PDA

View Full Version : Pub owner fined over customer's "illegal downloads"



t0p
December 3rd, 2009, 10:04 PM
Have you seen this (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39909136,00.htm)? Apparently a pub owner has been fined 8000 in a civil court case after a customer used the pub's wifi hotspot connection to download copyrighted material.

This is all very confusing. The ZDNet UK site quotes an internet law professor, Lilian Edwards, of Sheffield Law School, as saying that where a business operates an open Wi-Fi spot to give customers or visitors internet access, they would be "not be responsible in theory" for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright law". So how come the pub owner was fined?

If the proposed Digital Economy Bill becomes law, we'll see more of these kind of cases. Bad news for "copyright thieves", bad news for freedom.

Hallvor
December 3rd, 2009, 10:11 PM
The ZDNet UK site quotes an internet law professor, Lilian Edwards, of Sheffield Law School, as saying that where a business operates an open Wi-Fi spot to give customers or visitors internet access, they would be "not be responsible in theory" for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright law". So how come the pub owner was fined?


Never thought I`d do this, but let me quote Homer Simpson: "Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works."

M!K3_$
December 3rd, 2009, 10:14 PM
i would like to see how that all played out.

HunterThomson
December 3rd, 2009, 10:21 PM
It dosen't matter what the law is.

the compay can spend grands sueing people but I bet the Pub owner can't afford it. So, in the end the Pub owner just ends up settling out of court.

It is like playing poker. They got $40,000 the pub owner has $20,000, So they force the Pub owner all in and the Pub owner has to fold.

------------------

"I think" that even though it is simple to change you MAC address..... The law should state that they can only sue the Pub owner if they mach the MAC address of the NIC downloading the Copyrighted meteral to the Pub owners NIC.

puzzler995
December 3rd, 2009, 10:25 PM
It is pretty stupid. I have been *known* to download cracked apps for the iPod Touch (I have stopped), and I am willing to help hackers. I would hate to be fined for someone I help's actions, when I did not intend to have them be used to do something illegal. We may not have to worry about that soon if we have our way. OPEN SOUCE FOREVER!!!

t0p
December 3rd, 2009, 10:34 PM
i would like to see how that all played out.


It dosen't matter what the law is.

the compay can spend grands sueing people but I bet the Pub owner can't afford it. So, in the end the Pub owner just ends up settling out of court.

It is like playing poker. They got $40,000 the pub owner has $20,000, So they force the Pub owner all in and the Pub owner has to fold.


The problem is, we don't know how it played out. The story was given to ZDNet UK by Graham Cove, the managing director of wifi hotspot company The Cloud - and he wouldn't divulge any identifying detail. So all we know is what Cove told ZDNet UK: that the pub owner was "fined 8000".

HunterThomson: while I take your point that the side with the deepest pockets wins; in this case, as far as we know, the pub owner did not settle out of court - he was fined 8000. Of course, he may have just admitted liability because he couldn't afford decent legal representation; but that's just speculation.

DesktopDiva
December 3rd, 2009, 10:53 PM
I personally do not think that it is right to punish the pub owner. Let us just take that principle and run with it for a moment here... how come hotel owners do not get sued for fostering adultery? Or strip club owners for that matter if we want to swing to the extreme?

It is just not fair IMHO.

M!K3_$
December 3rd, 2009, 10:56 PM
it comes down to money, i agree completely with HunterThomson and t0p. the pub owner cannot afford to do anything about it.

PariahVayne
December 3rd, 2009, 10:58 PM
x

NoaHall
December 3rd, 2009, 10:59 PM
I personally do not think that it is right to punish the pub owner. Let us just take that principle and run with it for a moment here... how come hotel owners do not get sued for fostering adultery? Or strip club owners for that matter if we want to swing to the extreme?

It is just not fair IMHO.

Because those activities aren't illegal.

running_rabbit07
December 3rd, 2009, 11:02 PM
That would be the same as fining our ISPs for what we download. While I strongly support people being fined for stealing, I think the wrong person was fined. That would be the same as suing a car dealership for selling a car that ended up being used for drunk driving.

M!K3_$
December 3rd, 2009, 11:02 PM
That would be the same as fining our ISPs for what we download. While I strongly support people being fined for stealing, I think the wrong person was fined. That would be the same as suing a car dealership for selling a car that ended up being used for drunk driving.

*nods head*

t0p
December 3rd, 2009, 11:05 PM
Because those activities aren't illegal.

If I send threatening emails or download child pornography, is it my ISP's fault? Will my ISP be punished for enabling me to commit these crimes?

Of course not. I will be punished, not the ISP.

I fail to see why the pub owner is liable for what is done through his hotspot. He isn't analyzing the traffic that passes through his router - in fact it would be illegal for him to watch the traffic like that. So why is he held accountable for the online activity of his customer?

NoaHall
December 3rd, 2009, 11:07 PM
If I send threatening emails or download child pornography, is it my ISP's fault? Will my ISP be punished for enabling me to commit these crimes?

Of course not. I will be punished, not the ISP.

I fail to see why the pub owner is liable for what is done through his hotspot. He isn't analyzing the traffic that passes through his router - in fact it would be illegal for him to watch the traffic like that. So why is he held accountable for the online activity of his customer?

I agree with you. But what hotels being fined for adultery? That's insane, because it's not illegal.

Cuddles McKitten
December 3rd, 2009, 11:45 PM
Solution: counter-sue the government for illegal and copyrighted cargo smuggled along state roads and highways.

PariahVayne
December 3rd, 2009, 11:50 PM
x

chucky chuckaluck
December 3rd, 2009, 11:55 PM
this seems to be outside the bounds of the dram shop laws, unless the patron was drunk at the time.

alphaniner
December 3rd, 2009, 11:58 PM
I don't see why this is considered unacceptable. Someone is going to be held accountable. If the real perp could be caught, it would be him. In lieu of that, it's gonna be the pub.

PariahVayne
December 3rd, 2009, 11:59 PM
x

HunterThomson
December 4th, 2009, 01:11 AM
... He isn't analyzing the traffic that passes through his router - in fact it would be illegal for him to watch the traffic like that. So why is he held accountable for the online activity of his customer?

