Just checked Black's Law Dictionary. The "breaking" does require SOME force, but it can be even the slightest "force", such as the gentlest tap required to push an unlocked door open held in place only by its own weight. So, if the door actually is wide open, it's arguably not "breaking".
It is still trespassing, though, as "trespass" is the mere unauthorized entry onto the private property of another.
In any case, I submit that the relatively minor action required to connect to an open wifi signal is sufficient to treat it as analogous to "breaking" in the physical/legal sense.
Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
Did a quick check of Black's Law Dictionary for "breaking and entering". The "breaking" part does require some force, but it can be even the slightest force, such as that of pushing open a door held in place only by its own weight.
So, the "open door" analogy is not quite correct after all.
However, I would say that it turns the tables somewhat, in that hopping on to an unsecured wifi router takes some "force" (i.e., an action) by the perpetrator. In that sense, it is still like "breaking and entering". It may be a very minor action on the part of the perpetrator (i.e., specifically selecting the wifi signal or setting his PC to automatically connect to available signals), but it still takes an action. More akin to someone walking down the street, either looking for doors that might be pushed open, or actually trying each one - giving each a gentle push to see if it will swing open and admit him.
So, again, I wouldn't advocate huge fines or anything like that, but I do disagree strongly with the idea that the electronic equivalent of a trespass should be excused, and the trespasser considered ENTITLED to trespass merely because the owner was less than entirely diligent in nailing down his property.
I had a neighbor once who actually disconnected the cable coming into my apartment and connected it to his apartment (needless to say, I discovered thsi VERY quickly). Should that be OK? Basic cable is not scrambled. What if he just inserted a signal splitter and mooched off of my account? Should he be entitled to do that merely because I didn't think to encase the cable connection in some sort of locked housing?
As a kid, I was taught to respect the property of others. If you didn't acquire it (i.e., usually, pay for it) legitimately, leave it alone, as it belongs to someone else. I really dislike this philosophy of, "hey, if it's not atually locked down, it's fair game!"
Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
I don't think I view "availability" as the same thing as an "invitation". To me, the open-door analogy seems apt. You know it's not your router, just like you know it's not your house. Yes, the guy who leaves his router open is just as dumb as the guy who leaves his door open, but it seems quite a leap to essentially bless the unauthorized use of another's property. If I accidentally left my phone on a park bench, does that mean I've invited the world to use my phone? Yes, I may still be responsible to the phone carrier for the charges, but I could recover those charges from the guy who used my phone without my authorization (if I could find him, etc.)
So, if I leave my door open and my porchlight on, is THAT when I cross the line into having invited the world to c'mon in?
Sure, you can charge the tresspasser w/ breaking and entering. What you are "breaking" is more figurative in the legal sense. It doesn't mean actual destruction of property. It means breaking the spatial plane of the property, i.e., crossing through it to enter the house.
Yes, the actual damage done may be negligible, but I'm not aware of any jurisdiction anywhere that takes the position of an open door on a private home being the equivalent of an invitation for any random passerby to enter.
Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
I can see making it a very minor offense, and perhaps even require that you knew it wasn't supposed to be available to you (so it's not illegal to accidentally click on the neighbor's wifi signal when you meant to click on the one at Starbucks, etc.).
And, certainly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who complain about moochers when it's not hard for them to take some steps to avoid it.
However, specifically making it legal seems like the online equivalent of saying it's legal to walk into someone's house and sit down on the couch and watch TV as long as the door was open and they don't actually make a mess.
Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
I can see making it a very minor offense, and perhaps even require that you knew it wasn't supposed to be available to you (so it's not illegal to accidentally click on the neighbor's wifi signal when you meant to click on the one at Starbucks, etc.).
And, certainly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who complain about moochers when it's not hard for them to take some steps to avoid it.
However, specifically making it legal seems like the online equivalent of saying it's legal to walk into someone's house and sit down on the couch and watch TV as long as the door was open and they don't actually make a mess.
...and is arguably entitled to personal compensation.
It doesn't really matter that "society" "fixed" the problem. Breitbart arguably defamed Sherrod, which caused her some injury. HE owes her now. The fact that he was "punished" in the public eye does not compensate Sherrod. The fact that her employer offered her her job back is not the same as being compensated by the one done her wrong.
