Yeah. I mean, while I participate in drug studies myself, via BioKinetics, I always read the study notes carefully before signing up. I've already decided I'm never going to be involved in testing any drug that's completely new. Alternate formulations of drugs that are already known to be safe is one thing--and those tests really aren't even the same kind of testing as the ones the article is about; they're to see how the drug disappears from the bloodstream over time, as they already know what it does--but being on the bleeding edge is a great way to get your throat cut.
...to deny claims. That's what they do. Insurance companies aren't in business to pay for people's losses, they're in business not to pay for people's losses, because the less they pay out, the greater profit they make. The portrayal in The Incredibles was just about dead-on. So getting them to fork over is often like trying to squeeze blood from a stone even at the best of times.
On the contrary, City of Heroes/Villains is exactly the kind of game where you really need expert assistance in a lot of ways, due to Cryptic's annoying habit of not documenting anything (and not being accurate half the time in what they do document). There are all kinds of little "gotchas" in character building that can trip you up, powers that look decent in the in-game interface but those "in the know" avoid like the plague, advanced methods of gameplay that can only be learned through hard knocks or through scouring the community boards for hidden knowledge. And then there's PVP, which is a whole different game from PVE.
Believe me, someone who doesn't have time to scour the community boards or rummage through guides could be well-served by hiring a tutor. There's certainly a lot more to teach about a game that complex than just strafing and shooting techniques.
That's really quite interesting. Too bad they only offer classes for first-person-shooter games. I've gotten good enough at City of Heroes/Villains that I could probably earn out some great rates giving hourly instruction in that game. I wonder if there are any other sites where a game guru could offer their teaching skills for hire. (It would certainly be a better value for the money than those "pay-for-PL" sites.)
Already have something for Windows that does some of that: as mentioned in other comments, Sharecrow allows syncing of commentary tracks to DVDs, and includes independent volume controls so you can make commentary or DVD as loud or quiet as you want in relation to each other.
All things considered, I'd rather have Slashback than Katz back.
(Well, okay, technically the repetive articles are Backslash, the follow-up articles are Slashback, but that messes with the rhyme. "I'd rather back slash than back Katz"? Um, no.)
I wouldn't mind seeing David Weber's Bahzell books made into movies. While they're based on the writer's D&D campaign also, they at least have significantly more serial numbers filed off than Dragonlance, and follow the interesting choice of casting an orc-equivalent as the heroic paladin.
I'd also enjoy movies based on Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion, which is another D&D-based trilogy...
Kiefer was great in Armitage III: Polymatrix, which both was and wasn't a dub. (It was a re-edited cinematic version of a 4-episode OAV series, but the movie edit never actually had a Japanese version; it was specifically created to be voiced in English even for its Japanese release.) He did basically play himself for that with no inflectional changes, however.
But he was also really good in Dark City, where he essentially played a sickly, morally-ambivalent Peter Lorre character, complete with accent and voice mannerisms to match. He did a damned fine job of it, too. I mean, if the action-heroish Kiefer Sutherland can play a sickly, cringing coward and make the audience buy it, I think he'll do a damned good job playing Raistlin, who is also sickly and morally ambivalent.
The fact that someone posted this...and that it took several more comments before someone remembered laserdisc...makes me feel really, really ooooooold...
Just to note, the blurb suggests that Sharecrow's site is providing the commentaries. While it does aggregate links to a bunch of different commentary sites, the main place where aspiring commentators can have their commentaries hosted (first one is hosted free, others have a small fee--or you can link to files hosted elsewhere for free) is Commentary Central. This replaces the defunct DVDTracks site that Slashdot covered previously, which went defunct several years ago.
I'd also like to plug the commentary track that I myself recorded, for the Hayao Miyazaki film Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro (which is getting a new special-edition DVD release from Mangled Video via Anchor Bay in just a couple of months, by the way--too bad it won't include my commentary!). I've continued to update and correct this commentary over the last few months, and it's grown into something I'm really proud of. Any comments on my commentary would be well-received...
My previous Slashdot comment was my 1337th. Alas, with the posting of this comment, I am no longer l33t.:)
The WiFi aspect of it is what interests me. I've long held the strong belief that people should be free to do as they please with *ANY* signal that impacts them or their property. Guess what? The law as it is enforced today doesn't agree with me. Else I could put up a satellite dish, figure out how to descramble the signals from DirectTV, DISH Network, XM Satellite Radio or StarBand...or cellular towers, or secure police radio transceivers, etc. and use them as I pleased for my own purposes, under the assumption that they were freely given to (forced upon) me.
