Broadband News
News, views and analysis
Digital Economy Act suffers wireless broadband set back
14 Dec 2010 | 13.12 Europe/London
A British judge has ruled that running an unsecured wireless broadband connection is not equivalent to facilitating illegal file sharing.
It is believed to be the first time a judge has ruled on this element of the Digital Economy Act which the previous Labour Government was widely accused of rushing through in its last week of power. The Act was designed to allow ISPs to seek ‘technical measures’ (including, ultimately, disconnection) to prevent illegal file sharing.
In the case brought by ACS Law, a firm representing rights holders, the British judge ruled that several ‘default’ judgements could not be brought against a group of individuals (to save time and expense on separate cases) for procedural reasons.
The most interesting of these is likely to prove that, in the judge’s opinion, a broadband subscriber who accesses the web on an unsecured wireless connection is not necessarily facilitating illegal file sharing. In other words, although they are leaving their connection potentially open to be hijacked by illegal file sharers, they are not themselves active in the process and may even be unaware that they are prone to hijacking.
It is believed to be the first judgement of its kind and so is a setback for rights holders who can no longer claim broadband subscribers who do not secure their wireless router can be held responsible for what subsequently happens on that connection.
As such, for the time being, perhaps until another judge interprets the law in a different way, the ruling will probably deter future attempts to seek ‘default’ rulings against groups of alleged file sharers on the basis of unsecured wireless connections.
It is believed to be the first time a judge has ruled on this element of the Digital Economy Act which the previous Labour Government was widely accused of rushing through in its last week of power. The Act was designed to allow ISPs to seek ‘technical measures’ (including, ultimately, disconnection) to prevent illegal file sharing.
In the case brought by ACS Law, a firm representing rights holders, the British judge ruled that several ‘default’ judgements could not be brought against a group of individuals (to save time and expense on separate cases) for procedural reasons.
The most interesting of these is likely to prove that, in the judge’s opinion, a broadband subscriber who accesses the web on an unsecured wireless connection is not necessarily facilitating illegal file sharing. In other words, although they are leaving their connection potentially open to be hijacked by illegal file sharers, they are not themselves active in the process and may even be unaware that they are prone to hijacking.
It is believed to be the first judgement of its kind and so is a setback for rights holders who can no longer claim broadband subscribers who do not secure their wireless router can be held responsible for what subsequently happens on that connection.
As such, for the time being, perhaps until another judge interprets the law in a different way, the ruling will probably deter future attempts to seek ‘default’ rulings against groups of alleged file sharers on the basis of unsecured wireless connections.