Finnish Court Rules Open WiFi Network Owner not Liable - DreamTeamDownloads1, FTP Help, Movies, Bollywood, Applications, etc. & Mature Sex Forum, Rapidshare, Filefactory, Freakshare, Rapidgator, Turbobit, & More MULTI Filehosts

Ladybbird · 15-05-12, 16:16

Finnish Court Rules Open WiFi Network Owner not Liable for Infringement
Several hundred use a network, someone infringes—can’t blame the owner.

by Cyrus Farivar ars tecnica - May 14 2012

A Finnish District Court has ruled that the owner of an open WiFi network is not liable for copyright infringement by others using that network.

“The applicants were unable to provide any evidence that the connection-owner herself had been involved in the file-sharing,” the defendant’s attorneys wrote in an English-language press release on Monday. “The court thus examined whether the mere act of providing a WiFi connection not protected with a password can be deemed to constitute a copyright-infringing act.”

The case was brought by the Finnish Anti-Piracy Centre, a coalition of intellectual property rights managers in Finland. The group sued the woman for €6,000 ($7,700) for copyright infringement. The alleged infringement occurred after an audience of several hundred were attending a play at defendant's home on July 14, 2010, and apparently at least one person downloaded some copyrighted material without permission.

Finland, of course, de-criminalized using open WiFi in 2010, after having previously restricting it back in 2005.

The new ruling in Finland appears to fall in line with a lack of liability for open WiFi network operators in the United States, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The group says open WiFi is “a mere conduit for the communications of others, and often enjoys statutory immunities. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there is a safe harbor for service providers who offer ‘the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.’ That definition fits a provider of free public WiFi as easily as a traditional DSL provider.”

photostill · 16-05-12, 01:14

It's been another of the wet dreams to make users of wifi equipment lock down their nodes. For the average user, not advanced, it's a pretty good stretch to understand the nomenclature of networking to get the wifi locked down.

The only way that will come about is if the copywrong forces managed to make it a mandate that wifi come from the factory with that mode already configured. I suspect it hasn't been done yet because understanding how to key in the computer to communicate then becomes complicated. I would suspect they would receive tons of 'defective merchandise' were they to do that.

Al.Ternat · 16-05-12, 15:22

It seems to me that the "copyright lawyer businesses" can't keep up with the technical developments.

The two biggest internet providers here, are offering "hotspot's" for their customers, that want to use WiFi, when they are mobile. The coverage is good in populated areas, where they provide these "hotspots".
To have better coverage, the idea is, to make the home WiFi's (connected to the broadband cable) accessible to all the customers of that provider, when passing your neighbourhood.

One can refuse third party access to his/her WiFi home network, but the consequence is that you can't connect via someone elses WiFi network, while mobile.
We are talking about "Layer 1" connections but a passing or parking person can download illegal content via someone elses WiFi home network.

How will the "copyright lawyer businesses" deal with that?

photostill · 16-05-12, 16:13

What you text of is called war driving. The idea is to cruise the block with a wifi laptop, perhaps some sniffing tools included, and look for an open wifi connection at someone's home.

There's already been a few court cases over similar. It always comes down to it's not illegal to have an open wifi. Where this is going to become an issue is in the states. Starting in July, the 6 strikes will start. Towards the end is the only time you get to object to the findings. You have several multiple choices you can pick from for a defense, unsecured router is one. That one can only be used one time. To show how unbalanced it is, what is not included in the defense is the item of 'fair use' such as out of copyright and in public domain.

Al.Ternat · 16-05-12, 19:25

Let me clarify the posting.
I'm not talking about war driving, where you cruise the block and use sniffing tools to map unsecured WiFi networks and make unauthorized use of the WiFi home network.

Where i live, a lot of people use a WiFi network in their homes. The WiFi router and the broadband cable modem are integrated.

To expand WiFi coverage, the service provider gives people, that are passing by, using WiFi equipment, access to the person's WiFi home network to get on the broadband cable.

The WiFi network is shared by the owner and the person passing by.

The owner of the WiFi home network and the user of the WiFi device must have the same internet provider.

This access is for "Layer 1", the physical layer only. So the WiFi home network can still be protected with Wi-Fi Protected Access II (WPA2)

One does'nt have to agree with sharing his/her WiFi home network. but when that person is mobile he/she can't use someone elses WiFi home network to access the internet.

This solution is only for areas where the "WiFi hotspots" don't work properly (Too remote and signal too weak.

Ladybbird · 18-05-12, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al.Ternat

It seems to me that the "copyright lawyer businesses" can't keep up with the technical developments.

The two biggest internet providers here, are offering "hotspot's" for their customers, that want to use WiFi, when they are mobile. The coverage is good in populated areas, where they provide these "hotspots".
To have better coverage, the idea is, to make the home WiFi's (connected to the broadband cable) accessible to all the customers of that provider, when passing your neighbourhood.

One can refuse third party access to his/her WiFi home network, but the consequence is that you can't connect via someone elses WiFi network, while mobile.
We are talking about "Layer 1" connections but a passing or parking person can download illegal content via someone elses WiFi home network.

How will the "copyright lawyer businesses" deal with that?

