I got done for filesharing

Is this true? Last night I ripped a legally bought CD into MP3s and put them on my MP3 player. How else am I supposed to get music on my device?

Make your own records with a banjo and some saucepans - much cheaper and more satisfying, plus it avoids all these legal minefields.

Its typical of a law firm over here to send out letters at a time of year when you cannot do much about it. They do it so that it stays on your mind.

I guess they hope that you will eventualy just pay to get them to go away.

As has been said, there are a few lawers doing this in germany (they do it to people who download porn as they see them as people who will just pay either due to being ashamed or not wanting wife/family to find out etc) and they do send out a lot of these letters.

In this situation you are better getting legal advice.

A friend has something like this ongoing and if you look on the net for abmahnung, download etc or the name of the lawyer that sent you the letter you may find a lot of stuff. You will not be the only person going through this.

I am not sure how far my friend has got with his problem but he said that in a court case somewhere in the west the court critisazed the fact that the IP details of the person being sued had been given to a private lawyer firm (the case seems to have failed as a criminal case).

The problem you may have is that a lot of people post this type of problem on sites but not often any solution (if they find one). You may also come accross a few sites that are also having problem with these lawyers. At least one sites my friend read through had had problems, the lawyers do not want people to chat about this kind of stuff etc.

My friends first abmahnung was for a sum way under what he would have had to pay another lawyer to reply.

Botton line is to get you own legal advice.

@Geoff-bb - do you know of any web-based info that could confirm that they can only go after the downloader and not the ip owner? Who is classed as the ip owner in this case, the ip provider (ef telecom) or the customer of the provider?

They tend to bill the recipient of the letter instead, the logic being that the recipient's downloading caused the lawyer to take action against him, thus incurring the need of services and their payment.

So I called my lawyer this morning and he's onto it. Basically he told me I can either try and negotiate down to a smaller sum or fight it, but then be left with the possibility of paying the lot and it dragging out over a long time. I'm going to fight it because it's bullshit and I'm not paying them a cent. I did nothing wrong.

After I called my lawyer, I called the Rasch lawfirm and asked them about WLAN. The bloke seemed to think it was OK to sue Hotspots and put their very existence under threat. He offered the example of someone downloading kiddie porn in an internet cafe and didn't seem to realise that he just proved my point when I asked if that meant that the owner of the cafe should be put on a sex-offender's list as a result. He conceeded that he could understand that I could feel that I was being treated unfairly, but he was a complete and utter wanker.

I'm going to fight this and they're not going to see as much as a fucking cent from me.

Good for you. What this lawyer and his buddies in the music industry are doing is the moral equivalent of stealing someone's lunch money in the playground. It will not make an iota of a difference to the volume of illegal downloading, which the music/movie industry has completely and irrevocably lost their grip on – their own fault for spending 15 years fighting the technology rather than accepting or even embracing it. All this lawyer is doing is trying to cash in on vulnerable people. The word "scum" doesn't even come close.

Probably the right attitude Hazza and I wish you luck - it seems the guy has pulled his logic from his arsehole but you need to be careful phoning up the opposing party and talking to them about the case being argued. Normally it's better if all contact goes through your lawyer as this avoids any possibility of mixed messages or you saying something that impedes your defence.

I asked my lawyer first and he told me to go ahead and call them if it makes me feel better.

And it did...

Oh and I put it to him that it was the same as suing E-Plus for sms messages terrorists might have sent over their network in planning an attack. He said it was completely different and then couldn't tell me how.

And I asked him how many telecoms companies they had sued for providing the actual hardware that provided the hardware for transfrering files. None apparently - so I told him that they were cowards for only going after little people who can't defend themselves and if they were really convinced that this was watertight, they'd go after them because they have a lot more money...but of course, better lawyers too. That's when he ended the conversation.

Talking common sense to a lawyer...

Come on Hazza, be fair he didn't stand a chance :-)

As you say, they are only after normal people who have eeither downloaded or in your case have had an open wifi connection.

If they realy wanted to stamp out copyright theft then they would have to address the millions of very good quality copies that come to europe from aisian countries.

However this would cost to much money. It is just a shame that failure to go after the big groups that make millions out of this does not invalidate copy right protection. After all, a company cannot be to serious about protecting their property if they ignore the biggest breaches of their rights?

It is all about making money out of poeple they can eaily get to.

As was once said (about the staes), 'we have the best legal system that money can buy'.

This is now true of europe and there seems to be a queue of lawyers waiting to get their cut.

Lets hope a letter from your lawyer will make them think you are not now worth the work and effort to take this further.

I was given 2 things to sign. The first was a promise to prevent music getting down (or up) loaded illegally with a threat of €5001 if I did. My lawyer advised me to sign it - although that would have been interesting if I still had the bar and wanted to continue operating a hotspot.

The second is to agree to pay €8000 and then let the matter rest. I'm not signing that. My lawyer will write a 5 or 6 page long, drawn out letter full of legal jargon and difficult to read words in the hope that they let the matter drop because they're already sending thousands of letters to others who are paying (or at least only negotiating the amount) and that they won't want this particular battle.

This thread need pictures...

It is... Sony BMG's head lawyer says ripping CDs is "stealing"

Buy it again, off iTunes.

What a fucking joke. Actually, what I can't believe is that the courts are letting record companies (and their lawyers) get away with all of this.

I'd like to know how the common good gets served by suing the arse off people who aren't even involved in breaking any laws.

And this statement from one of the biggest crooks in the music industry. Sony are killing music.

There is no common good. All the major music labels seem to be stuck in the 70's style thinking about music distribution and actively work to prevent technology from working for them. If they adopted file sharing as a legit means for distribution for a reasonable price and accepted that people use music and technology in different ways now than when Sony invented the walkman then more people would pay to download. One euro per song with no backup, no artwork, no recovery rights if the downloaded file is lost, and single device usage restrictions or DRM is not a reasonable price.

That said I got the impression that the lawyer who's suing you is doing it for his own ends, is he even working for a music label client?

Yes, he's the lawyer who represents all the music labels here in Germany. He's been on SternTV (as someone already pointed out). He's legit, unfortunately - but of course he's doing it for his own means, because that's where he makes all of his money from.

If there is no common good, then the law should not be enforced in this way.

I've posted on another music site I use about this. I'll let you know what I get back but it will be intresting to see globally what people think.

Can you provide a link to it please? I'm not going to register, but would love to see what gets written.

The music industry is acting like my grandparents did when they heard the anolog TV signal was being switched off.

You either stay in the past and fall behind of you get with the program and start using it (for my grandparents, a digi-box). The music industry are trying to hang on to their business model in an age where it is outdated and their product has been de-valued (by themselves, how many more superstar 'stars' can we put up with).

Music (and other electronic media) is seen to an extent as disposable and we live (created by business) in a 'I want it now' culture. People want that film/album/song/game now, not on monday when the shop opens.

What annoys me is that the law makers that people elect do nothing about this kind of thing. Its obvious that the lawyers concerned are just using this to make money. In the case of my friend it look (cant say for sure) like the lawyers used the software snooping company and then contacted the software company to say 'hey, we found this, you want us to chase it for you'.

I had not realised that lawyers were such a pro-active branch of law enforcement...

my friends lawyer said that the software company had the right to get some money by way of damages but the amount specific as 'legal costs' in the letter are open for debate (as well as being quoted from a much bigger case).

my friend read on one site that a guy contacted the software company and paid them directly and the case was over and done with. However you never know if you can really trust what you read as anyone could post there (in effect, the lawyers could get one of their practikants etc to post things there).

I have often wondered if DRM goes against the notion of reasonable use (as it stands in the UK consumer law anyway, not sure if the principle exists in german law).

In this day and age is it not reasonable for me to rip a legaly bought CD to MP3 and copy it to my MP3 player? If so, can the recording industry say I am breaking copy right when I am in fact only exercising my right to reasonable use?

Maybe I should write directly to the bands and tell them about this...

I wouldnt expect the actual bands to be involved.

No one wants to see their work stolen but no one wants to be connected to a system that levies damages of 000's at 10 year old children (as happened in the US).

Your lawyer will be aware of the tricks being used and he/she should know what they are doing and respond in kind.

I continue to be fascinated by an industry whose business model is increasingly based on suing the consumer base.

The fad in the US these days appears to be the record industry's attempts to get universities to identify the students associated with IP addresses which have been identified as linked to file sharing. Interestingly, many Ivy League schools have been targetted, but they have yet to touch Harvard (get your tinfoil hats out -- is it because the lawyers are all Harvard grads or because they're smart enough to avoid getting the folks at Harvard Law School riled up?). Most unis have willingly rolled over and offered up student names, but the University of Oregon and the Oregon Attorney General have decided to contest this.

Meanwhile, the French government is working with the record industry.

I don't foresee an imminent end to this struggle, meaning more people like Hazza will get caught up in this madness and the industry will continue to spiral out of control.

Just make sure you don't write to Metallica mate. Word up is that their drummer is a complete and utter one. I think they're watered down wank, but hey! that's just my opinion.

