Historic ruling in P2P: a subscriber is not responsible for the misuse of any third party wifi

So far, hundreds of lawsuits in the U.S. against the misnamed piracy and the use of P2P focused on the subscriber and wireless. No matter who was actually, if the BitTorrent tracking on downloading any copyrighted material led to an IP automatically the complaint was against the ISP subscriber. For a few hours a landmark ruling in the United States changes the way you see things. The logic is imposed and admits a subscriber to the network must ensure your wireless connection to prevent third parties use to infringe copyright.

Put another way, what the California judge Phyllis Hamilton has admitted is that users can not be responsible for any infringements of others through their connection.

And is that BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States have lengthened in time for more than two years with some indexes that indicate that at least 250,000 users have shared allegedly illegal files.

How? The modus operandi of the holders in the country is always the same. A equals IP evidence . From there, it asks the court to issue a warrant to find personal data of suspects so that providers offering just such data. A scheme in which the person paying for services becomes offender, whether or not true.

Over time there have been several judges who have finished determining that an IP is not equivalent to a person and therefore the argument is invalid. To counter this argument, rights holders have introduced the theory of "negligence" , an argument where Internet subscribers were responsible for the unlawful use made ​​of its network. A motion allowing rights holders to continue the ongoing demands.

And here is where the figure of Judge Hamilton with a ruling that stands first in favor of the subscriber.

A case where the firm AF Holdings sued an account holder, Josh Hatfield, not to secure their wireless connection and default on its obligation to do so. As a result, the firm argued that Hatfield was responsible for offenses committed by others on your network.

Hatfield obviously disagreed with this statement and said the company could not prove that people were forced to secure their wireless networks to prevent hacking.

Finally the judge Hamilton finished dictating the following:

AF Holdings has not articulated any basis for Hatfield impose a legal duty to prevent the violation of protected works. Hatfield is accused of AF material giving rise to the obligation to protect the copyright of AF Holdings, nor is accused of having participated in any abuse of authority by which you create a risk of danger.

A landmark ruling where the judge specified and excludes that Internet subscribers have an obligation to / with rights holders in protecting their wireless connections. A decision that the same Electronic Frontier Foundation praises commenting that:

This decision sends a clear message that copyright holders can not use legal tricks to circumvent the protections of the law on access points to the Internet.

Certainly a setback for rights holders that may set a precedent in the future.