German User Fined For Having an Open Wi-Fi

Kilrah_il writes "A German citizen was sued for copyright infringement because copyrighted material was downloaded through his network while he was on vacation. Although the court did not find him guilty of copyright infringement, he was fined for not having password-protected his network: 'Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation,' the court said."

Comments

Re:I see.

[conares]

Only if they make copies of your CD's and/or DVD's

So if I understand this correctly...

[toooskies]

He was fined 100 euro because a single user downloaded a single song illegally. One song. A hundred twenty-five times its retail value. And he didn't even download it. Copyright is out of control.

Re:So if I understand this correctly...

[Sockatume]

No, the media industry's out of control. Maniacal copyright infringement suits are their current approach to profit maximisation, but saying that copyright law is the problem makes it seem like the media industry is innocently obeying an unjust law. They're not. If we fix copyright tort, they'll do something else. Maybe demonise indie music as some sex-and-drugs scene to discourage parents from letting their kids buy off-label music, or convince the press that homebrew games destroy the mainstream games industry. They've taken an unscrupulous approach to maximizing their ROI, and so fixing the laws they exploit is not enough. We've got to stop supporting them.

Re:I see.

[mysidia]

Well, WiFi is not designed to be used for copyright infringement, even if open, and such things are commonplace/readily available.

It's more like someone walked in through an unlocked door in your house, stole a fork from your silverware drawer, and stabbed someone to death with it.

And now you the homeowner are being charged with the murder, because you leaving your door unlocked allowed the fork to be used.

This is GOOD news

[Anonymous Coward]

While some of you slashdoters cannot even grasp what this means:
You can leave your wifi open, you can download anything you want, and the maximal fine will be 100 EUR!
I call that a big win where users would be sued up to 10.000 EUR for downloading/sharing music - this will put a dramatic lid on those things.

Cheers.

Manufacturers to blame? Lack of full regulation?

[strayant]

So, if this is how things are to be, I think that this guy should pass the buck to the manufacturer for not complying with local law. Such devices should be regulated in such a way that they cannot be sold to customers without ALREADY being secure out-of-the-box. Otherwise, I think that this should have no merit.

Re:I see.

[Low Ranked Craig]

And, since he did leave the door unlocked, that is entirely fair.

We must have skipped over the part where it became reasonable for a government to tell you that you must lock your door.

Re:I see.

[GungaDan]

"This is the best post on /. I've read in years. Do you offer security consulting services?"

Or bricks?

Re:I see.

[MediaCastleX]

Ever wonder if legal jargon is really just magic spells being spoken aloud? Lawyers and judges could actually be modern-day warlocks and witches locked in an eternal battle for good and evil on the battlefield of the court!

A few more facts:

[Kjella]

1. The network was in fact not open. It was secured with WPA1 and a default password (source, German)

"Somit ist auch noch einmal zu Betonen: Es ging in der Entscheidung nicht um ein vollständig ungesichertes WLAN! Der BGH hat also nicht über ein offenes WLAN verhandelt, wie lange fälschlicherweise berichtet wurde. Vielmehr ging es ganz allgemein um die bedeutsame Frage, welche Sicherungspflichten die Betreiber von WLAN allgemein trifft."

2. The 100 euro is not for copyright infringement, but rather it seems that in Germany the reciever of a DMCA-like notice is liable for up to 100 euro unless they can either a) Point the blame to someone else or b) Pass some standard of having done everything reasonable to avoid damage. That's at least how I read the law:

" 97a Abmahnung

(1) Der Verletzte soll den Verletzer vor Einleitung eines gerichtlichen Verfahrens auf Unterlassung abmahnen und ihm Gelegenheit geben, den Streit durch Abgabe einer mit einer angemessenen Vertragsstrafe bewehrten Unterlassungsverpflichtung beizulegen. Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden.

(2) Der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen für die Inanspruchnahme anwaltlicher Dienstleistungen für die erstmalige Abmahnung beschränkt sich in einfach gelagerten Fällen mit einer nur unerheblichen Rechtsverletzung außerhalb des geschäftlichen Verkehrs auf 100 Euro."

The key sentence here is "Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden." which translates to something like "When the warning is justified, compensation for the relevant expenses can be demanded." The second caps it to 100 euro for simple cases.