Say you download pirated media over the wifi at the local coffee shop. Is the coffee shop responsible for it? I am guessing not since there are still places that offer wifi in this world but I may be offering free wifi in a business and need to know for sure. Thanks in advance.
IANAL, but… Would a car manufacturer be responsible if one of its vehicles was used in a bank robbery? Wifi would seem to play the same role here – it is a medium of transporation, in this case of information. Now if the coffee shop had a sign telling folks they could download the latest from Hollywood or get free pirated software, then you could argue that they are aiding and abetting in a crime, but otherwise I would say no.
(Bolding mine.)
I’m sorry, Sapo, but what you’re asking for is legal advice - the application of legal knowledge and training to your specific situation, for the purpose of informing your action. I’m a lawyer, but I can’t give you that. First, because I don’t know where you live, and that makes a huge difference. Second, and much more importantly, I can’t give you legal advice because I’m not your lawyer. US lawyers are governed by strict ethical codes (and laws) regarding when, and where, and in what circumstances, we can “practice law” - that is, produce legal advice (among many other things.) Even if I knew all the things I’d need to know to advise you, I still couldn’t do so, because I’d risk inadvertantly establishing an attorney-client relationship, which comes with a whole 'nother set of responsibilities.
I’m simplifying a lot of issues here, and arguably over-simplifying, but the gist is that I cannot help you solve a specific legal problem on these Boards - and nor can any other US lawyer here, in all likelihood.
Your best bet would be to find a local lawyer who’s knowledgeable in these matters. A general practitioner, even if he doesn’t know this area of the law himself, should be able to refer you to someone who does.
Good luck!
Fair enough. Thanks for the pointer. Is this really dependent on location? I thought this was a Federal thing.
cosigned with Mr. Excellent
and no, it doesn’t matter. typically you have to be a member of the bar of the state where the person is asking you your legal question, even if you’re asking one of federal law - an Illinois lawyer cannot advise clients in California about issues of federal law.
and, it may or may not be a federal thing, either.
besides that, even if someone were licensed in all 50 jurisdictions, they still probably wouldn’t want to have an atty/client relationship formed via an internet messageboard
Federal law, oddly enough, can still vary locally. Different federal circuits often differ in how they apply the law. Since no one circuit’s decisions are binding upon another, you can sometimes get very different outcomes applying the same law in, say, California or New Hampshire.
Not to mention that federal law is a little different in places like Australia, Canada and Germany.
I wasn’t planning on a client/attorney relationship formed. I hadn’t even thought of it as a request for legal advice. I thought this would be one those things that everyone knew except me.
Let me ask a different way. Are coffee shops getting sued by the RIAA for pirated music done from their locations?
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I am in the US (Puerto Rico, actually) and sometimes forget there is such thing as the rest of the world. I always meant US law.
I am curious about this too. A more GQ suitable question would maybe be “are there any examples where a wireless network provider was held responsible for illegal activities performed over their network without their knowledge?”
IANAL, so maybe I can answer safely - with as little as I know.
The RIAA has sued grannies over rap music, small children, and dead people. I have never heard of a case wher they sued a small local service rovider such as a coffee shop.
they have threatened unversities. These institutions are in a peculiar situation; first, many do not have the legal budget to get into an all-out fight. Also, if state support is provided, they are vulnerable to lobbying the local congress-critters. Their participation is much more direct - a college that provides network services probably creates a huge group of heavy traders, and has the power to know who is doing it and to impose filters on such activity. This makes them a good target.
The RIAA has a habit of not wanting to set any precendents that may hurt its cases, since they border on extortion anyway; and the question of whether providing a simple public access is aiding copyright infringement is still undecided but seems pretty weak. The RIAA has a habit of just walking away from a case if they think they’re going to lose. So likely, they would not go after a company like Starbucks who could afford to fight back and worst case, make it official precendent that a wifi provider would have no more obligation than a regular ISP to police content.
the biggest impetus would probably be PR-related. Would a company like McDOnalds, for example, want to be known as the best wifi spot to trade internet kiddie porn?
I’m not quite sure why this is such a hot-button topic no one wants to talk about it.
The UK was dicking around with a law that would punish “innocent users” like the parents of downloaders. The same would apply to a coffee shop, it seems to me.
Here’s another article in the UK warning businesses offering open wi-fi to be careful.
Here in the US, you can certainly be cutoff by your ISP and they don’t give a rat’s ass who was abusing their network. The RIAA and MPAA can sue anyone they want, and there is no law saying they can’t sue the name on the internet account.
You’d be advised to have your network administrator block filesharing traffic anyway. Even if it were perfectly legal, you don’t want customers slowing everyone’s connection to a standstill.
I believe that the RIAA asked the universities to identify (based on IP address and other information) the students who were doing the downloading of illegal content and then they’ve gone after the students individually.
Haha - just a bit, perhaps. Not so’s you’d notice. 
I know of one case where Sony and/or MPAA went after a US counties wifi network because someone used it to illegally download a movie.
Not sure how much was Sony saying you must shut down, and how much kneejerk reaction by the county it was just because Sony contacted them.
However the free wifi was apparently back up and running a week later.
Unless the law specifically allows punishing innocent people, the general rule is that you sue someone, a specific person or corporation, if they are infringing your copyright (a civil case). ISP’s can and may cut you off if they can identify that you are the client infringing. Not sure what the rule is if a publicly available service is being abused. I guess the problem is that suing Starbucks, for example, would set a precedent one way or another whether a service provider is liable, and they ahve the money to fight it.
Unlike Canada and I presume the UK, in the USA when someone sues and loses (or drops the case) it is very difficult to recover your legal costs. In Canada if you sue someone and don’t win, they can ask the court for their legal costs and unless there’s a really good reason, you pay. Stakes are higher, which is why the USA is the land of the lawsuit and Canada isn’t. Also, Canada does not think filesharing is a sufficient grounds to violate ISP privacy rules; and we don’t have the laws (yet) that the RIAA has bought and paid for in the USA making each song shared an exorbitant (cruel and unusual) amount of damages. It’s a hot-button topic because many Americans realize that the actions of the RIAA are extortion, even if congress is too busy taking RIAA “donations” to see this.
The trouble with blocking filesharing is that the filesharers are one step ahead. There are newer programs that are difficult to block. Besides, how much effort do you want to put into making life difficult for your customers?
Don’t forget to read your ISP’s terms of service.
IANALawyer, and aside from Federal law, it is conceivable that somone could use the internet for all kinds of crimes, including theft and fraud, and certainly local jurisdictions would have very different laws defining exactly what are the elements of these crime. Not to mention what the punishments are.
I would certainly be concerned, and wouldn’t provide the service without getting professional legal advice.
You want another thing to worry about? Bsides ‘normal’ internet crime, there could be people eavesdropping on your wireless system and committing crimes against your customers. So, do you have some duty to offer some level of security to them?
I dunno either.
Surely the owner of the Internet would be responsible.
I was asked to look at setting up an access point in a pub in the UK. My intended approach (we never got past some design) was:
Automatic initial redirection of http to a Terms of Use form allowing access
http, https, secure imap/pop/smtp only
Restricted bandwidth per device making heavy downloading slow
No promiscuous interfaces
No local traffic
Blocking search engines during Pub Quiz Night 
This would provide a balance between functionality for users (web browsing/email) and security for the pub and users.
Si