5 ms·
Your first statement is afaik not correct. 1) It would create a serious issue for the BT Openzone network which turns all BT "homehubs" (a glorified wireless ro
by retube 14y ago
Your first statement is afaik not correct. 1) It would create a serious issue for the BT Openzone network which turns all BT "homehubs" (a glorified wireless router) into open access points for any other BT subscriber and 2) there have been a number of court cases around downloading of pirated content which have hinged on whether or not the subscriber was responsible.
- alexkus 14y ago1) is not a problem on BT Openzone/FON as the subscriber and open networks are kept separate:- quick google http://community.bt.com/t5/BB-Out-About/Liability-under-BT-Fon-BT-Openzone/td-p/13339 http://community.bt.com/t5/BB-Out-About/Liability-under-BT-F...
- prof_hobart 14y agoRegardless of what the theory of the law may seem to indicate, then assuming that The Cloud's MD isn't lying, it looks like the courts may sometimes disagree with you. "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."(http://www.zdnet.com/-3039909136/ http://www.zdnet.com/-3039909136/). Personally, while there's this kind of case being brought, I'd rather not take the risk.
- digitalWestie 14y agodidn't a judge recently rule that an ip does not represent a person?
- prof_hobart 14y agoA judge did, but other judges have decided the opposite. I wouldn't like to risk getting the right judge. And even if I did, I wouldn't particularly fancy risking being dragged through the court system simply to give random other people access to the internet.