Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement

from the wtf? dept

Wed, Mar 30th 2011 9:12am — Mike Masnick

Copyright lawyer Ray Dowd points out that Boston College is telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of copyright infringement. Take a look at the image below:

The page lists out a variety of other things that are a lot more likely (but not definitely) to involve infringing -- such as using file sharing networks to share copyrighted songs, or emailing songs around. But using a wireless router? As Dowd discusses, the three federal court rulings involving copyright that mention wireless routers, all use it as a defense against infringement, because it highlights how someone else may have used the connection.

So why is Boston College telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of infringement?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: boston college, copyright, infringement, wifi
Companies: boston college

185 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcus Carab (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:21am

An interesting claim when you explore that section more (emphasis mine):

"For any computer on the BC network, a specific IP address is assigned. The music and film industries monitor activity on file-sharing networks, and they contact Boston College with the IP addresses that are found to be illegally sharing files. BC, by law, is bound to release the identities of the individuals tied to those IP addresses."

Based on accusations from the industry? Not so sure about that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bas Grasmayer (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  Wow. What it should probably say is "BC, by threat of lawsuits, is bound to release the identities of the individuals tied to those IP addresses."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or should it be; "BC, by threat of lawsuits, will disregard your rights and release the identities of the individuals tied to those IP addresses."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg G (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, if BC had a pair, it would say:
      
      "BC, by law (See the Personal Data Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a)) will disregard any and all requests for the identity of any individual(s) associated with the IP address(es) presented unless accompanied by a court order or subpeona."
      
      Or, "RIAA, MPAA, et al., piss off unless you have more proof that just an IP address."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re: IP Addresses
    > "BC, by threat of lawsuits, is bound to release
    > the identities of the individuals
    
    What's amazing is how, as a federal law enforcement officer, I can't get information from a university on a student in a terrorism investigation without a court order based on probable cause, but the recording industry can get whatever they want just by demanding it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: IP Addresses
      why not just wiretap them and have one of the gov fake facebook profiles friend him, should get you what you need and none of that silly judicial oversight in your way then.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: IP Addresses
      Looks like you now have a new tool at your disposal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  I hope any BC law students get a refund immediately.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bas Grasmayer (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:15am

HAVING A PERSONAL COMPUTER IS A SIGN OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

[/irrationality]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  This is actually true if you're hooked up to a network, which just illustrates the absurdity of blanket statements about copyright infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:53am
  
  Re:
  HAVING A PERSONAL COMPUTER IS A SIGN OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
  
  I recognize and compliment the sarcasm, but there's a grain of truth in that.
  
  The number of hijacked/0wned/zombie'd systems worldwide continues to increase, as it has for a decade. This isn't surprising: the dominant operating system (Windows) CANNOT be secured, not even by Microsoft -- which presents fresh evidence of its own failures on a daily basis. And other operating system instances, notably MacOS, have also been successfully attacked in large numbers.
  
  Estimates of the number of such systems on the Internet vary, but any estimate under 100 million is absurd. Reasonable estimates at this time are in the 200-300 million range. But whatever that number is: it will be higher by the time you finish reading this.
  
  Those systems are used for a lot of dubious things, and of course some of those things involve copyright infringement. So given current estimates of the total number of Internet users, and guestimating 1 system per user (some have many; many share some; let's go with "1"), something like 1 in 5 or 6 end-user systems no longer belong to the people who think they own them...and could easily be involved in ANYTHING.
  
  And as the Julie Amero case demonstrated, everything I just said is far, FAR beyond the feeble intellectual grasp of law enforcement, prosecutors and judges...so do I even need to try to explain how vastly inferior people like the MAFIAA couldn't understand it even if their lives depended on it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Windows is easy to secure, what you can't do is secure Windows from the stupidity of the end user.
    
    That's like trying to create a car that makes jerks drive correctly. You can control how the car works, but you can't control what the operator does with the car.
    
    Last I checked, Win7 is about as secure as a standard Linux distro install, which is a heck of a lot better than OSX.
    
    Linux can be made more secure than Windows, but only through customizing it, which a typical end user would never do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Don't know where you got that idea but Win7 is more difficult to secure than Linux or OSX for that matter the reason why is that Win7 doesn't allow you to modify anything in the administrator region, you need a lot and I mean a lot of knowledge to customize that part of the system using Win7.
      
      You are correct in the assumption that any OS can be made secure or at least reasonably secure, but that takes real knowledge to accomplish and even with knowledge it is not going to be a hundred percent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Christopher (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't need to customize anything in the administrator region on a Windows system if you do the three things I pointed out in my other post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 8:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Windows is easy to secure,...
      
      You obviously don't know much about computer security.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Excuse me, but Windows is quite easy to secure if you do a few things:
    
    1. Run an antivirus and firewall software.
    2. Only download things from trusted sources.
    3. Use Firefox or something similar that has a NoScript/AdBlock Plus funtionality through extensions or built-in to avoid being pwn'd by Javascript malware.
    
    Just by doing those three things, I have been able to avoid ALL viruses on my machine, save those goddamned codec pack viruses that for a while, I was stupid enough to download.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 8:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      2. Only download things from trusted sources.
      
      You mean like from Microsoft? Even they've distributed viruses.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:17am

WiFi
"So why is Boston College telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of infringement?"

Because everyone is using WiFi now a days and it's flooding the 2.5GHz range. I needed to find some way to clear up all that radio pollution.

That was sarcasm, but I can't think of a better reason why they would say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:21am

I feel sorry for anyone taking IT type classes at BC
All technical students at BC should immediately switch schools if this is BC's understanding of technology.

GO HOKIES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re: I feel sorry for anyone taking IT type classes at BC
  Professors generally are not in charge of the IT department at colleges. IT is filled the same way as positions anywhere else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re: I feel sorry for anyone taking IT type classes at BC
    Whoever applies first and shows the least knowledge of the position?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I feel sorry for anyone taking IT type classes at BC
      At my college it's a matter of department shuffling in a variation on the Dilbert Principle.
      
