US Cable Support > Comcast HSI > Second Bogus Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement

reply to CXM_Splicer

Re: Second Bogus Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement

reply to MidniteRider
Anybody in their right mind would know YOU are the responsible party for having an open network, and thusly are responsible for what goes through it!

Why in the world would you want to do that, to begin with? Absolutely insane!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

reply to KrK

reply to MidniteRider
"or whether a neighbor has been piggy backing on my open network "

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

reply to NetFixer


Aahhhh! Kitty Porn!
--
Campaign contributions influence laws through a process called bribery.

I keep my network secured. I pay for the bandwidth so why should
I let someone I don't know use it for who knows what?
If the poster wants to run an open wi-fi, and be a "good neighbor"
how about if he puts electrical outlets outside so his neighbors can
plug in and run up his electric bill as well? While they're at it, how about if they come into his house and use his tv, toilet, shower, and toothbrush? He can let them use his bed and wear his clothes too. They can move in and live rent free. After all, he wants to be a good neighbor. I look at it this way, I pay for the bandwidth, and that's that. You want internet access, get your own.

I totally agree.
It's crazy to leave a network open so very Tom, Dick and weirdo
can get on it.
My router has a guest network with a password.
When relatives stay with me, I give them the password so they can use their laptops, iPad or whatever.
When they leave I change the password just in case.

reply to JohnInSJ
Actually, it it is very relevant to the discussion we are having. Liberty Media tried to make a claim that a person allowing another to use their network for infringing activity is negligent, and therefore liable, for 'financial damages' incurred by the third person. The judge clearly stated that that position is untenable.

You are correct that the case was actually dismissed because Liberty didn't even know the name of the movie they claimed was downloaded, but the judge also ruled that their claim of negligence was legally flawed on two separate grounds. The interesting thing to note here is that the defendant knew about the infringing activity of her room-mate and allowed it. Even in THAT situation, a claim of negligence is not legally correct. So it is quite clear that hosting an open network is NOT the same thing as having a swimming pool with no fence.

Will the OP have his Internet connection cut by Comcast? Possibly... and he will have no easy remedy.

Would the OP be sued by a copyright owner if the infringing activity continued to occur from his account? Most likely, but he would probably win the case. Just like an ISP, you cannot be held legally responsible for activity by others on your network simply because you pay the bill for the network.
--
"I've been Romney-boated.... Somebody who will lie to you to get to be president, will lie to you when they are president." Newt Gingrich

reply to MidniteRider
OK...this has gone far afield...

The OP stated that he received a Second Bogus Notice of Claim of Copyrignt Infringement, claiming both notices were "bogus" because somebody else on his open network did the deed, and he wanted to know if this was fair or not.

Very simply, no, the claim is not bogus...it is not the ISP's concern or responsibility as far as who is actually abusing the account...

Yes, the ISP can take the step of cancelling the account, although they certainly would prefer not to...they would prefer to go on collecting payment for said account.

I think that although there are different "legal" opinions here, at the end of the day, I think most folks would concur that the OP would do best by protecting his network, so folks don't get on and do activities that are frowned upon by the ISP.

Time to put this one to rest, eh?
--
Deeds, not words

FWIW, I'm often amazed at how a thread can evolve around here PeteC2 ..

reply to tshirt

I think the main thing is even if you think it is rightious to host and open wifi, law around this is so wideopen that you are inviting the chance of spending months or years of legal wrangling with very little chance of having your legal costs, time or privacy being compansated for, and even Matlock couldn't make you rich on this one.

reply to MidniteRider
Frankly, I would not leave an open connection, that someone could hijack simply because it could be used not only for illegal purposes, but also be used against me as well ! Ya, close the connection before you start accumulating lawyers fee's - and have to defend yourself in court. Not all computer users are responsible with the connection they barrow.

reply to JohnInSJ
This is more than likely bogus. I have the same exact e-mail only where it says e-mail or send a letter to, it only has the address information. Noone in my household has used BitTorrent, UTorrent, or any of the other Torrents. As far as I know, out network is safe from piggybackers because it's physically wired, so unless someone has an invisible ethernet cord that can plug into our router or modem directly and access BiTTorrent even though noone in the household has it, then I'm certain that it's a phishing e-mail.

Phishing emails dont supply your name and address along with comcasts phone number to call. This ones real.

reply to JohnInSJ
Also, the Infringers IP address in the e-mail doesn't match any of our IP addresses. Not even the part that should match according to my brother.

reply to PeteC2