Copyright Trolls Bogus Negligence Theory Thrown Out Of Court AgainMitch Stoltz The negligence strategy had three fatal flaws, according to the court. First, an Internet subscriber like Mr. Hatfield has no legal duty to police his Internet connection to protect copyright owners like AF Holdings. Second, even if AF had a valid negligence claim against Mr. Hatfield under state personal injury law, federal copyright law would override it. This is called preemption. And finally, even if copyright law didnt trump a negligence claim, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act probably would. Copyright owner representatives, from the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America to the fleet of troll lawyers filing shakedown suits on behalf of porn studios, dont like the protections that federal law gives to Internet providers and their subscribers who allow others to use their network connections. Though the protections are far from perfect, the laws, including Section 230 of the CDA, Section 512 of the DMCA, and the secondary liability principles laid down by the Supreme Court, give Internet providers and their subscribers some peace of mind. Opening your Internet connection to the public is a way of strengthening communities and helping innovation, as weve written in this blog and in court papers. This weeks ruling, along with the Tabora ruling in New York, send a strong judicial message that copyright owners cant use legal tricks to bypass the laws protections for Internet access points. Files Related Cases Please visit and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation for Internet freedom privacy. linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 