Public UK Wi-Fi Hotspot Owner Fined 8000GBP for Users Illegal Download
By: MarkJ - 28 November, 2009 (8:11 AM) - Views: 2798 - Categories: Wi-Fi, Illegal Downloads

piracyFears that the UK government’s new Digital Economy Bill could destroy FREE public wireless (Wi-Fi) broadband services appear to have come one step closer today. Wi-Fi operator The Cloud informs that a pub owner running one of its open Wi-Fi Hotspots has been fined £8,000 after an unknown customer used the service to download illegal files.

Ironically we reported only yesterday (here) that Lilian Edwards, a Professor of Internet Law at the University of Sheffield, had identified a section of the new Bill that appears to make the owner of a network legally responsible for copyright infringement by its users.

This goes against both UK and EU E-Commerce Regulations, which make operators immune from liability. Today's ZDNet report has a new quote from the same Professor, adding that such businesses should be exempt because they could be classed as a public communications service provider; apparently, under the proposed bill, only subscribers can be targeted.

However at present that Bill does not yet apply and instead the pub owner has been hit by a civil case, brought about by a copyright holder. Indeed it's easy to see how the pub could be targeted because, much as we've warned before, this kind of network uses a shared IP address between many anonymous users. Hence the network owner is the only identifiable individual.

Presently the whole issue of correctly identifying a responsible individual is more than just a legally grey area; it persistently undermines the entire bill. In the meantime we suspect that the pub above should, under current laws, win any court case brought against it. However the very fact that this can happen is likely to dissuade some newer public Internet access initiatives from developing.

Share Links: Slashdot, Stumble, Facebook, Digg!, Blink, Del.icio.us, Reddit, Yahoo, Mixx, Propeller, Diigo
Options: Link | Search News

Comments: 11

asa logoDamien
Posted: 28 November, 2009 - 10:09 AM
Link to comment

Whilst this does seem unfair, the "mere conduit" argument can only be held by the service provider, the landlord of the pub would have been the "subscriber". However I dont know enough about law, but if someone unknown did the download then surely the law would remain that an "unknown individual" accessed a computer system illegally, when you go to a pub the first thing you do is "ASK CAN I USE YOUR WIFI" so if he doesnt know who did the download theres no way to prove he allowed the user even to use the wifi, therefore under uk law he is a victim of wifi theft.

Would have saved him 8 grand. All he had to say was "i only provide the service from the cloud to the customers, as no one had asked me to use the wifi, i was not reasonably expected to check what everyone around me was downloading nor from where."
asa logoChris Spackett
Posted: 28 November, 2009 - 10:33 AM
Link to comment

this will not be the first case to arise from this pathetic new internet/digital law.

ISPs will lose a hell of a lot of customers, more wifi hotspots will be targeted.

always said to folk, the day the internet gets policed more in such a way is the day it all goes tits up!

nearly 80% of websites now have some form of shitty banner ad or targeted advertising its just getting stupid now.

google is to blame! greedy bastards!
asa logoMarkJ
Posted: 28 November, 2009 - 11:12 AM
Link to comment

Websites have had banner adverts using basic targetted advertising since before the Internet even surfaced in the UK cheese .
asa logocurtis
Posted: 28 November, 2009 - 4:35 PM
Link to comment

A lot cafe's and pub's and other buinesses that offer free wi-fi will stop offering this service as it has now come to light the owners will fined & not the unknown user?
the end of wi-fi hotspots maybe on the cards thanks our idoit run government?
asa logorogerh
Posted: 28 November, 2009 - 6:41 PM
Link to comment

Quite honestly it's difficult to draw any conclusions from the given facts. What was the offence and under which law? Was he found guilty or did he plead guilty?
asa logoCarrot63
Posted: 28 November, 2009 - 8:07 PM
Link to comment

So, not only is the music industry responsible for the woeful state of music/music distribution, it seems they're going to put paid to the idea of widely available public wifi internet services. The gov can cross that one off their list of "innovative and eye-catching" ways to attain the USO. Perhaps music.biz can now move on to closing down the national grid as this facilitates file sharing, or perhaps Curry, Dixons etc as they sell the kit to do it.

There is a word (or two) for these people.

1 2 Next >

Leave a comment


baffled cheese confused cool frown glee laugh mad mixedup noexpression sad sadder shifty shocked smile smirk timid tongue whatever wink 



Characters left (comments containing swear words may not be saved)

Please MAKE A COPY OF YOUR COMMENT so you can re-post if an error occurs.

Enter this code in the field below.
Security Image





Generated in 0.49202 seconds.
DB queries: 8

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).