Another little skirmish to report … ACS Law has on behalf of Media CAT Ltd failed in its pursuit of some file sharers. No comment on the failure per se, but a good snippet from the judge:
“The plea that ‘allowing’ others to infringe is itself an act restricted by s16 (1)(a) and 17 of the 1988 Act is simply wrong. The term used by those sections of the Act is ‘authorising’ and the difference may be very important if the allegation is about unauthorised use of an internet router by third parties”
Full judgment here:
Interesting to see mention of the German case – yes, person can be compelled to secure a router but an open router is not sufficient for culpability for damages.
We are all still trying to figure out where responsibility lies in terms of copyright infringement and the wider sense of how responsible we are for uses made of our personal technology assets.
This is another one to add into the mix.