I so agree with your comment

Quote:

How will the "copyright lawyer businesses" deal with that

But to add how will any of them or the FBI & their cronies ever be able to deal with the amount of warez etc, sites around the world...... there are just too many and as to their "Press Releases" they are going after IP addies and the end users, is just such a joke, its impossible and they are just scaremongering.....

15-05-12, 16:16	#1
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,544 Thanks: 27,621 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	Finnish Court Rules Open WiFi Network Owner not Liable Finnish Court Rules Open WiFi Network Owner not Liable for Infringement Several hundred use a network, someone infringes—can’t blame the owner. by Cyrus Farivar ars tecnica - May 14 2012 A Finnish District Court has ruled that the owner of an open WiFi network is not liable for copyright infringement by others using that network. “The applicants were unable to provide any evidence that the connection-owner herself had been involved in the file-sharing,” the defendant’s attorneys wrote in an English-language press release on Monday. “The court thus examined whether the mere act of providing a WiFi connection not protected with a password can be deemed to constitute a copyright-infringing act.” The case was brought by the Finnish Anti-Piracy Centre, a coalition of intellectual property rights managers in Finland. The group sued the woman for €6,000 ($7,700) for copyright infringement. The alleged infringement occurred after an audience of several hundred were attending a play at defendant's home on July 14, 2010, and apparently at least one person downloaded some copyrighted material without permission. Finland, of course, de-criminalized using open WiFi in 2010, after having previously restricting it back in 2005. The new ruling in Finland appears to fall in line with a lack of liability for open WiFi network operators in the United States, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The group says open WiFi is “a mere conduit for the communications of others, and often enjoys statutory immunities. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there is a safe harbor for service providers who offer ‘the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.’ That definition fits a provider of free public WiFi as easily as a traditional DSL provider.” __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

16-05-12, 01:14	#2
photostill The Enigma Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 9,977 Thanks: 3,009 Thanked 1,524 Times in 928 Posts	Re: Finnish Court Rules Open WiFi Network Owner not Liable It's been another of the wet dreams to make users of wifi equipment lock down their nodes. For the average user, not advanced, it's a pretty good stretch to understand the nomenclature of networking to get the wifi locked down. The only way that will come about is if the copywrong forces managed to make it a mandate that wifi come from the factory with that mode already configured. I suspect it hasn't been done yet because understanding how to key in the computer to communicate then becomes complicated. I would suspect they would receive tons of 'defective merchandise' were they to do that. __________________ You can help this site, by clicking on the link below to buy a Premium Account. & Thank you for helping us. Click;

16-05-12, 15:22	#3
Al.Ternat Honoured Member & VIP Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 68 Thanks: 115 Thanked 109 Times in 49 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 2	Re: Finnish Court Rules Open WiFi Network Owner not Liable It seems to me that the "copyright lawyer businesses" can't keep up with the technical developments. The two biggest internet providers here, are offering "hotspot's" for their customers, that want to use WiFi, when they are mobile. The coverage is good in populated areas, where they provide these "hotspots". To have better coverage, the idea is, to make the home WiFi's (connected to the broadband cable) accessible to all the customers of that provider, when passing your neighbourhood. One can refuse third party access to his/her WiFi home network, but the consequence is that you can't connect via someone elses WiFi network, while mobile. We are talking about "Layer 1" connections but a passing or parking person can download illegal content via someone elses WiFi home network. How will the "copyright lawyer businesses" deal with that? Last edited by Al.Ternat; 16-05-12 at 15:29.

16-05-12, 16:13	#4
photostill The Enigma Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 9,977 Thanks: 3,009 Thanked 1,524 Times in 928 Posts	Re: Finnish Court Rules Open WiFi Network Owner not Liable What you text of is called war driving. The idea is to cruise the block with a wifi laptop, perhaps some sniffing tools included, and look for an open wifi connection at someone's home. There's already been a few court cases over similar. It always comes down to it's not illegal to have an open wifi. Where this is going to become an issue is in the states. Starting in July, the 6 strikes will start. Towards the end is the only time you get to object to the findings. You have several multiple choices you can pick from for a defense, unsecured router is one. That one can only be used one time. To show how unbalanced it is, what is not included in the defense is the item of 'fair use' such as out of copyright and in public domain. __________________ You can help this site, by clicking on the link below to buy a Premium Account. & Thank you for helping us. Click;

16-05-12, 19:25	#5
Al.Ternat Honoured Member & VIP Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 68 Thanks: 115 Thanked 109 Times in 49 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 2	Re: Finnish Court Rules Open WiFi Network Owner not Liable Let me clarify the posting. I'm not talking about war driving, where you cruise the block and use sniffing tools to map unsecured WiFi networks and make unauthorized use of the WiFi home network. Where i live, a lot of people use a WiFi network in their homes. The WiFi router and the broadband cable modem are integrated. To expand WiFi coverage, the service provider gives people, that are passing by, using WiFi equipment, access to the person's WiFi home network to get on the broadband cable. The WiFi network is shared by the owner and the person passing by. The owner of the WiFi home network and the user of the WiFi device must have the same internet provider. This access is for "Layer 1", the physical layer only. So the WiFi home network can still be protected with Wi-Fi Protected Access II (WPA2) One does'nt have to agree with sharing his/her WiFi home network. but when that person is mobile he/she can't use someone elses WiFi home network to access the internet. This solution is only for areas where the "WiFi hotspots" don't work properly (Too remote and signal too weak.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode