6972706
story
Comments: 323 +- Technology: MPAA Shuts Down Town's Municipal WiFi Over 1 Download on Thursday November 12, @03:43PM
Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday November 12, @03:43PM
from the so-you're-sure-you-want-gov't-run-wifi? dept.
from the so-you're-sure-you-want-gov't-run-wifi? dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmovies.gif); width:63px; height:70px;
movies
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicwireless.gif); width:37px; height:77px;
wireless
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicentertainment.gif); width:62px; height:44px;
entertainment
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)."
Related Stories
Wake up and smell the coffee.
-- Ann Landers
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
There must be something more (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it hard to believe that they would have shut down the Wifi simply because of a *possible* lawsuit.... Maybe they didn't really want the WiFi after all?
Re:There must be something more (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:There must be something more (Score:4, Insightful)
(Or for that matter, lack of accuracy doesn't slow those rabid vultures down either...)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the tone of the article, it seems like the courthouse maintained an unprotected access point. The article talks about it being available in the streets immediately surrounding the building. There is a huge leap from that to being an ISP.
Oh, I don't know.
There is a safe harbor (17 USC 512(a)) that protects service providers from being liable for indirect infringement on the basis that one of their users directly infringed, and the service provider (by providing Internet service) helped. The definition o
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).
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:There must be something more (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (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: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.
Parent
Re:There must be something more (Score:5, Funny)
FOX News doesn't distort the facts for their agenda as much as this guy has. (Well, not all the time, anyway).
Ooooooh. Now that's a low blow.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bear in mind that politicos can get voted out very easily, so tend to be nervous types when accused of something that smacks of scandal. (Widespread fraud is one thing, but accusations in the press of sponsoring pirates or spending tax dollars in bringing down Hollywood... No sane politician would take that kind of risk.)
Also bear in mind that most politicians are technically ignorant and are unlikely to know the difference between aiding and abetting in an electronic crime versus being a common carrier.
Fin
Re:There must be something more (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, for that particular town, one block probably does cover the whole town!
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]
Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:4, Interesting)
I RTFA and I can't be the only one who sees a discongruence between "an entire town's municipal WiFi" & "the 300 block".
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I RTFA and I can't be the only one who sees a discongruence between "an entire town's municipal WiFi" & "the 300 block".
But telling the truth isn't quite as sensationalist! I mean he even said that this was against the Geneva Convention! THE GENEVA CONVENTION!!!!1111ONE
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am going to guess this had something to do with certain officials owing a favor or two to something relating to this:
"This short-range service is entirely separate from the wireless broadband being deployed throughout the county by Lightspeed."
Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, talk about misrepresenting the facts
Well, it is boingboing after all, which is the 'Net's equivalent of Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate": the editors post inane stories in the most inflammatory language possible, the crowd all goes apeshit for a short time, and then moves on to the next thing, having done nothing, accomplished nothing, and learned nothing.
Parent
Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
Parent
Re:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:5, Insightful)
While that clears up the mechanics, it still points to the MPAA being too powerful since it is an example of a private company being able to control a public government though simple fear of ending up in the crosshairs.
When governments fear corporations, we have gone through full circle though capitalism and can arrive on the other side of communism.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uuum, you apparently don't no a thing about psychology. No problem, I did think all my life, that humans are not the weak spineless obeying losers that they are.
Most humans will with a high likeliness, obey whatever you tell them to do. Even torture and murder a person.
As long as they think it must be right, because someone who dominates them with his strong (view of) reality, thinks it's right.
So it is an entirely expected strategy for intelligence people and similar professional spin doctors, manipulators
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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:Wasn't the MPAA who shut down the network (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's an example of elected officials doing their job poorly.
Deciding to which public services the county does and does not want to offer is a legitimate function of government. Choosing to end one is not a "punishment".
Parent
Safe Harbor (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Harbor [wikipedia.org]
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is municipal wifi different from any commercial ISP? Would a commercial ISP shut itself down if it found one of it's users engaging in illegal activity? No. Of course not. And why not? Because of the safe harbor provisions, no ISP is liable for the illegal activity of its users. Just like the phone company isn't liable when someone calls up a hit man and orders an execution.
Not to be insulting, but your argument simply makes no sense. It shows that you don't understand the purpose of the safe harbor pro
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't "need" to be repeated that ISPs are not common carriers, but if it feels good to do so, please continue to repeat it.
Your efforts toward establishing logically coherent groupthink are appreciated.
Reciprocity (Score:2)
Let the town pass an ordinance that requires explanation of the facts and recommendation of content from less onerous publishers in every place MPAA affiliated content is sold or performed. Imagine a local movie theater showing foreign and indy films and recommending one when someone asks for a ticket to Transformers.
