See Lilian Edwards (a lectern lawyer, rather than an armchair one!) on
why this almost certainly isn't the "landmark ruling" it might appear to
be:
http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2009/11/zdnet-wi-fi-and-digital-economy-b
ill.html
Summary conclusion: there's a lot of mystery about this, and some
unfortunate misuses of terms ("fine" should probably be "damages", for
starters). Which all suggests that it probably isn't a case that sets a
precedent because if it were then there would be a law report somewhere
that would remove the mystery.
But Mike's suggestion of reviewing any contracts you may have with
commercial WISPs and ensuring that they are crystal clear on who deals
with complaints about users is a good one. I'm reasonably happy that the
JRS Agreement is ok on that front: it's the home site.
And beware that this whole area is going to get a lot murkier when the
Digital Economy Bill starts being debated this Wednesday! The
definitions in the Bill are so badly drafted as to make it very unclear
who is covered and who isn't, and legal commentators are pointing out
all sorts of unexpected consequences from the current draft wording :-(
Andrew
--
Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser
JANET(UK), Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation
Campus, Didcot, OX11 0SG, UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Fax: +44 (0) 1235 822399
JANET, the UK's education and research network
JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wireless Issues in the JANET community [mailto:WIRELESS-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Chown
> Sent: 30 November 2009 13:21
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-ADMIN] Legal liability?
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 01:07:59PM +0000, Mike Richardson wrote:
> > I'm hoping that someone with a bit of legal knowledge (Andrew!) can
> comment
> > on this story:
> >
> > http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/11/28/public-uk-wi-fi-hotspot-
> owner-fined-8000gbp-for-users-illegal-download.html
> >
> > The implication is that the wireless provider can be held
responsible
> for
> > the actions of the users of someone else's service.
> >
> > We have The Cloud on campus and the above implies that if a Cloud
> user does
> > something naughty the University could be liable.
> >
> > Now as a Uni we accept responsibility for the actions of our users
on
> our
> > network but, I for one, never thought that if we're offering a
> service such
> > as The Cloud that we'd be responsible for their users.
> >
> > Also, what about eduroam? Where does the responsibility lie for
that?
>
> /armchair lawyer mode on
>
> This seems to be a pretty landmark case, but one that will surely be
> contested/appealed?
>
> The article implies that the pub owner was fined because he couldn't
> identify individuals who were performing the illegal action when a
> civil
> case was brought against him by whoever the copyright owner was.
> It doesn't say how that particular Cloud site made access available,
> or why the individual wasn't accessable. It hints that NAT was to
> blame.
>
> In the case of eduroam, it should be possible to link a specific
> activity
> to a specific authenticated user? And any Tier 3 site will have one
> global IP per user (and IPv6 available!).
>
> But as Mike says it is a concern for universities if they offer Cloud
> access via their infrastructure.
>
> --
> Tim
|