Slashdot Mirror
UK Pub Reportedly Fined For Illegal Wi-Fi Download
superglaze and several other readers noted a piece up on ZDNet.co.uk reporting that last summer a pub in the UK was fined £8,000 after a customer downloaded copyrighted material on its Wi-Fi connection. According to the article, whose source was the Wi-Fi hotspot provider, it was a civil action and the pub was not identified because its owner had not given permission to release the details. Techdirt is skeptical as to whether or not the reported fine happened, given the sketchiness surrounding the details. If true, the ruling seems baffling to UK legal experts, according to ZDNet: "Internet law professor Lilian Edwards, of Sheffield Law School, told ZDNet that companies that operate a public Wi-Fi hotspot should 'not be responsible in theory' for users' illegal downloads under 'existing substantive copyright law.'" In a follow-up article, Prof. Edwards cautions that such hotspot operators should "watch out for the pile of copyright infringement warnings coming your way."
Also, Copyright Act exempts the transport, yet when the meter reads that it cost $0 to download then that takes the perview of exemption out of the way and into the monetary assumption of commerce that would then determine whether a profit is being derived from it's use and whether the matter is being dispensed from one's privy antiquity or publicly displayed for an investor to sample and buy.
In other words, $0 is still worth something if only to carry the venue. I learned this somewhat from a federal case a friend of mine was forced into testifying because the prosecutors wrote that his liability was $0.02 just to get him on the bench or some bullshit. The value was disclosed not to the jury, who would have surely seen the bad faith nature of most federal judges and the promiscuity of prosecutors.
No, no, and more no.
This sort of litigation is unwise at best. If providing network access makes one responsible for the users' actions, that will severely impact availability of service. Hotels, coffee shops, airports and the like all become liable for their users. Bad move. What if I power my laptop using electricity at the pub but use an AirCard to use a cell phone network to infringe copyright? Ultimately this is foolishness, regardless of how copyright infringement is viewed.
It's time to reinforce the concept that I am responsible for my actions, and nobody else. Aiding and abetting is something entirely different from what a WiFi provider does. Just because copyright owners can't actually track down the person infringing doesn't make it okay to pick the next guy up as the source of the proverbial pound of flesh.
"Oh no... he found the
This story brought to you by the RIAA, striking fear across the globe.
No fine too ridiculous! No defendant too vulnerable! No sense of proportion!
John
This is scarily along the lines of the iiNet (popular Australian ISP) versus AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) case that just finished in the courts a few days ago. We're all waiting for the Judge's ruling next year as it could set a huge precedent.
See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=afact+vs+iinet
I'll be starting a coffeeshop on my front porch. Free wifi, $30 coffee; I'm not zoned for parking, so you'll get towed after 30 minutes.
Nice, some rumor propagation on the front page.
Supposedly, according to a wifi hotspot provider, one of their unnamed clients was fined because an unnamed patron downloaded some unnamed copyrighted material.
I'm surprised the amount wasn't also undisclosed.
Now, I'm all for the birth of new urban legends for the hi-tech crowd... and maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this sure seems like some nice marketing for that wifi company, whose name I will omit in case marketing is what this is about.
See, they get their name plastered on the intertubes, while their claim will get thoroughly debunked, and all people will remember is the name of the company and the fact that public wifi operators are protected by safe harbor laws.
If the pub DID really get fined GBP 8k for copyright violations, it's probably more likely that it was because they were streaming sports content live to their patrons. This is how I watch Rutgers football games that are not on TV... I go to a bar where they stream the games (albeit at very low res with some hiccuping) onto a big-screen TV.
But, I'm guessing here, based on the words of that wifi company. Which is the same thing everyone is doing, so why can't we just ignore this stupid story until there is some actual fact-checking done?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
A couple of jobs ago I had several clients who were cafe's providing free Wifi.
Their setups just consisted of home Wifi routers, they had no ability to account for the traffic that passed through their networks and had no way to control access.
Today you can get box solutions for under $1000 dollars to provide basic Identity Management, monitoring, logging and firewall/proxy control to give you more control but many of those solutions are still not enough to prevent file sharing, or provide extended logging with 12 months or more records in case you have to prove a legal issue.
Much of the train of thought with many of these hotspot operators is to offer wifi because the cafe/restaurant down the street does it and they have no thought of their legal obligations as a service provider and really are not aware of the risk that goes with it.
The BSA/RIAA/MPAA could have a field day attempting to sue the pants off these kind of operators if they really wanted to focus their attention on it.
Also, Copyright Act exempts the transport
I can't make any sense of this post.
In American law the profit motive is irrelevant in cases of copyright infringement.
The hotspot owner was likely sued for refusing to do anything about repeated infringement on their network. I can't speak for the UK, but in the States, so long as you ban any MAC address associated with an IP the *IAA sends your way, they're basically happy that you've taken the trouble to minimize downloading (and the majority of pirates aren't going to bother MAC spoofing when they can just go down the street or buy what they wanted.)
News Flash! There was a questionable story posted last year! As a new development, some people still think it's questionable!
