dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed


Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House
reply to prairiesky

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by prairiesky:

You are responsible for all the data that goes through that ethernet port on your modem. The argument being made is that you're not legally responsible for any illegal content as you didn't commit the crime,

Working from that premise:
ISP's would bear full responsibility for illegal content carried across their networks.
So would Peer Providers and Hosting Colo centers.

And as long as we're riding the Swell-'o-Justice, we'll imprison the Overlords of the DNS Root for being accomplices to crime.
After all, ignorance is never an excuse (corporate executives excepting).
--
Campaign contributions influence laws through a process called bribery.


TomS_
Git-r-done
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re ISPs being responsible for their users actions, see iiNet v AFACT.

At least in Australia, ISPs are not responsible. AFACT even appealed that decision, twice if I remember correctly, and were dismissed both times.

prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to Noah Vail
you completely misread or misunderstood that. You're responsible to pay for the data that goes through your modem. That is a contract between you and your provider.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
said by prariesky :

You are responsible for all the data that goes through that ethernet port on your modem. The argument being made is that you're not legally responsible for any illegal content as you didn't commit the crime, but you still signed a contract with the ISP to pay for whatever data went over your line.

Your statement is very similar to Rob's and just as confusing. You state a premise that 'you are responsible for all the data...' without clarifying what you mean by 'responsible'. You then make a statement that "the argument is being made that you're not legally responsible...' BUT 'you still signed a contract to pay for the data...' These two statements have nothing to do with each other and should not be linked with 'BUT'. It sounds very much like:

"The argument being made is that you're not legally responsible for any illegal content as you didn't commit the crime, but I still have to pick up my dry cleaning tomorrow". The two thoughts are unrelated.

You are unclear about your use of 'responsible' (apparently you mean 'financially responsible', as in: to pay for the data) then you use the phrase 'legally responsible' in the next sentence. Sorry but it is just confusing.

No one is disputing that you have a contract and a responsibility to pay your ISP for the data even if that data usage is from someone leeching off of your Internet. That is not being questioned by anyone. There is really no reason to confuse the issue with obviousities.

The fact is that you are not legally responsible for the tort nor crime of copyright infringement committed by someone else on your unsecured WiFi connection. You can be guilty of 'contributory infringement' if you provide someone with Internet knowing they are going to commit copyright infringement but that is not the same thing as running an 'open WiFi connection'. It is pretty clear-cut legally, I don't know why so many people have a problem with it (other than the corporate shills who simply want people to believe whatever is best for the industry).