|
I don't expect them to take this any further than a Mahnverfahren, but I expect someone will in that case take it to court themselve (§ 696 ZPO) or someone might file a negative Feststellungsklage.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
Randler posted:Lawblog. Could you please explain your emoticon? I don't read his blog but I always assumed it was a good one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
Grim Up North posted:Could you please explain your emoticon? I don't read his blog but I always assumed it was a good one. It's interesting, but he is not really objective (admittedly he doesn't have to be) and sometimes a bit hypocritical. Not to mention that he often does not have a clue whatsoever when it comes to non penal law. Usually it's fine as long as you stay far, far away from the comments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
Grim Up North posted:Could you please explain your emoticon? I don't read his blog but I always assumed it was a good one. If Lawblog were in English, it would have a mockthread. Lawblog content has a significant amount of factual errors. Their severity ranges from annoying (e.g. failure to accurately represent the type of decision) to essential (e.g. failure to accurately represent the content of a decision). When talking about judical decisions, a lot of times Udo Vetter seems to rely on press releases and news articles while making wide statements implying they are backed up by the decisions which have not yet been made available. Furthermore he likes to give legal opinions and summaries on matters which fall outside his expertise. While technically all lawyers are supposed to be knowledgable in multiple core fields of German law, in reality that knowledge gets lost after being specialised for many years. (By his own admission, he does not take non-criminal cases.) As a result, his articles on non-criminal matters are often incorrect. What personally annoys me the most, however, is that his articles tend to be obviously partisan. He neglects mentioning different legal standpoints even if those are held by the higher courts and his thoughts on proportionality often do not adress significant aspects. He also publishes terribly written articles by another author, which are marked with (pbd). The less said about those, the better. The comment section of his blog is a place where hope goes to die. If you are somewehat familiar with German internet culture, the people there are basically relatives of the famous "Heisetroll" species of internet idiots. They aggressively try to bully and silence anybody not agreeing with the blog owner as well as anybody who tries to set their misguided notions of what German law entails straight. Politically the comment section has a lot of left wing "gently caress the police" types, while also attracting a fair share of right wing populists and the occasional section of men's rights activists. A small, and usually dwindling, amount of commenters is actually alright. Some people just go there to make fun of the aforementioned idiots, while some stupid people like myself are actually trying to give constructive information about the legal topics adressed. I'm angry. Angry about blawging. Randler fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Internet comments being terrible is part of the universal human experience, like hunger or love.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
Whelp, looks like the LG Köln might have screwed up big time. According to "Die Welt", they might have mistaken the streaming users for ordinary filesharers. Still don't understand why apparently nobody has released one of the § 101 IX UrhG decisions yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Randler posted:Whelp, looks like the LG Köln might have screwed up big time. According to "Die Welt", they might have mistaken the streaming users for ordinary filesharers. Still don't understand why apparently nobody has released one of the § 101 IX UrhG decisions yet. It's like no one really knows how interwebz's working. Germany's copyright laws regarding the "new media" is screwing up so many decisions, ideas and services in the whole system. I wonder if there is any change possible, especially regarding the new elected parliament.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Nobnob posted:I wonder if there is any change possible, especially regarding the new elected parliament. Huge changes to the current copyright laws are very unlikely. Various international treaties and European directives require certain standards to be met. As Germany is required to comply with those, changes on a fundamental level are unlikely. The new coalition has, however, plans to limit the arguably frivolous practise of mass sending cease-and-desist letters to private citizens in response to filesharing. (I also disagree that current German copyright law is inhibiting too many innovations, as it is still very similar to the copyright law of other developed nations due to said international treaties and European harmonization in the field.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Randler posted:Huge changes to the current copyright laws are very unlikely. Various international treaties and European directives require certain standards to be met. As Germany is required to comply with those, changes on a fundamental level are unlikely. The new coalition has, however, plans to limit the arguably frivolous practise of mass sending cease-and-desist letters to private citizens in response to filesharing. (I also disagree that current German copyright law is inhibiting too many innovations, as it is still very similar to the copyright law of other developed nations due to said international treaties and European harmonization in the field.) It's relatively similar to other developed nations, yes, but as a german you really feel the disadvantages this system contains. In school some things are just not allowed to be shown (as they are in other countries aswell afaik) but sometimes it's just too far. Imho especially in educational systems things like music, findings and worksheets should be free to show for educational purposes. Additionally things every german internet geek knows is the GEMA who forces google/youtube to block thousands of videos containing music that MAY be under GEMA's license, just to avoid incoming law suits. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in many other european countries there are other concepts to ensure the artists rights and keep art and research findings free for public. Problems of filesharing left out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Nobnob posted:Additionally things every german internet geek knows is the GEMA who forces google/youtube to block thousands of videos containing music that MAY be under GEMA's license, just to avoid incoming law suits. It's not as easy as that. GEMA considers videos containing music on youtube a public performance and wants money for it (in the name of the artists, of course). Apparently GEMA charges more than Google is willing to pay. Because of that Google blocks views from German ips so they don't have to pay fees for views.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
It's less that the GEMA wanted to much money and more the way they wanted it. As far as I know Google was willing to actual pay a flat rate for music videos, but the GEMA wanted actual pay per view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Nobnob posted:It's relatively similar to other developed nations, yes, but as a german you really feel the disadvantages this system contains. In school some things are just not allowed to be shown (as they are in other countries aswell afaik) but sometimes it's just too far. Imho especially in educational systems things like music, findings and worksheets should be free to show for educational purposes. German copyright law already limits exploitation rights of the copyright holder in order to facilitate the use of protected works in educational contexts, though. While those limits do not mean the use of protected works is free as in "free beer", it is free in the sense that the right holders are unable to prevent the use of their works. While those usually require reimbursements, those are significantly lower than what they would have to pay for to get a "proper" license to use a protected work. The reimbursement system for educational purposes works through the collecting societies, like the GEMA, similary to how the reimbursement for private copies works by a percentage of storage medium prices going to the societies. Making such uses "free" by removing reimbursements would probably violate constitutional rights in addition to already mentioned international and supranational laws. One noteworthy exception in educational settings is the use of texts explicitly designed for use in educational settings. One has, however, to consider that places of education are the entire market for those products. Would you allow schools to just copy textbooks, there would not be a market for text books at all. Regarding YouTube, the GEMA gets an undeserved bad reputation. It's a collecting society, which could be simplified as being similar to a union for creators of protected works. The GEMA has bargaining rights, because the original creators want the GEMA to have those. Nothing stops the creators from trying to enforce their copyrights on their own. As a matter of fact, some music labels tried to make their own organization for licensing certain music producuts. They were very insistent on their new baby not being a collecting society. Because collecting societies are legally limited in negotiating. They basically have to offer everybody in the same position the same price and are not allowed to deny licenses. As a matter of fact, GEMA has no problems getting agreements with other services, including Google's own Google Music. GEMA required removal of a few videos as a warning sign, to which Google reacted by blocking a lot of content off to German customers while falsely implying they were required by the GEMA to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
elwood posted:...or someone might file a negative Feststellungsklage. aaaaaand http://www.anka.eu/news-aktuelles/82-pm-erster-abgemahnter-wehrt-sich-gerichtlich-gegen-die-massenabmahnung-wegen-streaming
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
elwood posted:aaaaaand The whole thing kind of reeks like a scam anyways. From what I've read, the entity holding the rights to that clip pretty much exists only on paper, and they're telling their targets to transfer the money directly to their account in Switzerland rather than to the law firm handling the case. Not to mention that the sum they demand is by their own admission made up of like 15€ for actual damages and ~230€ attorney's fees. Would they even be able to sue for such a small claim if their targets just completely ignored the Abmahnung? It seens like they're just hoping for a number of people to fold and pay and then run off into the night with the money secure in a swiss account. VVVVV Ah, I had just thought that there might be something that'd make sure a reasonable proportionality is maintained between the actual damages sued for and the additonal costs incurred by the judical processes. After all, the latter are already at 15 times the former, and probably would presumably go way higher if it ever actually goes to court. VVVVV Perestroika fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Not to mention that the sum they demand is by their own admission made up of like 15€ for actual damages and ~230€ attorney's fees. Would they even be able to sue for such a small claim if their targets just completely ignored the Abmahnung? It seens like they're just hoping for a number of people to fold and pay and then run off into the night with the money secure in a swiss account. Expecting for people to pay up without a lawsuit is basically how the cease-and-desist business works with regards to private persons that infringe on copyrights on the internet. And yes, they could file a lawsuit even if they only want to make claims that sum up to 245 Euros. I don't even understand how people could assume that the legal system does not work for small claims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 12:58