      The least liked employee of one department is given preference when a position opens in another department, seemingly regardless of how unrelated the departments are or how unqualified the applicant is.
      
      HR doesn't vet applicants - just checks for degrees and "diversity."
      
      Managers aren't necessarily qualified to do the jobs they hire for, much less competent enough to know who would do a good job.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re: I feel sorry for anyone taking IT type classes at BC
    Excuses are for suckers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:23am

Your title is a little specious; it seems clear that they are warning that OTHERS could infringe using your wireless connection and it would appear to be you. It is poorly worded on their part and the warning should be separate from the bullet list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:28am
  
  Re:
  It is poorly worded, but the message is clear that if a student has a wireless router in their room and somebody else uses it to infringe, it would look like the student with the router was the infringer. It's not as simple and silly as Mike is trying to FUD it out to be. It's good advice from the school. An unsecured wireless router could get a student in trouble. Leave it to Mike to twist it into FUD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    It doesn't say "unsecured wireless router" and it doesn't say they will find who really did it. They say a wireless router can lead to your personal information being given away. That's just like saying "I didn't point the gun at him, I just held it and asked him to give me his wallet."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If the router is actually secured, then there isn't really a problem. They will try to "find who really did it." They are, naturally, going to start by going to where the evidence points them. They will start with the student who has the router. Where else would they start? There is no mention of "personal information being given away." I think you misunderstand what's being said. The concern is that if someone else uses a student's router to infringe, then that student will look guilty. That's a bad thing, and it's good advice to students to warn them of this. Students should have this fact in mind when making the decision to have a wireless router.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the router is actually secured, then there isn't really a problem.
        
        Because no one, especially tech savvy college students, knows how to hack a wireless router.
        
        http://www.google.com/search?q=hack+wireless+router
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can use Google to infringe, too! How nefarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it's hacked, then it's not actually secured.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 30 Mar 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The definition of an insecure router is one that is currently in use.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gordon (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        -Common examples of Copyright Infringement
        
        -Using a wireless router in your room; others may use.......
        
        This does NOT appear to say that if your wireless connection is unsecured you could look guilty. The way it is formatted looks exactly like it's saying that using a wireless router in your room is a common example of CI.
        
        If they wanted to have the appearance of saying that it's not a good idea to have an unsecured router for these reasons they shouldn't have put it into the bullet points and worded it the way it is.
        
        My 2 cents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gordon (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is sound advice to tell a student to secure their router for these reasons though.
        
        Just formatted and worded poorly.
        
        FTFM
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Except you left out the full sentence:
        
        "Using a wireless router in your room; others may share illegal material through your router, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party."
        
        The offending use of a wireless router was spelled out. And they are 100% correct.
        
        Above AC is correct; This is just Masnick whining and spreading FUD. Which seems to be all he's good for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gordon (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Leaving out the full sentence or not is irrelevant. The point I was making is NOT whether or not it would make you look guilty. It would most certainly make you look guilty initially.
        The point I was making is that the way this is worded and formatted it looks like BC is actually saying using a wireless router is a common example of infringement.
        
        Use your reading comp skills, look at the reply I posted to myself, get the WHOLE picture of what I was saying, then quietly go away.
        
        Thank you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Gordon, you are exactly right. The way that I read it, they were trying to say that using a wireless router AT ALL would make you look guilty of copyright infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seems to me using an unsecured wireless router is YOUR ONLY way of not looking guilty (whether you are or not), should the RIAA accuse an IP address of infringing.
        
        I say "accuse an IP address of infringing" specifically, because that is all they know, they cannot accuse a person.
        
        And, logically, the more open your wireless router, the less certainty anyone could have about who is responsible for infringement tied to an IP address.
        
        What BC really meant was:
        "Please secure your wireless router so that when the RIAA comes knocking, we can help them as expediently as possible to identify the BC student on whom they want to apply the onerous laws which they wrote. An unsecured router makes the job of finding shakedown victims harder for the recording industry, and BC doesn't want to waste their time."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        PS: This is the "I'm Spartacus" defense from RIAA persecution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mrharrysan (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    FUD, Masnick... whatever, FUD!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    How can it be poorly worded and clear at the same time? Who cares what it "looks like" anyway?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's poorly worded, but the message is clear. They're not mutually exclusive.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 1:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tell that to all the people who died in 'holy war'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Markus Hopkins (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  You are mistaken. The college says that although you may not be the one sharing, it will appear that you are, and the college will turn over your information as the infringer based on the IP of your router. Hence, from the school's position of caving to copyright owners, you might as well be the guilty party, since the IP is the evidence of infringement, and the IP is attached to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's right. If your IP address is used to infringe, they will come after you. How else would they do it? Should they go after someone whose IP address wasn't used? Makes no sense. You start the investigation where the evidence points you to start--you start with the IP address subscriber.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Markus Hopkins (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I love that you missed my point completely, adventurous Mr. Troll. Anyone else care to take a stab at explaining?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is your point, then?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Markus Hopkins (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My first point was a response to the idea that the article was poorly worded. You in effect agreed with me about what the college was saying, while making it sound like I was saying that the IP should not be used as "evidence" or a jumping off point or what have you. Other's in the comments are discussing those issues, but I was only pointing out that this is what the school was saying, in response to the comment that the school was warning about the activities of others, as opposed to warning how it would look if their router was involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Howard the Duck, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        uhhh...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The point was, that they are passing you off as the guilty party despite you not having done anything illegal because they don't want the industry suing the school instead. They hang you out to dry to save their own collective asses.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If a student's router is being used to infringe, the investigation will begin with that student. Where else would it begin? It's not that they are necessarily guilty, it's just that they are the one the evidence points to. The school is just following the rules, and the advice in question is sound. Having a wireless router can bring a lot of trouble to a student. It would be wrong to NOT warn them about this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If a student's router is being used to infringe, the investigation will begin with that student."
        
