| reply to ExoticFish
Re: Second Bogus Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement Wow, a lot of responses in a short time.
First: I'm absolutely sure that neither I nor anybody in my household (a wife who never watches anything on her computer, two kids under 3) have downloaded this copyrighted material. So it would seem my naivete about having an open network is to blame.
I'm surprised that everybody is so convinced of my legal responsibility here. On the one hand, a crime is still a crime whether you're aware of it or not. And being complicit in a crime even if you're not the primary offender is a crime as well. But I should be liable for all activity that happens on my network without my knowledge....really? If I leave my car unlocked and somebody steals it to rob a bank, I'm not an accessory (though that would probably not be a fun day). Or more to the case....how 'bout if I'm watching a movie in the comfort of my home and somebody points a digitcam through an open window, makes a (probably not-so-great) copy, and redistributes it? Or if I'm playing my tunes in my backyard and some chump records it? What if, instead of logging onto an open wi-fi network, the same neighbor splices the wires outside the house, attaches their own splitter, and jumps on to my IP that way? @PeteC2: We're not talking about a negligent homeowner with a pool and dead children; we're talking about sharing access to 1's and 0's. My intention was to be able to share this access with friends/guests/babysitters, the same as I might share (legally obtained) movies or music.
Of course I have no interest in pursuing this any further (unless Comcast or the offended copyright holder does), but I'd be curious to know how it would go in court. From what I've read online it looks like it would largely depend on which judge you wind up with.
On behalf of Comcast, though, I can understand why they would want to restrict their users from opening up wi-fi networks. Open network is no more (and secure network restricted to only known MAC addresses).
And yes, glad there was no child porn. |
|
 EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | said by MidniteRider : What if, instead of logging onto an open wi-fi network, the same neighbor splices the wires outside the house, attaches their own splitter, and jumps on to my IP that way?
FWIW, this part doesn't and can't work that way. The modem that they use would have a different hardware MAC address so therefore it would pull a different WAN (public) IP address from CC than is yours. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to MidniteRider
said by MidniteRider : What if, instead of logging onto an open wi-fi network, the same neighbor splices the wires outside the house, attaches their own splitter, and jumps on to my IP that way? @PeteC2: We're not talking about a negligent homeowner with a pool and dead children; we're talking about sharing access to 1's and 0's. My intention was to be able to share this access with friends/guests/babysitters, the same as I might share (legally obtained) movies or music.
It's a matter of what a prudent individual would do.
Would a reasonable, cautious, person leave a loaded gun on the kitchen counter they untrained children or adults present?
Or be surprised it they left the keys in there car on a city street, if it was stolen? (in which you could be held liable for damage or injures caused during the joy ride.)
PeteC2  was alluding to an attractive nuisance, in that a reasonable person could be held responsible for allowing a situation to exist the COULD attract another in to harm's way, even if that other might knowing or unknowingly break the law before coming into danger.
It is not a all unusual to setup a second, "guest network" (in fact many newer routers have setting just for this) that offers (usually) limited access when you give them a password, but doesn't allow access to the main LAN other that say a printer or other peripherals. The password can be changed, and the guest net may only be offered at certain times.
Thus you have knowledge of and allow access ONLY to individuals you know and trust.
Just as you might loan your car to a friend, but probably not their 15 year old son. |
|
 blakbas
join:2000-04-27
Woodbridge, VA | reply to MidniteRider
said by MidniteRider :But I should be liable for all activity that happens on my network without my knowledge....really? If I leave my car unlocked and somebody steals it to rob a bank, I'm not an accessory (though that would probably not be a fun day).
The point is...Now you know about it. You could get away with saying I didn't know the first time, or maybe even the second. This is one of the reasons why you get warnings. It gives you a chance to correct the condition. Now that you have been informed twice, and still fail to correct an open network, yes you can be held accountable. Now to your point about robbing a bank with your stolen car. The first time its stolen because you leave it unlocked and a bank is robbed with it, shame on you. After the second time, shame on you again. After the 3rd time?, you may as well have been the get away driver. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to MidniteRider
said by MidniteRider : If I leave my car unlocked and somebody steals it to rob a bank, I'm not an accessory (though that would probably not be a fun day). Actually in many jurisdiction that would land you a ticket... |
|
| said by cowboyro:said by MidniteRider : If I leave my car unlocked and somebody steals it to rob a bank, I'm not an accessory (though that would probably not be a fun day). Actually in many jurisdiction that would land you a ticket... Sorry for being off topic but are you saying that leaving car doors unlocked is illegal? Where? |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by C_Chipperson:said by cowboyro:said by MidniteRider : If I leave my car unlocked and somebody steals it to rob a bank, I'm not an accessory (though that would probably not be a fun day). Actually in many jurisdiction that would land you a ticket... Sorry for being off topic but are you saying that leaving car doors unlocked is illegal? Where? If you leave the key then it is...
New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law 1210, “No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, removing the key from the vehicle, and effectively setting the brake.” |
|
| That is different, yes it is illegal here too to leave your car running with the doors unlocked, but simply leaving the doors unlocked with no key around is what MidniteRider would have "landed a ticket" for according to the previous post. |
|
rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA Reviews:
·Comcast
3 edits | reply to C_Chipperson
Around here you get a ticket if you leave your car doors unlocked. A police office goes around town in the middle of the night and checks them. first time you get a warning and a 25 dollar ticket every time after. This guy which isnt in my area has 358 dollars in fines for leaving his car unlocked. So yes it can be illegal to leave your car unlocked. »mozo.com.au/car-insurance/articl···19787834 In that case its illegal to even leave your window down. |
|
 DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | reply to MidniteRider
Lets see
option 1, MPAA/RIAA hunts you down and sues you into the dirt
option 2 you admit to breaking the AUP and are banned from comcast
then if you use option 2 as a defence in court of option 1 you get the double wammy
stop breaking the AUP m'kay? |
|
|
|
RokHed
join:2000-09-09
Pennsville, NJ
1 edit | reply to rody_44
You do realize thats an Australian article right?