The drummer from Metallica is indeed a complete and utter one.

He also over drums a lot of stuff :-) Just my opinion :-)

As long as the comsumer is willing to buy over priced music and be lead into what the next music fad is by the music industry the balance of power stays in the hands of the industry.

As such they can afford to sue their own customer base, which as Joliet jake says, is quite crazy.

Its a shame it is not possible to organise a 31 days ban on buying music/films of any kind and get poeple to say that for 31 days they will legaly bind themselves not to buy music/films.

Then let the music industry try to prove damages in file sharing cases.

The bottom line is, in our society today the law is applied not at who/whom are the biggest offenders but at those are the easier target. Why spend millions chasing the big offenders when you can just write the loss off and chase some thousand easier to find people for either sharing the odd file or two or as in this case, someone whos wi-fi connection was abused.

Well the problem as I see it is that politically and judicially the laws are set and enforced in a way that gives the record industry the power to do some ludicrous things.

Our politicians and judges come from an older, pre-internet generation and don't really understand what's happening. In a few years when the younger generation starts to come through - who grew up with this, and possibly some that had bad experiences with unscrupulous lawyers and record companies, I'm confident things will change for the better.

It's also easier to get a conviction against somebody small and then go and attack the larger fish with a legal precedent behind you.

But they wouldn't dare go up against the Telco giants. If they did that, then they are questioning the very legality of the internet, although I actually think they are on the way to doing that already.

Now call me a conspiracy theorist and alarmist but there are governments around the globe that wouldn't be too bothered about that.

Apart from the fact that they'd lose their own major information source and that basically every big (and most medium and some small) businesses would leave that country...

Not to mention that voters wouldn't be too happy about it.

Not the destruction, just the control.

How many voters are voting against the logging of information that has got you 'caught'?

Its also cheaper to go after someone who can not afford good legal representation. Big companies equals big money, big legal representaion and the ability to tie up and court proceedings for a long time.

In this kind of area, the company sueing have no guarentee they will win or even if they will be awarded costs. This allows for a degree of uncertanty and therefore potential high costs.

As such, they tend to go after the little people who do unimportant things, such as vote, buy their goods etc. The ones who supply the labour and make the economy go around.

The problem with voters is, most of them although computer literate to a degree, are not really informed as to the more up to date issues in cyber space. Our population is older than ever before and computing is a recent type technology (as far as the mass market goes).

I was chatting with older members of my friends family about it and they said that anyone stealing should be punished (in principle). I said that in effect so should anyone speeding as they are also breaking the law, how many of them have gone over the speed limit and moaned about getting caught etc.

What has happened to Hazza is the same as someone borrowing his car without him knowing and so without his permission, getting flashed doing 180 down the Autobahn and then returning the car without him realising (could be a family member who knows where the keys are).

The first he knows is that he gets the fine and the points.

I am not in much danger from anyone using hazzas wifi to share files, I could be in danger from someone doing 180 down the autobahn in the 60 zone.

There is also the size of the fines. If i hit assault someone and am fined (rather than going to jail) I can be made to pay damages to the victim. If you get caught sharing files the level of the fine tends to be out of proportion to if you had assaulted someone (certainly in the UK).

For some reason governments seem happy to not step in and do their job, they seem happy to let the legal profession try to apply old principles, rules of law and case law to try to come to a decision.

I read that channel 4, ITV and the BBC are have joined up to launch a service whereby you can watch any program broadcast for upto a month after the broadcast. Of course you get adverts etc, however this is an example of a few compaines trying to adapt their business model to a modern and changing environment.

Although some people will always want a hard copy (cd/dvd) other are happy to have the data file. If the cost of the film/album is low enough it can be cheaper to have a large HDD with all the stuff on than paying the 14euro etc for each cd/dvd and then having to buy a shelf unit to put them on :-)

I'm fairly confident I'll be right on this one, one day they will centralise all music and we'll play it over the internet. You'll pay a flat rate or a few cents for every song played, perhaps even free if add based. Every song ever recorded will be available.

It's a while off but decentralised music ,and actually 'owning' it exists because that's the model of the industry for the last 100 years. If you built a music industry from scratch with the technology available then you wouldn't do it the way it's being done now. It will take them a while to get there though as most are still stuck in their ways with old business models.

Old business models die hard. Same applies for us in the games industry.

Games will go the same way. Why spend money on making disks when you can download the software in a few seconds?

This generation likes to 'own' something physical. The next won't care.

I disagree with your centralised music theory.