|
|
|
There are several reasons why the cease & desist "industry" doesn't just exist, but is so profitable and runs so well, the most prominent of which is probably that the entire process is now so ridiculously streamlined that the only human interaction required along the way is basically rubberstamping boilerplate stuff. Back in the early 2000s, there was already good money in the cease & desist area by going after copyright infringement on smalltime websites, ebay-users and edonkey/emule/ewhatever and the growing popularity of bittorrent essentially turned the protocol into a huge untapped goldmine, the only thing missing for them to go hog-wild were dedicated companies with the heuristic and algorithms to outsource large-scale claimfarming to. When that missing link went away, the Abmahnwelle of 2009/2010 kicked off. Take one of the more notorious businesses behind this, a legal firm that was founded sometime in the early 2000s and went exactly along the above route and had some 10-15 lawyers on staff until, in 2010, they exploded to something around 60 lawyers on their payroll. Two years back, I had the pleasure of getting a cease & desist from them about the alleged download of some movie. The claim was 450 in damages and added up to a grand total of 956 Euros including processing, lawyer fees, court fees, etc. The best quote in the entire thing is quote:Im Interesse einer schnellen und unproblematischen Erledigung der Angelegenheit ist unsere Mandantschaft bereit, die Zahlung eines vergleichsweise niedrig angesetzten pauschalen Schadensersatzes in Höhe von EUR 450,00 zu akzeptieren. Die Gerichte setzen in vergleichbaren Fällen weitaus höhere Beträge als angemessene Lizenzgebühr an. Oh, how very forthcoming and nice of you.  So I chuckled and lawyered up, like anyone should. My lawyer's response included the funniest and sloppiest legal wording I had ever seen and essentially read "Yeah, uh...nope.". What surprised me then was that their next response was of the exact same boilerplate-quality as the very first one. They hadn't even reacted to one of the requests in our initial response, it was basically like talking to a machine. Same thing with their next 2 responses before never writing again. These guys don't care if you don't pay because they'll just happily add on late-fees twice or thrice before handing the claim off to a collection agency. They get paid either way. The only outcome where they don't get paid is when their opponent lawyers up, because they're simply not a) set up to take claims to court b) not interested because it's an incredibly inefficient use of their manpower and time. Sure, in 90% of their cases they'd win in court, but why put in several days and countless man hours from one lawyer and, say, one or two paralegals to fight for a claim of 3.000 bucks Streitwert in court when that same lawyer could just move on to the next 20 claims that end up bringing in easily twice or three times that amount with what has to be less than a few hours of actually doing something. These aren't battle-hardened Lt. Daniel Kaffee-esque trial lawyers we're talking about here, 90% of these guys major in Forderungsbeitreibungsrecht for god's sake. But what absolutely blew my mind was the addendum of the initial claim that I hadn't really put under too much scrutiny. They attached a copy of the court order that forced my ISP to hand out my particulars and attached to that court order was the "Ermittlungsdatensatz" their bittorrent-fishing-company submitted as "proof". The monitoring of the alleged upload was on sunday, January 8th, between 21:38:29 and 23:39:34. The court order - I say again, the court order, not a request to the court, but the done, signed and stamped deal - to my ISP was dated January 9th. The very next loving day. So to break this down, in this fine country of ours, where the mühls of the justiz supposedly mahl slow but steady, the following happened in something around 12 hours:
Wrap your head around that poo poo and then imagine how many of those steps are basically automated, superimposed or fused and whatnot to make that happen in that short time-frame. Duzzy Funlop fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Randler posted:German copyright law already limits exploitation rights of the copyright holder in order to facilitate the use of protected works in educational contexts, though. While those limits do not mean the use of protected works is free as in "free beer", it is free in the sense that the right holders are unable to prevent the use of their works. While those usually require reimbursements, those are significantly lower than what they would have to pay for to get a "proper" license to use a protected work. The reimbursement system for educational purposes works through the collecting societies, like the GEMA, similary to how the reimbursement for private copies works by a percentage of storage medium prices going to the societies. Making such uses "free" by removing reimbursements would probably violate constitutional rights in addition to already mentioned international and supranational laws. One noteworthy exception in educational settings is the use of texts explicitly designed for use in educational settings. One has, however, to consider that places of education are the entire market for those products. Would you allow schools to just copy textbooks, there would not be a market for text books at all. You're right. Even though