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.
Re:Geneva Conventions (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Geneva Conventions (Score:5, Interesting)
So the MPAA is clearly then allowed to treat civilians worse than people being occupied in wartime by any country that has signed the Geneva Convention?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the entire issue is completely internal to the United States, the international community has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
A pity though that the only folks who DO have jurisdiction have already been bought.
In a sense, yes, but that's hyperbole. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the MPAA is clearly then allowed to treat civilians worse than people being occupied in wartime by any country that has signed the Geneva Convention?
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies to "protected persons."
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
In short, a state can punish its own citizens collectively, at least as long as there's no actual war -- and all you smarty-pants who think the "War on Drugs" is an actual war are impressing no one, least of all an international criminal court. (It's worth nothing that the US doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC either.) This is why, no matter how much I still resent her, my 4th grade teacher isn't a war criminal.
It's also worth noting that turning off a service one party provides for free to multiple third parties is not generally recognized as a punitive act towards the third parties in the US. "Punishment" is reserved for actions taken directly against an individual or group. So closing a soup kitchen for health code violations is not "collective punishment" of the homeless nor is imprisoning a father collective punishment of his family.
Lastly, I think you've got a really sad sense of entitlement and pathetic, comfortable ignorance if you think that cutting off free Wi-fi at the park is equivalent to the kind of collective punishments that happen during war. Read up on Stalin's Order 270 [bentcorner.com] or Sherman's March to the Sea. [wikipedia.org]
And then stop your whining about Wi-fi. The MPAA is being a bunch of jerks, but they're not engaging in war crimes. People need to get some goddamned perspective.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But we ARE in a war. A couple actually. The war on terror, the war on drugs... Probably more.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH
You think not? We are all, every one of us, not spectators, oh no, but soldiers in the war for freedom! Be it in the high desert of Afghanistan, the cities of Iraq, or the wi-fi spectrum of Coshocton, Ohio, we will fight the enemies of freedom wherever they raise their malignant heads. We will fight them on the internets; we will fight them in the courtrooms; we shall never surrender!
This post brought to you by a ghost named Churchill.
Re:Geneva Conventions (Score:4, Insightful)
well, yes and no. Normally during a war, all bets are off - if you can't keep, in peacetime, to the minimum standards expected during wartime, you're doing something wrong.
Parent
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.
Help Me Understand .... (Score:2)
What responsibility or culpability does the bar owner / bar tender have if someone leaves their bar totally drunk and kills someone on their way home?
I know that bars and such are private entities, but I fail to understand how the municipality would think that they are responsible for the actions taken by those using their goods or services. I say let the MPAA come after them - prove
This is Cool!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Make Friends and Influence People Now!
Here's how you do it.
You don't like your neighbor's barking dog? No Problem, just War Drive their WAP and then download movies. Next, send
an "anonymous tip" to the MPAA. Next thing you know, it's a takedown letter and a demand for money. Now they'll have to take
that little dog to the pound because they can't afford the dog food anymore.
I've seen the other comments and one more analogy.. The Roads will need to be torn up because somebody sped down them while fleeing the scene of a crime. We don't know who the criminal was, but he was fleeing.
Geneva c onvention? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet another zealot can't oppose bad behavior without exageration. I have to wonder if the moron who submitted this understands the term "human rights violation". Suffice it to say the Geneva Convention's prohibition on collective punishment was not written out of concern that you might not have the internet connection you want.
It's not that you shouldn't want the **AA's abuses to stop. It's that you shoudln't be trivializing real crimes against humanity by comparing them to weak-ass shit like this.
That is all.
Original article gives the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
LaVigne has done some homework and found a program that would prevent the illegal downloads from happening in the future; however, it would cost the cash-strapped county about $2,900 to implement, $2,000 for equipment and then $900 annually for the filtering program
There you are then. The MPAA pays for the hardware and the software subscription. The cost to the MPAA and its members is readily offset by the potential millions upon millions of profits that could be lost from illegal downloads from this small town's one-block-radius municipal's WiFi connection. Everybody wins!
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Bank robbers used the local highway to getaway this morning. The highway has been closed until further notice.
That's why you don't build centraliced networks (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't build munchipal networks in a centraliced fashion, you make meshed networks which are in the hands of their users. That way there is no way anybody could turn them off. Maybe someone would decide to not offer Internet anymore, but turning of the network as a whole is impossible.
You can get cheap routers, install the Freifunk firmware and off you go.
Re: (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
Re: (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.