Besides, it's not clear that "everyone" knows it was a false (or at least way misleading) claim about Sherrod. Sherrod was dragged into the public eye, labeled a racist, fired and publicly humiliated. I would expect that she also sues for IIED/NIED, since Breitbart's conduct was arguably outrageous and egregious. Anyway, I wouldn't doubt but that there are still plenty of people who consider Sherrod to be "that racist government woman who got fired when she was exposed."
Without going into whether or not I think Sherrod was actually wise to tell her story as she did - I hope she gets a nice, fat judgment out of Breitbart as a warning to all that Free Speech is not a license to twist the facts in the name of political zealousness.
To clarify, I don't look at "clever" vs. "creative" as necessarily binary. As a rule of thumb, I guess, I'd consider works that lift actual elements from other works as tending to be more "clever" and less "creative."
The more your work is made up of elements actually created by others, the less creative I consider your work.
Doesn't mean it's not funny or poignant or whatever. Just that much less originally creative.
"And here's another, similar case, involving venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who could not find a legitimate way to buy The Streets' new album after hearing that it was being released. After searching all over for it, the best he could do was order a CD. Instead, he ended up getting an unauthorized copy."
The second sentence above demonstrates the complete falsity of the first sentence. There WAS a "legiitmate" way for him to buy the album. It just wasn't his preferred way. So, despite his claim that he "wanted" to pay, and the fact that there was a way he COULD pay, he intentionally chose to pirate the album.
Not a good example of the principle you're trying to support here.
By referring to "information" in the letter, the sender is also apparently trying to make the fact that the letter has been sent confidential. This is clearly silly. If you send me a letter, I'm under no obligation to refrain from telling others that you have sent me the letter, or to paraphrase the letter in order to tell others about it.
As for the copyright value of the letter, yes, it very well could be protected by copyright. There are many ways to express the idea that you are invoking the DMCA. However, it's also the case that legal documents borrow heavily from eaerlier versions and boilerplate, so it's not at all clear how much of THIS letter is subject to a copyright held by THIS sender.
And, even if it IS completely covered by a copyright owned by this particular sender, I think there's a very good fair use argument in making a copy of the whole thing for use in public discussion/comment.
That all being said, in the end, the recipient of such a letter should consider carefully their position before taking action to piss off the other side. You may be totally safe in disclosing such a letter, but, if the other guy actually does have you cold for copyright infringement, he's not likely going to be very flexible in negotiating a settlement after you've tried to publicly embarass him.
"Yet a huge percentage of content creators simply chose not to renew their copyrights, because they knew there was little or no value in the copyright itself."
Not sure what the basis is for the assertion in the latter half of that sentence. Did I miss it? Is it set forth in the book from which this table was excerpted? It looks like the data describing value is from a much later study than the data on how many renewals in the late 50s were registered.
I suspect there are also those who really don't understand what their options are, etc. Potentially many other valid explanations.
On the whole, I tend to agree with the question asked as the headline to this post. If the artist isn't willing to put in at least some minimum effort to secure copyright protection, then why should the rest of us bother?
However, keeping in mind Mark Twain's quip that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics", I don't think you can really draw any particular conclusion from that data absent further research. You have certainly stated a theory that I think makes sense in this case, but I'm not sure that data, standing alone, tells you anything about WHY they didn't renew.
The Rosetta Stone people may have licensed some code for their new version for which they don't (for whatever reason) have the rights to sell in the UK.
It doesn't have to necessarily be a munitions/crypto thing.
There are actually may be reasons they CAN'T release that version in the UK, notwithstanding Mr. Masnick's sweeping dismissal of reality on this point.
If, say, they licensed a chunk of code from another software producer to include in their new product, but, for whatever reason, they don't have the rights to distribute that code in the UK, that would prevent them from satisfying that particular customer.
I don't mean to say that it might not very well be some sort of dumb "windowing" staggered release schedule that is purely a contrivance on the part of the Rosetta Stone people. I just think it's not clear at all that all they are is stupid. I'm sure they'd love to make some money in the UK.
