Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
mozolevsky at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 13:28:50 GMT 2012
On 18 February 2012 13:17, Roland Perry <lists at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In article <CADWvR2j5ZEzrV竨ϧᩄ�䀏뗋᷹崹爝�BoJqQ at mail.gmail.com>, Igor Mozolevsky
> <mozolevsky at gmail.com> writes
>> On 7 February 2012 16:24, Roland Perry <lists at internetpolicyagency.com>
>>> "A federal lawsuit filed in Massachusetts could test the question of
>>> individuals who leave their wireless networks unsecured can be held
>>> if someone uses the network to illegally download copyrighted content."
>> Despite all the analogies in the thread focusing mainly on breach of
>> duty of care, there is no established duty of care between an Internet
>> user and the rest of the users on the Internet, and especially no DoC
>> of an Internet user to an IP rights holder.
> I'm not sure why "contributory negligence" has morphed into "a duty of
Because, to have a claim in negligence you need to show three things:
duty of care, breach of that duty and injury (damage); without first
establishing duty of care, talking about breach of that duty is...
academic, if that...
Now, whether IP rights infringement amounts to "damage" under Civil
Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 is a separate issue...
More information about the ukcrypto