[US-CA] Wifi security non-feasance (no liability)

[Francis Davey]

2012/9/13 Nicholas Bohm <nbohm at ernest.net>:
>
> I would expect an English court to reason in exactly the same way as the
> US District Court about the negligence claim based on failing to secure
> a wireless network, and to reject the claim accordingly.  (The other
> issues were about US statute law which has no UK parallels.)
>

Amstrad is still good law in the UK as far as I know. The House of
Lords made it very clear that liability for copyright infringement is
to be found only in the 1988 Act and not on any other theory such as
negligence. So, unless the operator of a wireless network, infringes
directly or secondarily then any case for liability (ignoring the
e-commerce directive etc) does not get off the ground.

-- 
Francis Davey