some cases are just ridiculous, like that one that led to a lawsuit against a kindergarden just because some children sang christmas songs which stood under GEMA license. Similar cases happened in some schools aswell and that's kind of ridiculous. Randler posted:Regarding YouTube, the GEMA gets an undeserved bad reputation. It's a collecting society, which could be simplified as being similar to a union for creators of protected works. The GEMA has bargaining rights, because the original creators want the GEMA to have those. Nothing stops the creators from trying to enforce their copyrights on their own. As a matter of fact, some music labels tried to make their own organization for licensing certain music producuts. They were very insistent on their new baby not being a collecting society. Because collecting societies are legally limited in negotiating. They basically have to offer everybody in the same position the same price and are not allowed to deny licenses. As a matter of fact, GEMA has no problems getting agreements with other services, including Google's own Google Music. GEMA required removal of a few videos as a warning sign, to which Google reacted by blocking a lot of content off to German customers while falsely implying they were required by the GEMA to do so. Google is overreacting, yes, but 12 cents per view on a public video is pretty high so I understand Google's point of view as well as GEMA's intention to help artists to get their stuff sorted. You shouldn't forget that there are several reports of self-enrichment inside of the GEMA, incidents of failed transaction of huge amounts of money to the rightholders without any reimbursements etc. Failure on both sides and the regular german internet user has to deal with the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:There are several reasons why the cease & desist "industry" doesn't just exist, but is so profitable and runs so well, the most prominent of which is probably that the entire process is now so ridiculously streamlined that the only human interaction required along the way is basically rubberstamping boilerplate stuff. The internet is, for all of us, a new and untamed land...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
As long as the Bundesverfassungsgericht works on weekends, civil courts should be able to do urgent court orders that quickly.  Nobnob posted:You're right. Even though some cases are just ridiculous, like that one that led to a lawsuit against a kindergarden just because some children sang christmas songs which stood under GEMA license. Similar cases happened in some schools aswell and that's kind of ridiculous. I've heard that complaint many times yet was unable to find any traces of the GEMA going to court over children singing Christmas songs in schools or kindergartens. So I'd be grateful if you can provide something to back up this claim, because I kinda assume that it's one of those copyright myths that gets paraded around the internet like "You have to defend copyrights, otherwise you lose them!". The only realistic scenario were I'd expect the GEMA to sue over singing children woulud be if they were giving a public performance at their school which was open to the general public. Randler fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Randler posted:As long as the Bundesverfassungsgericht works on weekends, civil courts should be able to do urgent court orders that quickly. I had a complaint against a Zwangsgeldbeschluss of mine because I issued it on a saturday and as courts don't work on saturdays it was obviously fake. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Randler posted:I've heard that complaint many times yet was unable to find any traces of the GEMA going to court over children singing Christmas songs in schools or kindergartens. So I'd be grateful if you can provide something to back up this claim, because I kinda assume that it's one of those copyright myths that gets paraded around the internet like "You have to defend copyrights, otherwise you lose them!". The only realistic scenario were I'd expect the GEMA to sue over singing children woulud be if they were giving a public performance at their school which was open to the general public. Sadly not a myth. They didn't sue them directly, but gave many kindergartens in germany a warning to pay for every song sung in public and for every copied sheet of music. ( German source from "Stern" quoting the "Hamburger Abendblatt") The prices for the license contracts goes up to 168 Euro + taxes for 1500 copies, according to the dts (Source) Even though it's limited to songs sung in public (with means mainly parents of the children since it's a kindergarten) we're talking about simple songs sung by children up to 6 years old. Kindergartens in germany are funded by free institutions (mainly local parishs) or the municipality and as such it's money that could be saved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:[...] Out of curiosity, how much did you have to pay your own lawyer? At least tell me that it was less then what the C&D letter mill wanted from you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Out of curiosity, how much did you have to pay your own lawyer? At least tell me that it was less then what the C&D letter mill wanted from you. Same thing happened to me. I also got my own lawyer. I payed a fixed amount of money (200€ iirc) and my lawyer handled everything for me. Unless it really goes to court that is. But even then it will probably still be less than what these fucks wanted from me (960€). We'll see if I hear anything from them again before the Verjährungsfrist ends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
