Now the firm has been dealt a further blow with a judge rejecting their attempts to have the cases settled without trial, according to PC Pro.

ACS Law said that the defendants had operated, “at the time of the identified infringement an Internet connection router that was not secured either adequately or at all, so as to enable another to carry out an act of copyright infringement of the claimant’s Work via the Internet connection of the defendant.”

This was in breach of the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act according to the firm, but Judge Birss had a different opinion and instead ruled that ”The plea that ‘allowing’ others to infringe is itself an act restricted by s16 (1)(a) and 17 of the 1988 Act is simply wrong.”

While this itself does not set a precedent as the case was only heard in a county court it is very important and could have repercussions around the world if upheld in higher courts.  The assumption that people can and are aware of the security requirements for wi-fi wireless networks, and that they must be aiding and abetting illegal file-sharers simply by not having a password on their router is a weak one and it’s good that it’s been tested in this way.

ACS Law have been abusing the popularity of home wireless routers to press for the assumption that everyone who ownes one therefore understands it and knows exactly how to use it. 

The judge summed up by stating that “The term used by those sections of the Act is ‘authorising’ and the difference may be very important if the allegation is about unauthorised use of an Internet router by third parties.”

We’ll let you know how this story unfolds in 2011 at gHacks.

Now. What would you do ? Would you fight for the chance to win this uphill battle risking everything you got in the course of it ? Or would you give in although you might have every right to link to those websites and shows ? It is indeed a difficult question and I’m really not sure how I would react if I would face such a situation.

Would you personally say that linking to a movie on youtube for instance is illegal if the movie itself has been illegally uploaded to the site ? Would not it make more sense to sue youtube instead – they are hosting the content. So, why didn’t they sue google instead ? Could it be that google has enough money to hire some lawyers who would defend their site ? Could it be that Fox is not interested in a ruling at all ?

The same tactics can be witnessed when RIAA lawyers sue people. Most can’t afford lawyers and do what the RIAA lawyers tell them. The people that fight the ruling normally win and the RIAA backs out.

The main question however is the following: If it is indeed illegal to link to illegal content why aren’t they suing the search engines ? What if a website changes content and has now something illegally on their site ? Do webmasters have to check all the sites that they link to every day to make sure there is nothing hosted on them that could get them in trouble ?

Where will this end ? Can they sue me if I talk to someone in person and tell him that he should search for Simpsons on youtube to find and watch the latest episodes ? What if someone does not link directly to the shows but to a search results page ? Still illegal ? What if he writes down the name that his visitors should search for and links only to the main address of the video hosting site ? Still illegal ?

Where does it end ?