VARY good Point.
There is no way for the Pub owner to leagly follow the law. It is a catch-22

julianb
December 4th, 2009, 01:27 AM
I don't see why this is considered unacceptable. Someone is going to be held accountable. If the real perp could be caught, it would be him. In lieu of that, it's gonna be the pub.

You don't just hold someone nearby responsible whenever you can't figure out who the real perpetrator is.

Say I have an acquaintance, and I lend the acquaintance my bicycle so he can travel to a restaurant.

On the way to the restaurant, he consumes two bottles of wine he bought from a store. Neither I nor the store owner had any suspicion he would do so.

Then he gets into a fight and beats somebody up.

If he gets away with it (can't pay one cent in fines? flees to zimbabwe?) can I be put in jail for assault? Do I have to pay the hospital bills?

How bout the company that made the wine?

PariahVayne
December 4th, 2009, 01:44 AM
x

Tipped OuT
December 4th, 2009, 02:54 AM
Do you think that is fair?

Would you think it was fair if someone jacked into your WIFI network and downloaded something illegal which led to you being charged?

Nobody "jacked" into his WIFI. It was just there, out in the open, accessible to anyone.

I do not agree, however, that what happened with the Pub was fair.

openuniverse
December 4th, 2009, 03:10 AM
.

chris200x9
December 4th, 2009, 03:45 AM
Because those activities aren't illegal.

ok dude gets murdered in hotel...

pwnst*r
December 4th, 2009, 03:56 AM
VARY good Point.
There is no way for the Pub owner to leagly follow the law. It is a catch-22

lol you edited that and it still has those errors?

KiwiNZ
December 4th, 2009, 04:07 AM
Illegal downloading is wrong ,period . But sueing the Pub owner is wrong also if the circumstances were right. .As long as he has posted warnings , applied reasonable steps ,then limited liability should apply. If he had not , then he left himself wide open.

chillicampari
December 4th, 2009, 04:24 AM
This will be interesting. Do any UK cities have free wifi funded by public funds yet?

fallingleaf
December 4th, 2009, 04:36 AM
Since we're having fun with analogies, let's say the pub owner allows a customer to use the pub's phone. The customer calls a hit man and tells him to kill his wife. That seems like a much worse crime to me. Shall we send the pub owner to jail for conspiracy to commit murder?

PariahVayne
December 4th, 2009, 04:46 AM
x

Sin@Sin-Sacrifice
December 4th, 2009, 05:00 AM
yes. Safe harbor clauses should protect him, but they're trying to do away with those by treaty. Before the treaty is in place however, people are already getting arrested for perfectly legal things, as if to "experiment" with the idea of making them illegal. This may be a coincidence, but it has all the earmarks of acta http://www.eff.org/issues/acta i am hoping it will give people the opportunity to fight for transparency and even abandoning this madness. If acta passes you will see lots more of this kind of thing. How can i be reasonably expected to stop you from using my public connection to download things from the net?

+1

KiwiNZ
December 4th, 2009, 05:03 AM
Why do you put a space in front of ./, instead of after?

its due to my disability and how I enter characters

PariahVayne
December 4th, 2009, 05:46 AM
x
Spacker

lisati
December 4th, 2009, 06:01 AM
If, for some reason, I opened up the wireless components of my home network to just anybody, I'd be annoyed if someone downloaded heaps of stuff and I ended up being fined for it.

its due to my disability and how I enter characters

:) Keep on smiling - your ability shines through.

Tipped OuT
December 4th, 2009, 06:21 AM
Illegal downloading is wrong ,period . But sueing the Pub owner is wrong also if the circumstances were right. .As long as he has posted warnings , applied reasonable steps ,then limited liability should apply. If he had not , then he left himself wide open.

He should have put a disclaimer some where.

PariahVayne
December 4th, 2009, 06:23 AM
x

Tipped OuT
December 4th, 2009, 06:32 AM
No he shouldn't. The law is retarded when it does this sort of thing. It needs to adjust to the situation.

I know it is, but can he do?

In life, you have to go with the flow.

The pub should have adjusted to the situation. Now he's basically screwed.

Is it fair? No. But life isn't fair.

PariahVayne
December 4th, 2009, 06:34 AM
x

Tipped OuT
December 4th, 2009, 06:35 AM
That depends on your personality. Personally I would fight it until the end.

Where are you going to get all of the knowledge and the money to fight it? I understand where you're coming from, but you have to think realistically.

running_rabbit07
December 4th, 2009, 07:22 AM
This pub owner probably could have found someone willing to help him for a cheap price just for the sake of making sure such charges like that aren't made again.

openuniverse
December 4th, 2009, 07:40 AM
.

chillicampari
December 4th, 2009, 08:06 AM
Bah- going off topic.

scottuss
December 4th, 2009, 09:24 AM
If I send threatening emails or download child pornography, is it my ISP's fault? Will my ISP be punished for enabling me to commit these crimes?

Of course not. I will be punished, not the ISP.

I fail to see why the pub owner is liable for what is done through his hotspot. He isn't analyzing the traffic that passes through his router - in fact it would be illegal for him to watch the traffic like that. So why is he held accountable for the online activity of his customer?

Actually, as far as I'm aware, he can analyse the traffic, it's his Internet connection and his network. And I think although he shouldn't have been fined for it, it makes a good point that such hot spots should have at least a basic gateway that filters out basic stuff like torrents, P2P, certain keywords and blacklisted sites etc.

HunterThomson
December 4th, 2009, 10:04 AM
lol you edited that and it still has those errors?

Didd yoou noot ees my sig.... "King Of typos"

This is an Ubuntu Linux forum. I think you ment to log into your grammer and inflammatory criticism forum.

HunterThomson
December 4th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Actually, as far as I'm aware, he can analyse the traffic, it's his Internet connection and his network. And I think although he shouldn't have been fined for it, it makes a good point that such hot spots should have at least a basic gateway that filters out basic stuff like torrents, P2P, certain keywords and blacklisted sites etc.

Really ? I don't know about that.

That would only be trading one legal gray area for anuther.
(not that this Pub thing is "gray" as of right now it is "White")


So, is it legal then for me to set up my Fon router with Jasager. It is "my" AP so you say I would have the right to sniff all the trafic from anyone that connects to it?

