Monday 09 December 2013
The Regensburg firm Urmann + colleagues currently sent thousands warnings. Not on file sharers, but to visitors of Porn streaming services. Legally, the Abmahnanwälte move on thin ice. How should patients react?
Not everyone wants to be outed as a porn consumer . Then also set the Abmahnanwälte. Imagine, a radio transmitter emits a radio play out without securing beforehand the broadcasting rights. The listeners get afterwards Post by counsel, because they are illegally had the benefit of the work. Sounds unrealistic, takes place in a similar way but just taken: Thank households fluttered in recent days warning letters of the law firm Urmann + colleagues (U + C) into the house. The accusation:. Viewing illegally uploaded porn in the video stream
Early estimates suggest that users could be affected over 10,000. They are viewed via the streaming portal Redtube movies like “Amanda’s Secrets”, “Hot Stories” or “Glamour Showgirls”. Redtube Youporn belongs to the Manwin Group hosts and video clips, is where advertised generally for more pages and offers. Morally may be offensive movies, but copyright the page contents are generally in order. The fact that the strip in question should be illegally landed on the portal, visitors so could not guess.
Nevertheless, they are now to pay 250 euros to the rights of the proprietor, a Swiss company called “The archives AG”. This exists in its present form only since a month and claims to be due to an “adaptive software” copyright infringement on streaming and file hosting portals to be able to discover. The majority of the total strokes with 169,50 Euros but the law firm one. Add to that 65 euros determining costs 15.50 euros in damages. In addition, U + C calls within one week the release of a cease and desist letter, which is also dispense over “The Archives”. Should we who sign and pay?
In many doubtful points
The response of lawyers and consumer advocates is a resounding “No”. On the one hand there are doubts about the height of the called costs. Is completely unclear, for example, as the amount of the claim for damages calculated writes the lawyer Christian Solmecke. The Abmahner would probably set the price for the purchase of the film, but was correct at best a fee for viewing. The 65 euro for the determination should not be simply flat fee is charged. In fact, the cost of traditional file-sharing warnings usually subject only to two to three euros. And the last Abmahner have increased their own account, in that they did set at 1080.50 euro too high a value in dispute. Permitted are a maximum of 1000 euros, the Consumer North Rhine-Westphalia according to the new law. Then the attorney fee would be only at 104 euros.
Secondly, the warning itself is independent of the cost issue controversial. For yet is not at all clear whether the mere inspection of a stream is illegal. Under current law, a copyright exists only if the corresponding work is reproduced. When file sharing is the case, but when streaming the movie is cached only piecemeal and temporary in memory. For the Abmahner of U + C is already a duplication, many lawyers do not see it that way. Unlike, for example in Kino.to the films would on Redtube not manifestly unlawful disseminated under copyright law, arguing, for example Solmecke: “If so when watching the films is carried out at all a copy on your own computer, this is a legal private copy in accordance with paragraph 53 of the classify the Copyright Act. “
This also looks Udo Vetter of the way. And even if streaming would undoubtedly be illegal, would have affected not pay necessarily, says Vetter. Even when file sharing the connection owner not liable for any copyright infringement automatically using its IP address. Finally, partner, children or visitors came as villains into consideration. “For their misconduct a connection owner is not liable if he has instructed the co user about the fact that they should not commit copyright infringement,” said Vetter. Could be ausgelschlossen the adhesion event of technical abuse. It is also unclear how The Archive is ever come as a rights holder of the IP addresses and whether everything is approached with the right things.
Nothing can be expensive to do
Despite all doubts as to whether the warning is lawful
: you just throw in the trash is not a good idea. Then U + C is likely to get an injunction, the defendant will not be heard in the rule. Against the injunction can only defend themselves in court. Financially could thus get out of hand the matter. So just pay and sign the cease and desist letter? Also not smart, because that is an admission of guilt. Although the current allegations are thus out of the world, but at the slightest violations also threaten even years later high penalties. Quite possibly it would, for example, that the video in question is running again sometime in a popup window without that one has ever clicked on it. Then the hand could U + C again to stop.
More about
In many forums sufferers are advised to submit a modified cease and desist letter. It agrees to provide, to continue to stay away from the respective works, but does not address the further demands of the lawyers. Corresponding sample letter can be found on the internet. In file-sharing warnings the procedure is quite reasonable at the current streaming warnings not necessarily. Even the modified warning includes an admission of guilt – and that’s given the uncertain legal situation probably somewhat premature
.
Standard-rate fee agreed
It is safest for the parties concerned when they turn on a lawyer who wards off the claim. Free of course does not work, usually the fees are likely but are below the required 250 euro, best agreed to a flat fee. Quite a few sufferers have also received several warnings of U + C, so that they would have to pay far more. Many law firms have hotlines where you can get a free initial assessment of cases. The consumer centers offer a fee, legal assistance and representation to.
Now urges U + C to hurry and calls for the declaration of usually already within a week. Who needs more time in order to examine the matter, should quickly apply for an extension of time. There are again sample letters.
Source: n-tv.de
- page
-
No comments:
Post a Comment