Why stop here? Charge the computer makers, the chip makers, the OS maker, the telecom company, the maker of wires, the maker of routers, the producers of alcohol sold in the pub (as their product may have influenced the decision to download) and the list goes on... the more the better. Eventually someone will wonder, just what the hell are we doing?
This begs the question of what a public hotspot is defined as.
If this gets overruled then I'm opening up my wireless to the public at 1K/sec so I can't be held legally responsible for any copyright infringement that occurs from my connection.
I thought it was all over when thepiratebay.org went down with jail sentences and now this. They are on to us boys...watch out. Wait, I just finished d/ling shakira. I'm a pirate...errrrr matey
Legal-Eagle: "companies that operate a public Wi-Fi hotspot should 'not be responsible in theory' for users' illegal downloads under 'existing substantive copyright law.'"
Quite right. However...
RIAA/MPAA/(EU equivalent): "Pay us or we use your @$$#0[3 as a target for the caber toss."
Guess what happens. (Note that's a statement, not a question.)
[End Of Line]
Excellent, lets have a sing along in the RIAA's parking lot, which would mean the RIAA is encouraging infringement!
IANAL
this needs to stop. If this is allowed to happen then RIAA and MPAA and every other AA will just sue every hotspot operator in the country with little to no proof and force them to settle. goodbye to open wifi and lets stay in the dark ages forever
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's all B.S. fascist propaganda to crack down on everyone in the interest of corporate profits.
If one of their customers had ordered a CD with a fraudulent credit card (over their payphone), would the fine have been more, or less?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
On my trip to the US(Chicago), I was surprised to see all the open WiFi hotspots so many places. I used them often with my iPhone to Skype home and save 2$ pr. minute.
With the current anti-terror laws in many EU countries you have to register and log everything, making providing hotspots a real pain in the a.. and I find it rare to see free open hotspots anywhere. But it might just have been the places I have visited.
If the pub was robbed using a knife from said pub, should the pub also be responsible for what the person committing the crime did?
I thought the copyright laws related to the unlawful distribution of a file you were not authorized by the copyright owner to distribute. How is you downloading a file distributing it? Isn't the person offering the file the one offering it for distribution? Maybe the law is changing to mean that since you downloaded it, YOU made the unauthorized copy?
And, out of my earshot, you order drugs from your dealer, or for that matter,
give the launch command for the terrorist bombing attack.
So I guess I am vicariously liable for your criminal action?
I can't see anything in my example that is not parallel to the case mentioned.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
If this holds up then gun manufacturers can be held liable for murders using this as a precedence.
In UK law it is wholly relevant. CDPA 1988 states that an offence is committed if such works are made available for sale or hire.
To my best knowledge, noone was ever sued for downloading, only for uploading. Therefore, the story is at least partially bogus. There was a somewhat similar case in Germany a couple of years ago, someone used people's wifi for uploading music by the rapper named Bushido, and the wifi owners lost the case, the court claiming that it's their problem for not securing it. In this case however, the court documents are available online, and, as I said previously, talk about uploading and not downloading.
For info, "CDPA" is this:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_1
Can't you USians get RIAA on making available? After all, they ARE making their works available and if they weren't available on CD they wouldn't be rippable and therefore they wouldn't be put on P2P networks.
Ergo, RIAA are guilty of "making available" copyrighted works for piracy...
As far as I remember the Mumbai bombers used Thuraya satellite phones, they all have IMEI numbers but the gateway for the network is in the UAE, so well outside India's control.
This seems like just another power grab/invasion of privacy and like forcing people to use WPA on their routers, trying to make sure every packet on the internet has a traceable owner.
This reminds me of this story where a man was prosecuted for using someone else's open access point. It seems that there is no clear definition in the UK as to who is responsible for the usage of an open access point. Somebody needs to put some geeks in charge as these law makers don't know what they're doing.
Search for kiddie porn on their wifi!
Article submitter (kdawson ...) jumps to the conclusion that the downloader was a customer. Nowhere in the linked article does is say that it was a customer, merely that it was "someone".
If that "someone" was the pub manager then I can see why the pub manager would be the one sued by the copyright holder.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
It doesn't sound like the director of The Cloud knows what he is talking about. Much more detail is needed before this becomes more than a vicious rumour adding to the background fear of the general public.
You couldn't be "fined" in a civil suit, only pay damages. In the UK we don't have punitive damages either: damages are supposed to reflect the actual loss caused to the claimant, and in economic cases this is notoriously difficult to establish. If any pub handed over £8,000 on a civil suit it could only be in (probably ill-advised) settlement to save the cost of defending a legal action.
There is a *small* possibility that local trading standards officers said they were considering prosecution, and offered a civil penalty in the alternative, which the pub was prepared to accept in order to protect its license, which would be at risk if there were criminal proceedings. (That sort of official blackmail is common in the police state that Britain has become in the 21st century.) The usual size of a civil penalty offered for a minor offence is £80.00, not £8,000. Maybe the story is a typo.