------------

Also, it is vary easy to download a copyrighted pattern of ones and zeros from sources other then bit-torrnets. The pup owner would have to have all traffic first downloaded to a server, see what it is, check for copyright, then if ok, deliver to the user.

-----------

I would also like to point out. That yes yes I DON'T DO IT. BUT.

People who download a move without paying for it are NOT Criminals

It is NOT a Criminal Offense ( at lest not in the USA)
It is only a civil thing about greedy people wanting money.

scottuss
December 4th, 2009, 10:31 AM
Really ? I don't know about that.

That would only be trading one legal gray area for anuther.

So, is it legal then for me to set up my Fon router with Jasager. It is "my" AP so you say I would have the right to sniff all the trafic from anyone that connects to it?

------------

Also, it is vary easy to download a copyrighted pattern of ones and zeros from sources other then bit-torrnets. The pup owner would have to have all traffic first downloaded to a server, see what it is, check for copyright, then if ok, deliver to the user.

If people actively make a connection to your network, then yes why would you not be able to see what they're doing?

I use (and have done for a long time) Wireshark on my own personal network to see what's using bandwidth, what applications people in my house are using that utilise my Internet connection etc. It's my Internet connection and my network, I'll do with it as I please.

kelvin spratt
December 4th, 2009, 10:36 AM
Didd yoou noot ees my sig.... "King Of typos"

This is an Ubuntu Linux forum. I think you ment to log into your grammer and inflammatory criticism forum.

+1 for that
Ubuntu forum is for every one, people should not be judged on their grammar that's a form of Bullying!.

openuniverse
December 4th, 2009, 10:54 AM
.

lisati
December 4th, 2009, 11:06 AM
Actually, as far as I'm aware, he can analyse the traffic, it's his Internet connection and his network. And I think although he shouldn't have been fined for it, it makes a good point that such hot spots should have at least a basic gateway that filters out basic stuff like torrents, P2P, certain keywords and blacklisted sites etc.

+1. Both my routers have filtering options which are easy enough to set up. One has a basic "don't let sites with these keywords through", and the other has an option to redirect to a good site.

benj1
December 4th, 2009, 11:11 AM
just for clarity, this involves a pubco, not an individual pub, so its likely a sizeable chain, with the money to fight.

still doesn't make any sense, can't understand how or why they would be liable, perhaps they thought the case so absurd that there was no point in fighting it.

Hallvor
December 4th, 2009, 11:26 AM
Since we're having fun with analogies, let's say the pub owner allows a customer to use the pub's phone. The customer calls a hit man and tells him to kill his wife. That seems like a much worse crime to me. Shall we send the pub owner to jail for conspiracy to commit murder?


Yes, he should not just let anyone use their phone. First get some ID, then call the police to check on the guy, then finally looking over his shoulder when he makes the phone call if he has no prior criminal record. And of course the pub owner should have put up a sign: "Do not use this phone for conspiracy to murder, or even worse, copyright infringement of the background music."

HunterThomson
December 4th, 2009, 11:27 AM
+1. Both my routers have filtering options which are easy enough to set up. One has a basic "don't let sites with these keywords through", and the other has an option to redirect to a good site.

Yes, you can filter torrent's and keywords and IP's . . .

But it is still possible to download copyrighted stuff. Blacklists don't stop everything.

So, this would not protect the Pub owner from people downloading copyrighted stuff with out paying. It may limit it but the record lables don't care if you block 100 downloads, if 1 gets through the Pub owner could still get sued.

Zoot7
December 4th, 2009, 12:48 PM
It is only a civil thing about greedy people wanting money.
That about sums it all up.
Copyright (which started off as a law to protect public interest) has merely become a vessel for Capitalists to engage in more ruthless Capitalism.
I think you can dress it up any way you want but that's about the long and short of all these copyright lawsuits and fines.

sdowney717
December 4th, 2009, 12:53 PM
the isp is providing internet services just like the pub owner. why not hold the isp accountable? the whole internet provider system is at fault, it is unfair to penalize those at the bottom.

Zoot7
December 4th, 2009, 01:19 PM
the isp is providing internet services just like the pub owner. why not hold the isp accountable?
Why should the ISP's have to suffer just because the entertainment industry refuses to adapt to the times? The days of screwing people for overpriced media are over now.
If you think about it, it's akin to trying to get the phone companies to police what people say over the lines. Possible - but completely unreasonable and illogical to implement, same goes with ISPs trying to police traffic.

benj1
December 4th, 2009, 01:23 PM
the isp is providing internet services just like the pub owner. why not hold the isp accountable? the whole internet provider system is at fault, it is unfair to penalize those at the bottom.
it is fair to go after the person at the bottom. the problem is, is the person at the bottom is the person who downloaded the content, not the pub.

sdowney717
December 4th, 2009, 01:34 PM
yes my point being if you go after the pub, then the isp ought to also be accountable. if i was on a jury i would say not guilty to the pub owner.

scottuss
December 4th, 2009, 02:07 PM
i'm not sure deep packet inspecting your hypothetical customers would be legal, at least states-side. obviously you can put filters on either way, but the best reason to block p2p is bandwidth management, which will be less relevant in the future and shouldn't be legal policy now. as for filtering p2p, it's just a methodology- it makes a lot of things easier, like distributing ubuntu iso's and legaltorrents (http://www.legaltorrents.com/). treating p2p as something separate or less justified than downloading makes about as much sense as trying to draw lines between uploading and downloading. they're all neutral, legitimate forms of 2-way communication.

I'm not saying P2P, BitTorrent etc aren't legitimate protocols with legitimate uses, however, let's not be naive here, we know that the general population's main use for such technologies is to download illegal content. Public hot spots should limit these protocols accordingly.

If I were to use a public hot-spot, I would expect to be able to do web browsing, email, IM, in other words, basic every day things. P2P and BitTorrent, even for legitimate purposes doesn't really come into it.

I don't agree that we should go along with the record / film industry's view that P2P itself is illegal, we all know better, but I for one would certainly block it's use on my public hot-spot, just to be safe.

benj1
December 4th, 2009, 02:56 PM
I'm not saying P2P, BitTorrent etc aren't legitimate protocols with legitimate uses, however, let's not be naive here, we know that the general population's main use for such technologies is to download illegal content. Public hot spots should limit these protocols accordingly.