If it were up to me, the burden would fall entirely upon people who transmit over the public airwaves to provide whatever security they deem necessary for their signals. I would favor laws that openly encourage people to entertain themselves however they please with any transmission they receive, and make full use of unsecure wireless network nodes such as the open AP in question.
So...in one paragraph, you say that you should have the freedom to decrypt encrypted signals--and in the next, you say that if people don't want their signals used, they should encrypt them. You really are in training to be a lawyer, aren't you?
It seems fair to me that you should be able to make what use you want to of an unencrypted signal you receive. You could tune in any AM, FM, shortwave, etc. signal you want, or make your own digital clock that monitored time signal transmissions to synch up, or make use of a stock ticker signal someone broadcast in the clear.
But in order to make use of an Internet connection, you have to transmit a signal back, too. In particular, you have to transmit a signal in a certain way so as to make the other party's signal box do something. You're manipulating someone else's property. To use your analogy, it would be fine to watch a TV set through someone else's window--but not fine to change the channel for them without asking, whether you did it by tapping the button with a long pole or using your own universal remote. You're messing with something that's not yours.
But regardless, the thing that gets me about people's responses to this case is that it's not a question of wardriving, where you at least have the fig leaf of "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down." Though everyone seems to be treating it that way anyway.
This is a question of "It used to be okay for the guy to use it, but he abused the privilege and was banned, but came back anyway." This isn't a wardriving case, it's simply trespassing plus its electronic equivalent. Whether you or I feel they had a good reason for doing it, the establishment was within its rights to ask him to leave. People seem to be ignoring this and answering with their rote "wardriving" responses.
I suppose I should stop expecting rationality on this issue from Slashdot. Many Slashdotters--at or at least many of the more vocal ones--seem to want to get everything for free. Music, movies, software, books, Internet service, beer, etc. And that's perfectly all right when the stuff is in the public domain, or when the owners want to make it available for free. That's what's so great about GNU, BSD, Linux, Creative Commons, Project Gutenberg, community wireless networks, coffeehouses and restaurants who provide wireless free to their customers, and so on. And hey, we all want free stuff. I know I do.
But many Slashdotters seem to feel this sense of entitlement to get whatever they want for free, because they want it, and so they go out and take it. The Rolling Stones song "You Can't Always Get What You Want" holds no truth for them. And so they dance all around justifying this in various different ways. "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down!" "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down such
wi-fi is BROADCAST. According to the FCC, the airwaves are PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Sure they are. Why don't you go try running a pirate radio station and see how far "the airwaves are public domain" gets you?
AP/coffee shop owner had no right to tell the guy don't use what was broadcast.
Regardless of whether or not this is so, they certainly had the right to tell him not to broadcast it back to their router--which is their private property--however.
They did not arrest him for trespassing (entering someone else's property), if I understand correctly they had him arrested for using the WLAN. And that is just simply nonsense. By running an open, unsecured AP they implcitely agree to let anybody within range use that WLAN. If not, they should secure it by some means. If he then breaks in, yes, that should be punishable.
Yes, exactly. They implicitly agreed to let anybody within range use the WLAN. Then, after three months of his using it in their parking lot, they explicitly forbade him from using it further. They couldn't have him arrested at that point because up to that point, he did have that implicit permission.
However, the explicit forbiddance overrode the implicit permission--so when he was dumb enough to come back (after a police officer had told him to leave--I mean, how dumb can you be?), he was arrested. The crime was not using the access point, it was using it after he was no longer welcome.
Securing the access point is irrelevant. Businesses are not required to hire bouncers or set up security checkpoints to keep out people who are no longer welcome in their normally-open-to-everyone establishment. They just have to call the police when such a person shows up, because he is at that point trespassing, even if he had formerly been welcome.
Imagine I stand in front of your store and read a book by the light that is coming out of your shopping window. You tell me to go away, because I am using your light. I return the next day and again read in the light that is coming out of your shop. You call the cops and have me thrown in jail.
Your analogy breaks down because what you describe amounts to loitering, which is a crime in many if not most municipalities. If you're standing around in front of my store, whether you're reading by the light from my window, awaiting a drug deal, or whatever, I have every right to ask you to leave, and if you don't, call the cops.
