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. icon
    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.

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
Shop Now: I Invented Email
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.