In this article, you will learn about the latest news and information on warning: Nathalie S. [name changed] was surprised by the warning in her mailbox. According to him, she should have made a pornstore available for download and vigorously pay for the copyright infringement which she allegedly committed. Nathalie resisted the accusation. Since her husband and his underage children live in the same apartment and use their Internet connection, the copyright infringement alleged to have been committed by someone else. Nathalie S. had secured her WLAN and told the children how to use the online connection and how not. The lawsuit against them was dismissed.
Hundreds of thousands of admonitions in a single year
Just like Nathalie S. received many user warnings - in 2013 alone, it was more than a hundred thousand in the United States. It is primarily about the direct exchange of copyrighted works, mostly music or films, among Internet users - the file sharing.
Is there less or less warning?
This can be unpleasant for the users concerned. Claims between eight hundred and three thousand Euros are not uncommon. For a piece well. Reminders for further files can follow in a slice-like manner. The accompanying declarations of injunctions protect users only conditionally. They are often formulated by the warning industry to the detriment of those affected.
Who will be warned and for what?
The latest legal developments are now easing the warning system in favor of the users. In September 13, the "Act against Unreasonable Business Practices" covered the disputed value for foreclosed private first-timers at 1000 euros. This means that the legal costs can no longer exceed about 160 euros. This is not an attractive fee. However, if you send thousands of warnings in series, you can still pay very high sums according to the motto "small cattle makes crap."
Are there any new warning masks?
In January 14, an important ruling by the Federal Supreme Court was issued. In this case, a police officer had prosecuted, whose step-by-step had illegally made over 3,000 music files available for download. The father did not want to pay the warning expenses of initially 3,500 euros, because he was not responsible for the behavior of his adult son as a follow-up.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) gave him the right to be subject to the obligation of instruction and supervision in the case of an existing special trust relationship (here under full age family members). This is a significant limitation of the dreaded incarceration, which has made it easy for the entertainment industry to get rid of people without real clarification. The rule: anyone who has to deal with the connection has no more to do so.
The so-called Morpheus decision of 2012 already pointed in the same direction. At that time, the BGH ruled that parents were already complying with their duty to supervise their children when they informed their minor children about the illegality of file sharing and rejected a permanent obligation to control. This is a contradiction to the snooping-room of the exploiters of music and movies.
The direct effects of the recent highest judicial decisions are unfortunately still low. The lawyer Christian Solmecke, who is specialized in Internet law, observes, however, that the prospects for success for filmmakers who have been warned have risen in court proceedings since the last BGH judgment. The best news for Descended is currently the anti-abortion rule of last year. It makes the individual warning "cheaper", but so far has not led to a decrease of the warning (un).
The claim for damages, which is part of the warning expenses, the courts judge very differently. Between 50 and 500 euros can be paid for a swap film. A decision in this field is not expected before the end of 2017. The "community of interests against the delusion-madness", on the other hand, is a highlight of the warning wave for the years 2009 and 2010. According to their statistics, which they also increased the voluntary figures in their warning data base, the file- .
In the iggdaw's warning database, about 6,500 cases are listed - only a fraction of the cases that have existed since 2008. The thickest chunks are here with more than half of the cases "video porn", followed by music and "video game film" each with something under a quarter. On Games and "Audiobooks / E-Books" still almost 200 warning notices. These figures represent, of course, the reliability of the hundreds of thousands of warnings in recent years. They give an impression, however, of which directives are particularly likely to stalk.
Beyond the filesharing, missing or faulty impressa and business terms are still being cited in the business area. Here, it is only competitors who are allowed to issue a warning if they are negatively affected by business - ie one shopkeeper against the other. Several judgments have shown that this also applies to business profiles in the social networks such as Facebook, Google+ and Xing.
Also, the unauthorized use of images and unauthorized merchandising on ebay are also censured. A very special field conquer criminals as well. They send e-mail fake warnings, for example, allegedly in the name of the law firm U + C, which in the Redtube case massive telecoms had warned. So they want to cash unsuccessful users.
