 | | Courts I would like to know why the courts are shooting this down, yet if I have someone come over to my house and use my connection I can be sued or if someone in my home downloaded illegall, again, I can be sued.
So why is this any different? You are still providing the network to allow for this to happen. So it should not be any different. Especially since the Wifi Operator/person is NOT an ISP. If we're going to treat them as an ISP then that opens up a WHOLE new ball game. | |
|
 |  ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Courts what exactly makes one an ISP? | |
|
| | | | Re: Courts If you use the common def. anyone that provides Internet Access. It does not state that you have to charge for the service or not. Juno was called an ISP and they gave the service away for free.
And that is my point. An ISP can NOT be sued for $$$ over a customer downloading content illegally. But a consumer can be. So why is the courts having double standards? If I go to your house and download something, that is copyrighted, yes you can get sued for it. But if your neighbor does it on an open router why should you not get sued? It's still works the same way. And this goes back to if you are in the car with someone and they go into the 7-11 kill the clerk, you and the shooter/your friend both get charged with murder. This is do different. knowing or not should not get you off the hook. | |
|
| | |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Courts It's actually not clear at all that party A can be held liable for letting party B use their internet connection if party B uses it for something illegal. There has been some recent case law that it's not the case. In general, to be liable for something you have to have knowledge that it was happening (or at least, a reasonable person in your situation should have had knowledge of it). | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Courts Actually no you do not have to know. Such as what I started with the 7-11 story. If the driver has no clue a murder is being done while waiting on friend, said driver can be charged and normally is for murder even though he was in the car. Courts have been doing that for YEARS and it works for the courts. That is my basis on this subject. Regardless if the HSI account holder knows or not, under US Law, they should charged/sued. it doesn't make sense for it to happen in one case and not another. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Courts So if were at a shooting range and I loan you my gun to shoot at the range and you accidentally shoot someone, will I get charged for letting you use that gun? Most likely not.... So it kinda goes against your original analogy. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Courts Not the same as the others. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Actually, yes. In a case where you lend your car to someone, even if they have appropriate insurance (as does your vehicle), an accident victim could go after the vehicle owner and his assets. It's not criminal, but they could claim negligence and given good lawyering, they would win.
At a gun range people sign waivers, but basically an owner of an item could be found negligent even if he did not commit the crime. With HSI, there is a contract between the user and the ISP that you will not hold them liable for any of your actions (there may be Safe Harbor laws and so forth, I don't know the details). There are no contracts between your open hotspot and anonymous users, and it's likely to be a violation of your contract to willfully allow others to use your connection. Best defense would be ignorance, I would think. | |
|
| | | | |  NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 | said by hottboiinnc:Actually no you do not have to know. Such as what I started with the 7-11 story. If the driver has no clue a murder is being done while waiting on friend, said driver can be charged and normally is for murder even though he was in the car.
Can you cite case law?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | | Yeah, charging someone for a crime they didn't commit is never right. The courts can do something for years like enforce slavery and still be dead wrong. | |
|
| | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | I'd be very curious to see a reference for this case. The principle of mens rea requires that one have knowledge of the act (though not necessarily the law) to be criminally charged. It's a bit more lax with civil law, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there was more to the 7-11 case than you think. | |
|
| | | | |  dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
 ·Comcast
| Of course you can charge them. But that is based on the courts accepting that you can actually prove that they knew about the activity. You can not be convicted of murder when it is proven that you had no idea what was going on.
No different that the courts allowing this case to be brought. Based on the supposition that they can prove the WiFi owner had some knowledge or otherwise responsibility. Which they seem to be failing to prove.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| | | ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | If I let someone else use my internet connection, I am by your definition, an ISP. | |
|
| | | | | What a terrible analogy. Seriously, one of the worst I've ever seen. I hope you are not involved with the legal system.
A closer analogy would be that you leave your keys in the car. Your neighbor takes it without asking and proceeds to commit a crime. And your assertion is that you should be sued for someone using your car because you left the keys in it. | |
|
| | | |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the courts are shooting it down in all likelyness to prevent the copyright caps from trolling around the local coffee shops. Or mom and pop diners that throw up a linksys for their customers and do not setup things like firewalls and filters to stop access to torrents.
Or it is just that the courts are tired of the MAFIAA stating that an IP=a person.
I think the courts in general are tired of copyright based lawsuits, I think many judges know new laws will only make their life worse while doing nothing to tackle the problem. However the MAFIAA goes after P2P Piracy because its easy money for minimal cost. While going after physical media piracy rings requires extensive work at the international level and fighting organized crime. Naturally they are going to go the extortion route and sue people who can be scared into settling.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO | ummm Defendant had a duty to secure his Internet connection.
 | |
|
| | | Re: ummm When did the defendant become an ISP? | |
|
| | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: ummm said by hottboiinnc:When did the defendant become an ISP?