Besides which, WAP traffic is two-way. Your analogy would be better served if you were standing on the sidewalk outside my store using a universal remote to change the channel while people inside were trying to watch the set, or using one of those wireless karaoke mics to sing over the radio while people were trying to listen. In both of which cases, the proprietor would probably come out, ask you to stop it, and if you didn't, call the cops on you.
The airwaves may be public property (though just see how far you get trying to run a pirate radio station on that basis!), but the router that they use the airwaves to tickle is the business's. And the business has every right to tell them, "Stop tickling my router" and have that order be obeyed regardless of what they tickle it with.
The way I read this story: Instead of fixing a problem, Brewed Awakening is covering up for its own incompetence by having a disliked person jailed by the police. Their major complaint is: "He doesn't buy anything". The rest is just an excuse.
Businesses have every right to refuse service to anyone based on any criteria they like, as long as they aren't the specific set of legislation-protected criteria such as race, disability, etc. They can refuse service to people who don't buy anything; they can even refuse service based on articles of clothing that are worn if they like. (I'm sure you've seen at least one "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" sign on some business somewhere.) They can refuse service to known shoplifters, people who are unduly rowdy, and so on. They could even refuse it to people who wore mismatched socks if they wanted to; it's their business and their property. At that point, regardless of whether the service has been permitted to such a person in the past, it is forbidden from then on.
If their WLAN is just for paying customers, they need to make this clear somehow. They should secure their AP and then give customers an access code as part of their bill or put it on the daily me
They didn't have to make any kind of effort to keep the user out.
They're not prosecuting him for the three months he spent logged in from the parking lot.
They're prosecuting him for coming back after they told him to leave. Securing their WAP, while it might be relevant to prosecuting someone for wardriving, is irrelevant to this case because it involves not implicit permission granted, but rather an explicit command from the owner of the property not to use the property anymore.
Businesses don't need to hire bouncers to keep out customers that they've told not to come to the store anymore. They just need to tell them not to come to the store anymore, and if they do come back, to call the police on them for trespassing. Likewise, once they notified him not to use their service, they don't need to secure it against him; they can call the police once he comes back. (Granted, they probably wouldn't have noticed him using it if he hadn't been dumb enough to park in their lot again, but the principle's still the same.)
IANAL, etc., but I strongly suspect the courts will see it this way. It's only too bad we probably won't get to hear about the outcome of the case so we can see who's right in the end.
What he did wrong was using it after he was told to stop.
The three months of sitting in their parking lot was water under the bridge; he had implicit permission to use it, what with them publically making it available for free, until he was told to stop. At that point, he no longer had permission, implicit or otherwise--and when he came back after permission had been revoked, then he was arrested.
Businesses have the right to declare someone no longer welcome on their premises, even if those premises are ordinarily freely open to the public.
And to continue the store analogy, even if someone's shopfront opens directly into public space (for instance, a storefront on a public sidewalk), they still own their door.
They own the device that sends and receives electromagnetic waves. It is their property. By sending electromagnetic waves into it that make it send certain electromagnetic waves in return, someone is using their property.
Like it or not, the coffeeshop does have the legal right to tell someone, "Hey, I don't want you to send EM waves into my gizmo anymore." If that someone then disobeys, they have the right to take legal action. (IANAL, etc.)
And no store has any right to tell you what you can or cannot do the moment you step off their property. They don't own the public areas outside of their store and they don't have any business dictating the terms of use of those areas.
Leaving aside the fact that the fellow was in their private parking lot, which is their property...
He was in their WAP. Which is also their property. It doesn't matter if the door to their property is in a public space and unlocked--as the wireless "door" is with WAP, and the physical door is with the stores I was using in my analogy. He was told not to walk through that door anymore, just as a physical trespasser is told not to walk through the shop's door anymore.
They didn't get him for the three months he spent using the WAP before being told to stop. That part was indeed fair game--water under the bridge. They got him for coming back after being told to stop, at which point it became trespassing--or the computer-system equivalent, theft of services.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I mean, while I participate in drug studies myself, via BioKinetics, I always read the study notes carefully before signing up. I've already decided I'm never going to be involved in testing any drug that's completely new. Alternate formulations of drugs that are already known to be safe is one thing--and those tests really aren't even the same kind of testing as the ones the article is about; they're to see how the drug disappears from the bloodstream over time, as they already know what it does--but being on the bleeding edge is a great way to get your throat cut.
