Help, my neighbour turned off their wifi!

[Sidoh]

I don't agree that your analogy accurately describes using an unsecured wireless connection.  If you take someone's car, you're depriving them of the chance to use it for the period in which you borrow it.

If you use an unsecured connection in the correct manner, you deprive the owner of nothing.

On a legal standpoint, that doesn't really matter. You could be a 90-year old granny that just e-mails once a month. If you paid for it, you can use your Internet all you want. If you're piggybacking, there is a fine precedent that, too fucking bad it's your ass.
http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelessfaqs/f/legal_free_wifi.htm

I don't care about legality.  That's not what I'm addressing.

[deadly7]

I don't care about legality.  That's not what I'm addressing.

You can't say something is stealing without a legal footing. Except under extreme situations (e.g. post Katrina NO residents "stealing" food from groceries) stealing has a legal definition. Whether your moral definition is the same doesn't really matter. Nor does your ISP give a shit if you think it's immoral to have a secured WIFI connection: if it's in their TOS that you don't distribute it they can kick you off.

[Sidoh]

I don't care about legality.  That's not what I'm addressing.

You can't say something is stealing without a legal footing. Except under extreme situations (e.g. post Katrina NO residents "stealing" food from groceries) stealing has a legal definition. Whether your moral definition is the same doesn't really matter. Nor does your ISP give a shit if you think it's immoral to have a secured WIFI connection: if it's in their TOS that you don't distribute it they can kick you off.

Uh, yes I can.  What's legal is based on some philosophy, and it's the philosophy I'm interested in, not the resulting conclusions.  I can define stealing outside of a legal context, and I can arbitrate what's legal and not without mention of the law.

Again -- I don't care what the ISPs think, and it's completely irrelevant to the discussion I'm interested in.

[Ender]

I don't care about legality.  That's not what I'm addressing.

You can't say something is stealing without a legal footing. Except under extreme situations (e.g. post Katrina NO residents "stealing" food from groceries) stealing has a legal definition. Whether your moral definition is the same doesn't really matter. Nor does your ISP give a shit if you think it's immoral to have a secured WIFI connection: if it's in their TOS that you don't distribute it they can kick you off.

Uh, yes I can.  What's legal is based on some philosophy, and it's the philosophy I'm interested in, not the resulting conclusions.  I can define stealing outside of a legal context, and I can arbitrate what's legal and not without mention of the law.

Again -- I don't care what the ISPs think, and it's completely irrelevant to the discussion I'm interested in.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with Sidoh. Torrenting music is also illegal and I think everyone here does that. You can't say that piggybacking off an unsecured wifi is stealing if you don't agree that torrenting music is stealing. And if you do admit to this, then you must admit that stealing is not necessarily so bad, is it?

This is why we are more interested in the morality of the issue. Stealing money from someone does harm to them because you are taking away their resources. But stealing wifi does no harm. In fact, stealing music online is even worse than stealing wifi, because you actually take money away from the artists and producers.

[Hitmen]

In fact, stealing music online is even worse than stealing wifi, because you actually take money away from the artists and producers record labels.

Fixed!

[iago]

In fact, stealing music online is even worse than stealing wifi, because you actually take money away from the artists and producers record labels assuming you were going to buy the music in the first place, but you didn't because you downloaded it instead.

Fixed!

Fixed some more. :)

[Ender]

You could apply the same argument to stealing wifi. It's only stealing "assuming you were going to pay for your own wifi, but you used your neighbor's instead".

iago you're just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

[iago]

You could apply the same argument to stealing wifi. It's only stealing "assuming you were going to pay for your own wifi, but you used your neighbor's instead".

The only argument I've really supported in this is that I think it's ok to steal wifi on occasion, but that it's dangerous. That actually supports it -- stealing wifi full time isn't right, but it's ok if you need a temporary connection.

iago you're just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

That's one of those unnecessary lines/hooks that warrior (and others) use to turn debates into conflicts -- they don't solve anything, but they piss people off at each other. I'd appreciate it if you (and others) didn't use them.

[Ender]

My argument is that stealing wifi is no worse than stealing music online. Do you disagree, iago?

[iago]

My argument is that stealing wifi is no worse than stealing music online. Do you disagree, iago?

Nope. In fact, I wouldn't even call either 'stealing' -- it's copyright infringement for music, and piggybacking for wifi.

I don't think either are right in every situation, and I think both pose some risk to both the user and the supplier. And naturally, they have their own nuances that make them somewhat different. But, by and large, I don't think there's a significant difference.

[Ender]

Ok. Cool. Well deadly, I think you're pretty much beaten here, because I assume you download music illegally, so you'll have to admit to yourself being a thief.