I also object to the implication that one is somehow justified in stealing merely because you can't get the product you want (not NEED, but WANT - this is not like stealing food to feed your starving children) through legitimate channels. Good on Adrian for trying to buy it legitimately, but his failure to succeed on that score is not a license to turn to pirated copies.
So, this would appear to be a situation in which merely puting "cyber" (figuratively) in front of something IS enough to differentiate it from what's already being done.
Intresting how often we're told here that the mere fact that something is related to the Internet should not cause it to be treated any differently than its non-online precursors. BUT, when you're talking about authority to regulate online activity, suddenly the Internet is this totally dfferent realm that is not addressed adequately by existing laws.
. . . between having the freedom to express your disagreement with the government and having the freedom to publicize whatever confidential information you want to.
Holding people responsible for the latter does not precludehe former.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Re: Re: Re:
Just checked Black's Law Dictionary. The "breaking" does require SOME force, but it can be even the slightest "force", such as the gentlest tap required to push an unlocked door open held in place only by its own weight. So, if the door actually is wide open, it's arguably not "breaking".
It is still trespassing, though, as "trespass" is the mere unauthorized entry onto the private property of another.
In any case, I submit that the relatively minor action required to connect to an open wifi signal is sufficient to treat it as analogous to "breaking" in the physical/legal sense.
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Re: Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
So, the "open door" analogy is not quite correct after all.
However, I would say that it turns the tables somewhat, in that hopping on to an unsecured wifi router takes some "force" (i.e., an action) by the perpetrator. In that sense, it is still like "breaking and entering". It may be a very minor action on the part of the perpetrator (i.e., specifically selecting the wifi signal or setting his PC to automatically connect to available signals), but it still takes an action. More akin to someone walking down the street, either looking for doors that might be pushed open, or actually trying each one - giving each a gentle push to see if it will swing open and admit him.
So, again, I wouldn't advocate huge fines or anything like that, but I do disagree strongly with the idea that the electronic equivalent of a trespass should be excused, and the trespasser considered ENTITLED to trespass merely because the owner was less than entirely diligent in nailing down his property.
I had a neighbor once who actually disconnected the cable coming into my apartment and connected it to his apartment (needless to say, I discovered thsi VERY quickly). Should that be OK? Basic cable is not scrambled. What if he just inserted a signal splitter and mooched off of my account? Should he be entitled to do that merely because I didn't think to encase the cable connection in some sort of locked housing?
As a kid, I was taught to respect the property of others. If you didn't acquire it (i.e., usually, pay for it) legitimately, leave it alone, as it belongs to someone else. I really dislike this philosophy of, "hey, if it's not atually locked down, it's fair game!"
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Re: Re: Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
So, if I leave my door open and my porchlight on, is THAT when I cross the line into having invited the world to c'mon in?
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Re: Re:
Yes, the actual damage done may be negligible, but I'm not aware of any jurisdiction anywhere that takes the position of an open door on a private home being the equivalent of an invitation for any random passerby to enter.
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
And, certainly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who complain about moochers when it's not hard for them to take some steps to avoid it.
However, specifically making it legal seems like the online equivalent of saying it's legal to walk into someone's house and sit down on the couch and watch TV as long as the door was open and they don't actually make a mess.
HM
On the post: Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal
Why should it be legal to hop onto open WiFi signals?
And, certainly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who complain about moochers when it's not hard for them to take some steps to avoid it.
However, specifically making it legal seems like the online equivalent of saying it's legal to walk into someone's house and sit down on the couch and watch TV as long as the door was open and they don't actually make a mess.
HM
On the post: If The Whole World Knows A False Statement Was Made About You... Why Still Sue For Defamation?
She was personally injured...
It doesn't really matter that "society" "fixed" the problem. Breitbart arguably defamed Sherrod, which caused her some injury. HE owes her now. The fact that he was "punished" in the public eye does not compensate Sherrod. The fact that her employer offered her her job back is not the same as being compensated by the one done her wrong.
Besides, it's not clear that "everyone" knows it was a false (or at least way misleading) claim about Sherrod. Sherrod was dragged into the public eye, labeled a racist, fired and publicly humiliated. I would expect that she also sues for IIED/NIED, since Breitbart's conduct was arguably outrageous and egregious. Anyway, I wouldn't doubt but that there are still plenty of people who consider Sherrod to be "that racist government woman who got fired when she was exposed."