Edit It didnt link right. Was supposed to link to the guy claiming its illegal to leave your doors unlocked....
/facepalm
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to MidniteRider
They have changed the rules in recent years.
Running an open network is now considered as aiding and abetting and facilitating. It's complete BS, but it's a fact.
You have no choice but to secure the network and claim unauthorized usage as your only defense.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by KrK:They have changed the rules in recent years.
Running an open network is now considered as aiding and abetting and facilitating. It's complete BS, but it's a fact.
You have no choice but to secure the network and claim unauthorized usage as your only defense.
Do you happen to have a reference for that... I would be interested in reading more.
--
"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 |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Hmm. I guess it's still ambiguous in the USA. There have been cases of charges filed or lawsuits filed but sucessfully defended, it seems.
UK and Australia are going the "Your duty to secure, you are responsible" route while other EU countries like Finland have ruled you are NOT liable for criminal activity via Wi-Fi.
I guess all that really matters is here in the USA, where it seems to be a distinct maybe. Someone could try and press charges or you could be sued and have to defend yourself in court, but I'm not finding any cases yet of someone being successfully prosecuted or being held liable.... I remember reading about the "SAFETY" Act which proposed that all operators of a publicly available WiFi (Even residential) would be required to keep logs of all activity for 2 years or else fact sanction/liability, but I don't know if it ever passed.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
RokHed
join:2000-09-09
Pennsville, NJ | reply to CXM_Splicer
»www.zdnet.com/open-wi-fi-outlawe···0057470/ |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 | Since when do laws enacted by the UK Parliament affect U.S. citizens? Not since, at least, the 1783 Treaty of Paris, if not July 4, 1776. But likely even earlier.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to RokHed
Thank you for the link and I find it extremely unfortunate that this actually passed in the UK; in many ways I thought their population was a little more 'freedom savvy' than ours here in the US.
As NormanS says this has no bearing on US law. I can't really fault you for that though since neither KrK nor I were country-specific in our exchange... (however I did mention US law earlier in the thread)
The last time I researched it (about 3 years ago) the only thing (here in the US) restricting the use of the 'ISP safe-haven' against copyright infringement was the agreement to a TOS by your 'users'. Many libraries/hotels/ISPs/etc. offer open networks after agreement to TOS through a captive portal and don't have a problem. There is no reason why an individual can't do the same (except TOS violation with their ISP, but that could be worked out). There is a legitimate desire for open networks for transient use by smart phones/pads/laptops for email/searches/low bandwidth use that most people would willingly share their connections for... especially considering the increasing cost/bandwidth ratio that 3G/4G users are being subjected to (of course, wireless carriers would be against open networks). The belief that personal networks must be secured to prevent terrorist threats, kiddy porn & copyright violations is nothing but a furtherance of the police-state mentality that we should be rejecting rather than embracing. The only reason people seek out open networks for illicit activity (and I firmly believe that with open networks available, illicit activity on your network would be non-existent) is because of the current 'acceptance' of vicarious liability for your (whoever pays for it) network. Sorry for the vulgarity but that is complete and utter bullshit. Despite what some might claim... it is not the same thing as handing out loaded guns to a kindergarten class.
--
"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 |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 | said by CXM_Splicer:The belief that personal networks must be secured to prevent terrorist threats, kiddy porn & copyright violations is nothing but a furtherance of the police-state mentality that we should be rejecting rather than embracing.
Agreed. Terrorists. child pornographers, and pirates will still use open proxies, no matter how locked down Wi-Fi networks get.
The only reason people seek out open networks for illicit activity (and I firmly believe that with open networks available, illicit activity on your network would be non-existent) is because of the current 'acceptance' of vicarious liability for your (whoever pays for it) network. Sorry for the vulgarity but that is complete and utter bullshit. Despite what some might claim... it is not the same thing as handing out loaded guns to a kindergarten class.
• Bandwidth.
• Vicarious liability.
I am averse to spending a lot for a lot of speed. 3Mbs ~ 6Mbs is comfortable for my needs as an "only user"; sharing that bandwidth with too many leechers would potentially inflict "speed pain" on me.
I am averse to the legal costs of defending an open Wi-Fi. My pockets aren't deep enough to do battle with either the MAFIAA, or assorted DsoJ.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to CXM_Splicer
Ah, what timely news: From the front page today:
»www.techdirt.com/articles/201207···e.shtml?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| Two points.
First, this is irrelevant to the question "will I be held responsible for ignoring 6 Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement letters because I have an open wifi or a cat that learned how to torrent" - the answer to THAT is yes, yes you will. Comcast will gut you like a pig without concern, and won't even sue you to do it.
The second point is right there in your article:
"The court dismissed the entire complaint, but more on a technicality (the work named does not match the registered copyright)."
So what you have there is the single opinion, untested on legal grounds by ANY court, of a judge. It wouldn't hold as much as a drop of water in the NEXT case as "established law."
So, as everyone has been saying - on the legal question you're still signing up to be the test case. Have fun with that.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
