Areas of Law: Copyright, Computer Law & IT / telecommunications, intellectual property
Legal Tip of 07.07.2008
Internet users from file sharing programs such as "eDonkey", "eMule" or "BitTorent" are currently cummulated again warned by the law firm quickly from Hamburg. In terms of content largely identical letter the owners demand that the warning letter to deliver an imitator, the replacement of by The commission incurred legal fees and the payment of an appropriate amount of compensation for copyright infringement committed (§ 97 Copyright Act).
In general, the terminal owner is taken as known troublemakers in the liability. The IP address of the access line has been identified in these cases by logging into the file sharing programs by the relevant company to protect intellectual property ProMedia mbH file sharing systems. As a result of a subsequently initiated criminal proceedings have affected the attorneys quickly pointed out that it should be clearly demonstrated that the IP address was assigned to the crimes committed when the terminal owner. The exclusive rights of the music industry in the disputed titles in this context simply maintained, without, however, provide evidence to this effect. In addition to placing an imitator usually the payment of a lump sum compensation of between EUR 2000.00 and 10000.00 required for the settlement of the matter. The exact amount depends on the number of titles made available for upload.
Given the amount of loss claimed sum is for the parties concerned the question of how I should act in these cases?
Firstly, the warning letter should not be ignored as mere "rip off" or "warning inconsiderable extent." Self-proclaimed "media specialists" often advise their clients to ignore the asserted claims of the owners and mainly just to make a so-called modified penalty clause declaration.
These so-called "experts" fail to recognize this, however, the seriousness of the situation. The resulting economic consequences for those affected hardly manageable. The great awakening comes when Sony BMG or noble make records that the damages claims in court beyond. The resulting costs by far the previously paid on its own attorney attorneys' fees. In the event of defeat has warned to wear it next to the damages claim, the attorney fees of the other side, all court costs and other costs of hiring their own attorney. In this context, one should therefore not the interest of the music industry in the enforcement of further claims underestimate this respect it should be the person carefully consider what defense strategy he chooses a bad decision -.. as mere inaction, but also the hasty and unexamined deliver an imitator, or the premature payment of an amount - may soon mean the ruin of the infringement litigation.
Therefore, it is advisable to contact the other party settlement negotiations in order to find one for both final and final settlement. Here are the victim several talking points are available to reduce the required amount of loss significantly and thus avoid a lengthy and expensive court proceedings.
First, the legal owner will be asked to explain the connection owner that he has provided the designated title and its contents over the IP address of the public to upload, because the name of the title does not necessarily agree with the content of the warning letter factory (keyword: forgery - Fake). At this point the person should therefore first check whether the IP address may have been confused.
Furthermore, the compensation is calculated according to the principles of the so-called license analogy, that the claimant may request a reasonable license fee. The amount of the license fee is then determined by the actual number of downloads. The owners should be asked, therefore, set out the specific amount of damages. The assertion of a lump sum for the settlement of all claims must therefore be assessed very critically and to undergo an individual assessment.
Moreover, one must also consider that taking according to a recent decision of the OLG Frankfurt, not the interference liability of the access line readily (Decision of 20.12.2007, Az 11 W 58/07). The owner of an Internet connection is not readily obliged thereafter to monitor close family members in the use of the port. The scope of this audit obligation depends on the extent to which the claim is unreasonable as disturbers arrested after an examination of the circumstances. If the owner via an Internet connection of such third parties may make him a duty to instruct the user to monitor and, if it is likely that the user might commit a copyright violation. Accordingly, the terminal owner, unless special circumstances have occasion for it, without starting to assume that adults know that they must not commit such violations. As far as a teaching obligation towards minors, must explain the connection owner that he has complied with this obligation. Nevertheless, it requires a careful examination of the case, if the port owner can not yet be taken as the primary interferers to complete.
Therefore, we encourage them to express themselves by counsel in a dispute with the music industry to consult and be represented. You should also have received a warning letter from the Hamburg office quickly, so please do not hesitate to contact us. We represent your interests and long term can help to reduce the required attorney's fees and damages totals significantly.
More about warning the attorneys for the music industry, they quickly found on our website.
No comments:
Post a Comment