The RIAA dropped its lawsuit against the sculptor who had a Mac and couldn't possibly have used Kazaa to download songs. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/24/tech.lawsuit.ap/index.html So then I started thinkin'... But what if, say, I had a wireless access point on my cable or DSL modem setup and allowed friends and neighbors (maybe even warchalker strangers) to use it for whatever they chose? I certainly can't stop them from downloading music, I'm just allowing them to use my link. If I never downloaded songs or even had a host capable of running Kazaa, like this person, am I still off the hook? And if I'm responsible for that, wouldn't that make my ISP responsible too? I'm doing what they are doing, I'm just not taking names - I don't track who uses my WAP. Even if I just keep a list of wireless MAC addresses, that still doesn't really translate into anything of use to a prosecutor. If an open WAP means that the owner is subject to major criminal prosecution based on the behavior of the other people using it, then is there now an implicit requirement that all WAPs be secured, like a car or a gun? What are the legal responsibilities of a wireless access point owner/provider, and are people who own WAPs aware of them? If I implement the security protocols and someone breaks into my supposedly secure wireless network anyway, and is able to access bandwidth, am I still responsible for their downloads even if I implemented the standard precautions? Or is it like a swimming pool, an "attractive nuisance", for which the swimming pool owner is responsible for the drowning of neighborhood children even though he puts a six foot fence around it? Anne Marie -- When the poor steal from the middle class, it's called robbery. When the middle class steal from the rich, it's called embezzlement. When the rich steal from the poor, it's called Business. --Anne Marie Merritt, Nov 2, 1996 ----- End forwarded message ----- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]