It seems the problem with interpreting wire fraud with his cited precedent comes down to an IP address versus an identity. The cited case contained two employee

It seems the problem with interpreting wire fraud with his cited precedent comes down to an IP address versus an identity. The cited case contained two employees with specific usernames to denote their identities. When one uses the other's identity it's an impersonation -- or a false pretense. This case contains publicly available IP addresses and network-wide access and with that comes access to JSTOR. Rotating the IP to gain continued access might be immoral or tortious conduct at best, but as long as he didn't impersonate another user (possibly by spoofing an active IP address even) the court wouldn't be right in interpreting with the cited precedent. If the court decided this way: Say my dhcp-obtained cable IP becomes banned from JSTOR, when it changes and I simply check if I can access JSTOR again, I'd be in violation. Furthermore, a reasonable person wouldn't know that an IP address could be an identity similar to a username and that changing it would be a crime.