How long is the Verjahrung thingamabob anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:How long is the Verjahrung thingamabob anyway? Some cursory googling suggests that for copyright issues like these it's three years, but only starting at the 31th of december of the year it took place. Also, the attorney in question actually gave an interview about the redtube cases: http://www.wbs-law.de/abmahnung-fil...r-anfang-49126/. Here's a choice quote: quote:Von mir darauf angesprochen, wieso der Kollege Sebastian von Downloadportalen gesprochen hat, obwohl Redube in Wirklichkeit ein Streamingportal ist, erwiderte der Kollege Urmann:“Hier ging es doch um Progessive Downloading. Fragen Sie mich nicht zu den technischen Details, aber auf Wikipedia ist nachzulesen, dass nach dem Anschauen eines solchen Streams nachher die gesamte Datei im temporären Ordner auf der Festplatte liegt.“ So, wikipedia, huh? Also, they declined to disclose how they even got those IPs in the first place. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Somebody on lawblog posted a link to what appears to be the filing for a § 101 IX UrhG court order [URL goes to a PDF] to get the Telekom to hand over the customer data. (Looks like the real thing to me, though I cannot vouch for the reliability of Abmahnhelfer.de) The filing does, in my opinion, justify a decision to grant the court order. It is, however, phrased in such a way that the court would not have been able to know that it was a streaming portal instead of a filesharing service. The court might have decided differently, if it had been made clear that it was not a "normal" download but a "streaming" download.Nobnob posted:Sadly not a myth. If you start your post with "Sadly not a myth", you probably shouldn't modify your original allegation in the very next sentence. First things first though, while the GEMA send those letters, the content of the letters stems from the VG Musikedition. The GEMA merely offered administrative assistance. So blaming the GEMA for the content of the letters is akin to yelling at the mailman for bringing bills. Furthermore, the claim that the GEMA/VG Musikedition asked for every song sung in public in that letter is not true as can be seen from the actual content of the letter in question. (The GEMA itself links aforementioned transcribtion of the letter.) The letter in question also does not constitute an "Abmahung" (cease and desist letter). It merely informs the recipients of the two ways to get legal note sheets: Buy the necessary amount of note books or pay a fee to get a copying license. The latter one likely being cheaper. I recommend reading the links I embedded, because they are pretty good at discontructing the myth of the GEMA suing/cease-and-desisting kindergartens. Orange Devil posted:How long is the Verjahrung thingamabob anyway? General civil code rules apply, § 102 UrhG. Therefore the regular amount of time is 3 years, § 195 BGB. Starting at the end of the year in which the copyright violation took place and the rights holder learned of it or should have been able to learn of it without gross neglience, § 199 I BGB.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Out of curiosity, how much did you have to pay your own lawyer? At least tell me that it was less then what the C&D letter mill wanted from you. Thankfully, nothing. I have the good fortune of both having worked for a lawyer-friend of mine for about 6 years and having a sister that married into a family of lawyers, so just in my immediate surrounding, there are 3 guys I can go to that'll be okay with doing small things pro bono if it's in the family. But the important thing to keep in mind is that usually, the second you as the defendant in a small-time case of copyright infringement get a even modestly competent lawyer, the legal firm behind the C&D rapidly loses interest in pursuing the claim, not because they think they might lose the case in court, but because even with a 100% certain victory, going to court in those small-time cases simply isn't worth their time. The money you end up paying is usually to cover the lawyer fees and, in some cases, the settlement of 100 Euros which (correct me if I'm wrong) is still based on the Deckelung of the Erst-Abmahngebühren. A competent lawyer will basically just stifle the C&D firm by repeatedly going "Uh, nope." until they actually shut up and decide to not take it any further. The absolutely easiest and  -thing to do for him is to say, "Uh, you can have a hundred bucks, now shut up." (in legal german, obviously) and that's that.Another option for a gung-ho lawyer that wants to stick it to them in watertight cases would be the Feststellungsklage, which, I believe, is legal german for "Come the gently caress at me." or possibly "Time to scheiße, or get off ze crapper!" but any lawyer worth his money that doesn't have an axe to grind would advise you to go down the just-shut-them-down route. In the rare cases where you get nailed for several concurrent cases of infringement and the Streitwert in court exceeds a certain value where it suddenly becomes profitable to pursue the claim, even in court, then yes, they'll go the whole nine yards and take you to court. And there's a high chance they'll win, because again: These guys aren't about ~justice~, they're a business and if they figured they might not make their case fly in court, they wouldn't have pursued it past a written lawyer-to-lawyer skirmish. It's simply not worth their time and as I mentioned earlier, those 55 guys sitting in some office drowning in C&D-cash aren't trial lawyers. The ironic thing about the businessmodel of the "Abmahnwahn" is that is has spawned a new business model that is basically already integrated in the supply chain of the previous one. A few minutes of googling will yield several - currently still somewhat small-time - law firms that specialize in fending off these types of C&D. Their business model is based on the fact that they know they can make a quick 100 bucks off a client that, in turn, is happy his 956 Euro claim now turns into a maybe 200 Euro hole in his wallet. It's all pretty.  