In fact I think it may become more decentralised. The artists are starting to realise that they don't necessarily need the backing of a record label to become successful. In fact, it's quite easy for an artist to put a recording of his own songs on his own website and charge a little bit for a download - cuts out the middle man. Marketing is also becoming easy with unknown artists discovered far more easily online without any record label backing than ever before. On top of that, which artist with a conscience would want to be backed by that bunch of cunts?

Perhaps back catalogues will end up on a big database, but I think that new music will increasingly become available without the need for record labels.

And that's why they're kicking and screaming now...The internet is slowly making record labels irrelevant by reducing the control they have over the music. They think the only hope they have is to try to stop distribution that they don't control - but they are seriously pushing shit uphill with that one. I think the only hope they have would be to give up trying to control the music and concentrate solely on the marketing and publicity angle.

It's like the star that burns out and briefly supernovas before dying. The record labels have a lot of power now, but it'll be all gone soon enough

The Google 2.0 music library will be where you need to be to get found.

I agree entierly that the scum that is the record industry record labels will disapear for all the reaons you say.

Just curious though Hazza, how do you feel about all the record shops going out of business because of this change in distribution media?

Stop me if I've posted this before.

Steve Albini - The Problem With Music.

Not sure what you're getting at with that...

I think that there will always be a niche market for record stores - others will have to adapt to survive.

But if you're trying to compare this with bars shutting due to the smoking ban, I draw a big distinction between businesses going under due to changes in consumer demand as opposed to those that go under due to government regulations.

This could well be the bit that kills record companies who traditionally provided artists with advertising, recording facilities and backing for concerts in return for stealing all their hard-earned with their carefully worded contracts. Now almost anyone can afford and has the ability to use enough technology to knock together a simple recording and put something on YouTube and play a few concerts to get known, then set up a file sharing system to distribute their own music (and collect donations or ask for payment if they want) or even record their own CDs if they want to. It's easy to give away low bitrate samples free, and ask for payment for 'CD quality'. You simply don't need a mega corporation behind you to succeed, just musical talent (sadly lacking these days) and some creativity.

I thought you would

I'd see both as movements in the underlying culture. Music culture has moved on from relying on parasitic record labels. Take away the labels and now music can really still exist and be distributed. There will still be parasites running the concerts but less central control. Health culture has moved on from allowing smoking in public enclosed areas. In both cases there will be causualties. As a former bar owner I understand your emotions on the subject but as a non smoking music lover I see them as similar.

Ratgeber: Legal und kostenlos MP3s herunterladen ...

I don't want to get into this here - it probably deserves it's own thread, but I think there's a big difference to losing a business because you can't (or won't) adapt to your customers needs and losing a business because the government suddenly brings in legislation.

For one thing, customer demand changes somewhat more gradually, giving businesses time to adjust. The smoking ban changed things from one day to the next and gave businesses no time or even real parameters with which to work with.

But as I said...not really for this thread.

ISPs keep an IP record of all activity. In the US they need a court order unless a business is affected (the formal definition of "terrorism" under the patriot act). I would say you qualify as a terrorist - all of humanity does. Outside the US nothing is illegal for a US firm - there are mind-boggling tracking resources at the beck-and-call of US gov or corporations (redundant?). SOME HOPE: There is a chance your server also keeps a similar record. Your renters should be easy to find in the records as the most active users. Your personal PCs are probably hard-wired. Wireless users have a unique sub-net mask. If push comes to shove you might show that your DHCP server routes the specific offending transmissions to a wireless user. Of course this is not absolute proof that you are innocent but it muddies the water. DONT throw out those old tape backups.

Of course I sold everything (including computer hardware) when I sold the pub, so it may not be so easy to prove.

That might help:

Urteil: DSL-Anschlussinhaber haftet nicht für Urheberrechtsverletzungen

Link in German unfortunately.

That is looking good indeed. Hope it helps you Hazza. Is a very recent court decision too.

@Haz - who's actually doing the suing here? Presumably the name of a company/label/organisation is mentioned as the complainant somewhere? Wouldn't be the IFPI by any chance?

I'm pretty sure it's the lawyer suing me on behalf of 5 record companies. I don't have the letter with me and I'm not in Munich at the moment to be able to find it.

But my lawyer has it under control at the moment. He's taken on a few of these sort of cases before, and seems to know what he's doing.

Cheers too for the link on that judgement. I'm hoping that the opposing lawyer decides that it's too much of a hassle/risk to go after me and drops the whole thing. After all, this sort of letter's been sent to thousands of other people and I'm sure a good percentage of them either pay up or negotiate down a bit and then pay up.