        That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the college is handing over the details of a student based on their IP address. Handing over details isn't an investigation, it's forgoing the need to investigate at the expense of the student's privacy.
        
        "Having a wireless router can bring a lot of trouble to a student. It would be wrong to NOT warn them about this."
        
        That may be the case, but the way the advice is written gives the impression that merely operating a wireless router is an example of infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But that WAS the issue Mike raised. AC is right on this one - Mike said it was strange that the school was telling students that having a WiFi router is a sign of infringement. AC agreed with Markus that the wording was poor, but the underlying message is sound - because we (BU, a government institution) have misinterpreted the law to require us to violate our students' right to conduct internet activity anonymously, we will blame you (student with a router) if someone hides behind your IP to do something nefarious. That is a good and useful headsup from the school. AC is correct that that is a good and useful headsup from the school.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oops - not BU, but BC (a private college). No Constitutional question to see here, move along.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is a right to conduct internet activity anonymously, but that right is lost when there is evidence of illicit activity. You can't just hide behind your right to privacy and commit wrongs with impunity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it isn't. Why? Because the fact is that an IP address is NOT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION! It could be that someone up the street 4 doors is using my wireless router, secured or not, without my knowledge.
        
        Therefore, a IP address alone does not rise to the level of 'evidence' for anything.... not a search warrant or anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 2:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why?
        
        Because someone somewhere collected an IP number from some network?
        
        What did he do to confirm that the IP was real in the first place?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If a student's router is being used to infringe, the
        investigation will begin with that student."
        
        No shit, Sherlock? I'm glad you cleared up that painfully obvious point.
        
        "The school is just following the rules, and the advice in question is sound."
        
        They aren't and it isn't. They are caving into the demands of a powerful minority, not the law, and giving out misleading advice. They are not required to give out this information without anything less than a subpena from a judge. And to that, IP is poor evidence. Even for probable cause it doesn't hold up. IPs can be faked, hijacked, or mis-recorded. They are too volatile to be considered reliable to prove anything other than that a particular IP was recorded as the recipient of alleged infringing data.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Howard the Duck, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, no one ever gets blamed based on their IP address? The school's advice should have included a paragraph on the difference between open and secure wifi, and the need to keep your key a secret.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They shouldn't, they better have more concrete evidence if they want to claim probable cause. If I saw someone running people down with your car, do I come knocking on your door and arrest you? No, I find out who was driving that car instead of assuming that the name attached to that car is responsible. That's what an IP is, a vehicle to get information from the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Because like it or not, if you're router isn't secured, you're an accessory, and thus possibly liable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 9:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Dumbest comment yet.
      
      So, you are saying that the owner/operator of every network element that touches the packets of infringing content is an accessory, and possibly liable? That includes the school, their ISP, the Internet backbone provider, etc.
      
      On a similar note, Ford is now an accessory and liable for 23% of US hit and run accidents.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:33am
  
  Re:
  That was my interpretation, as well. I have a hand lotion with the bullet point, "Equate Ultra Restoring Skin Therapy Lotion is not like some ointments and lotions." People are terrible at making bulleted lists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- me, 31 Mar 2011 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re:
  yeah, but a less inflamatory title wouldn't be interesting. It's the only way to make this "news"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:24am

Nut, meet sledgehammer!
Wow, that's a really shocking display of ignorance at so many levels by the college!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andy (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: Nut, meet sledgehammer!
  I am referring here to the detail referenced in the first post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:25am

So why is Boston College telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of infringement?

What silly FUD.

Look at the whole sentence: "Using a wireless router in your room; others may share illegal material through your router, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party."

It explains that if the student has a wireless router in their room and other people use that router to share illegal material, it could make the student that has the router look guilty. That's sound advice. If someone else used that router to infringe, it would look like the student with the router is the infringer. As the case law that Dowd quoted points out, simply saying, "I have an unsecured router and another person did it" is not a perfect defense.

Must be a slow news day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:28am
  
  Re:
  Having an open router in a college dorm room would be the best defense against accusations of file sharing. You just say "I didn't do it, someone else in the dorm did". Sounds like they are giving advice to students on how to beat the rap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's a defense, but without more, it's not a successful defense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm interested in hearing more on this subject.
      
      It's up to the industry lawyers to prove that you were downloading infringing content. How can they do that if they can't tie the IP to you for certain?
      
      When you say "it's not a successful defense", it sounds more like "it doesn't prove you didn't do it", which is true, but proving innocence isn't the way our system (nominally) should work.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The defendant only puts forth a defense after the plaintiff has finished proving their case. If the plaintiff can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did it, the burden shifts to the defendant to then prove that they didn't. The defendant is presumed to be innocent. The burden only shifts if the plaintiff can prove out a case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If the plaintiff can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did it"
        
        How can they do that if the router is wireless?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They gather all the evidence they can and present their case. I'm not sure I really understand your question. Just because the defendant uses a wireless router doesn't mean the plaintiff can't prove their case. If that were so, everybody would just use a wireless router with impunity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "They gather all the evidence they can and present their case. I'm not sure I really understand your question."
        
        The question is how can there be a preponderance of evidence identifying the IP address holder as the infringer, if there is evidence that anyone within wireless range could have committed the infringement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ever bought a wireless router and read the instructions?
        
        Sounds like you need to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it sounds like you need to read the postings. If a router is UNSECURED, that means that basically anyone under the sun could use the router to download CP, copyrighted works, etc.
        
        Hell, even if a router is SECURED, that can happen if someone spies on you putting in the password and gets that password.
        
        Like the guy is pointing out: AN IP ADDRESS IS NOT EVIDENCE IN AND OF ITSELF! In fact, if that is the only evidence that someone has that someone else is infringing? The judge should throw out the case and refuse to grant a search warrant or anything else, because those things are easily faked/manipulated/etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Ever bought a wireless router and read the instructions?"
        
        No, generally all the training and experience setting up Cisco IOS devices through the command line allows me to just wing it.
        
        "Sounds like you need to."
        