If I were to use a public hot-spot, I would expect to be able to do web browsing, email, IM, in other words, basic every day things. P2P and BitTorrent, even for legitimate purposes doesn't really come into it.

I don't agree that we should go along with the record / film industry's view that P2P itself is illegal, we all know better, but I for one would certainly block it's use on my public hot-spot, just to be safe.

does that mean when i go to a pub and order a steak i shouldn't get a steak knife just in case i decide to stab some one?

perhaps we should ban the internet as its main use is for porn?
and computers, thats where the majority of viruses, trojans and cracking comes from.

while we are at it chuck every one from the dodgyest council estates in jail, as thats where the majority of crime come from

fallingleaf
December 4th, 2009, 02:58 PM
I'm not saying P2P, BitTorrent etc aren't legitimate protocols with legitimate uses, however, let's not be naive here, we know that the general population's main use for such technologies is to download illegal content. Public hot spots should limit these protocols accordingly.

If I were to use a public hot-spot, I would expect to be able to do web browsing, email, IM, in other words, basic every day things. P2P and BitTorrent, even for legitimate purposes doesn't really come into it.

I don't agree that we should go along with the record / film industry's view that P2P itself is illegal, we all know better, but I for one would certainly block it's use on my public hot-spot, just to be safe.

I run a public hotspot. It was shutdown by my ISP in Costa Rica for uploading copyrighted content. To be clear, it is the uploading that is considered the infraction. I have a router with DD-WRT firmware installed which has an option to block p2p. It doesn't work. The p2p apps are smarter than the router. It slowed transfer speeds a little but did not stop it. Do a little research and you will see it is virtually impossible to completely filter bittorent. If anyone has been able to do it please let me know.

I think my only option to avoid future problems is going to be using an anonymizing VPN.

toupeiro
December 4th, 2009, 03:57 PM
That probably would not have flown in the US anymore. There have been enough cases now where the burden of proof has to show that "YOU" downloaded the files. Your ISP IP address is not enough to stick for most things anymore.

openuniverse
December 4th, 2009, 04:08 PM
.

scottuss
December 4th, 2009, 04:51 PM
There are people on here taking what I said out of context.

I said that hot spot providers should do more to protect themselves from this. We can all argue what protection the law should and shouldn't offer, but the point is someone has been successfully sued for this.

You'd be stupid NOT to want to protect yourself!

And the steak knife stabbing point has no relevance. You could say such things about anything in the world. My argument has context: do content filtering on your AP if you are a hot spot provider.

And blocking stuff isn't easy, but using DD-WRT on a bog standard router isn't exactly the answer. If you're a serious hot spot provider, you should have a fully fledged gateway that can do the job properly.


I get the impression that some of you ideologies are clouding logical thinking.

scottuss
December 4th, 2009, 04:54 PM
right, just like the main reason for the internet is to look at adult content, and the main reason people go to college is so they can have physical relationships- moral of the story don't let kids online, and home school them through the college years. (just sayin'.)

But looking at adult content isn't illegal (in most places, subject to age).

Going to college for any other reason than to learn ISN'T ILLEGAL.

Your provider of adult content won't get sued.

Your provider of education won't get sued.

Seeing the pattern here?

openuniverse
December 4th, 2009, 05:20 PM
.

scottuss
December 4th, 2009, 05:24 PM
yep. things that are not illegal are not illegal, unless they're illegal.

Yes, but my real point was that things that are not illegal are not illegal unless used in an illegal way.

Legal objects can be used illegally, in this case P2P and BitTorrent.

Wilfully allowing such use is also illegal, as proven by this case.

For the record, I'm not against P2P and BitTorrent, although I don't use them myself. However, if I ran a hotspot, I would be crazy not to ensure that the users of my hot spot were conducting only legal transactions, thus blocking P2P and BitTorrent negates the need to check if their usage of said technologies is legal or not.

If you ran a hot spot, would you trust your users to only use P2P and BitTorrent for legal purposes? In theory it would be nice to say yes, but this case has proven, in the UK at least, that you shouldn't.

openuniverse
December 4th, 2009, 05:28 PM
.

scottuss
December 4th, 2009, 05:33 PM
so they use vanilla http to commit a million dollars in fraud, and then you'd be crazy not to ensure the users of your hot spot were conducting only legal transactions, thus getting rid of the hot spot.

in fact, your pub could be used for illegal drug deals, so better take out the bathroom and in fact the whole pub.

then you'll only be reponsible for people parking there illegally. or trespassers. yep, better to simply not have a lot. don't instead demand that the law not punish innocent people for others' crimes, that would be too convoluted.

There you go again with your lack of context.

What did the pub owner get sued for?
What major technologies allow people to do this?

Reacting to this is fine.

When a pub owner gets sued for someone committing million dollar (pound in this case) fraud over a HTTP connection via a public hotspot, I'm sure I'll condone HTTP connections too.

I can't see that happening, but hey, I can see past nice ideologies and into the real world so who knows.

benj1
December 4th, 2009, 10:13 PM
i wonder where this leaves wireless router users?

if some one hacks into my wifi an uses my internet to download stuff am i liable?

scottuss
December 4th, 2009, 10:27 PM
i wonder where this leaves wireless router users?

if some one hacks into my wifi an uses my internet to download stuff am i liable?

If they managed to crack your WiFi, and you could prove it, then I guess not (I am not a legal expert) also remember that laws vary by country.

What I would say, is, don't use WEP, and use a good, strong key to minimise the possibility of getting cracked.

running_rabbit07
December 4th, 2009, 10:53 PM
i wonder where this leaves wireless router users?

if some one hacks into my wifi an uses my internet to download stuff am i liable?

I have my wireless router set to only allow 3 IPs that are all statically set. Not much they'd be able to do unless they manage to guess the Default Gateway which is not set to 192.168.1.1 like most Linksys routers. If they crack into that and change the settings, then they could get access. I also have the MAC filter turned on.

lisati
December 4th, 2009, 10:59 PM
I have my wireless router set to only allow 3 IPs that are all statically set. Not much they'd be able to do unless they manage to guess the Default Gateway which is not set to 192.168.1.1 like most Linksys routers. If they crack into that and change the settings, then they could get access. I also have the MAC filter turned on.

