You are a Guest, please Join now to allow full access to the website and be part of our community. You can register by clicking the "Click Here to create an account" link at the top left of the page under our Logo
So joy riding is not theft, by that definition, but TWOC-ing (Taking Without the Owner's Permission). So maybe using someone's wifi connection could at least be TWOCing? Gerald
lol. At least the "W" is right.
TWOC is specified under the Section 12(1) of Theft Act 1968, as plain old Theft of Motor Vehicle began not to fit the offences being prosecuted ("I wasn't going to nick it, Your Worships - I just wanted to drive it around & give it back").
Regards,
Dougie.
[**EDIT **] Have a look at
Only registered users can see links on our Forum Join Now or Login
for info - it explains it in good plain English.
______________________________________________________________ I´m playing all the right notes... but not necessarily in the right order.
.
The following members of MHF thanked asprn for this posting
We are discussing a problem similar in some respects to the copying of music, DVDs, CDs, books etc.
The free-loaders will say if its there and 8unprotected then I will take it and sod the law and anyone else who thinks its wrong and tries to stop me. These people have total disregard for anyone other than themselves.
Others will say that in a civilised society we have rules many of which we don't like but accept if we wish to avoid a situation where it is just the survival of the fittest.
To get these two sides to agree is an impossibility.
Its interesting reading those defending the indefensible.
The following members of MHF thanked oldun for this posting
Thanks for the link, Dougie. Fascinating, although it isn't applicable to unauthorised wifi usage. It's interesting to read about typical defences which may be used in court.
Gerald
The following members of MHF thanked geraldandannie for this posting
We are discussing a problem similar in some respects to the copying of music, DVDs, CDs, books etc.
In that case, didn't the unlawful downloading (or 'sharing') of music prompt the music industry to develop their own official downloading systems? Until then, they (the industry) were happy to still charge you £10 or more for a thin piece of plastic, with no facility for choosing individual tracks. Now you have the very acceptable 70p per track, which is what a lot of people wanted in the first place.
You will always get the people willing to stretch the law - witness the 200,000 downloads (apparently) of Casino Royale within a few days of it being in the cinema
Gerald
The following members of MHF thanked geraldandannie for this posting
Thanks for the link, Dougie. Fascinating, although it isn't applicable to unauthorised wifi usage. It's interesting to read about typical defences which may be used in court.
Gerald
I doubt if most of us ever really think about Laws and Defences until or unless we run into them personally. They are though at the heart of our lives and society, and what I find fascinating (often in the depressing sense of the word) is the changes which we (society) allow to take place to those laws, mostly without the majority of us knowing, or even caring.
Changes to law (or erosion, depending on your viewpoint) seem to come down to two things:-
1. Changes in social values (e.g. today's acceptable behaviour was 20 years ago's anathema - drug use is one example of this)
2. Sustained apathy by the majority
There's an old expression which courts still refer to - the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" - a representation of the ordinary person in the street. It's still a good test to apply to many situations:- How would the man on the Clapham omnibus react if he saw this?
When this is applied to questions such as the unauthorised wifi useage debated here, you tend to get a feel for what most "ordinary" people would think. Then when you compare their reaction to ordinary people 20/30/40 years ago or whenever, you can often get a good measure of how we as a society have changed. Not always for the better, unfortunately, although sometimes.
Regards,
Dougie.
______________________________________________________________ I´m playing all the right notes... but not necessarily in the right order.
.
The following members of MHF thanked asprn for this posting
If that person only has a 1gb download limit per month and I use this open connection and download a couple of DVD's then the poor sod will end up paying £1-50 for each Gb over his limit. That is unethical and is stealing.
I don't think anyone who's posted on here has advocated downloading DVDs on unprotected wifi connections - mainly just a few emails.
I personally have never used an outside wifi connection paid or free but I do have the technology. As a free thinking individual I do not live my life according to what someone says is illegal or not but according to what I think is right or wrong. If that ever gets me into trouble then so be it.
I would like to know if anyone who protests about 'stealing from open wifis' can honestly say that they have never copied a music CD or Software for a friend or family member.
Paul
The following members of MHF thanked baldlygo for this posting
We are discussing a problem similar in some respects to the copying of music, DVDs, CDs, books etc.
In that case, didn't the unlawful downloading (or 'sharing') of music prompt the music industry to develop their own official downloading systems? Until then, they (the industry) were happy to still charge you £10 or more for a thin piece of plastic, with no facility for choosing individual tracks. Now you have the very acceptable 70p per track, which is what a lot of people wanted in the first place.
You will always get the people willing to stretch the law - witness the 200,000 downloads (apparently) of Casino Royale within a few days of it being in the cinema
Gerald
Good point. So my question then is (for any situation):-
Does it make it right if the majority say it is?
Regards,
Dougie.
______________________________________________________________ I´m playing all the right notes... but not necessarily in the right order.
.
The following members of MHF thanked asprn for this posting
Bookmarks
Watched Topics
