Free Muni WiFi Back After MPAA Shut It Down For 1 Download

Coshocton, OH has its free muni WiFi back up, less than a week after it was shut down by MPAA actions over a single illegal movie download.

[Coshocton Tribune] (Thanks to Laurie!) (Photo: tbower)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. G.O.B.: Come on! says:

    Only after the shitstorm. They only realized that it wasn’t their intent “to limit access to the Internet” until after they had already done it? Sony and the MPAA, among others, just LOVE getting shat on in the court of public opinion for some reason. They need some therapy.

    • god_forbids says:

      @G.O.B.: Come on!: Fact check: the muni’s wifi was for govt use only besides *one* access point, which the town’s IT guy gladly closed after getting the C&D letter from the RIAA.

      Sony did not “shut it down”, RIAA did not “shut it down”, IT guy voluntarily took it offline for one week to let the city check its ass legally. End of story, move it along folks.

      • FrugalFreak says:

        @god_forbids:

        We’ll move along when we please.

        It may not have been this time, but the “family” hands are still dirty. they try to protect thier profits, and downloading shall continue as well. increase action by one will increase the latter.

    • P=mv says:

      @G.O.B.: Come on!: Problem is, their business does not depend on public opinion.

  2. Pixelantes Anonymous says:

    MPAA didn’t shut it down. The town shut it down all by themselves.

    • cecilpl says:

      @Pixelantes Anonymous: I came here to back you up and reiterate that it wasn’t news, but halfway through my post I realised I wanted to make a different point.

      It is news because it points out the chilling effect of the threatening notices the MPAA and RIAA send out. What happens as the practice of free, city-run, city-wide wifi becomes widespread?

      • rickhamilton620 says:

        @cecilpl: It wont if other towns and cities get spooked bith the “content industry” along with cable and telco’s freaking out over people not being forced to use their service…

        Sad but I kinda belive it’ll be true.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      @Pixelantes Anonymous:

      So if I put a gun in your hand and threaten to shoot your mom if you don’t shoot your dog, it’s your fault that you shot your dog?

      They shut down the access point out of fear and/or threats. Fear and/or threats that should not exist.

  3. MrHacks says:

    Outside of Roland Emerich’s 2012, what other films did Sony produce this year?

    It would be interesting to know what he downloaded. It probably wasn’t that good.

    Soul Plane?

  4. putzinaround says:

    the mpaa i took the family to see the new 3d Christmas carol movie on saturday afternoon, it was $55 just for the tickets….also when actors are paid many millions for staring in a movie, im not feeling any sympathy for mpaa or the actors.

    and the riaa, sorry, but the memories of paying $20 for a cd for ONE song that i wanted to listen to, guess what, no sympathy for you too.

    • morlo says:

      @H3ion: More relevant to putzinaround’s complaint is the enormous salary a hack like Jim Carry gets, while indeed much talent is neglected. Of course his name is just marketing to sell some extremely threadbare drivel–in 3D!!!–for the benefit of the studio royalty.

      • melloncollie128 says:

        @morlo: Please see “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, “Man on the Moon” and “The Truman Show” before commenting on Jim Carrey’s ability.

    • savvy9999 says:

      @putzinaround: I got $5 and a free sandwich to be an extra in Rudy

      Highlight of my life to that point. Since surpassed.

  5. H3ion says:

    While the MPAA didn’t shut down the town’s wi-fi, the threat of a lawsuit was enough for the town to capitulate, even though only one possible violation had occurred (not by the town but by one subscriber). The slogan may be “Equal Justice Under Law” but some justice is more equal than others depending on the depth of the pockets.

  6. Nascar24Dude says:

    Ok, I’ve got a question about copyright infringement for any lawyers out there. Let’s say Person A uploads a copyrighted movie to the internet without the copyright owner’s permission. Person B then downloads said movie, knowing that it is unlikely that it is an “official copy”. I know that Person A is guilty of copyright infringement. But, can Person B be charged with anything or sued for anything? If so, what? Receipt of stolen (intellectual) property? Aiding and abetting copyright infringement? Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement? etc.

    • ablestmage says:

      I would like to know this also. Every single article I’ve ever read about the infamous lawsuits against individuals the MPAA was doing a few years ago, were specifically against uploaders — never downloaders.

  7. diasdiem says:

    The quickly put the wifi service back up after someone noticed that the letterhead on the legal notice had “Comcast” scribbled out and “MPAA” written above it black Sharpie.

  8. Cant_stop_the_rock says:

    Ben, does it make you feel good to write factually inaccurate headlines? Doesn’t it make you feel a little dirty? Maybe a little unethical? Don’t you feel like you ought to hold yourself to a higher standard, personally and professionally?

  9. Panamapeter says:

    What do we have here, MPAA shills?

  10. 333 (only half evil) says:

    I’m glad there’s somewhere to get access to the internet when the other two public access points (coffee shop and library) are closed. I can still keep up with the Consumerist when I go home to visit.

  11. aphi3986 says:

    Totally random but the building in that picture is on my campus. It’s from the University of Colorado in Boulder.

  12. pecan 3.14159265 says:

    @GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard: I haven’t seen a Jim Carrey movie since Bruce Almighty, which was mildly entertaining. A lot of people disagree with the hippie environmental stance Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon take as well, so if you boycott their movies on that stance, more power to you.

  13. RandomHookup says:

    @pecan 3.14159265: Nothing entertains like watching the end of the world.

  14. Tim says:

    @H3ion: What about everyone else? Maybe 3 or 4 actors get top billing in a movie, along with the director and producer, possibly the writers. But hundreds upon hundreds of crew members who maybe, if they’re lucky, get a credit at the very end of the reel? The grips? The prop department?

    Don’t forget that they need to get paid too.

  15. Cant_stop_the_rock says:

    @GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard:

    In the same way that the FBI warning at the beginning of a movie might cause a person to throw their VCR in the trash out of an overabundance of caution, yes you could say the MPAA was the catalyst that led to the wifi being shut off.

    However it was not the MPAA’s intention to have the town’s single wireless access point shut down. All they do is notify the ISP, the ISP sends the customer a letter telling them they were bad, and that’s it. No one ever gets their Internet shut off.

    Mock me for taking things literally if you will, but to me it’s the intent that matters. Ben intends to deceive people with the headline. He knows it distorts the facts to make the MPAA look worse, that’s why he wrote it the way he wrote it. Many of the articles on this site have headlines that distort the facts to make them seem worse than they are. Surely you’ve noticed that, it comes up in the comments all the time. You don’t think there is anything wrong with a pseudo-journalist deliberately misleading people?

  16. AnthonyC says:

    @pecan 3.14159265:

    Technically, he has not fulfilled Godwin’s law.

    So as yet, we are all in violation of it.

  17. Cant_stop_the_rock says:

    @GitEmSteveDave_WantzTaunTaunBag:

    Somehow all of the headlines that are made less accurate for want of space end up making the company that is the subject of the article look worse. It’s not that I’m defending these companies; as I’ve said many times here, why is it necessary to exaggerate when reality is bad enough?

    Why write a headline that misleads when you can write a headline that is accurate?

    “Town Shuts Down Wifi Access Point Over MPAA Letter”

    It gets the facts right and is concise. A journalist should be able to write a headline that gets the facts right.

    Please don’t make any assumptions about “my standards.” All you know about my standards is that I don’t approve of deliberate attempts to mislead people. Making up words and shortening people’s names don’t mislead people.

  18. Gruppa says:

    @GitEmSteveDave_WantzTaunTaunBag: That’s only if you use torrents.

    Usenet. The last great untouched wilderness of the internet.

  19. Verdant Pine Trees says:

    A very late addition to thank you for this point. Most (almost all) people in the Screen Actors Guild make much, much less than $10,000 a year from acting. Aside from movie stars who have made certain areas more difficult for other actors (for instance, the voiceover trade, or the fact that many movies have to be “sure things” with big names to get greenlit), I’d save the anger for the studios, who make oodles more money and are happy to screw actors, writers and other people out of their residual rights on things like DVDs.

    Barry Williams doesn’t get paid anything for those Brady Bunch reruns, you know…