MAC addresses can be spoofed...... Don't ask me how - even if I did know, I probably wouldn't say.

NoaHall
December 4th, 2009, 11:01 PM
MAC addresses can be spoofed...... Don't ask me how - even if I did know, I probably wouldn't say.

It's easy. There's a tool in the repos for it.

lisati
December 4th, 2009, 11:02 PM
It's easy. There's a tool in the repos for it.

I guessed as much.

Tipped OuT
December 4th, 2009, 11:28 PM
MAC addresses can be spoofed...... Don't ask me how - even if I did know, I probably wouldn't say.

Yep. Very easy to spoof things.

benj1
December 4th, 2009, 11:32 PM
If they managed to crack your WiFi, and you could prove it, then I guess not (I am not a legal expert) also remember that laws vary by country.

What I would say, is, don't use WEP, and use a good, strong key to minimise the possibility of getting cracked.

should it matter whether its encrypted tho?

if someone steals my car and runs over some one, am i liable? regardless of whether i left my car locked or not.


I have my wireless router set to only allow 3 IPs that are all statically set. Not much they'd be able to do unless they manage to guess the Default Gateway which is not set to 192.168.1.1 like most Linksys routers. If they crack into that and change the settings, then they could get access. I also have the MAC filter turned on.
thats just extra security tho, it doesn't answer the central question of whether you would be liable.


anyway just thought of a cunning plan, find some government office using wifi, hack in, download something copy-written and see what happens ;)

openuniverse
December 5th, 2009, 01:16 AM
.

HunterThomson
December 5th, 2009, 05:59 AM
does that mean when i go to a pub and order a steak i shouldn't get a steak knife just in case i decide to stab some one?

perhaps we should ban the internet as its main use is for porn?
and computers, thats where the majority of viruses, trojans and cracking comes from.

while we are at it chuck every one from the dodgyest council estates in jail, as thats where the majority of crime come from


I meen no disrespect to you. I only meen disrespect to M$
I think this would have made more sents if it read....

Perhaps we should ban ... ... Windows, Thats where ALL the viruses and the majority of trojans and malicious software exists. Providing the infrastructure to build Bot-nets to attack servers contaning sensitive information.

-----------

Way off topic I am sorry. I'll not to it agin.

HunterThomson
December 5th, 2009, 06:37 AM
I run a public hotspot. It was shutdown by my ISP in Costa Rica for uploading copyrighted content. To be clear, it is the uploading that is considered the infraction. I have a router with DD-WRT firmware installed which has an option to block p2p. It doesn't work. The p2p apps are smarter than the router. It slowed transfer speeds a little but did not stop it. Do a little research and you will see it is virtually impossible to completely filter bittorent. If anyone has been able to do it please let me know.

I think my only option to avoid future problems is going to be using an anonymizing VPN.

THANK YOU, you are vary right. Even if you could block P2P you would be vary far from protecting yourself from pople tranfering copyrighted content without paying the poeple who "clame" to own it. I am sounding like a broken record now about this.

There is NO WAY the pub owner could have stoped pople form tranfering copyrighted content over his HotSpot.

The only way would be to have all trafic first downloaded to a server then do a complete analysis of the content. Then check to make sure it was not coppyrighted or if it was that the person requesting it had paid for a license. The if OK deliver to the client requesting the content.

However, Even this probaly illegal (in the USA) level of traffic analysis.

EDIT: This WOULD be illegal in the USA becuase it is illegal to Crack Encryption. And most everyone Encrypts there Bit-Torrent traffic or gets the direct downloads or Limewire or Web sites with SSL or other Encryption.

Would STILL have gotten the pub owner in truble because he had to download the copyrighted content to check if it is copyrighted.

There is NO way the Pub owner could have prevented ALL Copyrighted Materials form intering his LAN. And YES you would have to stop it ALL. The record lables want to get money for EVERY COPPY or you are STILL violating copyright law.

------

My point.

This is not fair becuse the Pub owner has NO LEAGAL WAY of complying with Copyright Law.

Maybe he did try to block P2P and key words and websites. Yet someone still tranfered copyrighted content over his LAN.

It is vary likely he trys to block P2P because when a client is makeing Hundreds of connections the TCP QoS dosen't work. This is why there is P2P blocking on routers. It has nothing to do with copyright.

================================================== ==================


Also, Ya man, GET an anonymous OpenVPN or SSH account. Get one with a server in Malaysia. I have one. I would love tell you who I use but that would not be anonymous now would it. If you PM me I'll tell you who I use.

If you do not and you live in the USA. All of these groups have access to all data going to your computer.


1- Your ISP
2- The NSA
3- Crackers on your LAN
4- Crackers on your ISP

With an secure anonymous OpenVPN or SSH account with a compainy that dosen't keep any log files.

The only one who knows what is going to your computer is


1- The OpenVPN or SSH provider.

The Malasian Goverment would not because they don't know which user connected to the server is requesing what information. Unless your the only one loged in at the time.


But If you get one on a server in the USA or the same contry you live in then the NSA could look at the trafic between "your computer and the server" & "the server and the internet" and problay match up which trafic is going to you. Unless the server puts a random delay on all trafic before sending it off to the Internet or back to the Client.

Also, Malasia has Made A Promise to the IT World that they will Never regulate the internet.

t0p
December 5th, 2009, 11:00 AM
There are people on here taking what I said out of context.

I said that hot spot providers should do more to protect themselves from this. We can all argue what protection the law should and shouldn't offer, but the point is someone has been successfully sued for this.

You'd be stupid NOT to want to protect yourself!

And the steak knife stabbing point has no relevance. You could say such things about anything in the world. My argument has context: do content filtering on your AP if you are a hot spot provider.

And blocking stuff isn't easy, but using DD-WRT on a bog standard router isn't exactly the answer. If you're a serious hot spot provider, you should have a fully fledged gateway that can do the job properly.


I get the impression that some of you ideologies are clouding logical thinking.

It is impossible to filter out the transfer of "illegally"-downloaded material as it looks just the same as legally-downloaded material. You're trying to say that you can differentiate illegal and legal by the protocol used. That's nonsense. P2P protocol can be used to transfer any material.