When did the ISP get a black shirt? (just following your logic here) | |
|
| | | | | Re: ummm The ISP has always been part of Safe Harbor. The same as Google. until that router owner becomes an ISP they should not be granted safe harbor. | |
|
| | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: ummm But you just said that ANYONE can be an ISP... even if they give it away for free. Have you looked at the definition of ISP under federal law? | |
|
| | | | My city provides free wireless in downtown. Bought from Bright House/RR. So...who is at fault now? Keep downloading and let city fight lawsuits? I guess my city and many around it that have public WiFi are huge negligent entities? Please...
Your analogies make no sense. How a user uses a tool should not have any consequences to the tool seller or maker. | |
|
| WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | said by dib22:When did that law pass
I'm pondering that also. | |
|
| | | said by dib22:Defendant had a duty to secure his Internet connection.
When did that law pass Got me beat. If such is the case, almost every public library on the face of the continental United States is royally Frakked. | |
|
 Lone WolfIndependent Voter, Buy Gold and GunsPremium
join:2001-12-30
USA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Open WiFi I allow an open WiFi connection at my business. The internet is used for viewing my security cameras and playing (legal) music.
Comcast is my internet provider and I provide access to Comcast for free to my customers. These copyright trolls should try to find another way of protecting their intellectual property. | |
|
| | | Re: Open WiFi And by doing so you open yourself to a lawsuit. Regardless if you agree with it or not, you are not exempt from these lawsuits. you just admitted you opened your self up to them. What would you do if you had X person off the street come in and download child porn or commit another crime on your HSI account. Do you think the cops are going to forgive you for giving your customers access to the 'net? HELL NO! they're going to come after you! You should secure it and use a guest account for your customers. | |
|
| | |
| | | | | Re: Open WiFi Even so, why would you take any chances? Secure your wifi | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | Re: Open WiFi said by ITALIAN926:Even so, why would you take any chances? Secure your wifi
Why? Nobody cares except copyright trolls. | |
|
| | | | Lone WolfIndependent Voter, Buy Gold and GunsPremium
join:2001-12-30
USA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| said by ITALIAN926:Even so, why would you take any chances? Secure your wifi
I've set legal precedent in a test case for some business licensing issues in Philadelphia and won. I've also been a lead plaintiff in 2 class action suits that made some lawyers rich. I don't back down easily. It comes with age and wisdom.
I hope that clears this up.
--
Vote the Ins Out.
One term for all politicians.
Give the government back to the people. | |
|
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 | said by ITALIAN926:Even so, why would you take any chances? Secure your wifi
The only reason that I secure my wifi is that I don't want anybody using the bandwidth that I pay for. But I do allow friends and family to use it.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
|  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Do you purchase access through ComCast as a commercial (for resale) account?
If so you would be protected, if not, and you knowing permit others to use the access for compensation (doesn't have to be cash, any value, including happy customers, is of value to you) ComCast may choose to cut you off, or sue (ToS issues) and if you KNOWINGLY* allow your connection to be used illegally you are certainly at risk.
* Knowingly would again come down to what would a reasonable and prudent person do/assume.
And if you offer the service and allow illegal use, the potential for "rendering criminal assistance" and "conspiracy" charges.
If you legal resell ComCast service then the onus is on you for ISP record keeping and timely passing on of warnings and 6 strike notices. At the very least you are looking at some legal and record keeping expenses. | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Copyright trolls... What i really want to know is...
Do copyright trolls actually believe their own made up bullshit?
Either way, it doesn't matter, since regardless of the answer they'd still be douches. | |
|
| CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: Copyright trolls... Probably not... they only care if they can get a judge to believe their made up bullshit. Thankfully, the judges haven't. | |
|
| | | | Re: Copyright trolls... A judge will if something more horrible happens on an open router. then these judges and their opnions will be shot out the door. | |
|
| | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: Copyright trolls... Doubtful... there is nothing wrong with having an open router. | |
|
| | | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | said by hottboiinnc:A judge will if something more horrible happens on an open router. then these judges and their opnions will be shot out the door.
Those mental gymnastics you are doing aren't working, no matter how much you try to justify copyright trolling it's not going to work, give it a rest. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | It IS negligence If I leave my car door unlocked and the keys in the car it doesn't mean someone has the right to steal my car, but it doesn't mean I wasn't NEGLIGENT.
neg·li·gent/ˈnegləjənt/
Adjective:
Failing to take proper care in doing something | |
|
| Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: It IS negligence said by BF69:If I leave my car door unlocked and the keys in the car it doesn't mean someone has the right to steal my car, but it doesn't mean I wasn't NEGLIGENT.
neg·li·gent/ˈnegləjənt/
Adjective:
Failing to take proper care in doing something
Except this isn't a car. And never mind the fact that if they want to leave their WiFi open it's up to them and there's nothing morally wrong or illegal about it.
Hell, there's whole CITIES that have open WiFi. Such as the one i am in right now (Chihuahua, Chihuahua)
The government here has open WiFi everywhere it can reach. The range is quite long, but of course the speed is laughable. But if you want to access it all you have to do is step outside and you can access their open WiFi. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: It IS negligence said by Kamus:Except this isn't a car. And never mind the fact that if they want to leave their WiFi open it's up to them and there's nothing morally wrong or illegal about it. It's not illegal or morally wrong to leaving my car door unlocked with the keys in it either. Doesn't mean I should be shocked when I find out it's been stolen. | |
|
| | | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: It IS negligence said by BF69:It's not illegal or morally wrong to leaving my car door unlocked with the keys in it either. Doesn't mean I should be shocked when I find out it's been stolen.