Without going into whether or not I think Sherrod was actually wise to tell her story as she did - I hope she gets a nice, fat judgment out of Breitbart as a warning to all that Free Speech is not a license to twist the facts in the name of political zealousness.
HM
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ReMixing is not creating
The more your work is made up of elements actually created by others, the less creative I consider your work.
Doesn't mean it's not funny or poignant or whatever. Just that much less originally creative.
HM
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Re: Re: Re: Re: ReMixing is not creating
HM
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Re: Re: Re: Re: ReMixing is not creating
HM
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
No excuse...
The second sentence above demonstrates the complete falsity of the first sentence. There WAS a "legiitmate" way for him to buy the album. It just wasn't his preferred way. So, despite his claim that he "wanted" to pay, and the fact that there was a way he COULD pay, he intentionally chose to pirate the album.
Not a good example of the principle you're trying to support here.
HM
On the post: Is It Copyright Infringement To Pass A DMCA Notice On To ChillingEffects?
Also trying to turn it into some sort of NDA...
As for the copyright value of the letter, yes, it very well could be protected by copyright. There are many ways to express the idea that you are invoking the DMCA. However, it's also the case that legal documents borrow heavily from eaerlier versions and boilerplate, so it's not at all clear how much of THIS letter is subject to a copyright held by THIS sender.
And, even if it IS completely covered by a copyright owned by this particular sender, I think there's a very good fair use argument in making a copy of the whole thing for use in public discussion/comment.
That all being said, in the end, the recipient of such a letter should consider carefully their position before taking action to piss off the other side. You may be totally safe in disclosing such a letter, but, if the other guy actually does have you cold for copyright infringement, he's not likely going to be very flexible in negotiating a settlement after you've tried to publicly embarass him.
HM
On the post: If Artists Don't Value Copyright On Their Works, Why Do We Force It On Them?
Where'd you get THAT from?
Not sure what the basis is for the assertion in the latter half of that sentence. Did I miss it? Is it set forth in the book from which this table was excerpted? It looks like the data describing value is from a much later study than the data on how many renewals in the late 50s were registered.
I suspect there are also those who really don't understand what their options are, etc. Potentially many other valid explanations.
On the whole, I tend to agree with the question asked as the headline to this post. If the artist isn't willing to put in at least some minimum effort to secure copyright protection, then why should the rest of us bother?
However, keeping in mind Mark Twain's quip that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics", I don't think you can really draw any particular conclusion from that data absent further research. You have certainly stated a theory that I think makes sense in this case, but I'm not sure that data, standing alone, tells you anything about WHY they didn't renew.
HM
On the post: If You Don't Offer Legit Versions, Is It That Big A Surprise That People Want Unauthorized Copies?
Re: Re: Not for Export...
It doesn't have to necessarily be a munitions/crypto thing.
HM
On the post: If You Don't Offer Legit Versions, Is It That Big A Surprise That People Want Unauthorized Copies?
Re: Consumer is the king
If, say, they licensed a chunk of code from another software producer to include in their new product, but, for whatever reason, they don't have the rights to distribute that code in the UK, that would prevent them from satisfying that particular customer.
I don't mean to say that it might not very well be some sort of dumb "windowing" staggered release schedule that is purely a contrivance on the part of the Rosetta Stone people. I just think it's not clear at all that all they are is stupid. I'm sure they'd love to make some money in the UK.
I also object to the implication that one is somehow justified in stealing merely because you can't get the product you want (not NEED, but WANT - this is not like stealing food to feed your starving children) through legitimate channels. Good on Adrian for trying to buy it legitimately, but his failure to succeed on that score is not a license to turn to pirated copies.
HM
On the post: EFF Warns That FCC Net Neutrality Rules Are A Bad, Bad Idea
Hmmm...
Intresting how often we're told here that the mere fact that something is related to the Internet should not cause it to be treated any differently than its non-online precursors. BUT, when you're talking about authority to regulate online activity, suddenly the Internet is this totally dfferent realm that is not addressed adequately by existing laws.
HM
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re:
HM
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re:
HM
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
There's a difference . . . .
Holding people responsible for the latter does not precludehe former.
HM
Next >>