MPAA Shuts Down Town's Municipal WiFi Over 1 Download 323
nam37 writes with this BoingBoing snippet "The MPAA has successfully shut down an entire town's municipal WiFi because a single user was found to be downloading a copyrighted movie. Rather than being embarrassed by this gross example of collective punishment (a practice outlawed in the Geneva conventions) against Coshocton, OH, the MPAA's spokeslizard took the opportunity to cry poor (even though the studios are bringing in record box-office and aftermarket receipts)."
Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, talk about misrepresenting the facts. I hate the way the MPAA is using copyright law as much as the next digital rights activist. But, for the record, the MPAA didn't take down the network. They just sent their usual infringement notice to the ISP, who then forwarded it on to Coshocton County. The county then made the decision to shut down the wifi service, they weren't ordered to by any judge or MPAA executive/lawyer/asshat.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=117273 [mediapost.com]
Geneva Conventions (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to be pedantic.. but the fourth Geneva Convention (which OP was referring to) sets forth protection for civilians in times of war. Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH and the MPAA is not a sovereign authority (as much as it might like to be). I always cringe when people reference the Geneva Conventions like this in such an overly dramatic and misrepresentation way.
Non-story (Score:5, Informative)
Another troll by Cory. The WiFi was using a single IP address and NAT. The one connection was shutdown, that's all.
This should've never come out of the firehose... (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think the existence of an open wifi hotspot was a matter voted into existence by the people of Coshocton, OH, nor do I think it came to be as a result of a lawful mandate. Somebody decided it could be kind of nice, opened it up, smiled broadly at the general sense of doing something good, and was unceremoniously educated into the potential issues connected with what I'm sure somebody thought was a simple idea. "Hey, I turned this on, I can turn this off if there's a problem" sure beats "I think I'll get the city involved in a deep-pockets lawsuit over something which isn't our responsibility".
Now, if the presence of an open wifi hotspot were something the citizens had voted for, or even if there was a city budget entry specifying funds to support an open wifi hotspot, that'd be one thing (and turning it off would be a very difficult proposition at that point). Not the case here. To quote Lieutenant Starbuck, "I can turn you on, I can turn you off". I guess in this case, Cy was left "off".
Re:Safe Harbor (Score:4, Informative)
Only applies to content hosted on their network. If the ISP is not directly hosting the content on servers they own, then they have no requirement to take it down. When the content is hosted on the customers system the ISP has no legal liability regardless of claims to the contrary, Why? Because the they can take legal action against the person directly at that point, and they have a legal obligation to minimize the affects. That would be like me forcing LEVEL3 to take down Comcast because one of Comcast's customers is hosting a file for download on a machine outside of Comcast's direct control.
Notice there is no absolutely no requirement to terminate the user.
Re:There must be something more (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's more a case of something less. This is another Cory Doctorow nonsense-piece. What appears to have happened is that the town had a set up a single shared wifi network running from a single connection which they allowed anyone to use. The MPAA sent a letter saying that this connection was being used for downloading copyrighted material without permission and the Sheriff's office panicked and shut it down.
FOX News doesn't distort the facts for their agenda as much as this guy has. (Well, not all the time, anyway).
Re:There must be something more (Score:5, Informative)
I've found more information on this as well, actually. Far from being a whole town, the wireless network was a free network broadcast for ONE BLOCK around the county courthouse.
So real situation: Someone opens up a wireless network with open access in one block of the town. Someone (very probably) did something illegal with it. The people who pay for the connection get a letter saying there is illegal usage being made of it and decide to shut it down.
The Slashdot Headline and Doctorow Blog:MPAA shut down entire town's Municipal WiFi against their will. Contravention of Geneva Conventions.
This is utter garbage and the editors if they were doing their job would post an update on the story right now.
Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:3, Informative)
They are one and the same, the 300 block is the only section of the town serviced by the municipal WiFi.
Re:Geneva Convention? WTF?! (Score:3, Informative)
Geneva Convention applies to international conflict bud, not private corporations.
Actually IANAL but:
International treaties and conventions ARE the law of the land if your country is a signatory, and said law must be respected by all persons - physical or judicial. Corporations are NOT above the law.
There's a little clause in the US constitution that says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Most constitutions of other countries do the same - after all, it's the only way a government can make an international treaty binding on all its citizens.
Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:3, Informative)
Denying people a public service such as Wifi hardly seems like "Collective Punishment".
They were trying to take themselves off the liability list. Something illegal going down? Don't aid it.
I heard there was someone speeding down the 300 block!
The city tore up the street because of one person misusing it. They did not want to aid criminals.
Re:This should've never come out of the firehose.. (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect that you are mistaken, the wireless hotspot was capable of handling more than a hundred users at once and the county is considering purchasing filtering hardware and software so they can bring it back up.
Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:1, Informative)
If you make it all the way to the original source, the Coshocton Tribune says:
"About five years ago, the county made a free wireless Internet connection available in the block surrounding the Coshocton County Courthouse at 318 Main St."
So the internet at the "300 block" was the municipal WiFi; there is no incongruity (discongruence being, so far as I am aware, a word you made up).
I grew up in Coshocton. The shocking part for me is that there ever was municipal WiFi. And for what it's worth, the 300 block - the area around the courthouse - makes up most of the city of Coshocton's downtown. This is a tiny city we're talking about.
Re:There must be something more (Score:3, Informative)
TFA links to the source [coshoctontribune.com], which does confirm your parent post's analysis.
I guess reading TFA is taboo.
Anyway, the original article doesn't mention the MPAA being involved in the shutdown at all. By all appearances, the MPAA notified the ISP, then the ISP notified the county, then the county shut down the access point.
Re:There must be something more (Score:4, Informative)
Obviously you didn't RTFA.
Their "Municipal Wifi" covers a one block area around the courthouse, which probably just means the block that the courthouse is on. That's hardly "municipal". Maybe you can call a single open access point "progressive", but come on... TFA is obviously blowing things way out of proportion.
Furthermore, the MPAA didn't even ask them to shut it down. They simply notified the ISP of an illegal download, the ISP notified the access point operators, and then the AP operators shut down the access points. Basically, the politicians panicked.
Re:There must be something more (Score:5, Informative)
No offense is taken by a request for citations. The Coshocton Tribune has a much more detailed article here [coshoctontribune.com]. It details the area covered by the wifi point (the block containing the County Courthouse), the typical usage of the open network (from around a dozen people a day surging up to a hundred during county fairs held there) and the facts that they had no direct connection with the MPAA, but that Sony Pictures sent a notification of illegal usage to their ISP which then passed it on to the customer who decided to shut the network down. They're response - for a small town, under-resourced considering a network that is a useful but hardly critical public resource, actually seems reasonable. "Let's turn it off and think about what we can do." They're considering whether they need to spend a few thousand dollars (a lot of money for them) on filtering software. (I'd personally counsel them against that as it's merely throwing good money after an unguaranteed solution) Who's to blame for this? Well certainly not the council, and to be honest, not really Sony Pictures which sounds like they just sent one of their standard "you're doing illegal stuff, we know it, please stop and play nice" letters. So really, I think the most to blame for the withdrawal of the free service is the twat that decided to abuse their free service by helping himself to some copyrighted material.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. As you can see, a lot more facts and a strikingly different conclusion to the original "OMG! MPAA are depriving towns of Internet and Geneva Conventions are being violated" blog post.