SAN FRANCISCO—A federal judge ruled last week that an individual cannot be held liable if they neglect to password-protect their internet Wi-Fi and someone they do not know subsequently uses it to illegally download content. In AF Holdings v Doe and Hatfield, the owner of the internet account, Josh Hatfield, was sued along with the unknown infringer, for failing to secure his network. Hatfield filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that he was protected by the Communications Decency Act.
In her ruling granting Hatfield's motion, U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton wrote, "AF Holdings argues that it seeks to hold Hatfield liable for 'negligent maintenance of his residential network,' which it asserts allowed a third-party to commit large-scale infringement of AF Holdings’ copyrighted works. Specifically, AF Holdings alleges in the complaint that Hatfield owed it a duty to secure his Internet connection to prevent infringement of AF Holdings’ copyrighted works. Thus, the entirety of this claim involves the allegation that Hatfield failed to take certain steps—in other words, allegations of non-feasance (as opposed to misfeasance)."
However, Hamilton ruled that "a defendant has no duty in situations of 'non-feasance' unless a 'special relationship' exists which would give rise to such duty." No such relationship existed, of course.
Furthermore, continued Hamilton, "AF Holdings has not articulated any basis for imposing on Hatfield a legal duty to prevent the infringement of AF Holdings’ copyrighted works, and the court is aware of none. Hatfield is not alleged to have any special relationship with AF Holdings that would give rise to a duty to protect AF Holdings’ copyrights, and is also not alleged to have engaged in any misfeasance by which he created a risk of peril."
In short, she concluded, "Hatfield had no duty to AF Holdings to secure his Internet connection in order to protect AF Holdings' materials from infringement."
Judge Hamilton did give AF Holdings until October 5 to file a proof of service with the court that it had served the John Doe defendant with a summons and complaint. " If AF Holdings fails to do so," she ruled, "the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice as to the 'Doe' defendant."
She also denied (as moot) a request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to file an amicus brief in support of Hatfield.
The ruling can be accessed here.
