Now, we have a wireless router in the house, but no laptop. We only use the wireless for my iPhone and my wife's Nintendo DSi. We also have it secured.
Wait! That's hypocrisy!
Okay. I agree. It is hypocrisy. But it's just too risky to have my network unsecured. Only idiots would leave their wireless network so open to intrusion and too bandwidth-suckers like myself. Well, idiots and extremely nice, wonderful people like you, neighbors (Neighbors - I was definitely not calling you idiots. DO NOT firebomb my house.).
Well, it turns out that there's even more risk to leaving your network unsecured than we thought. In a ruling by Germany's highest criminal court, it was found that owners of personal wireless networks that are unsecured can be held liable for the actions of people who are accessing your network. Even if they are accessing it without your knowledge. Even if they are accessing it while you are out of town on vacation.
That's right. Germany's highest court ruled against the owner of an unsecured personal wireless network that was used by a third-party to download illegal music files while they were out of town on vacation. The third-party then shared the illegal music on a file sharing site, again using the unsecured network of his unsuspecting neighbor.
The owners of the unsecured network were fined the equivalent of $126 for failing to adequately secure their wireless connection against "the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation" (source: MSNBC). On a side note, I hope nobody in your neighborhood has any weird, illegal fetishes that they want to use your wireless network to download pictures of.
It is an interesting ruling considering all of the piracy conversation I've been reading online lately. Some of the best discussions are in the two posts (one & two) and their comments at Chuck Wendig's Terrible Minds blog, and David Hill's response over at Machine Age Productions. Go, read them. Let me (and them) know what you think.
Personally, I think the German court is going about the piracy issue in the wrong way. Their approach is like tackling the urban drug problem by arresting the owners of convenience stores on street corners where low-level drug dealers choose to sell their product. Asinine. Agree? Disagree?
7 comments:
Not saying this is what I think; but I like to consider the other side:
what if someone has a weapon that they leave unsecured outside so that any passer-by could use it. Should the owner of said weapon also be held responsible for the damage?
I'm not sure if this makes me more or less likely to leave my network unsecure (or rather, secure but open, with bandwidth caps for people who are not me if they become necessary). On the one hand, slight risk, but on the other hand, fuck stupid German rulings.
Also, I think it is very unlikely for most people to accidentally have an unsecure wireless network. Most providers I have seen since moving to Germany provide "free" wireless router/modem combo things, which are by default secure (they come with a pre-set up key, which is printed on a sticker or something for you).
Side note: not sure why my "Google Account" uses my middle name. This is Darla.
@TK - Always playing devil's advocate, huh? So, what do you think? Obviously, the circumstances are a bit different here. Nobody's life is in immediate danger here. An open wireless connection is not like a gun. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of creatives getting paid for what we do, but I'm not convinced that this is the most effective way to go about it.
@Magdalene (hehe) - Okay "Darla" if that's who you really are... That's cool that ISP's provide free wireless routers and such. That does seem to give them more leverage on how you use it, since it is "their" equipment. Clever.
I think you're right; the innocent network owners shouldn't be punished. But the question arises: how do we stop the pirates then? The only options available are less desirable IMO. There would be restrictions on the content itself or means for "big brother" to track you.
The money would have to come from somewhere, and if we cannot catch the pirate, the only options are the victims: the industry, or the network owner; or the taxpayers.
I vote "get the pirate!" but how? The tech isn't here yet, what do we do in the meantime?
How about people just stop being stupid.
@TK - I strongly encourage you to check out the links near the end of my post. Read them, and the comments after them. Particularly Rob Donoghue's comment. I think what needs to happen is a restructuring in the distribution channels between artist and audience. Instead of the artist working for the distributor, they need to work for the artist. Check out "Steal This Movie" as an example of successfully making money from a pirated product. There are many other examples of people making it work.
The danger of crushing the pirates is that you alienate a large portion of your audience, who might have discovered you through illegal channels, but then likes your stuff enough to pay for it.
Pirate juice is delicious!
Honestly, I was never *really* aware of this stuff. That was a long read, but very enlightening.
The creative industry (which I realize now more than ever) also includes my own. It is probably common to all experiences, but I already know this: either you adapt, or you die.
Try before you buy is great. In fact it is the most useful tool an artist can ever employ for making money. That needs to be free.
We would also need to figure out a way to stop the crooks from making money.
@TK - It is a lot to grasp. The creative industry(ies) is broader than most people expect. It applies to anyone who makes a living off of their own intellectual properties.
Post a Comment