Right, when was the last time an 8 year old got into an open hot spot and killed himself or others?
Your analogy is junk, try again. | |
|
| | Using THIS impecable logic Every time someone uses a pay phone (yes there are still some around) to commit a crime such as extortion, or bomb threats, the CEO of the company that owns the phone should be immediately arrested and charged as a co-conspirator. Somehow, I don't think we'll see THAT fly either. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
 mromeroPremium
join:2000-12-07
The O.C.
kudos:1 | hehe sign of a porn aficionado.... I actually recognized the name sunlust pictures as Sunny Leone's company.  | |
|
|
|  birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:8 | Re: My input. said by diablo1892:Because we have hacking tools, I learned one day that devices can some how pick up signal from a tiny bit of wifi signal over miles away and still manage to connect to and use that wifi router for browsing the web or whatever..
Is it "one day we will be able to do this" or "One day I learned this can be done"?
If it's the latter, I want to use an open router from miles away. Actually, I'll settle for weak wireless 60 feet away through walls.  | |
|
| | |
| | Hanko
join:2001-12-28
Eatonville, WA | Using the right equipment you can connect to open routers from several miles away.
»www.exe64.com/mirror/wokfi/ Check out their attempts to make cheap wifi reflectors that increase the signal strength.
Click on the pictures for a better explanation of what they have done. This was all done several to 10 years ago. | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | NO reason to NOT have secure wi-fi Seriously what possible excuse could one have to not lock their shit down? It's not hard, it doesn't cost anything, it doesn't take hardly any time. | |
|
| dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | Re: NO reason to NOT have secure wi-fi Because they want it open. I know people who still keep their house unlocked in the inner city. Its what they want to do. | |
|
| | | said by BF69:Seriously what possible excuse could one have to not lock their shit down? It's not hard, it doesn't cost anything, it doesn't take hardly any time. I have HUNDREDS of reasons for NOT locking it down. I live in a poor community in which many people cannot afford Internet. They depend on open routers to get access and try to better themselves taking online classes and communicating with people. Why would I want to deprive them of that? Because a bunch of greedy copyright trolls say I should? I don't think so...
--
Isn't it sad that those that raise their right hand and swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" are usually the ones most likely to trash it. | |
|
| | Where do we stop? So should GM be sued when someone uses one of their cars to run someone down? or how about if a drunk driver is driving a GM car? should they be sued as well? | |
|
| | Here's why you are not an ISP and you could be liable There are certain legal terms: like "safe harbor" and "common carrier" that provide either by common-law or by statute a measure of immunity or reduction in liability to certain individuals or businesses. The purpose of this immunity or reduction in liability is to make it possible to operate a business that otherwise would be too risky.
If a car rental company could be sued if a renter used their vehicle to do damage or prosecuted if a renter used their vehicle in the act of committing a crime or to transport stolen or illegal items, then it would be too risky for anyone to ever go into that business. AND they would have to exercise such oversight regarding what their clients were doing that it would be intrusive and destroy any privacy of their clients. So there is a very long legal history of exempting these kinds of businesses from liability because it is important to society that such businesses be able to operate.
So we strike a balance and place limits on liability and say that the company does not have to police the activity of its customers. However that relaxation of responsibility applies to businesses and not to private individuals who are expected to apply oversight. In other words, we don't want U-Haul to inspect all the packages put in their trucks, and we don't want Verizon to listen in on all conversations to be sure that no crime is being committed.
But, if someone brings stolen merchandise or illegal drugs into your car while you are driving, or if someone telephones you and talks about robbing a bank, you could be charged as an accomplice or an accessory. It is a very small logical step to say that you could be responsible for what someone else does using your router. You could make the claim that you didn't know about it - but the claim of those who are legally defending against the theft of their intellectual property would be that if you don't exercise reasonable oversight you are at least partially culpable.
My personal opinion is that if the router doesn't come with a default WEP password, most users will never set it and they should be free of liability because I believe that most users wouldn't know what to do. But if it came with a default password and they disabled it, then I would say that they should be held at least partially responsible. | |
|
| | | Re: Here's why you are not an ISP and you could be liable The time will come, when the courts will realize that piracy is not the issue. The issue is that they allow companies to exist, which make promises that they can't keep. Software and movie companies hire security companies to secure their products. If they fail to secure the product in question then they should have malpractice insurance that will cover damages of their failure to deliver as promised. This whole method of blaming the people that are freely downloading freely available data is just a joke. It's completely unconstitutional.
It's up to the distributers of this material to develope a medium in which their stuff is secure. You can't stick a million dollars out there on the street in a duffel bag that is secured by nothing more then a zipper and not expect someone to find it and take it. If they can't find safety in the digital realm, then they need to steer clear of it. | |
|
|
|
·
·
·