Headlines in the last few weeks have prompted industry to take action against Usenext. Here, however, users were not affected but the operator. It was forbidden in an interim injunction to use works of the GEMA. Since the exchange of music files and films has increasingly shifted to the area of one-click hoster and Usenet platforms, it is to be assumed that the industry will also try to pin its warning foot into the door in this area as well.
What about streaming warnings?
It is interesting to see if there are actually new legal possibilities to get to IP addresses of users, without which nothing is known. In the Redtube case (s.u.) it was about the mysteriously weathered software Gladii, which can allegedly log IP addresses of streaming users.
If it is indeed possible to get these IPs or those of users of the file hosting services legally, there will certainly be a new warning wave. But the statements on Gladii are so far nebulous. The ability of the software, IP addresses and download times of files in a test environment is confirmed by an expert opinion. However, the report does not say anything about the technical process.
Conclusion: steps in the right direction
At the end of 2013, the so-called Redtube warnings made headlines. The District Court of Cologne has now given the appeal to 110 victims. The court ordered the issuing of the IP addresses by the court, among other things, because in the applications of copyright-infringing "downloads", but not of streaming.
The court now sees as unclear the question of how the IP addresses can be determined at all during the streaming of the films. Even the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection has spoken out in this matter. In his opinion, streaming is not copyright infringement. The streaming of network content should continue to be legal if they are not clearly illegal platforms. However, only the European Court of Justice can establish legal certainty.
It is easy to calculate that with a warning many millions are to be earned. The Redtube case has shown that the conscientious objectors are looking for new meshes. The fact that the industry continues its "hard" line against Filesharer is evidence of limited reason. Filesharers also buy - according to surveys in the US significantly more music and movies than non-filesharers. Legislation is still lagging behind technological developments.
Dailies: Interview on the topic of
Too many lobbying interests of the entertainment industry pave the way to Berlin and Brussels. With the civil claim claim, the legislator created the monster demolition branch. Individual judgments can only gradually pull a few teeth into the beast. In spite of all warnings, the holder does not have to suspend his own family members for a long-term monitoring.
Anyone who wants to use illegal offers free of charge for films and music has to know that he is at risk. With the overdrawn actions of the rights holders and those lawyers, who are to warn the survivors of warning, this has nothing to do .
The attorney works for the Cologne office Wildebeuger Solmecke. He is an expert in Internet law and e-commerce and represents numerous media builders, web platforms, and also disclaimed filesharers.
PCM: What is the first thing I do when a warning comes in?
Christian Solmecke: Dismissed should under no circumstances prematurely sign the enclosed declaration of injunction. In most cases, this can be modified by a so-called modified declaration of injunctive relief in favor of the author. It is best to write an amendment by the lawyer, as there is a risk that the other party will not accept the declaration of omission and the deadline will pass.
PCM: Do I have to make the "declaration of omission" at all?
Solmecke: If you refuse to submit the declaration of omission, the opposing party may apply a so-called interim relief procedure. This is associated with immense costs and legal risks. In this respect, I recommend at least the release of the modified injunction.
PCM: Sometimes it is recommended to send a declaration of omission to all known notice boards.
Solmecke: At the moment, so many law firms warn that preventive declarations of injustice are hardly feasible. This was different before.
PCM: Do I have to accept all the demands of the other side?
Solmecke: No, the damage compensation costs are often too high. Also here is worth checking through a lawyer. In addition, it is often unclear whether the Internet accessor is liable to the perpetrator and therefore to the damage compensation.
And if I just do nothing?
Solmecke: This is not advisable! Anyone who passes the time limit for submitting the statement of grounds for omission risks the above-mentioned interlocutory order.
What do I need to do if a debt collection company wants to collect the warning fees?
Solmecke: Never give in to the pressure and the demand of the collection office. Write the collection offices can be passed directly to a lawyer. In some cases, the claims have already been statute-barred or not sold to the Inkassobüro.
No comments:
Post a Comment