Following the opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in the pending McFadden case (C-484/14, IPKat post), the German coalition government has decided to abandon the "Störerhaftung" of providers of open WiFi Networks for illegal use of the Internet access by users of the hot spot.
Under current German law, the provider of an unsecured WiFi hotspot is not liable for financial damages for copyright infringement committed by users of the hotspot, but he can be enjoined from providing unsecured access that is used for unlawful purposes. In practice, the provider of an open hotspot who
receives a cease and desist letter claiming that copyright infringement occurred using his hotspot has to pay the legal fees of the copyright owner, which can easily be EUR 1,000 to 2,000. Consequently, nobody in Germany leaves their WiFi access unsecured. Since AG Szpunar believes that forcing the Provider of a hotspot to secure the access by requiring a password is contrary to Article 12 ECommerce Directive, the current German law is arguably not compatible with EU law.
The German government therefore decided to clear the situation. Under the proposed law, non-commercial providers of unsecured WiFi access points would be shielded also from injunctive relief. According to Spiegel Online the law could come into effect as early as this fall.
Under current German law, the provider of an unsecured WiFi hotspot is not liable for financial damages for copyright infringement committed by users of the hotspot, but he can be enjoined from providing unsecured access that is used for unlawful purposes. In practice, the provider of an open hotspot who
 |
| Cats love WiFi routers... mostly for their heat emissions |
The German government therefore decided to clear the situation. Under the proposed law, non-commercial providers of unsecured WiFi access points would be shielded also from injunctive relief. According to Spiegel Online the law could come into effect as early as this fall.
Germany: open WiFi after all?
Reviewed by Mark Schweizer
on
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Rating:
Reviewed by Mark Schweizer
on
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html