        Be specific. I know you don't like to, but people can't read your mind. Why do I need to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They gather all the evidence they can and present their case.
        
        I guess my question is: What other evidence are they likely to have?
        
        That is, if the IP itself doesn't prove it (and it doesn't), they would presumably have to come forward with some other evidence. As you say, the IP seems like the appropriate place to start an investigation, but saying that having an open router "is not a successful defense" against an infringement charge because there might be other evidence against you too strikes me as a "well, duh" argument.
        
        I would think that having an open router would be a successful defense specifically against their IP address evidence. Any other evidence (e.g. a blog post about how you just grabbed the songs in question off the Pirate Bay) would obviously not be covered by an open router defense, but then, I don't think anyone has said it would.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        \r (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 3:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If all the evidence gathered is the IP of a wireless router and stops and have none of the MACs associated with the NAT distributions nor their connection times then they, in fact, have very, very little evidence. They would have a public WAP identity and that is all (and thanks to the college a name for the NAT'd IP). Secured or not they need what is behind the router. Surely, concrete evidence can not stop at the NAT distribution point for the identification of a single infringer. Concrete nothingness that is.
        
        A router routes things behind it, yes? The crooks drove over that bridge there -> ! Who owns this bridge!? Patently ridiculous - much like the current business model.
        \r
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        MAC addresses are easily faked as well, unfortunately. Even that along with an IP address is not specific evidence pointing at a specific person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        duffmeister (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        isn't that for criminal cases and not a civil tort?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope. There is a presumption of "innocence" (non-liability) in civil cases. The plaintiff proves their case, and then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a defense. It works the same as criminal court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        duffmeister (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was unsure, I thought it was a lower bar of "innocence"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 2:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed, there is a lower level required for "guilt" in civil cases and (as far as I remember) reasonable doubt and a requirement for unanimous verdict doesn't apply.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, that is true...... but the fact is that the regular American is not as stupid as people think they are and can see the problems with these cases.
        
        Hell, you are assuming that it would even GET PAST THE JUDGE and to a jury in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 3:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It works the same as criminal court.
        
        Except, if I understand correctly, that the standard is "preponderance of evidence" or "balance of probabilities", rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which makes a pretty big difference.
        
        I suppose the standard of proof is somewhat separate from the presumption of innocence, but the two seem rather intertwined to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      An you know this how? Mike linked to a story of it being used as a successful defense.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        None of those three cases cited say that having a wireless router means you're off the hook. From one of the cases: "While defendant claims that he uses an unsecured wireless router at his residence, which could have been used by an outside party to commit the alleged infringing activity, this does not constitute a complete defense." You can't just say, "I have a wireless router" and then walk out of the courtroom. You need to show more than that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And this is what is wrong with the whole process. Shouldnt the prosecution have to do more and show that infringing actually occurred?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Furthermore, shouldn't they have to prove that the defendant committed the infringement? If they can't because the router was open (and even if it wasn't), then there is no proof that they did. They will have to find other evidence that is more concretely linked to the accused in order to prove guilt. With the prevalence of identity theft and hacking, it can stand to reason that a defendant that professes innocence could reasonably claim that their system was compromised and the actions that appear to be theirs, is actually a remote misuse of their system and identity. That, and an IP is hardly concrete proof to identify the transgressor.
        
        When it comes to these sorts of cases, I think the burden of proof should be elevated to "beyond a reasonable doubt" since there is so much evidence that can be tainted by malefeasance of a third party. Most people are not well versed in technology and the security thereof. They are often the victims of criminals looking to abuse their ignorance and they often succeed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Showing that infringement occurred is only the beginning. That's enough to file a lawsuit. The whole point of bringing a lawsuit against someone is so that you then can get court orders to gather more evidence. Without the lawsuit do you think alleged infringers would just had over their computer for inspection? Do you think they'd volunteer to be deposed? Of course not. It works the other way too as the alleged infringer can gather evidence against his accuser to try and discredit his claims.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you think the police would have any credibility if they took evidence from a traffic camera that constantly spoofed the photos with random cars and plates?
        
        Because when you use IP addresses that is what you get, a traffic camera machine that produces a lot of fake photos mixed with real ones.
        
        In what world people allow such a thing to be serious?
        
        Only in the f. up American judicial system that is where.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So because it's not as reliable as a traffic camera, it's of no use? I don't see the logic there. Why are traffic cameras the standard?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it's not reliable then it can provide false positives. One thing the courts must not do above all else is convict innocent people. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just some motto. It's one of the founding principles of this nation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Would you accept a ticket from a camera in China saying you were driving there with the photo of your car and plate number?
        
        Would you trust a system that do such a thing?
        
        Do you want to buy some property on the moon?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you think the police would have any credibility if they took evidence from a traffic camera that constantly spoofed the photos with random cars and plates?
        
        A small tidbit: Perhaps you didn't mean to suggest so, but IP-spoofing does not work for two-way traffic such as file sharing. That would be like mailing a payment to a bootlegger for a copy of a DVD, but putting a fake return address on the envelope to evade detection by the authorities.
        
        Sure, the authorities won't have your real address, but the bootlegger is going to have a hard time getting your DVD to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Does it matter?
        
        As far as I know every P2P network out there is sending a small amount of spoofed IP's to everyone to counter IP harvesting from companies.
        
        This forces them to look hard at the data collected you can't just collect IP's because those connections may be spoofs and not real ones you need to download something and get a record of the data transfer to be proof that some IP is really sending data to you.
        
        But apparently that is not being done since you can see a large number of people who don't know what P2P means or don't even have those programs installed being accused, and the reason why is IP spoofing working as envisioned.
        
        You can look it up every bittorrent tracker spoof IP's, this is known as crowd anonymity.
        
