31–40 of 115 posts
> providers won’t be held liable as long as they secure the network properly and get users to agree not to act illegally Of course they had to include that paragraph, forcing everyone to tick some stupid check-box. As if the cookie agreements weren't enough already.
> providers won’t be held liable as long as they secure the network properly and get users to agree not to act illegally Of course they had to include that paragraph, forcing everyone to tick some stupid check-box. As if the cookie agreements weren't enough already.
Two copyright claims, from two law firms, for albums I've never heard of, at times that I wasn't in the house.
Because of an arcane, but largely logical German law named "Störerhaftung" I am by default responsible, and have to pay both claims (in the order of €5,000 each). I have no recourse.
Tech-savvy as I am, powerless to defend against a case such as this, where do I stand, I could theoretically bring a case against AVM Deutschland (manufacturer of the Fritzrepeater) but then the burden is on me to prove their buggy software failed, and reset to factory settings.
An impossible situation, and I hope that laws such as these move in the direction of transparency, the Störerhaftung is designed to make sure that someone who loses out always has someone to claim against (common other uses, are for example if drunks throw stones from the top of a building, and then run away, the building owner is responsible, in lieu of finding and proving that the drunkards were responsible) - it's arcane, and whilst well intended, and the "terrorism" argument holds strong, this is about copyright, and always maintaining the Störerhaftung right.
> providers won’t be held liable as long as they secure the network properly and get users to agree not to act illegally Of course they had to include that paragraph, forcing everyone to tick some stupid check-box. As if the cookie agreements weren't enough already.
I'm really trying to understand how anyone can think this is sensible. Maybe 20 years ago when these laws were written by people who had never used WiFi at a cafe before, but surely everyone involved with writing this bill intuits that this sort of a measure is utterly worthless and just induces frictions. Maybe it enables prosecution later for lying? Hard to believe they think that outweighs the costs.
> providers won’t be held liable as long as they secure the network properly and get users to agree not to act illegally Of course they had to include that paragraph, forcing everyone to tick some stupid check-box. As if the cookie agreements weren't enough already.
When and why did the stupid cookie agreements ever start?!
Here though, can you claim innocence because you weren't informed that doing illegal things on this wifi network were actually illegal?
This bill is actually heavily criticized in germany, for example by the Freifunk initiative: http://freifunkstattangst.de/2015/06/16/neuer-tmg-entwurf-zu... (german) The bill requires network operators to make "reasonable effort to secure the network against unauthorized access" and to "allow access only to users that have agreed not to violate the law during their use" of the network. The bill also takes service pro…
Can you elaborate on why this is bad?
This bill is actually heavily criticized in germany, for example by the Freifunk initiative: http://freifunkstattangst.de/2015/06/16/neuer-tmg-entwurf-zu... (german) The bill requires network operators to make "reasonable effort to secure the network against unauthorized access" and to "allow access only to users that have agreed not to violate the law during their use" of the network. The bill also takes service pro…
> The bill requires network operators to make "reasonable effort to secure the network against unauthorized access" and to "allow access only to users that have agreed not to violate the law during their use" of the network. Can you elaborate on why this is bad?
I'm currently suffering two copyright infringement cases, which I can only assume are the result of the storm that reset my FritzRepeater back to factory settings, leaving an open bridge into my network. Two copyright claims, from two law firms, for albums I've never heard of, at times that I wasn't in the house. Because of an arcane, but largely logical German law named "Störerhaftung" I am by default responsible, a…
Source: http://www.arag.de/auf-ins-leben/udo-vetter/filesharing-oft-...
I'm currently suffering two copyright infringement cases, which I can only assume are the result of the storm that reset my FritzRepeater back to factory settings, leaving an open bridge into my network. Two copyright claims, from two law firms, for albums I've never heard of, at times that I wasn't in the house. Because of an arcane, but largely logical German law named "Störerhaftung" I am by default responsible, a…
I think that is what you need.
This is an issue across many EU countries, that require by law that WiFi providers track what their users do online, and to keep a permanent record of it. Its onerous to implement and support. I believe it arose from anti-terrorism legislation.