Pub fined $13k for Wi-Fi copyright infringement

A pub owner in the U.K. has been fined £8,000 (about $13,183) because someone unlawfully downloaded copyrighted material over its open Wi-Fi hotspot, according to the managing director of hotspot provider The Cloud.

Graham Cove told CNET sister site ZDNet UK on Friday he believes the case to be the first of its kind in the U.K. However, he would not identify the pub concerned, because its owner--a pub that is a client of The Cloud's--had not yet given their permission for the case to be publicized.

Cove would say only that the fine had been levied in a civil case, brought about by a rights holder, "sometime this summer." The Cloud's pubco clients include Fullers, Greene King, Marsdens, Scottish & Newcastle, Mitchell & Butlers, and Punch Taverns.

The law surrounding open Wi-Fi networks and the liability of those running them is a grey area...

Read more of "Pub 'fined £8k' for Wi-Fi copyright infringement" and the followup story, "Law expert issues warning to open Wi-Fi operators," at ZDNet UK.

[Chao_Sama]

there it is.

[fgwgner]

Hay mados123 try taking some computer classes and network classes or your the member of the I don't need to know how it works it just works crowd

[monkeyfun14]

Honestly? How the hell did this even go through court.<br /><br />Was the pub owner expected to buy a several grand on a hardware web filter?

[fgwgner]

have you heard of smoothwall its free and you can run it on old hardware the website is smoothwall.org and you can download the addon to block websites and it keeps web logs on the default install

[BlutoNYC]

This is a perfect example of big business trying to put the burden on the little people. If it's your copyright crap, then it's your job to protect it, not ours. If you're going to hold the pub liable, then you should also hold the manufacturer of the infringer's laptop. Why not? They used their hardware to steal the media. It's the same reasoning.

[xhable]

Here here BlutoNYC

[mados123]

Both the hardware web filter and smoothwall comment has to be the dumbest I read in a long time. A web filter is not the problem, the fact that is was Open (as in unsecured) WiFi is why he is being charged. As for smoothwall, do you really expect a pub owner who doesn't secure his WiFi to install smoothwall?

[Kyanar]

You're all not reading the story. If you did, you'd know that a company called The Cloud was contracted to provide hotspot services. That means that the pub owner can't go plugging firewalls or devices in, and certainly has no control over the authentication so clearly can't do anything to secure it. I would certainly hope that The Cloud intends to step in on behalf of the pub, but expect that they probably wont.

[Randall Lind]

http://www.opendns.com/ is free also so you enter their DNS numbers and your router to block anything from porn to facebook.

[Renegade Knight]

It should have been bounced. The Pub owner has no obligation to police copyright.

[tghounsell]

Great reply, BlutuNYC.

[Captwtf]

Anything short of unplugging your wireless router is still vulnerable to some extent. There are numerous tools available to the public to bypass router security as well as software-level website filtering. BlutoNYC is correct in saying that if they are going to fine the pub, they may as well fine the manufacturer of the laptop with the same legal reasoning. This is the same as pressing charges against the owner of a car that was stolen and used in a robbery, instead of pursuing those truly involved. Granted, the chances of finding the person(s) involved are slim-to-none, punishing the pub owner isn't going to do anything beneficial for anyone involved.

[gerrrg]

And there goes the free WiFi.

[tghounsell]

That's exactly what I thought.

[Truckdrvr]

Not really, just leach off the neighbors unsecured wifi. Of course that could get them fined or thrown in jail after you download copyrighted and or other questionable material which will lead to their Internet connection being cut off from lack of payment after the bankruptcy which resulted from the legal defense costs and subsequent job loss.

[aMUSICsite]

So the pub is prosecuted because they supply the free Wi-Fi...<br />But the phone company will supply the network access to the pub...<br /><br />It makes just as much sense fining the ISP/Phone/Internet supplier to the pub as the pub it's self. After all the pub is only supplying access to a router connected to the internet. <br /><br />This law has to make free WiFi obsolete, after all I can upload copyrighted material to the web then go around to every free WiFi establishment and download it then sue them.

[E B]

Since this is in the UK, I doubt it will affect wifi access in the US (where I am, and where I assume the majority of news.com readers are). The laws here make it more difficult to sue an ISP -- which is what a free wifi provider essentially is -- for copyright infringement. If they aren't providing web hosting, it's probably almost impossible.

[js555554]

It is concerning though. Often you will read a statement from some US politician explaining how this or that European law is a model when it comes to protecting something. The something being being defined as a special interest that pays a significant amount into the politicians coffers typically.