And I clicked the "post anonymously" instead of "no karma bonus" checkmark. grumble.
...to deny claims. That's what they do. Insurance companies aren't in business to pay for people's losses, they're in business not to pay for people's losses, because the less they pay out, the greater profit they make. The portrayal in The Incredibles was just about dead-on. So getting them to fork over is often like trying to squeeze blood from a stone even at the best of times.
Hey, yeah, and why did the Australian Mel Gibson play an American cop all those times, too?
On the contrary, City of Heroes/Villains is exactly the kind of game where you really need expert assistance in a lot of ways, due to Cryptic's annoying habit of not documenting anything (and not being accurate half the time in what they do document). There are all kinds of little "gotchas" in character building that can trip you up, powers that look decent in the in-game interface but those "in the know" avoid like the plague, advanced methods of gameplay that can only be learned through hard knocks or through scouring the community boards for hidden knowledge. And then there's PVP, which is a whole different game from PVE.
Believe me, someone who doesn't have time to scour the community boards or rummage through guides could be well-served by hiring a tutor. There's certainly a lot more to teach about a game that complex than just strafing and shooting techniques.
That's really quite interesting. Too bad they only offer classes for first-person-shooter games. I've gotten good enough at City of Heroes/Villains that I could probably earn out some great rates giving hourly instruction in that game. I wonder if there are any other sites where a game guru could offer their teaching skills for hire. (It would certainly be a better value for the money than those "pay-for-PL" sites.)
...I think I prefer the hybrid scooter shown near the bottom of this page.
Already have something for Windows that does some of that: as mentioned in other comments, Sharecrow allows syncing of commentary tracks to DVDs, and includes independent volume controls so you can make commentary or DVD as loud or quiet as you want in relation to each other.
Doesn't have the theater seating though.
Probably won't be long 'til someone does a Linux/Mac/whatever equivalent. Someone had to have the idea before it could be implemented.
As long as he stays away from Sandy Frank, he'll probably be okay. :)
Don't forget you can use ShareCrow to sync these commentaries easily if you have a Windows machine that uses compatible DVD player software.
...)
(And check Commentary Central for a bunch of freebie alternate commentary tracks, including my own for Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro
All things considered, I'd rather have Slashback than Katz back.
(Well, okay, technically the repetive articles are Backslash, the follow-up articles are Slashback, but that messes with the rhyme. "I'd rather back slash than back Katz"? Um, no.)
Actually, that's slashback. Backslash is the opposite.
I think. Could be wrong, though.
I wouldn't mind seeing David Weber's Bahzell books made into movies. While they're based on the writer's D&D campaign also, they at least have significantly more serial numbers filed off than Dragonlance, and follow the interesting choice of casting an orc-equivalent as the heroic paladin.
I'd also enjoy movies based on Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion, which is another D&D-based trilogy...
Kiefer was great in Armitage III: Polymatrix, which both was and wasn't a dub. (It was a re-edited cinematic version of a 4-episode OAV series, but the movie edit never actually had a Japanese version; it was specifically created to be voiced in English even for its Japanese release.) He did basically play himself for that with no inflectional changes, however.
But he was also really good in Dark City, where he essentially played a sickly, morally-ambivalent Peter Lorre character, complete with accent and voice mannerisms to match. He did a damned fine job of it, too. I mean, if the action-heroish Kiefer Sutherland can play a sickly, cringing coward and make the audience buy it, I think he'll do a damned good job playing Raistlin, who is also sickly and morally ambivalent.
The fact that someone posted this...and that it took several more comments before someone remembered laserdisc...makes me feel really, really ooooooold...
Just to note, the blurb suggests that Sharecrow's site is providing the commentaries. While it does aggregate links to a bunch of different commentary sites, the main place where aspiring commentators can have their commentaries hosted (first one is hosted free, others have a small fee--or you can link to files hosted elsewhere for free) is Commentary Central. This replaces the defunct DVDTracks site that Slashdot covered previously, which went defunct several years ago.
I'd also like to plug the commentary track that I myself recorded, for the Hayao Miyazaki film Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro (which is getting a new special-edition DVD release from Mangled Video via Anchor Bay in just a couple of months, by the way--too bad it won't include my commentary!). I've continued to update and correct this commentary over the last few months, and it's grown into something I'm really proud of. Any comments on my commentary would be well-received...