Freedom is important. You obviously don't see that, but that's irrelevant. Freedom Is Important.

t0p
December 5th, 2009, 11:09 AM
Also, Malasia has Made A Promise to the IT World that they will Never regulate the internet.

Don't be so naive. What happens if the current Malaysian government decides that after all it does want to regulate the internet? Or powerful neighbours coerce Malaysia into internet regulation? Or the current government loses an election and the next government (who didn't make the "promise") wants to regulate the internet? Or the very powerful movie and music industries use their influence?

Answer: Malaysia will regulate the internet.

Malaysia may be a great place now (I don't have a clue as I know nothing about the place) but that may change. Any "promise" by a government is worthless.

HappinessNow
December 5th, 2009, 01:18 PM
Have you seen this (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39909136,00.htm)? Apparently a pub owner has been fined 8000 in a civil court case after a customer used the pub's wifi hotspot connection to download copyrighted material.

This is all very confusing. The ZDNet UK site quotes an internet law professor, Lilian Edwards, of Sheffield Law School, as saying that where a business operates an open Wi-Fi spot to give customers or visitors internet access, they would be "not be responsible in theory" for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright law". So how come the pub owner was fined?

If the proposed Digital Economy Bill becomes law, we'll see more of these kind of cases. Bad news for "copyright thieves", bad news for freedom.

Odd.

holastickboy
December 5th, 2009, 01:20 PM
ok dude gets murdered in hotel...

lol, good point. Signs that are placed to prevent Copyright infringement doesnt neccessarily mean that the owner would have been safe after all. The prosecution could have argued that he should have done more to prevent infringment. It's just a sucky thing to happen to someone really.

So did the person who actually violated the law get in trouble for it?

t0p
December 5th, 2009, 01:55 PM
So did the person who actually violated the law get in trouble for it?

We don't know. The managing director of The Cloud, a hotspot management company, told ZDNet UK about the case, but didn't provide any detail to identify the pub owner. So there's been no proper reporting of the case, just repetition of the original ZDNet UK article. So don't really know anything about the case - we don't even know that it's true.

roharme
December 5th, 2009, 03:31 PM
Even i heard of this fine thing for download pirated content. But it happened to individual users not pub owners

LinuxFanBoi
December 5th, 2009, 03:40 PM
The more I hear about this nonsense, the less I give a damn about the giant media companies who want to squeeze every red cent from people.

What's funny is when an artist publicly says "I don't mind if people download my music," yet the label sues people anyway. Record labels are not in the music business, they are in the money extraction business. The way I see it, Once a record label allows a radio station to broadcast a song over PUBLIC AIRWAVES supported by advertising revenues, they gave up all rights to the reproduction of the material that was broadcast broadcast because it's now in the public domain.

I know I'm wrong according to the lawyers and judges, but screw them too they're all part of the temple that's beginning to crumble around them. The giants are running scared because they know they are fighting a battle they cant win.

Where the hell are my Lortabs!?!?!?!!!?!?!ONE!!

tom66
December 5th, 2009, 04:18 PM
That would be the same as fining our ISPs for what we download. While I strongly support people being fined for stealing, I think the wrong person was fined. That would be the same as suing a car dealership for selling a car that ended up being used for drunk driving.

It would be like suing road workers for providing a road for bank robbers to use. Or suing Ford over its Transit vans, which were used for nearly 90% of all bank robberies in the '90s.

julianb
December 5th, 2009, 07:26 PM
P2P protocol can be used to transfer any material.

Kind of like http and ftp. If you want to make sure people don't use your internet connection for illegal activities, you'd better block http and ftp. :)

running_rabbit07
December 5th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Kind of like http and ftp. If you want to make sure people don't use your internet connection for illegal activities, you'd better block http and ftp. :)

What use would a network be if you disable those protocols?

HunterThomson
December 5th, 2009, 08:30 PM
Don't be so naive. What happens if the current Malaysian government decides that after all it does want to regulate the internet? Or powerful neighbours coerce Malaysia into internet regulation? Or the current government loses an election and the next government (who didn't make the "promise") wants to regulate the internet? Or the very powerful movie and music industries use their influence?

Answer: Malaysia will regulate the internet.

Malaysia may be a great place now (I don't have a clue as I know nothing about the place) but that may change. Any "promise" by a government is worthless.

"""
(I don't have a clue as I know nothing about the place)
"""

You should read the news. I don't feel like diging around for the urls just google it.

It's all good for thinking that though. I thought the same way untill I read up on it.

Malaysia's economy is dependent on them not regulating the internet. They made the promise back in the 1990's. That is why they made this promise and will keep it for the forseable future. ((also, I would simply get my account in a new contry if they changed.)) My OpenVPN / SSH provider would also pull out of Malaysia if they did that.

Also, Just recently they were just talking about blocking a few well known child porn site's. Then there stock markent started to drop hard and the goverment had to go Loud and Public denying they ever said such a thing.

scottuss
December 5th, 2009, 11:55 PM
should it matter whether its encrypted tho?

if someone steals my car and runs over some one, am i liable? regardless of whether i left my car locked or not.


thats just extra security tho, it doesn't answer the central question of whether you would be liable.


anyway just thought of a cunning plan, find some government office using wifi, hack in, download something copy-written and see what happens ;)

Of course you're not liable if your car is stolen. You are the victim of theft. If you left it unlocked, it would be easier for the legal system to pin some sort of blame on you however.


It is impossible to filter out the transfer of "illegally"-downloaded material as it looks just the same as legally-downloaded material. You're trying to say that you can differentiate illegal and legal by the protocol used. That's nonsense. P2P protocol can be used to transfer any material.

Freedom is important. You obviously don't see that, but that's irrelevant. Freedom Is Important.

Have you actually read my posts? I have never said that hot spot owners should try to filter traffic. I said they should block protocols known to be abused.

Freedom is important, and I know P2P is not just used for illegal purposes, but clearly if the possibility of it being abused is high (in the case of public hot spots, it is high) then what harm is there in blocking it?

If I access a free hot spot and can't download my legal content from P2P or BitTorrent, am I really that far up my own backside that I'll complain and whine about freedom? No, but some people clearly are.

Freedom is important, which is why I'm arguing the case for hot spot providers to preserve theirs. I figure that's more important than Joe Public being able to download myfaveouritedisro.iso from BitTorrent.

