Internet Piggybacking: Immoral or Not?

[Diddi]

Diddy, I’m afraid that you are the one who has this all wrong. It is NOT illegal to ‘tap into’ wireless signals passing through your property. You can do that without being illegal.

However, to gain any advantage other than snooping (receiving), such as gaining access to the internet, they you have to have your wireless network card begin transmitting to your neighbors property and their wireless access point. You can’t gain access to the interest by just receiving their signal.

When you broadcast your signal to their wireless access point, then you are forcing your data onto their property. That is not legal, and it is not moral.
Dan

It is only illegal and immoral until we change the law and make it legal. Then it would be moral too. I will continue to obey the law, but it is a law that needs to be changed.

 

[Penitant]

You have secularlized your morality.

I am greatly offended by this. I offered an analogy so that some might better understand the issue at hand. I never said that it was a moral thing. You, sir, need to be slower to throw accusations.

Perhaps a better analogy; think about tresspassing. Does the tresspasser have to take something from the property owner to be tresspassing. What if he passes through, and nothing is changed as a result. Is it OK then to tresspass? Even if the owner of the property has specifically forbid it?

Dan

I don’t see how passing through someone’s land is objectively wrong. I understand that it can be illegal and the immorality of it comes from breaking the law. However, some places even specifically grant citizens the “right to roam”. Scotland is one such example.

 

[Diddi]

If I right a book and I sell one copy to the public library (this is putting it into a public place), must I then let everyone have it for free? What you are suggesting is taking away people’s rights as owners to what they produce. If someone is an owner, they are allowed to specify how it is used. They are allowed to control its distribution and collect payments in exchange for selling it as they see fit. You are trying to take the privileges of ownership away from the owners.

Dan

As the law now reads, you are right. That is why the law needs to be changed. Once they publish their book, then it becomes part of our culture. They don’t have to provide copies to everyone, but a person should be able to get a copy from the library and even photocopy it for themselves without our fear of fines, jail or Hell. It has become part of their culture and therefore they have a right to access it. If you don’t want your book to become part of the culture, don’t publish it.

 

[Penitant]

Yes it should. Once music is part of our culture, whether legitimately or illegitimately, it is immoral to limit access to it. To do so disenfranchises someone from his or her own culture. (This is so obviously wrong it’s hard to believe that it isn’t already an integral part of our legal system.) If you don’t want this to happen to your music, don’t sell it or play it in public. Play it at home. Keep it to yourself. If then someone steals it from your home, there are already laws to deal with that.

Maybe this will make it clearer to you. What if you heard a song on the radio that you really liked but it was illegal to sing it or hum the tune without permission because it belonged to someone else? This is no different. You have an inherent right to learn about and participate in the culture you belong to and it is immoral for laws to be passed that prevents you freely do so. Laws could still be in place to prevent you from passing the song off as your own or to perform it or sell it for profit, but a person should have free access to what is part of their own culture.

So, somebody breaks into your home, steals your music, puts it on the internet without your permission. The original person did wrong but everyone who picks it up after that is ok?

I understand and agree that intellectual property should be in the public domain at some point. This is why copyrights are SUPPOSED to expire. But what you are suggesting denies a lot of people the ability to make a living. I’m a software engineer, but what you are proposing is that I never get compensation for my work.

 

[Penitant]

Realistically, the discussion on intellectual property that this discussion has moved to is off topic. So, if we want to discuss that, let us start a separate thread and get back on topic here.

Thank you,
Penitant

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

When you broadcast your signal to their wireless access point, then you are forcing your data onto their property. That is not legal, and it is not moral.
Dan

It is only illegal and immoral until we change the law and make it legal. Then it would be moral too. I will continue to obey the law, but it is a law that needs to be changed.

I must not understand you. If I place a wireless access point in my house for my use, secure it with the best encryption avaialable, and if it was not illegal, you believe that you could break the encryption code and use my equipment to steal internet service just because I can’t prevent the wireless signals from penetrating the space of your home? I won’t say that it is definitely, but you seem to attach a strong sense of ownership to things that belong to you (your space) and little sense of ownership to the things that belong to your neighbor. Please explain this further.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I am greatly offended by this. I offered an analogy so that some might better understand the issue at hand. I never said that it was a moral thing. You, sir, need to be slower to throw accusations.

