Slippery Slope Dept. — Pub ‘fined £8k’ for Wi-Fi copyright infringement by User

Published on December 6th, 2009

Pub ‘fined £8k’ for Wi-Fi copyright infringement – ZDNet.co.uk — This is a very bad precedent.

A pub owner has been fined £8,000 because someone unlawfully downloaded copyrighted material over their open Wi-Fi hotspot, according to the managing director of hotspot provider The Cloud.

Graham Cove told ZDNet UK on Friday he believes the case to be the first of its kind in the UK. However, he would not identify the pub concerned, because its owner — a pubco that is a client of The Cloud’s — had not yet given their permission for the case to be publicised.

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.

16 users responded in " Slippery Slope Dept. — Pub ‘fined £8k’ for Wi-Fi copyright infringement by User "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Grandpa said, on December 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Using the same reasoning, I should be able to get compensation from bottlers of alcoholic beverages when one of their drinkers causes me damage in my car.

Many other examples to follow…

# 2 honeyman said, on December 6th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

You also have to wonder what the alleged ‘copyright material’ was and who decided it was a copyright infringement.

# 3 NOOOO said, on December 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

This is the end of downloading they are going after the internet providers there is no way we can find a loop hole. Get redy to pay for over priced movies, games, book, and music.

# 4 mcpepants said, on December 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Something else will just replace the internet, paradigm shifts occur when the government and corporations steal a public medium form the people. Information should be free and trying to contain it is a fools game.

# 5 gquaglia said, on December 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

The UK, where “1984″ has arrived, albeit a few decades late.

# 6 jbellies said, on December 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

#1, the bottlers? Why not the government, which is a better analogy to the pub in this story? The government are the ultimate enablers-for-profit of the dangerous, ah, substance. It would be fun to see the government appeal this ruling when they are behind it (a “fine”?) in the first place. Unless, of course, they make themselves exempt, as they so often do. We have the precedent. Now bring on the equity judges! IANAL.

# 7 deowll said, on December 6th, 2009 at 4:11 pm

The English bought into, “I’m from the government and I’m here to make your life better and now they don’t have any more rights than somebody in prison.”

The same thing is happening here.

# 8 Animby said, on December 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

This will, if upheld, undoubtedly end WiFi Hotspots in the UK. So a law written to appease a specific economic sector (the entertainment industry) decreases the quality of life for an entire population.

Sounds about right.

# 9 Thinker said, on December 6th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Wow, can you imagine that you could use this to put a competitor out of business?? Or if someone had given you bad service?

huh.

# 10 bloodywolf said, on December 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

that building looks like dvorak

# 11 framecrash said, on December 7th, 2009 at 5:15 am

For what it’s worth, ZDNet UK updated the article, saying that:

“Professor Lilian Edwards was erroneously quoted as saying that businesses would “be responsible in theory” for users’ unlawful downloads”

[...] She actually told ZDNet UK that businesses would *not* be responsible in theory…” (my emphasis)

# 12 Toby E said, on December 7th, 2009 at 6:18 am

The idea that that the provider of the Wi-Fi hotspot could be liable for the download of copyrighted material is just crazy! The UK is in need of many more open Internet access points – hopefully this wont put too many off!

# 13 GigG said, on December 7th, 2009 at 6:26 am

And ISPs deserve getting blamed as long as they keep pushing for things like being able to throttle certain types of packages.

If they want to be a comon carrier and get the protections that come along with it then they need to act like it.

This case though is like a bar owner that get’s hit with a fine because a patron does something illegal on the pay phone.

# 14 Buzz said, on December 7th, 2009 at 6:46 am

Exqueeze me, but isn’t that illustration a non sequitur?

# 15 Breetai said, on December 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

Does this mean you can sue politicians for passing stupid laws? I’m all for that.

# 16 Uncle Patso said, on December 7th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

# 13 GigG:
“This case though is like a bar owner that get’s hit with a fine because a patron does something illegal on the pay phone.”

Be specially careful not to allow any of your patrons to talk to someone who might be listening to copyrighted music that the patron could then overhear without paying royalties (gasp)!!! Soon you’ll have to pay the RIAA every time you get a song stuck in your head and the MPAA every time you think of a scene from a movie or TV show. Next, lawsuits over unlicensed car horns, noisy brakes, doorbells and crying infants…

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!