Also, as these people found out if someone, like a bank, makes an error and you exploit it to steal, then it's still theft.
Also, just to make myself a bit clearer, I'd agree with Graeme that Slater is off the hook on the s.252 offence (as Dixon the bouncer would have been if he hadn't tried to sell the video) but that given Slater's for-profit website and "consultancy" activities, there was a benefit gained and hence a potential s.249 offence if dishonesty could be proven?
(Also, s.249 upthread, not s.240)
There is a theory that because a computer program is a perfect embodiment of its owner’s instructions, most categories of computer misuse cannot be deception, as the computer evaluated those instructions and decided to grant permission.
I don’t think the courts believe this one, unfortunately.
Like you, I can’t remember exactly what’s being alleged in this case, but if it comes down to whether the methods being used by Slater were “deceptive”, then that ought to be a matter of fact for a court to decide.
30+ years ago... the rolls were an absolute mess
Day old white bread, grated tasty, rancid marge.
It's great how much progress we've made in baked goods since then. I'll have the field mushrooms with baby spinach on ciabatta.
So the more serious S.240 of the Crimes Act sez:
Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception … who, by any deception and without claim of right,—
(a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly…
Is private information a “property, privilege or service”?
[ Edited edit: not property R v Dixon, but a benefit, per the same case. ]
And “deception” is defined as:
a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—
knows that it is false in a material particular; or
is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person
When does a method used to access data which the “owner” did not intend to be served publicly become a “fraudulent device, trick or stratagem”. And does one “deceive” a person by deceiving their computer?
So if I mount an SQL injection attack on a bank, just for hoots and giggles, it isn't criminal, provided I have an account there and don't actually steal any money?
Also, did people make money much in the old days?
From what I've read, pretty much every penny New Order made got diverted into Factory's other ventures, not least the Hacienda. Others wound up owing their record companies a fortune - even Lou Reed never made money until his back catalogue was rediscovered in the 1980s.
How many NZ musicians have ever given up their day jobs? Doubt it's a hundred.
Why don’t they demand that for each user that listens to a song, they get paid the equivalent value of a digital download from iTunes
Because there are plenty who wouldn't - those who earn their pay elsewhere and for whom the exposure is enough, the established has-beens who've made (and snorted) their dollars years ago and just want to promote their hundredth come back tour, not to mention the megastars who are making enough elsewhere (or at least being lent the money by the record company) such that 10c a play is a reasonable deal.
I always know why I want a record and the music is these days the smallest part of that equation due to digital and its all the other things that make me want the record (which often goes unplayed, cause digital)
What on earth *do* you want them for? To put in a little rack in your record viewing room and occasionally visit to bask in the knowledge of your ownership? Do you also have a Linn Sondek in a sealed, temperature controlled and un-openable glass case?
Each to their own, I guess.
streaming is actually helping retail sales, for vinyl at least, cause many consumers want that tangible object they can connect with, few want a CD
It doesn't help that because vinyl records are now artefact rather than media, new vinyl records are sealed up and can't be listened to in-store, because they don't want them fingered, scratched and played on their $150 turntables.
"Go and listen to it online and decide whether you want it?" - fine, but it's fairly likely that I'll go on to ordering it from Juno rather than going back to the store.
My suggestion to fix this would be a QR code sticker on the record, so you can go to the listening station, scan it and hear the music without opening the sleeve.