dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
42
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon

Re: Second Bogus Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement

said by NetFixer:

In this particular case (the case of MidniteRider deliberately operating an open publicly accessible WiFi hotspot in violation of Comcast's TOS), the copyright infringement is actually irrelevant. MidniteRider's actions allow Comcast to shut down the connection at their discretion simply for the TOS violation. OTOH, MidniteRider's actions could also create liability problems for MidniteRider for intentionally facilitating copyright violations (and MidniteRider's own defiant words in this thread could be interpreted as that being the intent).

Sorry, but you have it backwards... it is the TOS violation that is irrelevant. The OP received an email notice involving a copyright infringement... not a TOS violation complaint from Comcast. If anything 'happens' as a result of this it will be a court case from the copyright holder... not any action from Comcast.

FWIW, Yes, it is obvious he is admitting to a TOS violation by running an open network. At this point (unless they are reading this) Comcast knows nothing about it. I would even go so far as to say that, without an 'illegal use' issue to draw attention to it, there is really no way they would ever find out or really care for that matter. Sure they could terminate his connection for the violation but would they really try to make an issue out of it... give up the income were it not for the headache of the copyright infringement? Just because he lets people check their email outside the walls of his premise?

The law is pretty clear cut on contributory infringement... you have to know about the infringement and provide assistance for the purpose of furthering the infringement. Running an open network doesn't qualify for that. Knowing about the infringement after it happens doesn't cut it.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by CXM_Splicer:

The law is pretty clear cut on contributory infringement... you have to know about the infringement and provide assistance for the purpose of furthering the infringement. Running an open network doesn't qualify for that. Knowing about the infringement after it happens doesn't cut it.

Actually, that appears to be true for "contributory patent infringement", but not so clear for "contributory copyright infringement":

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co ··· ingement
quote:
The US has statutorily codified secondary liability rules for trademarks and patents; however, for matters relating to copyright, this has solely been a product of case law developments. In other words, courts - rather than Congress - have been the primary developers of theories and policies concerning secondary liability.

The U.S. Congress and the International community are trying to address this, but with major input from only those parties owning IP, the resulting proposals, ACTA, PIPA, and SOPA, are pretty ham-fisted attempts; rising (descending?) almost to the level of chopping the hands off of thieves.

NetFixer
From My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Netgear CM500
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU

NetFixer to CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

said by NetFixer:

In this particular case (the case of MidniteRider deliberately operating an open publicly accessible WiFi hotspot in violation of Comcast's TOS), the copyright infringement is actually irrelevant. MidniteRider's actions allow Comcast to shut down the connection at their discretion simply for the TOS violation. OTOH, MidniteRider's actions could also create liability problems for MidniteRider for intentionally facilitating copyright violations (and MidniteRider's own defiant words in this thread could be interpreted as that being the intent).

Sorry, but you have it backwards... it is the TOS violation that is irrelevant. The OP received an email notice involving a copyright infringement... not a TOS violation complaint from Comcast. If anything 'happens' as a result of this it will be a court case from the copyright holder... not any action from Comcast.

FWIW, Yes, it is obvious he is admitting to a TOS violation by running an open network. At this point (unless they are reading this) Comcast knows nothing about it. I would even go so far as to say that, without an 'illegal use' issue to draw attention to it, there is really no way they would ever find out or really care for that matter. Sure they could terminate his connection for the violation but would they really try to make an issue out of it... give up the income were it not for the headache of the copyright infringement? Just because he lets people check their email outside the walls of his premise?

I think that you are not familiar with the history of cable company internet service. There was a time (before the IPv4 address crunch) when it was a standard practice for cable companies who provided internet access to forbid the use of NAT routers by customers because they considered that to be theft of service. If you wanted to connect multiple devices to the internet using their service you were expected to pay them an extra monthly fee for additional IP addresses (and customers who were found to be using NAT routers would indeed be disconnected). That is the primary reason for the ability of residential/soho routers to clone a PC's MAC address to the router's WAN interface...that was a way to make the router look just like a single attached PC (the PC that the cable company had authorized to use the service). The TOS prohibition of open WiFi (or any other sharing outside the customer's premises) is just a continuation of that old practice. That TOS prohibition has nothing to do with copyright infringement; its purpose is to prevent a single customer from paying for a single subscription and then supplying their neighbors with the service for free (a service that Comcast might otherwise be able to sell to those neighbors).
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
You (and Wikipedia) are correct, it is not codified the way it is for patents but case law is just as valid as written law until something actually is codified.

From copyright.gov:
quote:
There is another form of secondary liability in copyright law, "contributory infringement," which stretches back to 1911. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, contributory infringement occurs where "[o]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another."4 In general, the two elements of contributory infringement are (1) knowledge of the infringing activity; and (2) material contribution to the activity.

I do agree with your mention of hand-chopping... thats what you get when you ask the foxes how you should secure the hen house.
CXM_Splicer

CXM_Splicer to NetFixer

Premium Member

to NetFixer
quote:
I think that you are not familiar with the history of cable company internet service.

Oh I am familiar with it, and I agree with everything you said. I would even say that they would consider having your cable-less friend over to watch TV 'theft of service' if they thought they could legislate it.
quote:
That TOS prohibition has nothing to do with copyright infringement; its purpose is to prevent a single customer from paying for a single subscription and then supplying their neighbors with the service for free (a service that Comcast might otherwise be able to sell to those neighbors).

Agree here too; they would not look favorably on multi-family sharing of a single Internet account when several would otherwise be paid for. Especially if you were reselling their service, they would terminate you for that (if they found out). But it is also possible to run an open network without these particulars... where you simply have an Internet connection available to passers-by for web searches, email, loading maps, etc. It is fairly easy to detect leeches and/or torrenting (hell, you could even offer your connection only to iDevices and lock out Android/MS if you were an Apple fanboy). Certainly a person who offers an open Internet connection should take the time to administer that connection rather than just offer it willy-nilly, no questions asked. But I have never heard of an ISP terminating someones service just because they had/have an unsecured router. If you know of this happening, please tell me; I would be interested to hear about it.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

said by CXM_Splicer:

If you know of this happening, please tell me; I would be interested to hear about it.

I do remember several threads here where someone got a letter, restricted access from comcast complaining about bot like behavior on their account.
the OP in those theads finally were convinced if was their open access which they cut of before CC shut them down.
Had they been less cooperative CC LIKELY would have cut them off.