Dispute Porn Stream Platform: Redtube affair: Pays the Abmahn law firm ... - ABC Online

Where entertainment is accessible as it is perceived. And if there is the possibility to consume a piece of music or a video without having to pay for it, takes one or the other to particularly like. It is not always legal. Users of file sharing networks do not only pay damages, but even prosecution if they illegally download copyrighted works. Because what they mostly do not suspect, at the same moment in which the data packets are downloaded, the computer produces an unauthorized copy to.

This is provided unnoticed other participants in the exchange market for retrieval. In this way, the unsuspecting consumer is not only contrary to § 16 German Copyright Act (Copyright Act) but also against other elementary rights, namely the right of distribution pursuant to § 17 of the Copyright Act and the right of making available according to § 19a of the German Copyright Act.

No act of distribution

law firms such as the above-mentioned law firm U + C, are in professional circles have long been known to pursue the wrongful use of cinematographic works, that is to admonish and to demand compensation payments on behalf of the rights owner. This is not to always be criticized. I also represent rights holders who disturbs it massively if their works appear unsolicited on the internet. What is new is that the present case is not about filesharing users, but for users who have only visited a website and there – whether intentionally or not is the question -. Has a video enabled, which was offered via streaming

So

Unlike file sharing, there is a lack of a spread offense. But is Abgemahnt the technically notwenige for viewing the video caching in memory. This raises So now the question is streaming, so the use of video sources in the legal visit to a publicly accessible website, legally questionable and how it behaves with YouTube, a trusted source of every day millions of Inter users. Must their users fear the future just to be taken advantage of because of viewing a short video clip

Redtube users can only consume

Why is this important? Well, the legislator has laid down in § 53 Section 1 of the German Copyright Act, that a private copy for personal use is permitted in any case, if this is no copy protection is bypassed and the source is clearly legal. Purpose of the scheme: from an illegally made copy of, for example, a pirated copy, should you can not make legal private copy. The CDs that are offered on every street corner for the equivalent of one euro in the Far East, are obviously no legal source. Equally doubtful are streaming offers of unknown suppliers, where it is the user allowed to watch a Champions League match of FC Bayern live and in full length. Again, this is obviously not a legal source, because for the right to a football match of the Champions League to be allowed to live and broadcast in full length, high license prices were paid. The ability to free access to pay TV deals, so it can not be allowed, per se. In any case, if the provider is not identical to the transmitter.

What

but now suggests that RedTube is apparently illegal source of video films? The fact that it is pornographic material, certainly not. It is known that the porn industry the corresponding portals supplied by themselves with complimentary “appetizers” to advertise their DVDs. Often finance streaming portals by appropriate advertising. But quite clearly of significance, especially the fact that it’s users from RedTube only possible to consume, but not even upload video clips. What the user gets to see, alone determines the operator. How should the user have guessed that the videos offered terminated without the consent of the right holder in the portal?

allegations stand on shaky legs

So if you look at a video on RedTube, therefore, must accept not necessarily mean that it is an illegal source. In my view, there is therefore no reason to assume a streaming site like RedTube, it spread pirated video films. What arguments does the firm U + C to then? In the warning letters, the lawyers explain, “ the technically necessary when streaming the work caching imagine a reproduction according to § 16 German Copyright Act dar. ” This law would exclusively to the author or the copyright holders to. Also, it does not matter how long the work would be stored. It is further assumed that it was indeed a pirated copy (see above) and of these times was now no lawful use possible.

This is in my opinion a very bold statement. Because it’s been disputed whether the mere technically necessary and automatically produced from the computer caching constitutes a reproduction within the meaning of § 16 German Copyright Act. When streaming only parts of the whole work will be transferred to the computer and there only in memory (also called “random access memory” or simply “RAM” called) cached. The purpose of this storage method is used alone in current display on the screen. The screen display is undisputed, however, no duplication. Just as automatically as parts of the film are cached, so they will also be deleted, eg when you exit the program or at the very latest when shutting down the computer.

Abmahnpraxis does not reflect well on advocacy

Less is controversial, although still without supreme court, the question of whether such automated caching, is privileged by copyright. The prevailing doctrine in any case considers that § 44a of the Copyright Act governs exactly this case and that a merely temporary home act of reproduction, as it represents about caching in memory of a computer that is expressly allowed in the lawful use of works.

Who consumed so cached from a publicly available and apparently legal source in a permissible way there offered by video streaming method, which does not violate § 16 of the Copyright Act and can not be availed by copyright. The questionable conduct, admonish thousands of users just before Christmas, in any case seems to concern. The Abmahner seem consciously to create sure that the embarrassed look at porn caught users prefer the required 250, – Euro paid as to protect its rights and to go to the attorney

.

thing is clear, the current Abmahnpraxis does not reflect well on the entire legal profession. The behavior may, however, provide a classic own legal history in the Abmahnpraxis out. For according to § 97a, paragraph 4 of the Copyright Act have wrongly Abgemahnt a claim for refund of their costs. When adopted until now about 20 000 warning letters threatening counter-claims in a clear millions. Of the claims paid without need probably a big minus will be left for the Abmahner bottom line. And maybe the realization that the legislature does have something in mind to protect home users against mass warnings for minor.