Free WiFI at Panera Bread on Amherst St, Nashua

[kend at xanoptix.com]

> In fact, I'd bet a clever lawyer could succesfully argue
> that they should be protected by the same body of law.

Absolutely true.

> I'd be very surprised if there were an established body of law under
> which the cafe could be held liable.

Almost certainly true.

>> All it takes is one moron sitting outside in his car that ends up
>> getting some coffee shop sued because they're liable due to their
>> totally open and advertised hotspot to start people closing them all
>> down.

Very likely untrue.  But still closer to "real life."  The bottom line is
that, while Derek's technically right, and that caselaw would *PROBABLY*
support Panera, there's nothing like a little proactive CYA to help show
intent.  Just ask all the P2P vendors getting sued all the time, or DVD-Jon;
both of them could easily be considered protected by already tried cases
(respectively, the ISP-isn't-responsible-for-content-of-its-users and the
people-can-copy-VCR-tapes cases, neither of which I know the names of).  The
bottom line is that, until the Supreme Court decides it, it isn't decided,
and you can waste a LOT of dollars, time, and bad PR (eg., "Did you hear
Panera distributes child porn?") getting there.  It's a rare case that you
won't find a willing lawyer for if you wave enough dollars at them (see:
SCO), and CYA can be plain common sense for a corporation.

$.02, IANAL, YMMV, look both ways before crossing the street, etc., etc., etc.

-Ken