The basic things to take away from all of these  are:a) Don't respond to the firm issuing the C&D b) Don't sign poo poo c) Lawyer up Chances are that you have, in fact done a little no-no, but by going about it properly you can reduce your loss from 1000 Euros to anywhere between zero and 200 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Randler posted:First things first though, while the GEMA send those letters, the content of the letters stems from the VG Musikedition. The GEMA merely offered administrative assistance. So blaming the GEMA for the content of the letters is akin to yelling at the mailman for bringing bills. Furthermore, the claim that the GEMA/VG Musikedition asked for every song sung in public in that letter is not true as can be seen from the actual content of the letter in question. (The GEMA itself links aforementioned transcribtion of the letter.) The letter in question also does not constitute an "Abmahung" (cease and desist letter). It merely informs the recipients of the two ways to get legal note sheets: Buy the necessary amount of note books or pay a fee to get a copying license. The latter one likely being cheaper. Alright, you got me. Didn't read the primary sources of the articles and trusted in mass media and collective hysteria. Thanks for clearing this up. Duzzy Funlop posted:Thankfully, nothing. I have the good fortune of both having worked for a lawyer-friend of mine for about 6 years and having a sister that married into a family of lawyers, so just in my immediate surrounding, there are 3 guys I can go to that'll be okay with doing small things pro bono if it's in the family. Lucky you. Sounds like that poo poo screwed many people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Well, even with lawyers in my direct vicinity and family, my first reaction was to google up on my options, and that led me to one or two law firms that would have been appropriate for my case, so no logically thinking person should have been forced into paying up a thousand-euro-fine. Also, it appears U&C are doubling down on their redtube-C&Ds. "Uhhh, don't ask me about technische Details, but there's something on Wikipedia, so we're going continue firing barrages at countless thousands of people." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
This seems like a very solid foundation to rest your argument upon if someone actually takes it to court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
I just spent a very instructive five minutes learning the subtle difference between progressive downloading and streaming. Will go on redtube to see if I can figure out which they use ASAP, which I'm sure will be extremely instructive as well. This argument isn't exactly short on spots to crack it wide open but there's another.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Ghost Farts posted:This seems like a very solid foundation to rest your argument upon if someone actually takes it to court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Some interesting stuff is coming to light. There's a service that's commonly used on free porn sites that redirects links. You click on a thumbnail, you get redirected to a whole other site. It's possible to include geolocalization in the service so users from a defined area get redirected to a particular site. Apparently people who got a C&D noticed in their histories that around the time they supposedly got on redtube, there was an access logged to the redirecting service, which redirected to, for example, 49655.movfile.net. Another redirect from there led to 49655.retdube.net, and there was a further redirect there to actual redtube. movfile and retdube were registered two days before the earliest date mentioned in the C&Ds, and the number is the redtube ID of the movies mentioned in the C&D. The speculation is that the domains belong to The Archive and that they deliberately had a few thousand German IPs redirected to their own redirector pages and logged the IPs from there before sending them on to redtube. The old line about a paranoid being just someone who has all the facts springs to mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Alexander Dobrind being the new head of the Ministry of Transport and being responsible for the expansion of the digital infrastructure of our country must be a loving joke or an elaborate troll just as Ursel von der Leihmutter being the new Minister of Defence, holy poo poo the jokes are writing themselves, Priol and Schramm can retire their political cabaret career
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 11:14
|
|
|
Schramm already is  e: the biggest troll has got to be Gabriel in politics period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
Well, Steinmeier and de Maiziere back in Foreign/Interior is okay-ish, I guess. Honestly didn't expect von der Leyen in Defense. I thought it'd be another 20 years before we would see a woman in that position, but oh well. Have fun with your drones, Ursula! Maybe you can use them to catch pedos!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 12:58
|
|
|
Ursula von der Leyen. Are. You. loving. Kidding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
So the Leyen thing wasn't a joke? Holy crap. OK, actually I was thinking of Schröder, but still...
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 13:30
|
|
|
What is wrong with Ursula being Minister of Defense? I'm asking as a unashamed lefty who hates the CDU, but is she any less qualified than de Maizière?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
She's been kinda retarded about the internet from what I remember, I think the whole thing about blocking pedophilia sites (which does jack poo poo about the crimes itself) was her idea or her ministry's. But then again her colleagues (defense or family) haven't exactly been competent either I guess. I'm pretty sure ArchangeI was only half joking about the drones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 14:09
|
|