Open Wi-Fi owners not liable for dodgy users, asserts EU Judge

[HEXUS]

EU Court of Justice advisory says such businesses should get safe harbour, like ISPs.

Read more.

[Corky34]

How do you stop copyright infringements without any user monitoring?

[scaryjim]

Blacklist sites known to provide content that breaches copyright? Relatively easy even on most consumer routers...

I believe the issue is that you should make some attempt, not that you can guarantee total compliance.

[valhar2000]

Blacklist sites known to provide content that breaches copyright? Relatively easy even on most consumer routers...

That is a good idea from the point of view of a business owner who doesn't want a small group of users hogging all the bandwidth. However, it is ludicrous to expect companies that provide free WIFI to exercise complete control over their users' activity. Indeed, it was found that this requirement was onerous for ISPs, who have far more resources available to them than small business owners!

[crossy]

How do you stop copyright infringements without any user monitoring?

Blacklist sites known to provide content that breaches copyright? Relatively easy even on most consumer routers...

I believe the issue is that you should make some attempt, not that you can guarantee total compliance.

I'm thinking the same - as long as the "free Wifi provider" can demonstrate that they'd made a "reasonable" (by man-on-the-Clapham-omnibus standard) effort to stop IP infringement then I'd be more than happy to grant them a legal safe harbour. I'd be worried about unscrupulous providers from using the "it wasn't me mate" defence when they get caught downloading torrents to put on CD's to sell (under the counter of course) to customers. Of course if they had logs to prove it was a customer and not them....

In a sane world we'd be able to suggest that perhaps the copyright holders themselves provide a blacklist of known bad sites that they'd want blocked. After all, they seem to have the resources and inclination to chase down content theives, whereas "Peggy's Cafe" on the corner most certainly has neither.

Don't want to get all gushy, but I'm kind of glad when I see the high judiciary showing such common sense as this - well done EU court system!

[scaryjim]

... I'd be worried about unscrupulous providers from using the "it wasn't me mate" defence ...

I suspect that will be the cry from the entertainment industry - it risks giving business owners essentially carte blanche to using their open customer wifi to download/share copyrighted material, and of course once it's public knowledge it also means pirates can use open public wifi knowing that the provider isn't at risk of prosecution and they're unlikely to get caught.

[badass]

I suspect that will be the cry from the entertainment industry - it risks giving business owners essentially carte blanche to using their open customer wifi to download/share copyrighted material, and of course once it's public knowledge it also means pirates can use open public wifi knowing that the provider isn't at risk of prosecution and they're unlikely to get caught.

And yet the pirates won't. Because they can't be bothered in the majority.

[Corky34]

Blacklist sites known to provide content that breaches copyright? Relatively easy even on most consumer routers...

I believe the issue is that you should make some attempt, not that you can guarantee total compliance.

I'm not a torrent user so IDK but isn't the website bit only a part of it?

[Tabbykatze]

I install Sophos UTM Firewalls and they actually have a regularly updated category called "Illegal UK" which is a categorisation of all websites that are considered by UK legislation illegal and to be blocked. That should be enough to say you've "gone to reasonable grounds to protect" copyright interests without compromising public freedom with security systems.

[Xlucine]

I'm thinking the same - as long as the "free Wifi provider" can demonstrate that they'd made a "reasonable" (by man-on-the-Clapham-omnibus standard) effort to stop IP infringement then I'd be more than happy to grant them a legal safe harbour. I'd be worried about unscrupulous providers from using the "it wasn't me mate" defence when they get caught downloading torrents to put on CD's to sell (under the counter of course) to customers. Of course if they had logs to prove it was a customer and not them....

In a sane world we'd be able to suggest that perhaps the copyright holders themselves provide a blacklist of known bad sites that they'd want blocked. After all, they seem to have the resources and inclination to chase down content theives, whereas "Peggy's Cafe" on the corner most certainly has neither.

Don't want to get all gushy, but I'm kind of glad when I see the high judiciary showing such common sense as this - well done EU court system!

downloading stuff to rip onto CD's and sell would leave a trail of CD's with copyrighted content, which ought to be much easier to prosecute for than someone with their IP address downloading stuff they shouldn't

[davesom555]

This is excellent news. Hopefully it will mean more free wifi spots without having to sign up via web page or only getting 30 mins free.

[scaryjim]

I'm not a torrent user so IDK but isn't the website bit only a part of it?

I'm pretty sure you could also block all the common ports for torrents easily enough: after all, you're providing the wifi for people to surf and web and check emails: the number of ports you *need* open for that is minimal.

[peterb]

This is excellent news. Hopefully it will mean more free wifi spots without having to sign up via web page or only getting 30 mins free.

Well, part of that is for marketing, and the charge may be to offset the cost of the connection, but for businesses like cafes and coffee bars, who offer it as part of their service (and the cost is absorbed as an overhead and incorporated into the product they are offering) it is good news.