Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

[Roland Perry]

In article 
<CADWvR2h8U1y6_3GB3R4FL25CXZQn5G+hojNFr-wF+ZuudTTu+Q at mail.gmail.com>, 
Igor Mozolevsky <mozolevsky at gmail.com> writes
>> I'm not sure why "contributory negligence" has morphed into "a duty of
>> care".
>
>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...

You still seem to be talking about UK law, when my posting was about a 
lawsuit in the USA.

But if you are saying that anyone in the UK who accused of P2P copyright 
infringement has an automatic cast iron defence if they have an open 
wifi, then that's quite an interesting conclusion. And something to feed 
into the Digital Economy Act debate (which I hasten to add I've not been 
following at that level of detail).
-- 
Roland Perry