[Lerianis3]

js555554 gets the point here. The fact that this case was allowed AT ALL is scary as hell. It's like if a person (friend or not), without my knowledge, uses my DVD burner to burn an 'illegal' copy of something or something that is totally illegal like CP..... am I then going to be held accountable for what they did?<br />No, the law says even in the UK that I shouldn't be. This case should be appealed and the judge in question should have the judges above him SLAP HIM ACROSS THE BACK OF THE HEAD for making this boneheaded ruling!

[mrfisma]

So if I have rocks in my front yard am I held responsible for my neighbor's broken window? After all, I provided a means for someone else to commit a crime. It should not be the governments responsibility to protect the antiquated business model of a private business.

[jumpjetta]

Great analogy.

[Renegade Knight]

Watch the laws. Responsiblity creep is headed that way. Loan your car to your buddy and he gets caught on the red light camera? You get the ticket. Why? Because it's easier to pass a law blaming the car owner than do the job right. Right being to give the speeder the ticket.

[zyxxy]

mrfisma: That risk already exists in the US in some cases. If you create an 'attractive nuisance' in which someone gets hurt, you can be held liable. Do you have a swimming pool? It better have a fence with an self closing / self latching gate. It does not have to lock, just close and latch when released. If you leave a five gallon can of gas and a pack of matches sitting at the curb in front of your house, and somebody's car gets torched, you are going to have some explaining to do.<br /><br />Renegade Knight: The reason photo tickets are tied to a car instead of a driver is because most of the time, the car is driven by the owner. Same for parking. The law assumes that if the ticket bothers you enough, you know who was borrowing your car just then, and you'll drag them into court. Suppose your borrowed car is involved in a hit and run accident and a witness identifies the car and they later find your car with damage and associated evidence? Do you think you will avoid a ticket in that case, without dragging the borrower into court? How is that different than a red light camera or toll both camera violation?

[Renegade Knight]

@zyxxy <br /> <br />Yes, I know it's easy to ticket the car and ignore the people. Thats why they do that. It's not right, fair, or just. It's not at all supported by me and anyone with half a brain. <br /> <br />Due process means more than just assuming "if we arrest the car's owner they will finger the offending party". While I might be taken downtown and questioned if my car is in a hit and run (when I'm not driving it). I will not be found guilty let alone arrested without proof. The car is one element of proof. <br /> <br />That said, I find it interesting that due process can be waived for lesser offences. Why should my driving record be ruined because my buddy is a red light running doof? It shouldn't. His should.

[Qwi]

A County Court House in Ohio was running a open and free WiFi service that served the building and the grounds surrounding it. They were approached by a copyright holder and ended up suspending the operation. I think it was more the case of local government getting scared off by potential litigation. Which until operators are explicitly provided protection is just as dangerous as what could be developing in the UK.<br /><br />Source:<br />http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20091109/UPDATES01/91109015

[Random_Walk]

Slightly different case. They got a takedown notice, and they decided to shut the thing off instead of simply reporting back that they didn't know who was uploading the material. The town council did it more out of political expediency than anything else (they couldn't afford to keep it going, IIRC).<br /><br />I find the media conglomerates as deplorable as the next guy, but let's not give them more (dis)credit than they deserve.

[AaronMK]

@Random_Walk<br /><br />I find it highly unlikely that they just shut off the service with zero communication of the incident with the recording industry when law enforcement and festival services were at stake. For any group or person that is even semi-reasonable, a simple phone call should have been enough to drop threat potential litigation in the county's case. In minimal chance that they just got the letter and then took down the hot spot as a result, I might agree.<br /><br />But then, it is previous actions and ruthlessness in legal proceedings, and indiscriminate targeting that make even a take down notice such a costly proposition even if you are completely in the right. The current legal climate which the industry has created is a direct cause of the county having to take the steps it did. I don't see them getting any less (dis)credit than they deserve.

[Renegade Knight]

@Random_Walk <br /> <br />Interesting use of a take down notice. The pub doesn't host content thus they have nothing to take down.

[luxduke]

Was there no effort put into writing this story? Did anyone search the court records to find the case that led to this so-called "fine"? Fines are normally levied in criminal cases, not civil cases, so what really happened here? Who was the judge involved in the case? Go get the reasons for judgment, then write a proper story.

[aMUSICsite]

Yep I want to know who the right holder was in this case, I want to boycott their products and services &#38; that of anyone else trying to shut down free wifi.

[Noxcivis]

Businesses need to realize the risk of wide open WiFi. Even simple logging and authentication would help take legal action against the person performing illegal activities over a naively open WiFi.

[Lerianis3]

Actually, no, it wouldn't, because there are such things as MAC address spoofers, etc.<br /><br />What we really need to do is give these people the SAME PROTECTIONS that big ISP's have as a 'common carrier'.

