On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:47:57 -0000, Mark Elkins <markelkins...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In theory UK law decisions apply a test of reasonableness to them. > Therefore is it reasonable for those supplying any form of open public > internet access such as pubs, universities etc to be prey to fines for > unlawful downloads? But it has already been decided that if you share you wireless at home - ergo do not password it - then you are potentially liable. See http://techdirt.com/articles/20060320/1636238.shtml for more. > The recent decision to give everyone in Swindon some form of free > internet access would appear in theory to mean that those supplying that > internet access may be prey to fines as mentioned in the above article. Would be exactly the point. I personally do not believe they are liable, there are several legal actions that say I am wrong. > I think something is not right here - perhaps the pub itself has been > downloading loads of copyrighted material - maybe music for example. Perhaps - but then the landlord/staff member should have been prosecuted at a private level, not the pub itself. > Otherwise why would there be no appeal against the decision of the court > involved mentioned in the above article? What if the landlord paid the fine through fear of negative publicity or the cost of the legal action in defending themselves. By paying the fine they are admitting guilt so there is no available appeal. By not paying the fine they run the risk of years in court trying to justify themselves as a fair carrier. -- Using Opera M2: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wednesday 2009-12-02 20:00 Dorset LUG: http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.org&channel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
