Same here in France, the owner of the Wifi AP is liable in case of illegal downloads.
However a large majority of ISP implemented a separate free Wifi that is independent of your connection. You have access to all the free wifi AP from this ISP if you don't opt-out.
Same deal in New Zealand. Except the law to "3 strikes" so if you receive 3 infringement notices within a 9 month window you can expect to be "prosecuted".
I recently received one of these stupid letters. I asked everyone in our household if they knew anything about it. No one did so I threw it in the garbage. My wife asked if we should be worried, the wording was quite threatening, basically asking us to go to their website and "ATONE!". We have a large enough house with family and friends moving throughout it during the day. Most have the wifi password. Because thats what everyone asks for these days, after the initial greetings.
There is a whole industry of sending these letters to people, most people feel threatened and would rather pay the demanded compensation
than have to fight it, even if they were never involved in said infringement.
> There’s no guarantee that judges across the
> country will use the same standard, though.
This sentence could be misleading if you are not familiar with precedent in the US court system. It's important to note that this is just a decision at the lowest level federal court. There is no guarantee that any judge, including another case in the same district court, will apply the same standard.
"Hollywood hasn’t and definitely won’t stop making attempts to get money from pirates who download their films and that’s fine. They have a right to protect their property"
Do they? I'm not convinced. Why must we tolerate the behavior of corporations which has proven to be harmful to our society? Their litigious actions also do not improve our society or offer any benefits to the human race. I think a strong argument can be made that they do not actually have a right to dictate who sees their products or what they should pay for it.
Society is made out of individuals. You want to live in a society that doesn't screw individuals over, so that your own human rights wouldn't be violated. Property rights are pretty fundamental as human rights go. Intellectual property is a form of property. Therefore people(and companies) should have the right to protect it.
> Their litigious actions also do not improve our society or offer any benefits to the human race. I think a strong argument can be made that they do not actually have a right to dictate who sees their products or what they should pay for it.
Imagine saying the same thing about any other kind of property, and you'll realize that living in a world where people think like that would be horrifying.
[+] [-] sdoering|9 years ago|reply
It is called 'Störerhaftung'. That way it doesn't matter who exactly did illegal you download stuff. You are liable non the less.
Funny thing though - the moment you are an incorporated ISP you do not fall under this concept anymore.
That is by the way the reason free WiFi isn't that available in Germany.
[+] [-] davidiach|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cylinder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kasparsklavins|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousgal|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kleim|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FollowSteph3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ElCapitanMarkla|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yardie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgotpwtomain|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|9 years ago|reply
While not binding I think it is positive development.
[+] [-] simbalion|9 years ago|reply
Do they? I'm not convinced. Why must we tolerate the behavior of corporations which has proven to be harmful to our society? Their litigious actions also do not improve our society or offer any benefits to the human race. I think a strong argument can be made that they do not actually have a right to dictate who sees their products or what they should pay for it.
[+] [-] rayalez|9 years ago|reply
> Their litigious actions also do not improve our society or offer any benefits to the human race. I think a strong argument can be made that they do not actually have a right to dictate who sees their products or what they should pay for it.
Imagine saying the same thing about any other kind of property, and you'll realize that living in a world where people think like that would be horrifying.
[+] [-] 2close4comfort|9 years ago|reply