It's not actually true, though. As my colleague Fred "Baron" von Lohmann posted to the Pho list:

Hey, it seems to me that anyone who runs an open wireless gateway would be protected from copyright liability arising out of the activities of their neighbors by the DMCA 512(a) safe harbor (the same one that AT&T itself relies on).

So long as you simply pass bits for someone else, without changing or storing them, you're not liable if the bits are infringing. See 17 USC 512(a). (Before you start going on about "notice and takedown" and copyright agents -- none of that mumbo jumbo applies to the 512(a) safe harbor, 'cuz the ISPs had enough clout to make it that way).

So AT&T is blowing smoke -- it's immune from liability for carrying the bits, and so is the subscriber who is running the wireless gateway.

I've been saying it for some time now -- soon we'll *all* be ISPs, and all entitled to the same protections that AOL legislated for itself over the last few years.

Ain't that the sweetest? All the breaks that the ISP lobbies have secured for themselves in Congress apply to anyone who provides access to the Internet, including folks like you and me!

The most insidious thing about this genre of anti-WiFi FUD is that it attacks the idea of anonymity online, as though allowing people to anonymously access the Internet was an irresponsible activity that can only serve the interests of terrorists, child pornographers and warez d00ds.

In fact, anonymous speech is Constitutionally protected in the USA. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Whistle-blowers, kids who are curious about STDs and dissidents (just to name three) rely on anonymity to participate in the democratic discourse. (Thanks, Fred!) [Boing Boing Blog]
7:00:22 PM  What do you think? ( Thoughts) Who linked? []   

Is it me or is it weird that all the people who love open source, who swear by it, argue it to death, and would die for it, seem to like Apple, which isn't open source? Maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe it makes sense, if you need to charge for the software (so you can pay the engineers, for example), to hold on to the source. Hmmm. [Scripting News]

I think what happens is that there are three camps, with large intersections, the Free Software want everybody to use free software and think every piece of non free software out there is an impediment on everyones freedom. The Open Source guys, they prefer open source software, most of which is free software, but not all, and when they have to use non open source they want to start a project to see if they can make an open source software competitor. The third camp is harder to describe. They don't have a name and consist of people that like technology and prefer to have the ability to get under the hood in a OS or application. Lets call them Power Users.

Some Power Users have used Windows, others Linux, a few Macs, and one or two BeOS in the past. Every one of these systems had some defect. Those defects could go from: "Couldn't open a (Excel, Powerpoint) Word file" or it could be "I want to run my own sendmail system and I can't do it as well as in my Unix box". Apple has provided with an OS that is closer to perfection. It runs Open Source and Free Software (so does Windows), it is Unix based, and has lots of commercial applications (again, so does Windows). Power Users are not against commercial closed source software, they are against software that limits the user in one way or another. They prefer extensible systems with macros and plugins and such (like Radio). They think some commercial products are too expensive and use alternatives (open source, free software, or not). They are close to Open Source or even Free Software guys, not for philosophical reasons, but for practical reasons. Sometimes those guys produce the best software alternative and when they do it tends to have a lot of the characteristics Power Users like. They are not afraid to do something hard, even if they are not programmers. They like to learn.

I know the name Power Users is not good, but this is how I feel about software. It may be too general or too idealistic, but, hey, it's a first approach to an idea.

3:56:44 PM  What do you think? ( Thoughts) Who linked? []   

wow - not surprising, but surprising that it got published

1:52:39 PM  What do you think? ( Thoughts) Who linked? []