Overview
You know how we can go to Starbucks and drink coffee while surfing the web because they offer wi-fi? Or maybe how you can go to the library and google absolutely anything because there is internet access available to you for free? Germany doesn’t have that. No, free access is basically a lawsuit waiting to happen. You see, based on the article “Why is it impossible to find free wi-fi in Germany?” by Grace Dobush, the threat of Storerhaftung overpowers the need for wi-fi. If someone offers free wi-fi, they are subjected to the lawsuits if the user abuses the freedom.
Why I Chose this Article?
I chose this article based solely on personal experience. My first time ever going out of the country and I travel to Germany and Austria. Let me tell you, it was a cultural shock to find out I didn’t have wi-fi… anywhere. I was so glad I opted for the international plan on my phone or I may have gone insane– I was across the ocean, in a new country, traveling for the first time… and I had no family. I don’t have to explain why that is terrifying. But because I had the international plan, I was able to Facetime my family whenever I wanted. If I had relied on wi-fi, I wouldn’t have any access.
The Argument
My argument, based on this article, is simple: Germany should allow locations to have free wi-fi for people to use for whatever purpose without there being legality issues. It is just wrong for 1. a person to be subjected to a lawsuit for someone else’s choices and 2. a person to not be able to use free wi-fi in a country that is advanced in practically every area.
Support
Not long after this article was published, the German Parliament passed a new law changing the way the secondary liability worked. “In particular, operators of Wi-Fi networks shall not be liable for copyright infringements committed by the relevant Wi-Fi networks’ users, providing that:
- The network operator has not caused the relevant transmission;
- The network operator has not chosen the recipient of the transmitted information
- The network operator has not chosen or changed the transmitted information” (Hardinghaus).
In other words, the secondary liability only falls on the person IF they have been involved in the transmission. This is a crucial change that helps supports my argument. The network owner should not have liability (my argument); this lessens the liability. However, it is something that I agree with. The owner should be liable if they were involved!
Against
I have a hard time finding any reasonable argument against the free wi-fi idea. The only real justification is the protection of the copyrights people are trying to steal. I mean, it protects companies, creators, etc. from losing out on some money (Claggett). The companies work hard on their creations and deserve to get the income from it.
Conclusion
My argument is the argument of the majority: provide the free wi-fi and get rid of the secondary liability. This argument was heard by the parliament, and the courts changed it as of 2018 (DW). The companies that offer hotspots are now free from possible prosecution! In reality, the pros outweigh the cons in this situation. Too many people can benefit from free wi-fi; the companies are still making money and are not affected as significantly as one would think.
Society and Information 