HunterThomson
December 6th, 2009, 12:29 AM
What use would a network be if you disable those protocols?

He was simply pointing out that thoughs protocols are no difrent then P2P protocols. He was being sarcastic.... A rhetorical question.

fallingleaf
December 6th, 2009, 01:33 AM
Have you actually read my posts? I have never said that hot spot owners should try to filter traffic. I said they should block protocols known to be abused.


As far as I can tell it is not technically possible to block bittorent. There is one program that I've found that claims to be able to do it. It is Windows only. I don't have a Windows machine at home to try it on, but I will check it out on Monday. Remember we're talking about encrypted packets here. Vuze/Azureus can even work over port 80. I am willing to go the route of blocking all p2p protocols, but I don't think it is technically feasible. Do you know something I don't?

openuniverse
December 6th, 2009, 03:51 AM
.

sean09
December 6th, 2009, 04:04 AM
Sounds pretty stupid, interested to see how this turns out.

HunterThomson
December 6th, 2009, 05:20 AM
....
these people are helping to lives over petty "theft" (even that is disputable) ....

Hum, Just to put it out there.

---------

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/THEFT


- Theft

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball

This is clear. Downloading copyrighted content form people willing to upload it is clearly not "depriveing the rightful owner of it." Also, the owener is clearly giving permition for others to download it.

-----------

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal


- Steal

1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base

Hum lest think about this.
The persons alowing others to download copyrighted content are doing so willingly. However, if the record lable clames to own the 'Content' and they don't give permition then it would be stealing.

So, I guess we need a good definition of what copyright realy is to determine the true answer.

i.e. Do they realy own the 'Content'? Or do they just have the right to get money for 'distribution' of the content. If only "money for distribution" then No it would not be "Stealing".

---------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Copyright


- Copyright

: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)

Well OK then. I guess Copyright realy dose meen "Copy"right

The record lable DOSE NOT own the "Content". They only have the right to get money for to "reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute."

---------

So, acording to my interpitation of http://www.merriam-webster.com definition of the terms.

People who download Moves,Music, bla bla bla, Without paying the "Copyright" holders for the "Reproduction and Distribution"

Are NOT "Stealing", They are not "Theves".

They are just normal everyday people who don't think it is fair to charge people $20+ to "Reproduce and Distribute" Movies when in reality. It is so cheap to "Reproduce and Distribute" movies that it can be considered to cost nothing.

openuniverse
December 6th, 2009, 06:26 AM
.

HunterThomson
December 6th, 2009, 11:02 AM
to answer your question, copyright existed in pre-united-states britain as a way for the government to control what could and couldn't be published. it was essentially a mechanism for censorship.

when america set up their copyright system in the constitution, it was to create a limited monopoly (in duration and scope) to encourage artists and authors to create works that would then benefit the public after 14 to 28 years. granted most works were never copyrighted and were immediately free for everyone.



non-commercial copying was not restricted, only commercial copying. copyright laws have expanded again and again since, pushed for by publisher's lobbies at great cost to the public who are supposed to be the ultimate beneficiary of this incentive for artists and authors to contribute.

and now we've made copyright automatic. now everything is copyrighted and worse, we often don't know who to ask permission from. derivative works used to be free too, you didn't have to ask an author to make a movie of his book like today. everytime mickey mouse is about to enter the public domain, disney pushes new term extension laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act). we're in desperate need of reforming this.

OK then, the Copyright owners don't own the Content. They only own the right to reproduce and distribute.

I own the content on my hard drive. So if I freely distribute it I am violating copyright law. The people who receive the copy form me are not "Sealing" and are not "Thieves" because I the owner of the content am giving it to them they are not taking it from me.

running_rabbit07
December 6th, 2009, 07:31 PM
People who download Moves,Music, bla bla bla, Without paying the "Copyright" holders for the "Reproduction and Distribution"

Are NOT "Stealing", They are not "Theves".

They are just normal everyday people who don't think it is fair to charge people $20+ to "Reproduce and Distribute" Movies when in reality. It is so cheap to "Reproduce and Distribute" movies that it can be considered to cost nothing.

If you take something without paying for it, you are stealing. Movie and music makers work hard to bring you a product, they deserve to get paid for it. If what you say is correct, then I can just print out a fake Metallica ticket and go into the concert without paying, because I don't want to pay $200 a ticket, B.S.

running_rabbit07
December 6th, 2009, 07:36 PM
OK then, the Copyright owners don't own the Content. They only own the right to reproduce and distribute.

I own the content on my hard drive. So if I freely distribute it I am violating copyright law. The people who receive the copy form me are not "Sealing" and are not "Thieves" because I the owner of the content am giving it to them they are not taking it from me.

You do not own the rights to the music and movies to be able to share them. If you paid for the music or movie, then you do have the right to produce copies for yourself, not others.If you did not pay for the products, then you are in possession of stolen property.

HunterThomson
December 7th, 2009, 12:20 AM
If you take something without paying for it, you are stealing. Movie and music makers work hard to bring you a product, they deserve to get paid for it. If what you say is correct, then I can just print out a fake Metallica ticket and go into the concert without paying, because I don't want to pay $200 a ticket, B.S.

Well no, That would be stealing because the owners of the content in that case would be the people on stage and they are "Not" freely giving it to you.


( I am assuming your talking about the Music and not the ticket. I also, am assuming you don't want to talk about the other violations in that situation, And by content I meed the Music. I am assuming you put the value of $200 on the music)

HunterThomson
December 7th, 2009, 12:23 AM
You do not own the rights to the music and movies to be able to share them. If you paid for the music or movie, then you do have the right to produce copies for yourself, not others.If you did not pay for the products, then you are in possession of stolen property.

Yes, like I said. I would be violating copyright law if I copy and distribute it.

However, the people receiving the copy form me are not stealing it.

Even though I don't have the right to copy and distribute the content. I am the owner of the content.

Therefor by definition. The receiver is not "Stealing" and they are not "Thieves."

t0p
December 7th, 2009, 12:36 AM
Yes, like I said. I would be violating copyright law if I copy and distribute it.

However, the people receiving the copy form me are not stealing it.

