No Duty to Secure Wi-Fi from BitTorrent Pirates, Judge Rules

[Renegade]

Interesting article at Torrent Freak:

No Duty to Secure Wi-Fi from BitTorrent Pirates, Judge Rules

http://torrentfreak.com/no-duty-to-secure-wi-fi-from-bittorrent-pirates-judge-rules-120912/

A crucial ruling in one of the ongoing BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States has delivered a clear win for open Wi-Fi operators. Among other things, California Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that Internet subscribers are not required to secure their wireless networks to prevent outsiders from pirating movies. In other words, people can’t be held liable for the alleged infringements of other people on their network.

...

The problem with this scheme, however, is that the person who pays the Internet bills may not be the person who pirating the movie or song in question. Several judges have noted that an IP-address is not a person, much to the disappointment of copyright holders.

To counter this argument copyright holders have introduced the “negligence” theory, arguing that Internet subscribers are liable when other people pirate files through their networks. This would allow copyright holders to sue people even when their targets haven’t committed an offense.

One of these cases was decided last week in favor of the Internet subscriber.

The case was started by adult video company AF Holdings who sued an Internet account holder called Josh Hatfield in a California federal court. AF Holdings claimed that Hatfield had a “duty to secure his Internet connection,” and that he “breached that duty by failing to secure his Internet connection.”

As a result, AF Holdings argued that Hatfield was liable for the copyright infringements that were committed by an unknown person. Mr. Hatfield disagreed with this claim, and argued that the copyright holder couldn’t prove that people are obliged to secure their wireless networks to prevent piracy.

In her verdict Judge Phyllis Hamilton sided with the defendant.

That's a pretty big deal.

i.e. You are allowed to let other people use your stuff. It's not criminal to allow other people to use your stuff.

Wow. What a revelation! That's like, totally genius! I wish I'd have thought of that!

[Mark0]

That!
Today big companies & interest groups are bending the laws so much that the common sense is almost totally lost.

[TaoPhoenix]

Let's hope it holds up under appeal!

[Stoic Joker]

You have the right to share your WiFi ... You have also have the right to wave hello to the SWAT team as you pass them in your hallway on the way to the bathroom in the middle on the night.

[SeraphimLabs]

That's a pretty big deal.

i.e. You are allowed to let other people use your stuff. It's not criminal to allow other people to use your stuff.

Wow. What a revelation! That's like, totally genius! I wish I'd have thought of that!

Oh no, that simply will not do! Letting other people use your stuff is PIRACY in itself, you should be locked up for that on top of whatever crime was committed using your stuff.

Seriously, it's about time that the courts actually showed some reason in their decision. I do hope this starts a lasting trend, as so much nonsense going on politically right now would be quickly solved.