by freeing up the infinite good.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, property, theft

If Someone Picks Your Pocket In Second Life, Who Do You Blame?

from the that-border-between-virtual-and-real dept

We've recently covered a few cases where real world laws end up in virtual worlds due to accusations of theft or fraud. These cases are always problematic, because it's impossible to know where to draw the boundaries. If a virtual world allows theft, then is it still a crime in real world? Now let's make this question a little more complicated. Some researchers have discovered that, thanks to a flaw in Apple's Quicktime, which is used within Second Life, it's possible to steal money from players within Second Life. This is important, because Second Life money can quickly be converted into US dollars. So, the virtual world "pick pocketing" can have real world implications. However, is it a crime?

Second Life is famous for pitching itself as a world where anything can happen -- and you could assume that if it can happen in the virtual world then it's legitimate activity -- or should be dealt with within the confines of the world. Otherwise, you're opening the door to people in worlds where "thieving" is encouraged or a part of game play accusing others of stealing in real world courts as well. Of course, that does open up the question of whether or not someone is to blame for the lost money here. Some could pin the blame on Second Life -- and, in fact, the article above notes that Second Life may need to upgrade its security to be more "bank like." Some could pin the blame on Apple, who has yet to patch the flaw in Quicktime. Others, of course, might blame users for keeping "valuable" currency in an unsecured environment like Second Life. And, of course, some would blame the person exploiting the security flaw in the first place. The point, though, is that it's a bit more complex than many would make it out to be, and future scenarios are only going to get more complex.

Filed Under: digital goods, theft, virtual worlds
Companies: linden labs

Real Police Cross Over Into Virtual World Again; Arrest Teen For Theft Of Virtual Furniture

from the bad-precedent dept

Just a few weeks ago, we pointed to a lawsuit involving two Second Life users, with one accusing the other of "theft." We pointed out, as we have for quite some time, how problematic it is when real world laws are applied within a virtual world. The point of a virtual world is that anything is possible -- and putting the constraints of the real world on those worlds not only seems counterproductive, but potentially dangerous. That Second Life lawsuit was between two users, but over in the UK, a similar situation has gone even further: involving the police.

The police have arrested a teenager accused of "stealing" virtual furniture from another player in the virtual world Habbo Hotel. Again, it's true that the virtual furniture has real monetary value, but it's the sort of thing that should be taken care of within the framework of Habbo Hotel. The folks who run the world should be able to deal with the situation, as they are the world's de facto government. If you don't think this is a problem that's going to get more and more problematic, then just start to think through the scenarios of what happens next. What happens in an online virtual world where "theft" is designed to be a part of the gameplay? Can players then call the real cops when they lose in the game? That situation may be a bit more black and white, but many of these virtual worlds are designed to be defined by the users. So what if the users decide that "theft" is a part of the gameplay? What if some users decide it is and others don't? Bringing real world laws and real world cops into virtual worlds is guaranteed to cause problems.

Filed Under: digital goods, theft, virtual worlds
Companies: habbo hotel

Lawsuit Over 'Theft' Of Digital Items In Second Life Shows Up In First Life Court

from the what-happens-in-second-life,-doesn't-stay-in-second-life dept

It's been almost exactly four years since Linden Lab announced that the digital goods anyone created within Second Life were owned by whoever created them -- effectively bringing the outside world's laws into the virtual world. While this move received cheers from those who thought it was better than the company that ran the game owning everything, we felt that it was only going to lead to some serious problems. Specifically, our concern was that this was effectively bringing existing problematic laws, such as copyright, into this new world -- or, rather, pulling those issues out of this world and throwing them onto the US justice system. It appears that's coming true.

A new lawsuit has been filed by a woman who uses Second Life, claiming that another member of Second Life was "stealing" the computer code used to build products that she sold in the virtual world. Of course, that's not all that surprising, as digital goods are easily copied -- and in the past we've even pointed out systems like copybot that made that process quite easy. In the end, it does come back to the same basic economics that we discuss around here all the time. If you're betting your livelihood on selling digital goods that are easily copied with zero marginal cost, you're going to have to deal with people copying your products sooner or later no matter what. It's just not a very good business to be in. While it may feel like "theft" to some, it's hard to justify that as being theft since no one is missing anything. In other words, the economics at play in the virtual world are entirely different than those in the real world -- and yet, we're now going to expect the real world laws to handle a lawsuit involving digital world economics. It doesn't make for a good combination.

Filed Under: digital goods, second life, theft
Companies: linden labs