In the first case, Liberty Media Holdings is accusing around 50 people of using BitTorrent to illegally download and share one of its adult films. The suit lists the IP addresses of the defendants, accusing them of either being directly responsible or responsible by negligence for the downloads. Liberty Media is claiming that the defendants are responsible for these downloads, even if they weren’t personally involved, if their networks were so insecure as to allow “others to unlawfully copy and share Plaintiff’s copyrighted Motion Picture, proximately causing financial harm to Plaintiff and unlawfully interfering with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Motion Picture.”
It will be a difficult case to prove since what is believed to be ‘secure’ is continually proven by hackers to be ‘insecure’. However, if the argument is upheld it could, says defending counsel reported in Computerworld, “have broad implications for those who provide free internet access in places such as libraries, cafes, airports and schools.” In fact, the implications will affect anyone who uses WiFi.
In the second case, Liuxia Wong is offering a Constitutional argument against a case brought against her by adult film-maker Hard Drive. She too is accused of illegal downloading. Her first line of defense is that it wasn’t her – a defense that will be considerably more difficult if the Liberty Media case is upheld.
However, her second argument is that you cannot copyright pornography. She claims that the so-called ‘Copyright Clause’ of the US Constitution allows Congress to use copyright “To promote the progress of science and useful arts…” Her argument is that since pornography is neither science nor useful arts, it simply cannot be copyrighted.
The outcome of these cases could have serious implications for both WiFi users in general and the adult industry in particular.