I humbly apologize for my comment. It was not my intention to have offended you, and by doing so have done you and I no service. Will you forgive me?

I don’t see how passing through someone’s land is objectively wrong. I understand that it can be illegal and the immorality of it comes from breaking the law. However, some places even specifically grant citizens the “right to roam”. Scotland is one such example.

What is the right of ownership then? Would you feel differently if it was your house? Why?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

As the law now reads, you are right. That is why the law needs to be changed. Once they publish their book, then it becomes part of our culture. They don’t have to provide copies to everyone, but a person should be able to get a copy from the library and even photocopy it for themselves without our fear of fines, jail or Hell. It has become part of their culture and therefore they have a right to access it. If you don’t want your book to become part of the culture, don’t publish it.

Do you believe that anyone can ‘own’ anything? What does ‘ownership’ mean to you? How would someone go about protecting whatever rights of ownership that you would give them?

Dan

 

[Inman]

I’ve posted the relevant section of my agreement. Does that mean that you agree with me?

They do, and it is.

You shouldn’t violate your agreement. So yes to that extent.

You are informed. When you buy service, you buy what they are offering, no more. What they are offering is specified in the contract. Much in the same way you can buy anything ‘sight unseen’ (like a car for instance) and the sale is legal, you can buy Internet service and choose not to read about what you are buying. But, it leave you in an uninformed position.

That is true. But is is hypothetical, since all contracts specify these terms of use.

If I offer to sell you my car for $1,000. You agree. I have list of conditions of sale. I never give you the list. The terms on the list aren’t part of the contract and you aren’t bound by them even if I believed it was part of what I was offering for sale.

Same thing is true with ISP’s. If they want them to be part of the contract they have to communciate that. Now if they sent it to me and I don’t read it, that’s different. But if they have some policy they don’t tell me about, I don’t have to follow it.

You are assuming that all ISPs have agreeements that prohibit bandwidth sharing with their subscribers that they communicate to their constomers. Perhaps even most have such agreements and send them to their users, but that doesn’t mean all of them.

Just out of curiosity I will try to dig up what the ISP sent me when they confirmed my order. Not that it matters to me personally, since I have enabled all of the security features on my router, but you have me curious.

As for the fairness to the ISP, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Diddi]

So, somebody breaks into your home, steals your music, puts it on the internet without your permission. The original person did wrong but everyone who picks it up after that is ok?

I understand and agree that intellectual property should be in the public domain at some point. This is why copyrights are SUPPOSED to expire. But what you are suggesting denies a lot of people the ability to make a living. I’m a software engineer, but what you are proposing is that I never get compensation for my work.

Let us say for comparison that you find a way to manufacture oxygen at home and store it in tanks. The oxygen is yours and if someone breaks into your home and steals it, that is wrong, but if you open the valve to the tank and release it into the air, then it is no longer yours. You cannot say, “Everybody stop breathing. That’s my oxygen.” I say, even if someone steals your tanks of oxygen and releases it into the air, the oxygen is still no longer yours. It is now in public domain and no person has to worry about going to hell because they are breathing illegal oxygen.

It is my opinion that the same should apply to culture released as radio broadcasts and over the Internet. Everyone has a right to breath in the culture to which they belong without fear of going to hell. There is no intrinsic right to property. Many cultures have practically done without it in the past. You have property rights in this country because our government has given them to you. If a person takes your life, that is intrinsically immoral. If they take your property, it is immoral because they have broken the laws of their government. If you exceed the speed limit, you are just as immoral as someone that downloads on the Internet without permission, maybe more immoral because I doubt that too many people have killed someone through an illegal download.

As I said before, when comparing the non-intrinsic property rights of a programmer or musician or internet provider with the basic intrinsic rights of all people to fully participate in their own culture, there is no comparison. A kid saves his money and buys a laptop and wants to learn how to do something that requires software that he can’t afford. By the time he saves enough, the computer he bought is no longer current enough to run the software. In the meantime, his creativity has been stifled because he respects property rights. Meanwhile a kid from a wealthier family gets to develop his talents and another kid down the street gets to develop his talents because he got an illegal copy of the software. Who is going to be best prepared for the job market? Not the honest but poor kid. This honest kid hasn’t seen all the movies these other kids have, he doesn’t have the same access to the songs, and his grades are even affected because his household doesn’t have Internet access even though he could tap into his neighbor’s wireless connection but he doesn’t. Let’s change the laws to give everybody a chance to fully participate in their culture through the public domain (the Internet and the airwaves). There should be a two-fold test: 1) If it involves a person’s access to his culture, and, 2) If it involves the public domain (which would include the Internet and the airwaves), then it should be legal (and thus moral).