My previous Slashdot comment was my 1337th. Alas, with the posting of this comment, I am no longer l33t. :)
The WiFi aspect of it is what interests me. I've long held the strong belief that people should be free to do as they please with *ANY* signal that impacts them or their property. Guess what? The law as it is enforced today doesn't agree with me. Else I could put up a satellite dish, figure out how to descramble the signals from DirectTV, DISH Network, XM Satellite Radio or StarBand...or cellular towers, or secure police radio transceivers, etc. and use them as I pleased for my own purposes, under the assumption that they were freely given to (forced upon) me.
If it were up to me, the burden would fall entirely upon people who transmit over the public airwaves to provide whatever security they deem necessary for their signals. I would favor laws that openly encourage people to entertain themselves however they please with any transmission they receive, and make full use of unsecure wireless network nodes such as the open AP in question.
So...in one paragraph, you say that you should have the freedom to decrypt encrypted signals--and in the next, you say that if people don't want their signals used, they should encrypt them. You really are in training to be a lawyer, aren't you?
It seems fair to me that you should be able to make what use you want to of an unencrypted signal you receive. You could tune in any AM, FM, shortwave, etc. signal you want, or make your own digital clock that monitored time signal transmissions to synch up, or make use of a stock ticker signal someone broadcast in the clear.
But in order to make use of an Internet connection, you have to transmit a signal back, too. In particular, you have to transmit a signal in a certain way so as to make the other party's signal box do something. You're manipulating someone else's property. To use your analogy, it would be fine to watch a TV set through someone else's window--but not fine to change the channel for them without asking, whether you did it by tapping the button with a long pole or using your own universal remote. You're messing with something that's not yours.
But regardless, the thing that gets me about people's responses to this case is that it's not a question of wardriving, where you at least have the fig leaf of "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down." Though everyone seems to be treating it that way anyway.
This is a question of "It used to be okay for the guy to use it, but he abused the privilege and was banned, but came back anyway." This isn't a wardriving case, it's simply trespassing plus its electronic equivalent. Whether you or I feel they had a good reason for doing it, the establishment was within its rights to ask him to leave. People seem to be ignoring this and answering with their rote "wardriving" responses.
I suppose I should stop expecting rationality on this issue from Slashdot. Many Slashdotters--at or at least many of the more vocal ones--seem to want to get everything for free. Music, movies, software, books, Internet service, beer, etc. And that's perfectly all right when the stuff is in the public domain, or when the owners want to make it available for free. That's what's so great about GNU, BSD, Linux, Creative Commons, Project Gutenberg, community wireless networks, coffeehouses and restaurants who provide wireless free to their customers, and so on. And hey, we all want free stuff. I know I do.
But many Slashdotters seem to feel this sense of entitlement to get whatever they want for free, because they want it, and so they go out and take it. The Rolling Stones song "You Can't Always Get What You Want" holds no truth for them. And so they dance all around justifying this in various different ways. "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down!" "If they didn't want me to use it, they should have locked it down such
wi-fi is BROADCAST. According to the FCC, the airwaves are PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Sure they are. Why don't you go try running a pirate radio station and see how far "the airwaves are public domain" gets you?
AP/coffee shop owner had no right to tell the guy don't use what was broadcast.
Regardless of whether or not this is so, they certainly had the right to tell him not to broadcast it back to their router--which is their private property--however.
They did not arrest him for trespassing (entering someone else's property), if I understand correctly they had him arrested for using the WLAN. And that is just simply nonsense. By running an open, unsecured AP they implcitely agree to let anybody within range use that WLAN. If not, they should secure it by some means. If he then breaks in, yes, that should be punishable.
Yes, exactly. They implicitly agreed to let anybody within range use the WLAN. Then, after three months of his using it in their parking lot, they explicitly forbade him from using it further. They couldn't have him arrested at that point because up to that point, he did have that implicit permission.
However, the explicit forbiddance overrode the implicit permission--so when he was dumb enough to come back (after a police officer had told him to leave--I mean, how dumb can you be?), he was arrested. The crime was not using the access point, it was using it after he was no longer welcome.
Securing the access point is irrelevant. Businesses are not required to hire bouncers or set up security checkpoints to keep out people who are no longer welcome in their normally-open-to-everyone establishment. They just have to call the police when such a person shows up, because he is at that point trespassing, even if he had formerly been welcome.
