I'm currently suffering two copyright infringement cases, which I can only assume are the result of the storm that reset my FritzRepeater back to factory settings, leaving an open bridge into my network.
Two copyright claims, from two law firms, for albums I've never heard of, at times that I wasn't in the house.
Because of an arcane, but largely logical German law named "Störerhaftung" I am by default responsible, and have to pay both claims (in the order of €5,000 each). I have no recourse.
Tech-savvy as I am, powerless to defend against a case such as this, where do I stand, I could theoretically bring a case against AVM Deutschland (manufacturer of the Fritzrepeater) but then the burden is on me to prove their buggy software failed, and reset to factory settings.
An impossible situation, and I hope that laws such as these move in the direction of transparency, the Störerhaftung is designed to make sure that someone who loses out always has someone to claim against (common other uses, are for example if drunks throw stones from the top of a building, and then run away, the building owner is responsible, in lieu of finding and proving that the drunkards were responsible) - it's arcane, and whilst well intended, and the "terrorism" argument holds strong, this is about copyright, and always maintaining the Störerhaftung right.
Most cases aren't taken to court. Courts have decided against these firms in the past and the general climate is turning against them. I've got similar claims (but only 500€) and the lawyer firm stopped bothering me after I've said I'm running a freifunk.net router (which I'm doing) - freifunk.net are having a "war" cash depot and want to go to the BVerG to end finally end this madness. You can follow the drama here: http://freifunkstattangst.de/
If it's Waldorf and Frommer tell them you are cooperating the freifunkstattangst.de and mail them. They dropped at least my case out of fear (or rather tactics on their behalf).
It's a scare game these lawyers are playing. It's ridiciolous that this is still a thing. However most lawyers are profiting of it and the majority of Bundestag members are lawyers. For a (kind of unfair) comparison see here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsberatungsgesetz#Geschich...
> Because of an arcane, but largely logical German law named "Störerhaftung" I am by default responsible, and have to pay both claims (in the order of €5,000 each). I have no recourse.
"Störerhaftung" does not make you liable. It only allows for injunctive relief, not damages [1].
What's creating problems is that the courts make a (rebuttable) presumption that the owner of an internet endpoint is also responsible for copyright violations (and torts in general) arising from its use.
Likely they are doing X euro damage pr song, pr album.
And they are free to do so, as most copyright law is written based on the assumption of for profit copying. Meaning that said law assumes the person responsible is doing it industrially, and therefore has deep pockets.
These are assumptions that belong back in the Gutenberg era. Yet any time the call to modernize copyright law, the legislators stay well away from actually considering the assumptions that copyright is based on.
How do you know that they don't just flat out lie about these files being downloaded by your IP?
In Poland company bought out rights to one porn movie, then claimed to the police that that file was downloaded by random ip addresses (out of major providers pools) on torrent. Police ordered the companies to release home addresses of those ip users. Then the company slent email demanding settlment money. Some people paid. Now they are suing the company to get their money back. So many people police about this that they issue public statement that there was nothing criminal and they dropped the case.
Do you have given anybody else access to your network? Court decisions have changed in the last few years and e.g. room mates or kids made the case unclear enough (e.g. parents don't have to do stuff to stop their kids from file sharing if they don't have indications that it is happening)
I've heard a lawyer mention that (in Germany) in these cases you should actually abstain from any remarks like "my kids didn't do this" because if you rule out all other possible suspects you only leave the default: yourself. As long as there are other possible suspects, the court is a lot more likely to dismiss the claims.
So, yes, if you shared the access with others (even your own family), that fact may be a get-out-of-jail-free-card. Just don't make the mistake of trying to protect them (there's no need to anyway -- as long as they don't make that mistake either).
Sadly there are still a lot of these frivolous lawsuits and the standard practice is to ask for a ridiculous fee and to sign a cease and desist (don't ever do this without talking to a lawyer -- otherwise you can suffer even worse consequences if additional claims pop up, even if they concern things you did before signing the document).
If you signed one of these in the past and get "caught" again, you're in even worse trouble than you would be otherwise. The last thing you want to do is give them more ammunition against you.
Oh no, Unterlassungserklärung should be the last resort. Usually the content mafia lawyers have no interest in fighting cases in court, the risk is too high. Get a lawyer and see how they won't go to court.
Two copyright claims, from two law firms, for albums I've never heard of, at times that I wasn't in the house.
Because of an arcane, but largely logical German law named "Störerhaftung" I am by default responsible, and have to pay both claims (in the order of €5,000 each). I have no recourse.
Tech-savvy as I am, powerless to defend against a case such as this, where do I stand, I could theoretically bring a case against AVM Deutschland (manufacturer of the Fritzrepeater) but then the burden is on me to prove their buggy software failed, and reset to factory settings.
An impossible situation, and I hope that laws such as these move in the direction of transparency, the Störerhaftung is designed to make sure that someone who loses out always has someone to claim against (common other uses, are for example if drunks throw stones from the top of a building, and then run away, the building owner is responsible, in lieu of finding and proving that the drunkards were responsible) - it's arcane, and whilst well intended, and the "terrorism" argument holds strong, this is about copyright, and always maintaining the Störerhaftung right.