But if you actually read the legal documents you found that it was much more then you are making it out to be and a little "mission impossible". He purchased a new lap top just for this, created a fake registration, with a fake e-mail for mailinator. His IP was blocked on the network so he changed his to get around it. He also agreed that violation of the rules for "guest accounts" could lead to state and federal prosecution. He then spoofed his MAC address to get around that and eventually used a second computer.
So using a laptop hidden in a closest doesn't accurately describe what he did. The question I have for you is did you actually read the facts of the case, or just the internet bandwagon?
---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 02:03 AM ----------
There is no mention of something needing to be physical in the definition of theft. Taking something digital that doesn't belong to you and you aren't authorized to have is theft. You can more easily steal digital things then physical because it is far easier to make a copy then of a physical good.With the exception of currency you can't really steal anything digital. At best you can make a copy and then delete the original. But even then that's not really theft but more copying and destruction.
There is no mention of limited supply in the definition of theft. Effectively infinite still implies it is limited and thus according to your own words it is theft.If I torrent a movie, anyone else can go and torrent the movie as well because I didn't take 1 of a limited supply. The supply is effectively infinite.