 

[Diddi]

I must not understand you. If I place a wireless access point in my house for my use, secure it with the best encryption avaialable, and if it was not illegal, you believe that you could break the encryption code and use my equipment to steal internet service just because I can’t prevent the wireless signals from penetrating the space of your home? I won’t say that it is definitely, but you seem to attach a strong sense of ownership to things that belong to you (your space) and little sense of ownership to the things that belong to your neighbor. Please explain this further.

Dan

If you place my quote back in context, no further explanation would be needed.

 

[Diddi]

Do you believe that anyone can ‘own’ anything? What does ‘ownership’ mean to you? How would someone go about protecting whatever rights of ownership that you would give them?

Dan

No person should have a right to break you codes or steal your personal data from your computer. No person should have a right to claim your programs or songs or writing is theirs, nor do they have a right to sell copies of it. What they should have a right to is to have access to whatever meets the two-fold test:

1. If it involves a person’s access to his culture, and, 2) If it involves the free public domain including the Internet and the airwaves, then it should be legal (and thus moral). We can make it a three-way test and say: 3) it must be for personal use, but I considered that a given.

Culture would include information, music, literature, other forms of entertainment, programs that would help a person to more fully contribute to culture, news, etc… Believe me, your emails and bank account won’t make the list. They cannot download your house, so it too doesn’t make the test.

 

[Penitant]

I humbly apologize for my comment. It was not my intention to have offended you, and by doing so have done you and I no service. Will you forgive me?

Of course. Sorry it has taken me so long to say so.

Pax Tecum.

 

[vz71]

All three, at their basic level, are immoral. It is immoral to take what you do not have a right to take.

All you are doing here is rationalizing.

Actually, I believe I should take issue with the idea of ‘taking’
We are talking about a broadcast that is publicly available.

 

[ckliff]

I truly never knew my kids laptop has to send a signal to the neighbors house. This has been an ongoing discussion at home and certain members of the family will be pleased to know I will not access linksys now.

That said there are two things I will add:

1. Whoever said the ISP is allowed to invade my home with their bandwidth? Isn’t that TRESPASSING?
2. I agree with Diddi about making it all public domain.
   So there!

Signing off now, will check in again sometime at the
library.

 

[andy120]

I guess my point is that sharing your bandwith its not inherently unfair to the ISP the way copying and giving away music is to the record label.

I agree, because the bandwidth is, technically, a good. That is, if there are limitations on the bandwidth. If you received a set of books and gave a couple of the books away, that would not be illegal. And the publisher would have no legal right to restrict you from giving those books away. In this case, there is does not seem to be anything wrong with ‘sharing’ an internet connection.

Even if something is stated in a ‘terms of service’ that does not make it legally binding if the clause was not legal in the first place.

As for the college example (using wireless if you live next to a college campus) that would probably be perfectly moral if the buildings are open to the public. If you walked into the college library with your laptop, they would probably let you use wireless. There would really be no difference using it from across the street. Unless the ISP had an agreement prohibiting that, but you did not agree to such a contract anyhow.

Just my opinion on it

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I agree, because the bandwidth is, technically, a good. That is, if there are limitations on the bandwidth. If you received a set of books and gave a couple of the books away, that would not be illegal. And the publisher would have no legal right to restrict you from giving those books away. In this case, there is does not seem to be anything wrong with ‘sharing’ an internet connection.

You are comparing apples and oranges. When you buy a book, you have purchased ownership of the physical book (although not the content, i.e. you can’t copy the content). That is why you may legally sell or give away the book. You are the owner of the book. When you purchase internet access, you are not the owner. You are a licensee. It’s a lot like renting. Ownership stays with the ISP, just like when you rent, ownership of the dwelling stays with the landlord. Did you know that in most lease agreements, you can’t sub-lease to who ever you want to? That’s cause its not yours to sub-lease. Same with your internet access. You don’t own it, you simply have agreed to use it for a fee, at the terms of the owner.