[MyRightEye]

Maybe you thick-headed liberals will start to understand the dangers of excessive regulation when your WiFi is taken away. And no, I am not a thick-headed conservative either. I don't play those stupid games.

[kirkules]

You just did.

[Otto Holland]

Seems every statement has something to do with Liberals. This shows how ignorant or better yet; stupid you people are. Had it not been for Liberals (Clinton administration) The Internet would not become common at the time it did. Take your conservative pie brain somewhere else.

[jnork]

I'm considered politically liberal and yet I find this as abhorrent as you. Perhaps you could spend your energy identifying the problem and coming up with a solution instead of striking out randomly at people who are actually on your side on this.<br /><br />I'm not sure what this has to do with liberalism or conservatism anyway. They're just very, very general labels for political viewpoints. The problem with using labels like that is you cut a wide swath through a homogeneous population, and you end up looking like a raving reactionary. "You" Liberals are responsible for this, for that, for every ill and evil to visit upon mankind. It's never "me", it's always "you". Well, guess what? I never had anything to do with this. And if you feel THAT outraged about it and do nothing, sit on your tuchas and rant and point fingers at everybody else, then I guess you're just guilty of inaction.<br /><br />Just a thought.

[Renegade Knight]

Seems to me that the biggest land grab of personal rights, liberties, and the rise of the Police/Nanny state was under Bush and the so called Patriot Act. That said the new left, sure kept the worst of the right and are adding to the mess.

[zyxxy]

No, you are a thin skinned conservative. And this isn't about regulation, it is about commercial lawsuits between two commercial entities. There was nothing in here about private citizens being sued. The pub was sued. The pub has insurance. The pub is served by a commercial WiFi provider, who also has insurance. They will be sued as well. Have you ever been involved in a commercial lawsuit? As a defendant? I have, and it never made it to court. The issue was resolved in the deposition phase.<br /><br />Oh, and I am socially liberal, but fiscally very conservative, probably more conservative than you, bordering on Libertarian.

[zyxxy]

jnork: This is about the UK. Not the US. Okay? Nothing about US laws. Nothing about US Pubs. Nothing about US courts. Nothing about US presidents.

[Renegade Knight]

@zyxxy <br /> <br />In 49 states the laws are based on English Common law. What goes there, can be an indicator of what will come here.

[xesq]

Remember kiddies... it is always someone elses fault... the provider of services is responsible for what the users do with it. <br />just like the gun manufacturers are responsible for the actions of the few criminals (compared to the number of law abiding owners). <br /> <br />However, automobile manufacturers are NOT responsible for the criminals that use vehicles when commiting crimes.....

[Lerianis3]

That's because the freaking Congress finally got off their duffs and passed a law making it clear that automobile manufacturers AND gun manufacturers are not responsible for the illegal usages their products are put to, save if they are excessively negligent in a very horrendous manner.<br /><br />Like a gun manufacturer DIRECTLY sells a gun to a person whose background check for purchase comes up with 'red flags'.

[georgfelis]

Legislation by Litigation. If the Law permits lawyers to sue the hell out of people with open wi-fi connections, then nobody will have open wi-fi connections, and we will have fat lawyers (who then pass on money to legislators, and the dammed circle continues). <br /> <br />Shakespere had it right.

[rsucre]

Hard to believe. There most be something more behind this story.

[AICAP Group]

Without more facts and details, this story amounts to only a hysterical rumor.

[Skepticallll]

Maybe the "Pub" was illegally downloading &#38; playing the music straight off the internet instead of paying for copywright privileges. No juke box needed....

[Altotus]

Lame Pubs make money from a juke box thats unlikely You are watching a true monopoly take place it is not just a single element for those who have had economics this is called rent seeking that is an non equitable forced exchange let me remind you that the people behind this are third parties in a transaction that are taking not giving. Let me emphasize this taking not giving. There may be exceptions as when the artists do not own their on content that is so nice the artists don't own their own content how about that. But the fact is its exploitation and the INTERNET is the Beast that WILL be theirs by force of law taking not giving and you will sit on your butts and watch because you are going to watch this happen you will not realize that it is possible to do something. No thats right sit down have a cup of coffee or tea those politicians who sold you out were from both sides after all money has only one side and that is not your side. After all what could you do about it just right you politicians and vote them out of office? NAAA you'd have to vote LOL hahahahah

[joe3479]

Has anyone verified this story? If a court had imposed a fine the details would be in the public domain yet all we have is this flaky allegation.

[CaptainJackHarkness]

The stupidity of the human race never ceases to amaze me. This is like fining a store because someone got cancer from smoking the cigarette that they bought. STUPID!!!!

[klor5]

I agree!

