chattels

If you intend to declare against X then you forfeit all goods, rights, chattels and possessions to X.

It is more probable than not X commit the tort of trespass to chattels against Y, C.

In most Shang sacrificial rituals, only animals and valuable chattels (such as bronze wares) would be used as offerings.

But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels.

You don't even have to be on campus, if you accessed the network from home it could be trespass to chattels.

It's hard to argue trespass to chattels when the alleged trespasser never touches your servers.

The concept of trespass to chattels is a very import question in digital law.

Hamidi (2003), and similar logic applied to other states trespass to chattels laws have been rejected by other courts since; eBay v.

They can be hit with a tort of trespass to chattels.

I think CL abandoned the trespass to chattels argument when PadMapper switched to 3taps.

Property (chattels) can be lost, mislaid, or abandoned.

If someone scrapes a US server and are in the US and they generate enough load to deprive the owner of use, then they are technically liable for damages under trespass to chattels.

Are you saying they would maliciously do denial of service attacks on smaller companies, as in a "Trespass to chattels"?

LinkedIn case: "LinkedIn’s cease-and-desist letter also asserted a state common law claim of trespass to chattels.

It's a legal term, see Trespass to chattels[1] Google search, "chattel tresspass" 183,000 results.

Edit: From a writeup in which the EFF describes Trespass to Chattels in the context of digital goods[4]: "A trespass to chattels occurs when one party itentionally uses or intermeddles with personal property in rightful possession of another without authorization," Does that not sound entirely relevant to bitcoin exchanges?