Imagine I stand in front of your store and read a book by the light that is coming out of your shopping window. You tell me to go away, because I am using your light. I return the next day and again read in the light that is coming out of your shop. You call the cops and have me thrown in jail.
Your analogy breaks down because what you describe amounts to loitering, which is a crime in many if not most municipalities. If you're standing around in front of my store, whether you're reading by the light from my window, awaiting a drug deal, or whatever, I have every right to ask you to leave, and if you don't, call the cops.
Besides which, WAP traffic is two-way. Your analogy would be better served if you were standing on the sidewalk outside my store using a universal remote to change the channel while people inside were trying to watch the set, or using one of those wireless karaoke mics to sing over the radio while people were trying to listen. In both of which cases, the proprietor would probably come out, ask you to stop it, and if you didn't, call the cops on you.
The airwaves may be public property (though just see how far you get trying to run a pirate radio station on that basis!), but the router that they use the airwaves to tickle is the business's. And the business has every right to tell them, "Stop tickling my router" and have that order be obeyed regardless of what they tickle it with.
The way I read this story: Instead of fixing a problem, Brewed Awakening is covering up for its own incompetence by having a disliked person jailed by the police. Their major complaint is: "He doesn't buy anything". The rest is just an excuse.
Businesses have every right to refuse service to anyone based on any criteria they like, as long as they aren't the specific set of legislation-protected criteria such as race, disability, etc. They can refuse service to people who don't buy anything; they can even refuse service based on articles of clothing that are worn if they like. (I'm sure you've seen at least one "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" sign on some business somewhere.) They can refuse service to known shoplifters, people who are unduly rowdy, and so on. They could even refuse it to people who wore mismatched socks if they wanted to; it's their business and their property. At that point, regardless of whether the service has been permitted to such a person in the past, it is forbidden from then on.
If their WLAN is just for paying customers, they need to make this clear somehow. They should secure their AP and then give customers an access code as part of their bill or put it on the daily me
They didn't have to make any kind of effort to keep the user out.
They're not prosecuting him for the three months he spent logged in from the parking lot.
They're prosecuting him for coming back after they told him to leave. Securing their WAP, while it might be relevant to prosecuting someone for wardriving, is irrelevant to this case because it involves not implicit permission granted, but rather an explicit command from the owner of the property not to use the property anymore.
Businesses don't need to hire bouncers to keep out customers that they've told not to come to the store anymore. They just need to tell them not to come to the store anymore, and if they do come back, to call the police on them for trespassing. Likewise, once they notified him not to use their service, they don't need to secure it against him; they can call the police once he comes back. (Granted, they probably wouldn't have noticed him using it if he hadn't been dumb enough to park in their lot again, but the principle's still the same.)
IANAL, etc., but I strongly suspect the courts will see it this way. It's only too bad we probably won't get to hear about the outcome of the case so we can see who's right in the end.
What he did wrong was using it after he was told to stop.
The three months of sitting in their parking lot was water under the bridge; he had implicit permission to use it, what with them publically making it available for free, until he was told to stop. At that point, he no longer had permission, implicit or otherwise--and when he came back after permission had been revoked, then he was arrested.
Businesses have the right to declare someone no longer welcome on their premises, even if those premises are ordinarily freely open to the public.
And to continue the store analogy, even if someone's shopfront opens directly into public space (for instance, a storefront on a public sidewalk), they still own their door.
They own the device that sends and receives electromagnetic waves. It is their property. By sending electromagnetic waves into it that make it send certain electromagnetic waves in return, someone is using their property.
Like it or not, the coffeeshop does have the legal right to tell someone, "Hey, I don't want you to send EM waves into my gizmo anymore." If that someone then disobeys, they have the right to take legal action. (IANAL, etc.)
And no store has any right to tell you what you can or cannot do the moment you step off their property. They don't own the public areas outside of their store and they don't have any business dictating the terms of use of those areas.
Leaving aside the fact that the fellow was in their private parking lot, which is their property...
He was in their WAP. Which is also their property. It doesn't matter if the door to their property is in a public space and unlocked--as the wireless "door" is with WAP, and the physical door is with the stores I was using in my analogy. He was told not to walk through that door anymore, just as a physical trespasser is told not to walk through the shop's door anymore.
They didn't get him for the three months he spent using the WAP before being told to stop. That part was indeed fair game--water under the bridge. They got him for coming back after being told to stop, at which point it became trespassing--or the computer-system equivalent, theft of services.