Even though I don't have the right to copy and distribute the content. I am the owner of the content.

Therefor by definition. The receiver is not "Stealing" and they are not "Thieves."

If the recording industy cops come after you, is that going to be your defence?

Yeah good luck with that. Let us know how it works out for you.

HunterThomson
December 7th, 2009, 12:43 AM
If the recording industy cops come after you, is that going to be your defence?

Yeah good luck with that. Let us know how it works out for you.

Nope I don't download copyrighted content.

Sorry to disappoint.

I am only smarter then all you :p
( I mean no offense, You have proven yourself less capable of understanding complex concepts.)

HunterThomson
December 7th, 2009, 12:47 AM
If the recording industy cops come after you, is that going to be your defence?

Yeah good luck with that. Let us know how it works out for you.


Owe, to prove how brain washed you are.
( I mean no offense. You really have been brain washed)



"Cops" have never come to get anyone for downloading copyrighted content without paying the copyright holders. in the USA


No one has ever been charged for stealing or thieving for downloading copyrighted content. in the USA


They only get a bill in the mail. Because the copyright owners have the right to get paid for the copying of the file.

------------------

However like I seem to have to say in every post.

The person making the copy and distributing the content ARE braking the law.

It is more then they just owe the copyright owners for the copy they have.

-------------------

In the USA record labels and such ARE trying to get laws past to make it illegal to be in possession of copyrighted content without paying the copyright holders.

If (probably when) that becomes law. Cops could take your ipod or laptop and look for copyrighted content. If they found it you would then get arrested.

But this is not how it is now.

Zoot7
December 7th, 2009, 01:00 AM
Movie and music makers work hard to bring you a product, they deserve to get paid for it.
Yes they do, but they shouldn't be screwing customers (and artist) for overpriced media the way they are now. (Cant' speak for the Movie Industry).
Record labels have been lobbying for a long time to cut the Artist royalties to a minimum, but where would they be without the artists? Nowhere.
I'm quite a seasoned musician myself and I've manys a piece recorded (home recorded of course), and I can safely say that I will NEVER sign with a Record label for that reason and that reason alone.
Music has always been an integral part of who I am, but I absolutely detest the business that's attached to it, and in todays world there's absolutely no need for it. I'd much rather send money directly to the artist and cut out the ruthless capitalist record label entirely.
In manys a way I'm glad to see the Music industry coming up against the huge amount of opposition at the moment, the sad thing is that it's yet to have a dramatic effect.

HunterThomson
December 7th, 2009, 01:43 AM
I just bought ...

DuleCore Next Level & Super Powers

In OGG format.

I love DuleCore.

Super COOL :) They just gave a shout out to Hak5 in the fist track :KS

http://hak5.org/

http://dualcoremusic.com/nerdcore/

running_rabbit07
December 7th, 2009, 02:17 AM
Well no, That would be stealing because the owners of the content in that case would be the people on stage and they are "Not" freely giving it to you.


( I am assuming your talking about the Music and not the ticket. I also, am assuming you don't want to talk about the other violations in that situation, And by content I meed the Music. I am assuming you put the value of $200 on the music)

no, I did not make up the value. I went to see Metallica last night and tickets were anywhere from $150-800. When bying the tickets, the money goes to the venue which has already set the contract price with the band, so I am paying the venue for the content, not Metallica.

running_rabbit07
December 7th, 2009, 02:51 AM
I just bought ...

DuleCore Next Level & Super Powers

In OGG format.

I love DuleCore.

Super COOL :) They just gave a shout out to Hak5 in the fist track :KS
hak5.org

I don't see Dr.Dre picking that guy up any time soon.:lolflag:

HunterThomson
December 7th, 2009, 03:44 AM
I don't see Dr.Dre picking that guy up any time soon.:lolflag:

To each his own.:KS

-----------
"""
no, I did not make up the value. I went to see Metallica last night and tickets were anywhere from $150-800. When bying the tickets, the money goes to the venue which has already set the contract price with the band, so I am paying the venue for the content, not Metallica.
"""

Ya you gave a bad example.

openuniverse
December 7th, 2009, 04:01 AM
.

shnurui
December 10th, 2009, 04:26 AM
Adultry is NOT legal in some areas. However, prostitution is not legal most places.

A john hires a hooker and rents a room, the motel is fined for prostitution?

A liquir store is fined for a mother giving her child wine in her home?

The city of Venus is fined for having an Un-Modified nude male statue on public display?

This ignorance of violations of law is what will cause the next revolution, and it will start with the blood of the people who short changed the artists in the first place.

sandyd
December 10th, 2009, 05:09 AM
Actually, as far as I'm aware, he can analyse the traffic, it's his Internet connection and his network. And I think although he shouldn't have been fined for it, it makes a good point that such hot spots should have at least a basic gateway that filters out basic stuff like torrents, P2P, certain keywords and blacklisted sites etc.
thats what opendns is for ;)

suitedaces
December 10th, 2009, 11:21 AM
It is like playing poker. They got $40,000 the pub owner has $20,000, So they force the Pub owner all in and the Pub owner has to fold.


Erm, no.

whiskeylover
December 10th, 2009, 12:49 PM
musicians make most of their money from concerts, and most of the money from records goes to record distributors.

so-called piracy has two effects: it actually increases record sales (whoa didn't see that coming) and it increases awareness of the bands / ticket sales. what it hurts in the long run is the monopolistic control of the distributors. it's like the consequences of there being several companies in the gnu/linux business, instead of everyone making do with windows.

so microsoft can stay in business as long as they want (it's not like they wrote the software, they buy it from other companies or pay people a little to write it for them) but they can't stay on top as long as they want and push everyone around.

that's the difference between a world that makes "compensating" the artists the first priority and making it second, after people have as much exposure to the music as free copying allows, which i$ good for artists. that's the difference, plus the draconian end of liberty necessary to keep people in the dark ages of music consumption in a different century where the public can be a more efficient distributor than any one company.


That logic doesn't make any sense at all. Its like saying "Because I beat him up, his family now loves him more... thanks to me."

Its illegal no matter how much you want to think otherwise.

scottuss
December 10th, 2009, 07:17 PM
thats what opendns is for ;)

Absolutely, OpenDNS could certainly be utilised in this gateway setup that I was talking about.