        If they just collect only IP's and don't do additional work they will drag a lot of people who never used P2P in their lifes, hence the comparison to a traffic camera spoofing car images, will you trust that camera to tell you that that car was really there without questioning?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Prosecution does. But we aren't talking about prosecutions, we're talking about plaintiffs. In a civil action, the evidentiary burden is merely to prove your side of the case by a preponderance of the evidence. That means "more or better evidence than the other guy". It is entirely subjective - the only objective requirement is that you propound _some_ evidence of every element of the claim, and your own (self-serving, manufactured for trial) testimony is some evidence.
        
        In other words, in a civil case all a plaintiff need do is testify that they believe (perhaps based on information given to them by the university about the user of a particular IP) that the student infringed their copyright to their detriment. Then the student has to put on some evidence that he didn't (could be just as crappy as the plaintiff's). Then the decider of fact (say, a jury) gets to choose whose evidence was better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > It's a defense, but without more, it's not
      > a successful defense.
      
      Considering the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, it most certainly would be successful.
      
      It's the plaintiff (rights holder) that would have to prove more.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It worries me that you're a federal agent, because you constantly show ignorance of the law. I'm referring to a defense. Defenses only become necessary after the plaintiff has successfully presented their case. Of course the plaintiff has the burden INITIALLY, but then it shifts to the defendant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > It worries me that you're a federal agent
        
        I'm losing sleep over how worried you are.
        
        > Defenses only become necessary after the
        > plaintiff has successfully presented their
        > case.
        
        And in cases like this, the recording has repeatedly claimed that identificationb by mere IP adress alone is enough. In sucha trial, would certainly behoove the plaintiff to "have more" than an IP address if it leads to a wireless router being used in a college dorm. Otherwise, the defense need merely point out the existence of the router (hell, they could just point out the fact that the kid leaves his door open and lets people physically use his computer to do their coursework) and that would be all she wrote for the plaintiff. They will not have proven their case against the defendant anywhere close to the proponderance of the evidence standard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Sounds like they are giving advice to students on how to beat the rap."
    
    I don't think everyone has been paying attention. Once the MAFIAA comes after you for file sharing, there really isn't much of an upside.
    
    If you think getting dragged through the courts for years on end only to end up getting your legal fees back is "winning" then more power to you. But the advice is sound.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:40am
  
  Re:
  TAM I knew you would be back LoL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:26am

It's seems to me to be a poorly worded warning that people can access p2p networks, etc through an unsecured wireless router, and that content providers would assume that the router's owner is the culprit.

I don't really see a story here, just a security warning that could have been phrased much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  There is no story here other than that Mike can FUD out anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Liar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pants on fire.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Arsonist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh that one was funny LoL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 3:03pm
  
  Re:
  However, there is no mention at all of the word, "unsecured" in that document of advice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:29am

"Top Five Myths" adapted from http://www.messiah.edu/etc/downloading.html)"

Presumably with permission of course.

The thing is christianity while not itself founded on copyright infringement, surely did spread as it did from its original handful of followers by means of widespread infringement which continues unabated up to this day with not one penny going in royalties from printing/sales of bibles to the original writers or their heirs/estates.
And bibles sell quite well, despite many being given away for nothing but in either case, there is no incentive to the writers to create new works.

As someone who dislikes religion, I almost wish the copyright laws had been stronger back then and enforced of course, they would have certainly choked off, christianity and later islam before they got any real foothold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  So you start off with a great example of works being sold despite lack of copyright and then end with an offensive statement. It is statements like this that derail good conversations. Next time leave off the bashing when you are making a point and you will be much more effective.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh no, someone dislikes religion. How horribly offensive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You completely missed my point thus making my point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is actually you who missed the point as there were two points.
        
        1) sales without copyright / copyright enforcement (competing with free)
        2) enforcement of IP can kill off entire future markets, some that people might like and some that people might not like. But like or not like, without widespread copying and disseminating far outside official channels and often for free
        
        I don't like religion and would have been glad if the two worst examples in terms of global reach had never gotten off the ground.
        Others, perhaps even you, may be glad that they got off the ground and became religions of global influence thanks to the failure to have and enforce IP (in the way IP "rights holders" want to do now,) back in the day.
        
        So while I did express my dislike and disdain for religions and the two later mashups of Judaism, it was in the context of how strict copyright enforcement prevents the opening up of new markets, so any offense taken is simply added value.
        And that is apparently what one needs to succeed in the digital age.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your second point still fails. Had there been strict copyright law back in the day, I am sure the publishers of the bible would not have used it. You can publish without copyright even today.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh?
        Are you someone who thinks that the publishers are the only rights holders now.
        
        Are we forgetting about the original artists here?
        
        Of course the people who copied their work and later the publishers who did ditto but on a larger scale, neither of whom paid any money to the artists or their estates at any point, would not have used copyright to prevent their own money making scams.
        
        That's where modern style IP rights could have shut them down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are assuming that anyone involved would have done it for compensation. Since they were sharing the gospel, I seriously doubt that expected or would have accepted compensation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Would Jesus rip off musicians?
        
        No.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Huph, 30 Mar 2011 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        WWJD? = What Would Jesus Download?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You assume so, based on no evidence whatsoever.
        
        For all you know, these guys could have been writing historical fiction about what happened when a real messiah came along but not the one everyone was expecting.
        
        Perhaps over the years, the disclaimer that this was intended to be fiction was dropped in the same way that fbi warnings about copyright infringement are routinely dropped from pirated copies of movies.
        
        Perhaps many parts of the gospels or the letters that made it into the new testament were dropped for giving the wrong message as entire other gospels were dropped.
        
        We only know that the people who did want to spread the message, that which became the Catholic church would certainly want you to think that the original authors had the same view.
        But they were the copiers, so they certainly had a vested interest in doing so and shading the messages the way they wanted to.
        Similar happened when printing technology became available and suddenly a lot of the arguments that had been had out in the Catholic church in the opening centuries of the first millenium CE were being propounded again by people who were now shading or interpreting the messages in other ways.
        
        And why wouldn't you think that people wouldn't have done it for compensation, there are plenty of examples in every religion where raking in money was and is still the primary motivation of many in the field.
        