[seandburke]

So, by logic. If I lend my car to someone and they use it to commit a crime, I would be legally responsible? What about the actual criminal act committed by the not me? If I make them pay to borrow the 'car' then what? Would I be guilty of a greater crime, such as distributing versus simply enabling?<br /><br />In the case of the pub, what did they really do wrong? There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of open access WiFi hotspots around the world. Too bad kindness, and in the case of the pub good business will has to be punished for a single rotten apple.<br /><br />The UK legal system has its virtual head up its own a$$.

[myles taylor]

No by their logic if you leave your keys in your car, someone steals it, and then commits a crime, you are legally responsible.

[WilleyGHD]

Unfortunately, if your car is used in a crime by someone you loaned it to it IS possible that it could be confiscated and destroyed. Legal responsibility MAY be yours as well. Take a look at the RICO Laws in the US as they are good examples of unfair regulations!

[jjesusfreak01]

No, I think this is more like charging you because a thief drove through your front yard while escaping the quickie mart.

[Lerianis3]

by WilleyGHD November 28, 2009 7:55 PM PST<br />Unfortunately, if your car is used in a crime by someone you loaned it to it IS possible that it could be confiscated and destroyed. Legal responsibility MAY be yours as well. Take a look at the RICO Laws in the US as they are good examples of unfair regulations!<br />____________________________________<br /><br />No, it cannot. If someone who you loaned your car to uses it in a crime without you knowing that they were going to do that...... your car CANNOT be confiscated and destroyed. They had a locality somewhere out in California try that bullhockey, and even a liberal California judge put the smackdown on them something like 10 years ago.

[EvanSei]

and this is the sort of BS that makes free wi-fi disappear

[Lerianis3]

At least until laws are passed that make people who run open WiFi 'common carriers'.

[nosyrat]

true say

[GreeneD-R]

This will be interesting to find out how true and what the facts are . As people have said if the Pub it self was downloading they yes it should be fined but if it was some one in or near the pub accessing the open WiFi signal then No it can't be. How can Jo public owner of a Pub that knows very little of running anything with a computer be held libel? some people just get a computer and wireless router and connect the ISP and just let it fly and everyone is just connecting to it (we have a few people still in our neighborhood still doing this sad to say) Commercial Routers with web page logins that tell you you can't do illegal things and ask you to agree to play well with others are BS to any one who really want to download files will do just that and I would say that 60 to 70% of the files downloaded in a cafe with open Wifi are not legal and that figure is most likely could be higher but most free internet signals are slower than yours at home so why would you want to try to download a file that could take time? Most free networks are so overloaded how could you tell who is in the room or place or just around the block? I hate using any open or pay Wifi to download. I at mostsly use it to check mail and even then I first scan the area to see who is doing what. I have found a few times people sitting and scanning traffic to catch people action on the systems and trying to take them over the connected and to install files on the serves to record traffic(Yes I bust their butt too) . I remember when finding an open WifFi network was like looking for a white car .. very easy then people lock down with WEP and the WEP was busted and they WPA and it's some what busted but then pay as you go Wifi was born and T-mobile push it as if it was great way to go if you want people come a sit and drink and eat and use their laptops...now T-mobile is being dropped and AT&#38;T pay as you go (free for those who have their DSL at home) connections and Verizon as well have taken over open and free. Our local phone company has put it's ISP to WiFi so that you can access it 24/7 for small fee anywhere in town and even wile on the Bus.. So you go to the some computer junk store but a laptop with no drive for like $40 you drop in the Distro of you choice and a WiFi card you know works and you get on a bus for a ride.you download files and get off the bus and dump the Laptop and card you have your data on some thumb drives and who get sued? Please who can you blame? the ISP has no control over what you did. the bus Driver isn't a cyber cop.. so how do you find some in city of 200,000 people how do find who download any thing from a Bus that drives all over?<br /><br />And If this Pub did get hit with a fine it need to be taken to court and fought with ever things he has as it will set the beat of the drums people UK or US it will not matter. Some one is trolling for money and if the feel it is good to sue an open Wifi spot for the files downloads they will. This also could be scare tactic to try to make people who have open Wifi in the UK stop. think if you could face a fine would you stay open? The UK loves to control the air waves what better way to shut down people from free open content but to scare the providers from giving it away for free with legal fines. Think about it

[diver-1]

Lets take the case of a person breaking into your house tripping over your kids toy on the floor breaking a leg and then suing you for his broken leg. Lawyers rule it's like a stock trader who makes money on your trade selling selling the stock that you lost money on after he sold it to you.<br /><br />You will never win, give up and just drink and have fun.

[jmans1212]

This story is very sketchy with little facts. <br />I would like to see some more facts put out. <br />I do not see how a company providing a hot spot or other open access to th web could be responsible for what a user does. It is the end uses that is te only person tha is at fault.

[nosyrat]

I agree