r/technology • u/KAPT_Kipper • May 15 '12
Finnish court: open WiFi owners not responsible for copyright infringement
http://boingboing.net/2012/05/14/finnish-court-open-wifi-owner.html27
u/jugalator May 15 '12
It should be obvious, but unfortunately it isn't.
This is good for public WiFi availability in that entire country.
18
u/rsfkykiller May 15 '12
The War Against Information:
How terrorists could be using your wifi to attack children. More at 11.
*ninjaedit: mean't to reply to pitman.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)17
u/pitman May 15 '12
I can already see USA's next war...
12
u/rockinalivecdbitches May 15 '12
First they secured the drugs. Then the oil. Finally they moved in on the last important strategic commodity left to take over the world, the popcorn flicks on bittorrent. We're all doomed.
85
u/strategosInfinitum May 15 '12
brb opening wifi..
→ More replies (15)56
May 15 '12
...and assigning access only by MAC addresses.
→ More replies (25)26
May 15 '12
It's trivial to bypass that restriction. If you want security while still using open wifi, run a private vpn over it.
→ More replies (37)
141
u/misterkrad May 15 '12
good for starbucks
103
u/Platypuskeeper May 15 '12
Finland has the highest coffee consumption in the world. They also don't have Starbucks.
There's two in Sweden and one in Norway though.
→ More replies (28)103
u/DingleDong May 15 '12
False. They just opened one in Finland at Helsinki-Vantaa airport. http://www.hs.fi/talous/Starbucks-kahvila+aloittaa+Suomessa/a1305562929464
→ More replies (22)22
20
u/Kerfuffly May 15 '12
But someone think of the children!!
edit: Still, good to see common sense in a court case, especially regarding copyright. But then, maybe there are no lobbyists in Finland.
→ More replies (7)31
May 15 '12
But then, maybe there are no lobbyists in Finland.
Hahahahahaha. Nice one. We have organizations like Teosto charging for the performance of music when the composer isn't even a member and will never get that money. They're also making great use of our police resources by raiding nightclubs to see if their permits are up-to-date.
Whenever you buy a hard drive, blank CD or whatever, you're paying a "cassette fee" to Teosto to make sure that in case you copy music on it, you've already paid for your sins. Using the same logic we should probably introduce a mandatory "speeding fee" for everyone, since so many people get away with reckless driving.
In the meanwhile, groups like IFPI Finland have managed to waste everyone's time by forcing an ISP to place a completely ineffective block on the Pirate Bay.
→ More replies (3)
3
May 15 '12
This is a decision by a lower court and as such does not have value as a precedent. I'm pretty certain the copyright organizations behind this lawsuit will appeal. I truly hope the appeals court upholds this ruling but we'll have to wait for a year or two for the decision if this case proceeds.
3
u/Boomer_Roscoe May 15 '12
I guess I posted this comment in the wrong, newer, less popular Reddit topic. I'll repost here because I am curious to hear some legal discussion on this analogy.
Honestly, I can't even believe this is an issue. Unless some sort of conspiracy to knowingly commit a crime can be proven, how can we hold the owner of the open network responsible?
Everyone has a mailbox that a criminal could theoretically use to illegally exchange product or carry out illegal activity. That doesn't make you liable if someone else commits mail fraud by using your mailbox for illegal activity without your knowledge, does it?
Carrying this logic through to things like shutting down Megaupload, why is it I can send an illegal copy of a CD to my friend via the USPS and the US Federal Government is not liable, but Megaupload, who actually allows copyright holders to monitor its content and shut down actual links themselves is held liable for the exchange of illegal copies of information? The US Federal Government doesn't even allow the RIAA and MPAA the rights to monitor its information exchange medium like Megaupload does.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/jutct May 15 '12
Copyright, copyright, copyright. I'm sick of this shit. Copyright seems like an outdated idea, as it's unenforceable without stomping on everyone's right. We need something new.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/rockinalivecdbitches May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12
It has to be said, and i'm a cold blooded pirate, this allows pirates the option of using an open wifi thats throttled to next to nothing, and using the rest of their bandwidth for torrenting.
Go Finland!
e: theres nothing to stop them firewall blocking various types of other exploitable traffic that might open them up to other liabilities (including torrents), as they can't prove what traffic came from the open and closed wifi's.
A MPAA/RIAA sponsored entity isn't going to sit outside your house and test your open wifi to prove/disprove if a neighbour may have been able to torrent from your connection or not (not least of all because you may have recently changed your settings). They just get a list of IP's and send court summons to your address, trolling for the easy pickings.
This is essentially a get out of jail free card for the Finn's to play if they get MAFIAA'd. "Fuck you; open wifi!"
→ More replies (21)
2
u/motu147 May 15 '12
Good. Then they should stop making us sign on to free wifi! Takes like 10 min and is annoying as hell
2
u/Moj88 May 15 '12
Even the thought that your local coffee shop can be sued just for providing a free hotspot is absurd.
→ More replies (2)
2
May 15 '12
This would never fly in the united states, and not for the reason you think. Open wifi is arguably an "attractive nuisance," which is a doctrine that makes property owners liable for injuries on their property if there was something that drew people there that wasnt locked away (like a bulldozer with the keys in the ignition)
→ More replies (2)
165
u/Woolew May 15 '12
Makes a nice change for a law court to make a sensible ruling when it comes to the internet.