[onli]

>They were unable to recover the money, because there was no way to prove which of their guests at that time was responsible.

That's exactly why in all likelihood, they would've won. It's the perfect setup and - in germany - an argument for securing the wlan not better than the default-setting suggests. I am always surprised by the "there is a chance we might loose and pay more, so we will pay"-attitude that seems to be common in such cases.

[safeaim]

I don't know about the current climate for copyright cases in Germany, but I don't think that the board of a hotel chain will have or want any stake in the copyright fight as that is so far from their own business interests.

By choosing to pay €1000 this month they save a lot of money.That small amount of a settlement is pocket change for a hotel compared to the lengthy legal process that may be drawn out for months, and cost them much more and be without a guaranteed win in sight.

EDIT: Forgot that the hotel was independent, but my point still stands, especially for a hotel without the insurance of being in a hotel chain.

[onli]

You are not wrong. And there was a time when such cases were very unclear, even for those with more knowledge than typical known.

I still think that it would now be a better idea to fight. It's a sure 1000€-loss + the unhappy customers (cause of missing free wlan) vs a maybe-loss and a chance to continue the free wlan. But I understand the tought-process you described, and it was maybe a different legal situation.