        But even if we assume that gospels were not fiction and that the gospel writers did genuinely claim to believe in everything they wrote that does not preclude a desire for compensation.
        
        The catholic church didn't become rich because it eschewed wealth and dialling 1-800-god for donations so that individuals can live properly wealthy lifestyles is not unfamiliar to us.
        So why assume that the original authors would not have wanted a taste too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    oh dear - sense of humour fail.
    
    i refer you to Monty Python's The Life of Brian for context. Or 4 Lions.
    
    Either are good.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  The strength of copyright law would have no influence on the distribution of christian bibles if the originator(s) had no desire to seek restitution for their propagation. To be blunt, they didn't want it to be restricted. Actually, it was the opposite.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vivaelamor (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    "To be blunt, they didn't want it to be restricted. Actually, it was the opposite."
    
    Copyright was used to control access to the bible, although obviously not by the originators. A notable fact about the American Revolution was that it allowed America to breach royal copyright on the King James Bible.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matt (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Zondervan continues to restrict distribution of certain versions of the Bible (NIV, for instance,) by strict application of copyright law. I do not pretend to know whether they have prayed over that particular tactic, but they have certainly taken the position from time to time that controlling distribution and derivative works has allowed them to keep the translation from being corrupted.
      
      Incidentally, I do not mean to suggest that Zondervan has misused copyright, or that if there must be copyright laws that this is a bad application of them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    While you are probably right Greevar,
    there are a lot of assumptions there.
    
    We don't actually know what the original writers intended.
    We don't even know if what has come down through the ages in terms of gospels for example are complete and unedited.
    
    We also don't know if Paul's letters weren't written tongue in cheek in parts, perhaps the intended recipients knew him to actually be big on women's rights but for a laugh he presented himself as a misogynist of the very old school knowing full well the people he was actually writing too would know that. Perhaps, and it is unlikely, he would be distraught to know they were being shown to people who don't have the vital background information to know when he was joking and when he was being serious.
    
    But as many older tv shows are being kept off DVD because rights for dvd didn't exist when the actors original contracts were drawn up and now people aren't available to reach agreements and/or their estates aren't willing to reach agreements based on current copyright law, its not impossible to think similar could not have occurred back then as long as we assume its with the same politicians, laws and lawyers as exist now.
    
    Quite apart from Judas' family getting the publication blocked on grounds of lies, defamation and libel, even if it was being put forward as a work of fiction.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:31am

The page got cut off a bit..
It goes on:

Making a mix tape for a boy/girlfriend.
Turning up the radio so others in the dorm can hear a song you like.
Singing in the dorm showers in a manner that others can hear you.
Allowing your roommate to share in watching a movie you rented.
Using quotes from movies with friends in an attempt to appear funny or knowledgeable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:41am
  
  Re: The page got cut off a bit..
  You also forgot the:
  
  "BC, by law, is bound to videotape you in the shower to ensure that you do not sing."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:09am
  
  Re: The page got cut off a bit..
  What goes on mostly is people like you who don't appear to have a clue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: The page got cut off a bit..
  You forgot the most important one:
  
  Accessing the internet. Only criminals and thieves use this so anyone caught using it must be doing so for evil purposes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - kryptonianjorel (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re: The page got cut off a bit..
    Close, its more like:
    
    Everyone who has ever accessed a 'P2P' network to download copyrighted material without permission has used the internet to do so. If you are using the internet, you are downloading copyrighted material illegally
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re: The page got cut off a bit..
  Using fair use to FUD out. Nice work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:31am

People should encrypt their routers, at least for security reasons. Otherwise viruses could more easily spread on your network, people can spy on what you're doing, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:33am
  
  Re:
  encrypt their wireless connections *
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:33am
  
  Re:
  encrypt their wireless connections *
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  encrypt their wireless connections *
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  I meant to say they should encrypt their wireless connections.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Clue, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  AC, Exactly how does encrypting network traffic stop a virus?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Howard the Duck, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    They might log into the unsecured router, forward a couple ports, or create a virtual server.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No one thing stops a virus, but a combination of security measures can help prevent a virus.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (well, I suppose turning off your computer completely or something like that may stop a virus, but that doesn't count).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  Sharing your wireless can be done safely. No reason to let your extra bandwidth goto waste when you paid for it.. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:43am

Update to my previous post:

Although it is sound security advice not to leave your router unsecured, I think the reason Mike jumped on this story is because the school is listing it as an "example" of infringement. It's merely a scenario in which infringement "might" occur, so whoever made the list is either slightly incompetent or a little confused. Still think it's a non-story though, Mike. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  Will the real AC please stand up? Uh, which AC post are you referring to?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prashanth (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
  The reason why this is a story is because as chronicled on TechDirt, slightly incompetent people write things like what was written on that college website, and overzealous law enforcement, egged on by the **AAs, punish fine, upstanding citizens disproportionately.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
    Umm, you honestly think that a poorly written sentence on a college website leads to law enforcement action?
    
    Wow. What world do you live in?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
      Unfortunately for all of us, one in which paytards make laws.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
        Paytards? I like it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
        Really? So when you go the grocery store cashier you say, "Hello, I'm a paytard so I'm going to grace you with some money, rather than just walking out the door."
        
        Cool story, bro.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
        Grow up child.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 1:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
        I do it all the time. IT gets a right old chuckle out of everyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
        Paytards? I like it!
        
        I prefer "IPtards."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Slightly Incompetent or a Little Confused
      I'm guessing he either does now or previously lived on a college campus.
      
      Just speaking from my personal experience. Campus police are worse than the cops I dealt with in South America.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:11am

UBC actually bans routers! READ THIS!
At the University of British Columbia, they [technically] banned routers altogether:

From the Resnet Service Agreement
Each ResNet connection is intended to provide services through one computer to the resident of the room it is in. There may be only one computer connected to each ResNet port.
http://www.it.ubc.ca/service_catalogue/internet_telephone/resnet/resnet_policies/resnet_servi ce_agreement.html

I'm not interpreting this wrong. I called in for a random issue and I was told by multiple people that routers are banned. I asked them to cite where in the policies it says so, and they pointed me to above. No one follows that rule, and they don't enforce it, but there it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: UBC actually bans routers! READ THIS!
  You could actually re-interpret that as having one PC/laptop plus a games console, e.g. the PS3, which according to Sony cannot be a computer because they removed Linux support. So get a router, go on Xbox Live or PSN, and also check your facebook on the computer all you want!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 6:54pm
    
    Re: Re: UBC actually bans routers! READ THIS!
    Oh god...
    
    What if someone hacked the PS3 for the Linux?
    
    O_o;
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kryptonianjorel (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: UBC actually bans routers! READ THIS!
  The router is a computer, and it is the only thing 'connected' to the 'resnet port' (never heard of THAT connector).
  
  Or you could tell them to kiss your ass. I told my university, "I pay $20,000 a year to go here, and you are not going to tell me what I can and cannot do with the internet connection I PAY FOR"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re: UBC actually bans routers! READ THIS!
    If I were the IT department at your university, I would turn off your ResNet port until you agreed to comply with the appropriate school policies. I assume something similar would be done if you, for instance, demanded the right to use the chemistry lab YOU PAID FOR to cook up meth. Of course the university may make and enforce policies to better accomplish their mission, including restricting how you use the resources they permit you to access. Your tuition does not buy you the right to violate the policies.
    
    As for your tuition, it very likely covers less than half the cost of your education. You did not pay for the internet connection, you paid an access fee to get access to resources that the school's alumni- or state-funded endowment paid for.
    
    In a few years, you will grow out of that sense of entitlement, or you will join the **AA as a senior executive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - kryptonianjorel (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: UBC actually bans routers! READ THIS!
      Haha, that post makes me laugh.
      
      The only 'sense of entitlement' I have is the entitlement to the things I paid for. I am not being given anything, I am receiving the services that I pay for.
      
      So yeah, if you call that a sense of entitlement, then guilty as charged; I have a sense of entitlement about everything I pay for
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jesse (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: UBC actually bans routers! READ THIS!
      Matt your logic is deeply flawed. I live in a residence. I pay for this internet connection. In fact, both my fiancee and I are registered to live here, together, in the same unit. According to this policy, only one of us, while both students, may use the internet at a time. We are [technically] expected to take turns using the internet!
      
      Again, this policy isn't enforced. But it goes to show what sort of poorly thought out junk we blindly agree to on a daily basis.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wsuschmitt (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:14am

Boston College May Be Infringing
Boston College's own website describes both an unsecured and a secured WiFi network that is on campus. What legal ramifications does this mean? From http://www.bc.edu/offices/help/getstarted/network/wireless/about.html :

"BostonCollege is an open, unsecure wireless network that is an alternative for older laptops that do not meet the requirements for bcsecure (BC username and password required). This network does not encrypt data. Therefore, information sent across the wireless network using BostonCollege is �in the clear.� Others might snoop or intercept data transmitted using the unsecured wireless service."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re: Boston College May Be Infringing
  While the "BostonCollege" network is unsecured in the sense that it doesn't have a password, it redirects you to a form you have to agree to which states that any actions performed over the BC network are the sole responsibility of the user, and not the school. So no, there's no legal ramifications for that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Altaree, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:35am

Isn't there some clause in university funding?
I thought I remember something about universities having to help out the *AA if they want access to government financial aid/grant programs. Here is a partial bill:
http://news.cnet.com/Democrats-Colle...olice-copyright,-or-else/2100-1028_3-6217943.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:39am

ill admit that its badly worded. but as badly worded as it is... thats not exactly what its saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lux (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:00am

If you're going to play that game...
...then in the spirit of taking everything overly literally and not reading between the lines, I guess it's not copyright infringement if I send a copyrighted song to some of my friends, right?

Emailing copies of a copyrighted song to all of your friends.

Again, this is badly worded, but the point still stands. You can be wrongly accused of file-sharing if you use an unsecure router, which is clearly what is meant by the college's statement...which any moron in a hurry could realize, but...but...straw man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:00am

Heard similar things before :)
Sometime back I have heard that Wayne State also has a similar policy. Serving notices to students who had wireless enabled in their room.

Even funnier note from Boston College site - http://www.bc.edu/offices/help/security/copyright/myths.html

5. What's the big deal? It doesn't hurt anybody.

According to the RIAA, online piracy has cut into national music sales by nearly a third since 1999, sending recording and film revenues into a downward spiral, which hurts everyone in the industry, and can hamper the development of new music, films, artists and talent. And once caught downloading illegal files, the individual downloader faces damages resulting from the legal and disciplinary process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: Heard similar things before :)
  Ha, nice research skills there, BC.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Heard similar things before :)
    You're right. It's actually a full half, not a third.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Heard similar things before :)
      Show your work.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: Heard similar things before :)
  5. What's the big deal? It doesn't hurt anybody.
  
  We know it doesn't but nonetheless it is against the law and is being enforced by Homeland Security.
  
  So if we don't do everything we can to prevent you doing it, we'll get dragged into court and that is not only horribly expensive but we don't have the time for it.
  And if you do it despite us doing everything we can to stop you from doing it, then it'll be your ass in the sling.
  So just don't do it, 'kay.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re: Heard similar things before :)
  Downward spiral? In an era of record profits? Me thinks there is a lie in that statement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:06am

Interestingly enough, Pandora and Deezer are strangely absent from the list of "legal alternatives". I guess you right: free can't be legal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zaven (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:16am

I had a wireless router in my room because the campus provided wifi was laughably insecure. You know what else could cause infringement? Someone getting the account info of my campus account (because it was an unsecure network and they don't use HTTPS) and emailing infringing files to people. I can't have my own wireless, and I can't use yours? I'm confused now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 1:38pm

they forgot the ending...
BC, by law, is bound to release the identities of the individuals tied to those IP addresses, and thus allow YOU the student with debts to seek out a no-win no-fee lawyer to sue BC into the ground for illegally offering up YOUR personal information!!!!

cash for you, sucks to be BC.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 2:08pm

Ha, there's worse TOS on internet. Check this one http://www.pvt.com/internet-service/acceptable-use-policy.html
One of my favorites is, your not allowed to look at porn (ii), and they will spy on you occasionally to make sure your not (Inappropriate Content and Transmissions).
This company provides the only fiber optic in the area (very limited). Competition is great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:29pm

Obligatory link
http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 2:06am

no one ever mentions
that an unscrupulous organization...(you know who you are)
using IP addresses as the sole evidence could just MAKE UP numbers.....e.g ok i think infringement was done by lets see.....154.42.8.3....now lets see how much cash they have!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 2:37am

I once saw a bank robbery happen but I got the license plate of the getaway car. I gave it to the police but they said there was nothing they could do.

They explained that the license plate could be attached to a car owned by a person that lived in the house with a family. It could have been his wife or son or brother's car.

They also said that there was no way I could not be sure the plate wasn't taken from some other car and put on the getaway car.

Furthermore, some people just leave their cars unlocked. So, someone could have taken the car, drove it to the bank, robbed it, and brought it back.

License plates can also be easily faked.

So there was absolutely nothing they could do. No warrant; no further investigation was possible at all. They said goodbye and asked me to call them if I actually had some evidence next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 7:07am

As of 10:07am EST, the router comment no longer appears on the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DaveK (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 7:17am

This entire article is a bare-faced lie.
>"Boston College is telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of copyright infringement. Take a look at the image below:"

I did; it says no such thing.

Firstly, it is not a list of "signs of" copyright infringement but a list of "examples of", so you haven't even described it accurately. Let me explain in terms that even a child could understand: "sign of" is to "example of" as "symptom" is to "disease". If you really can't tell the difference between those two concepts, you aren't competent to be writing professionally.

Secondly, it doesn't even say that using a wireless router is an example of copyright infringement. It says, very clearly, that if you use a wireless router somebody else might infringe copyright using the same router and you might get the blame. YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE THE SECOND-HALF OF THE SENTENCE AFTER THE SEMI-COLON AND PRETEND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT.

Well, you can, but how the hell you can seriously expect your pretence to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes is beyond me.

Well, actually even that's not beyond me; you just want to write a sensationalist headline, you know full well that it will generate tons of angry comments from people who have trusted your misbegotten malinterpretation of events and not even clicked on the big version of the picture.

You aren't actually stupid or illiterate or blind, you are just faking it to try and justify your deliberate out-of-context mangling and misinterpretation of perfectly plain English.

Hell, you'd be the first to complain if someone wrote a big article that just took the last half of your headline and ignored the rest to say "Techdirt claims 'Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement'", but that is exactly what you have just done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vivaelamor (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 5:38pm
  
  Re: This entire article is a bare-faced lie.
  'Firstly, it is not a list of "signs of" copyright infringement but a list of "examples of"'
  
  You're complaining that he used a more appropriate word? I agree. The headline should have read: 'Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is An Example Of Copyright Infringement'. That headline would much better illustrate the stupidity of Boston College.
  
  "Secondly, it doesn't even say that using a wireless router is an example of copyright infringement."
  
  Didn't you tell us in the previous paragraph that it was a list of examples of copyright infringement? The context implies that using a router is an example. The use of a semi colon highlights the fact that the two halves of the sentence are independent clauses. If they didn't mean to imply that using a wireless router was infringement then they should have used a comma or linked the clauses. You can't just ignore the grammar and pretend that the sentence is unambiguous.
  
  "You aren't actually stupid or illiterate or blind, you are just faking it to try and justify your deliberate out-of-context mangling and misinterpretation of perfectly plain English."
  
  Uh, you seem to be lacking a motive for your devilish plot to pull the wool over our eyes. Aside from which, what does that make me for agreeing with him? Do I get to play the part of co-conspirator or are you going to suggest that I'm stupid, illiterate or blind? By the way, you do realise that blind people who use computers tend to use these wonderful things called screen readers and are as capable of understanding the issue at hand as a sighted person, don't you? But hey, what's belittling people with disabilities compared to a conspiracy against a college.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 10:12pm
  
  Re: This entire article is a bare-faced lie.
  So you are trying to say that an "example" is not a "sign" of copyright infringement? I don't know if you comprehend sentences or not.
  
  According to you, if a person emailed copyrighted music to all their friends then that also wouldn't be a "sign" of copyright infringement.
  
  Putting the wireless router as an example of copyright infringement is more than enough proof for what the author is trying to say. It is irrelevant that BC has added "others may share illegal materials through your router" because that is just an example of what could happen IF you use a wireless router. The thing that they are trying to say is that USING a wireless router itself counts as a sign of copyright infringement because others may use it for illegal purposes. But it still doesn't change the fact that they are saying that if you use a wireless router, it is a sign of copyright infringement.
  
  Hope you got my point. Also as a previous poster said, BC removed the wireless part so I guess they thought better about it too :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Derek Kerton (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re: This entire article is a bare-faced lie.
    You are correct. If not...
    
    Having a knife in your home is a sign of a murder having been committed, or an example of a murder; others may take your knife, stab someone 20 times, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bryan R (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 7:23am

Under the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, if someone else uses your router as a means of copyright infringement, you are also held responsible for that infringement. In fact, they trace the infringement only to the mac address that is registered on their network.

Not 100% sure on why this is, but my best guess is that the state urges UMass as an ISP to prosecute copyright cases. In many cases, infringement notices are handed out to students, who cannot access the internet on campus unless they deal with these infringement notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 31 Mar 2011 @ 9:07am

They have updated the website
Looks like the guys over at BC IT heard the discussion. The page got updated yesterday and removed "wireless router" :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
epson scanner communication error, 25 May 2019 @ 10:50am

recently I bought a let router but I have no idea how to set it but after reading this post I really got the solution. thanks for this useful post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]