Even if something is stated in a ‘terms of service’ that does not make it legally binding if the clause was not legal in the first place.

Where did this come from? Why would the legal agreement not be legal?

As for the college example (using wireless if you live next to a college campus) that would probably be perfectly moral if the buildings are open to the public.

Hmmmm. Why would you assume since one thing is open to the public, something else has to be? If you open your garage for a neighborhood party, must your bedroom also be included?

If you walked into the college library with your laptop, they would probably let you use wireless. There would really be no difference using it from across the street. Unless the ISP had an agreement prohibiting that, but you did not agree to such a contract anyhow.

First sentence, correct. Second sentence, not necessarily. No permission from the owner, it is stealing. Third sentence. Not correct. When you call them and agree to service, you agree to the terms. It is up to you to read them. And yes, that is legally enforceable.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

If I offer to sell you my car for $1,000. You agree. I have list of conditions of sale. I never give you the list. The terms on the list aren’t part of the contract and you aren’t bound by them even if I believed it was part of what I was offering for sale.

That is true.

Same thing is true with ISP’s. If they want them to be part of the contract they have to communciate that. Now if they sent it to me and I don’t read it, that’s different. But if they have some policy they don’t tell me about, I don’t have to follow it.

That is also true. However they are always communicated in some manner. There certainly may be some debate on how hard they tried to communication them. I looked at the online advertisement for the internet service that I have, and I had to first click ‘more details’, and then ‘terms’ to get to the actual agreement. However, even if the ISP has errored in not well communicating the agreement, once you know what it is, it is illicit to make your own agreement and expect them to continue to sell you service using that agreement. Your option is to discontinue the service if you do not agree with the terms. You do not have an option then to steal the service.

You are assuming that all ISPs have agreeements that prohibit bandwidth sharing with their subscribers that they communicate to their constomers. Perhaps even most have such agreements and send them to their users, but that doesn’t mean all of them. Just out of curiosity I will try to dig up what the ISP sent me when they confirmed my order. Not that it matters to me personally, since I have enabled all of the security features on my router, but you have me curious.

Please let me know what you find.

As for the fairness to the ISP, we will have to agree to disagree.

We may agree on their lack of fairness. If you believe that your recourse is to discontinue service, we definitely agree. If you believe that their possible laziness in not pushing the terms under your nose justifies stealing their service, then we do not agree.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Let us say for comparison that you find a way to manufacture oxygen at home and store it in tanks. The oxygen is yours and if someone breaks into your home and steals it, that is wrong, but if you open the valve to the tank and release it into the air, then it is no longer yours. You cannot say, “Everybody stop breathing. That’s my oxygen.” I say, even if someone steals your tanks of oxygen and releases it into the air, the oxygen is still no longer yours. It is now in public domain and no person has to worry about going to hell because they are breathing illegal oxygen.

Your analogy breaks down for this reason. People breathe the oxygen without intent. Intent matters in moral issues. A lot. To breath is an unconsious bodily function. Try to stop. If you can hold your breath long enough, you will pass out, and unconsciencly start breathing again. We cannot be held morally accountable for our unconscsious activity.

To obtain the stuff we are talking about (music, copyrighted information) requires action and intent (two very important things concerning moral action). The intent is to take something that does not belong to us, and the action is to copy it, click on a link to listen to it. If it is forced on us, we will have no intent or action that is immoral and we are not immoral.

Here’s an analogy that I think is similar to yours, if not explain why, please. What if robbers rob a bank and when trying to escape, they scatter the bank’s money all over the freeway. Can I, knowing what happened, pick up the money and take it as my own? It’s blowing around right in front of me. Is not this money now part of my current ‘culture’? What if it is credit card account numbers? If a theif steals these and posts them online, am I free to copy them and use them to purchase things for myself? Is not this the same type of information that you say becomes everyone’s property when it is released into the ‘public domain’?

I noticed your signature line. Do you know that John Paul II has many copyrighted works that have been published. He wrote some of his books for sale, and many were released for sale before he was pope. It is illegal to copy them. Is it wrong that it is illegal to copy these things and not pay the author for their work? Are you suggesting that he does not deserve more than the $10 he would get by selling the first copy for all of his work, and then it is moral for everyone else to copy it for free?

Dan

 

[Ramalama]

Really, guys, just give it up. Piggybacking is stealing a service. Just don’t do it.