Finnish courts have ruled that the owner of an open WiFi network cannot be held liable for file-sharing copyright infringement that happens on the network.
The landmark ruling came after the Finnish Anti-Piracy Centre, a group of entertainment industry rights-holders, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against a woman and demanded €6000 in compensation for file-sharing conducted on her open WiFi network. However, a Finnish District Court today ruled in the woman's favor.
"This alleged copyright infringement had taken place in a specific 12-minute period in July 14 2010, a date when a summer theater play with an audience of around hundred people was held at the premises of the former school owned and resided by the lady," reads a statement from Turre Legal, the law firm representing the woman.
"The applicants were unable to provide any evidence that the connection-owner herself had been involved in the file-sharing. 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."
Turre said that the Anti-Piracy Centre also tried to get an injunction that would prevent the defendant from committing any similar acts in the future. Such an injunction, had it been granted granted, would have given rights-owners the ability to shut open WiFi networks in cases of similar infringements by incidental visitors and customers. Luckily, the courts concluded that the WiFi owner cannot be deemed liable for infringements actually committed by third parties.
The Anti-Piracy Centre can still appeal the ruling. If they choose to do so, they'll be doing it at the Vaasa Court of Appeals.
Glad to see more places are rejecting the connection between IP / network to a particular person as sole proof of guilt.
Now all they need to do is target those inflated damages and debunk the 1 download = 1 lost sale argument.
Things have gotten so bad that they even target the people they know personally did not infringe on any copyright. This is unacceptable and I can't see even the most hardcore anti-pirate that I know agreeing with going that far.
Also why is it that they want us to respect their copyrights and yet time and time again show that they care nothing about other peoples belongings and ownership? A WiFi signal that comes from our network belongs to us and how dare they demand rightful control over something that is ours? Isn't that in essence the very thing they are crying victim about?
If you want people to respect your property perhaps its best to start respecting others first.
Glad to see more places are rejecting the connection between IP / network to a particular person as sole proof of guilt.
Now all they need to do is target those inflated damages and debunk the 1 download = 1 lost sale argument.
Things have gotten so bad that they even target the people they know personally did not infringe on any copyright. This is unacceptable and I can't see even the most hardcore anti-pirate that I know agreeing with going that far.
Also why is it that they want us to respect their copyrights and yet time and time again show that they care nothing about other peoples belongings and ownership? A WiFi signal that comes from our network belongs to us and how dare they demand rightful control over something that is ours? Isn't that in essence the very thing they are crying victim about?
If you want people to respect your property perhaps its best to start respecting others first.
I sure as hell wont purchase a single track in the future, seeing where the money goes it makes me sick!
When they make quality products, it sells very well. They make millions if not billions. But when a piece of shit doesn't sell it has to be the fault of pirates. And we all know how much shit they try to sell us ...
95 % of the music you hear sounds like it was somehow put together in one afternoon by a guy with a hangover, seriously ...
what about all the other people that share files 24/7?
I wont buy it or even download it , waiting for this auto tune fad to go away, don't start me on movies most of them are garbage nowadays and then there is reality TV....meh
No wonder I play games
Some people still have no idea how to even make their network secure, Others simply do not mind if neighbors use it which is fully in their right to share if they wish. Regardless of the situation the person or business who leaves it unsecured is not the one breaking the copyrights. I don't see why your trying to villainize them simply because their WiFi was not protected.
If a person's car was stolen do you blame them because it wasn't parked in a locked garage?
This is the logic you are trying to use here.
The same should be true for unsecured internet connections. The court should ask you to prove that you at least tried to prevent your network from being used to commit a crime.
Opening up an unsecured hot spot in your network should not allow you to legally engage in unlimited scale piracy/cybercrime.