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

from the wtf? dept

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?

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


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    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?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.