No freedom to hack access into the Internet, says US judge

Information wants to be free. But, helping people to steal access to it is still a crime as an Oregon man just found out after being convicted of wire fraud for helping thousands steal internet service.

The defendant, Ryan Harris, ran a company called TCNISO. It distributed software and hardware tools that enabled customers to modify their cable modems to mask themselves as paying customers. In his defense Harris claimed assisting customers in their cable modem hacking activities was justified because it facilitated access to the internet. According to a report:

“Mr. Harris tried to hide behind the banner of freedom of access to the Internet, but the evidence established that he built a million dollar business helping customers steal Internet service”.

What a surprise.

One wonders whether some Internet activist advocacy organization will rush to help in any appeal. Heck couldn’t it borrow from the anti-copyright playbook and argue that the theft can be justified on First Amendment grounds? Or how about that hacking cable modems is a fundamental right arising from the ownership of the cable modem? Or how about justifying the hacking because a free and open Internet can only be preserved if individuals have the right to hack their way into every Internet access point? Or that it is unconstitutional to provide legal protection for technical measures that protect theft of Internet access? Better still, why not argue that cable operators ought to change their outmoded business models and give up relying on monthly access fees? If copyright content should be “free” for the taking on the Internet, why shouldn’t access also be free? Not.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Why crackdown on pirate set-top boxes is good for innovation: a reply to Michael GeistWhy crackdown on pirate set-top boxes is good for innovation: a reply to Michael Geist



Last week the Federal Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining ITVBOX.NET, WATCHNSAVE INC, MTLFREETV.COM and others from selling set-top boxes preloaded with software. The software was specifically adapted to enable purchasers to stream and download ...

Editions du Seuil v Google: what reasons did the French court give for holding Google liable for copyright infringement?Editions du Seuil v Google: what reasons did the French court give for holding Google liable for copyright infringement?



There was a lot of press recently when the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris 3ème chambre, 2ème section released its ruling of December 18, 2009 in the case involving Google and several publishers and ...

Legends and reality about the 1996 WIPO Treaties in the light of certain comments on Bill C-32Legends and reality about the 1996 WIPO Treaties in the light of certain comments on Bill C-32



I.  INTRODUCTION It was at a copyright seminar abroad that I learned about the publication of Bill C-32 by which the Canadian government intends to adapt the copyright legislation to the digital on-line environment. By ...

%d bloggers like this: