Comments on: Danish File-Sharers Not Responsible For Wi-Fi Theft

By: web

web — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:52:02 +0000

There should be a law that protects artists from losing income due to piracy. Therefore we would like to have the Supreme Court deal with the issue.

By: Quasit

Quasit — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:13:56 +0000

I agree that “wifi defense” isn’t only usable by people who know little about computers.

I guess if “wifi defense” becomes very common and accepted defense by the courts, it might get easier to get search warrant.
Then you might get caught for more that the stuff they saw you share.

Burnt DVDs, hundreds GB of data and so on.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:55:27 +0000

i shall open up my wireless to the locals and let them download whatever they like…..
themore the merrier

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:30:41 +0000

I don’t agree that you can only play the wi-fi defence if you can claim ignorance to the technology

Why can’t I just have open wi-fi if it’s not against my ISPs terms and conditions? That’s my perogative, surely?

Until a court says; “actually, intentionally leaving your WI-FI open is negligent, and you are responsible”, then that defence stands. Is it illegal to leave your car door open all day long with the keys inside? of course not

By: Norm

Norm — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:11:31 +0000

@30 – I think the idea behind the defense is that even closed wifi is possible to hack open. For instance, if the password is set to the default, or something easily guessed.

By: Monker

Monker — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:45:27 +0000

It would be great if someone could hack Torben Steffensen wifi router and do lots of uploading knowing that MPIAA etc would be looking for thwese files and thenTorben Steffensen, would have to go to prision. Like he said “it’s the owners of the wifi that must be responsible”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:00:39 +0000

As much as I like to see us win against MAFIAA, the “wi-fi defence” is not good enough. It doesn’t sound logical. The only way one CAN use “wifi defence” is if they do not actually KNOW the difference between open and closed access over wi-fi. Thus if someone wins a case because they didn’t actually know that difference – good for them, but it doesn’t apply to you and me, because we actually know that someone might abuse the connection for “illegal” purposes (mind that I’m taking “illegal” as the current situation – which is exactly the part that we need to battle – filesharing should NOT be “illegal”).

Think of “wi-fi defence” as something like you being the last to leave the office and NOT setting the alarm on. It IS your fault if someone breaks in and steals everything from said office.

By: Barse

Barse — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:25:27 +0000

Courts don’t find people innocent. They find people not guilty.

By: oic

oic — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:43:26 +0000

@23…someone paid for bandwidth and someone else took it and now the buyer is getting less than he paid for. The wifi ‘thiefs’ didnt take a copy of the bandwidth, they took the actual bandwidth. If the victims paid by the megabyte my point would be much easier to understand

By: WiFiOverMaster

WiFiOverMaster — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:55:49 +0000

Fuck the Law