Comments on: Are You Guilty If Pirates Use Your Internet? Lawyer Says YES

By: Open WiFi and Pirates: Why Copyright Negligence Won’t Fly | TorrentFreak

Open WiFi and Pirates: Why Copyright Negligence Won’t Fly | TorrentFreak — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:25:10 +0000

[...] I will now leave those discussions aside, and focus on yet another, probably fatal problem with Mr. Randazza’s negligence theory – federal preemption. If you take the time to read all of the legal mumbo jumbo that follows, [...]

By: Open WiFi and Copyright Liability: The Law, and Also Some Perspectives on Negligence

Sun, 28 Aug 2011 17:21:13 +0000

[...] using your connection. The other attorney, Marc Randazza, doesn’t discuss copyright liability, but instead [...]

By: Why Copyright Negligence Won’t Fly | Nicholas Ranallo, Attorney at Law

Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:42:46 +0000

By: No Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You ‘Negligent’ And Liable For $10000

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 22:00:29 +0000

[...] I like and honour Randazza and have sent a few engaging cases his proceed when people we know have indispensable authorised assistance concerning attacks on their giveaway debate rights. He’s also helped us during times when we’ve been threatened with fraudulent lawsuits. But we still have difficulty bargain his position on these Corbin Fisher cases, that strike me as being a same, or in some cases, worse than some of these other efforts. Given that, we emailed Marc, revelation him we was going to write a post about this allotment and a fact that we consider it’s a terrible and dangerous result, that will be used to harass people who have open WiFi networks for ideally legitimate reasons, and seeking if he had any comment. He wrote behind a extensive response, that he also sent to TorrentFreak, who posted it as an article. [...]

By: EFF Joins TorrentFreak’s Open Wi-Fi Debate | TorrentFreak

EFF Joins TorrentFreak’s Open Wi-Fi Debate | TorrentFreak — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:34:16 +0000

[...] Nicholas Ranallo said NO, but Marc Randazza disagreed and said YES. [...]

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:12:00 +0000

I disagree. Copyright law was never intended for this purpose. To steal from someone is to deprive them of their original possession, preventing them from it’s use. Copying a digital arrangement of ones and zeros certainly does not deprive the owner of their original work. The fundamental right in copyright that you mention is and should be declared as unconstitutional because all it really does is grant the rights holder a monopoly on a particular arrangement of bits. The true intent of copy right law as envisioned by it’s creators when they wrote it is something quite different entirely.

By: Mouse

Mouse — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:39:00 +0000

I, as many others also do, run a free and open wifi system. If someone does something wrong, and copyright infringement is debatable to begin with, then they are guilty and not the wifi operators. No one should be responsible for the actions of another. If the view that you are responsible for the actions of others just because you shared the same service with them is held then all users of public libraries, wifi cafe, etc are criminals because they have been used for criminal acts. For that matter all car owners are criminals because cars are the number one method of get-a-way by bank robbers.

By: IANAL

IANAL — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:30:00 +0000

I fear that if this view of “negligence” become common place it will never stop.
Imagine having a secure WPA wifi network and someone breaks through and downloads movies, you could still be negligent because “wpa2 is more secure, you should have upgraded” or “your car was locked, well you should be aware it can be hotwired, you should’ve had the club. ” Imagine a day when your partner gives you a mixtape and if you fail to properly verify they acquired the songs via legal means (itunes, cd, etc) then you are a crook because “you should’ve known better.”

I think that even if negligence can be proven, proving damages should be hard. Hypothetically if the wifi connection at issue was used to download 1 copy of a $20 movie, and the flawed logic of 1 download = 1 lost sale is used, then the max damages should be $20 – packaging and associated logistical costs (as no physical disk / container was produced or shipped.)

By: Global_Dweller

Global_Dweller — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 23:05:00 +0000

The internets are not any ‘country’.

Get a clue…

By: Let the MPAA Speak, There’s Nothing To Be Scared Of | Links Daily

Let the MPAA Speak, There’s Nothing To Be Scared Of | Links Daily — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:17:03 +0000

[...] Last week TorrentFreak published two guest articles together. One argued that people shouldn’t be held responsible for copyright infringements carried out by others. In the interests of balance, we published another from a lawyer operating a porn-based “speculative invoicing”-style model who argued that people should. [...]