I got done for filesharing

OK...As a lot of you know, I used to own a pub in Munich and one of the things we used to provide was a wireless internet connection. People could bring in their laptops and surf the net. I never password protected the connection and as I had staff living in the flat above the bar, I never switched it off so that they could use it from home as well. I sold the bar in April this year.

At the start of December 2006 I received a letter from a lawyer acting on behalf of music labels telling me that I had 1710 music files available to download on a sharing site at a given point in August of 2006 and that they wanted to take me to court. I went to a lawyer who drafted a letter for me to send explaining the situation and that it wasn't me and in late January 2007 I received a letter from the Staatsanwaltschaft that the charge had been "Eingestellt". So I assumed that was the end of the story.

So I get back from my Christmas holidays today and find a letter from a lawyer (presumably the same one) with the same charge at the same time with the same number of files telling me that they expect me to pay €8000 and then they'll forget about the whole thing. Basically they stated that as the connection was in my name, I'm liable and that they're taking it up again because they have had recent judgements go that way.

I'm obviously going to see my lawyer again as soon as possible. I'm just wondering - Once the Staatsanwaltschaft has "Eingestellt" a charge, then surely that's the end of the matter, right? Can a lawyer just send a letter demanding money anyway? Also, would there be any benefit in trying to get some publicity for this? Because if they make this fine stick, then surely every place that offers a WLAN connection is in danger of having the same thing happen to them. I'm sure people wouldn't be happy if they could no longer access the net at airports or coffee shops or on the train or at any of the other thousands of locations around the country because the business would be in danger of getting sued for misuse.

Also, do others think it's ludicrous that those holding the internet subscription are automatically liable? It's like a bank suing the council for damages sustained in a bank robbery because the roads the crooks used to drive away on are managed by them.

Dude, I would go to the press pronto. They would eat this up and the music labels would not want that kind of negative press.

PS: You might even be able to counter sue for harassment.

Sounds iffy but you need the lawyer to clear it up.

As you say, every hotspot in the world would be open to this.

Sorry to hear that Hazza. Can't do much to help you out myself but I sincerely hope someone here can, the whole thing sounds totally unfair. Good luck mate, keep us posted.

Of course they can! I could send you one too! Guess you wouldn't consider paying me though...

Yes, obviously they can send me a letter demanding money. I suppose they could also ask for a monkey too if they wanted. I meant more whether I have to pay any demand.

Happy Christmas indeed from the German legal system.

I agree that the case sounds pretty leaky, and I suspect you will now be entering that wonderful stage of "bluff" with the legal process. The game is ALWAYS one of bluff.

You need to get your own lawyer to draft them a letter confirming that you 100% deny any wrongdoing and will defend yourself to the death etc blah blah. I would *guess* that come the crunch they will NOT
actually want to take you legal, because of course they will NOT be able to prove that your open system was not hacked, or otherwise taken over by person or persons known or unknown.

They need to prove it was you that did the crime, and unless they have some extra evidence that really does link it to you personally, then they just cannot make it stick.

But this shit is never fun and can really bugger your week.

And no - of course you dont have to pay any demand - but you do need to take independent legal advice. No way do you wanna handle this stuff personally. (but you said you are doing that anyways!!)

Of course... but you wouldn't be the first to receive a letter from some lawyer stating "pay me such and such amount of money an I promise you I won't sue you"... the sum of 8000 for 1300 songs is way over what I read up to now about people being sued or finding some term of agreement (in Germany of course). Get your lawyer to look it through, but there was news stories about scams of that sort before.

Cheers for the responses. I guess I'll know more about it tomorrow (or early in the new year when I talk to my lawyer).

I was also thinking - how in the hell did they find this info out? Is my Internet provider doing this? Did they get some kind of court order to do it? What right do they have to go snooping through my IP address?

from what my husband tells me it is monitored closely in germany. i dunno. bull all of it. i hope that it all works out, in your favor of course. the press idea was good.

I don't know when I have ever disagreed with eurovol. But I do now.

Don't mess with these guys, they mean business and they look to make examples of people who don't take them serious or people who can be used as examples.

Try to get out of this quickly and quietly. Pronto is the agreed-upon operable word here.

That's a sh*t hazza.

This sounds a little strange but the music industry really are evil scum.

I thought , and somebody tell me I'm talking trash if this is wrong, that when you are driving and you have your picture taken in Germany they have to get a visual identification of the person driving the car? One would have thought the German law would look at this the same way?

Best of luck on this one.

It was the end of criminal proceedings ... leaving the doors to civil courts open (O. J. Simpson comes to mind)

Wasnt there an article somewher saying judges will no longer accept cases regarding file sharing, as it is costly and does not worth the effort?

As far as I remember it is considered the owner's responsibility to secure their internet connection. If they let someone else use it (willingly or simply because they don't know better) it is their responsibility if someone uses the connection for illegal purposes.
That said, I agree it is a really crappy situation, and I hope you can resolve it quickly and without having to pay anything.

So are the government responsible for all road deaths as they provide the roads?

By the way Hazza. If you want I can talk to a friend of mine who is one of our company lawyers. She may know something about the law on this.

Thanks for the tips. Also thanks for pointing me in the way of lawyers. I do, however have a good lawyer from last time who specialises in file-sharing and seems to be very good. He also knows the background of this as he drafted me a letter last time, so I'll stick with him on this.

What does this have to do with road deaths?

Here you can read about the court decision this is based on:
http://www.dr-bahr.com/news/news_det_20060908115619.html

I'd seen that before - last year when this first cropped up for me. But that would endanger every single place that offers an internet Hotspot, wouldn't it? Even if they're password protected, they give out passwords with coffee and it's hardly any protection at all - more to prevent those who didn't buy anything from using the connection for free...

I doubt their aim in passing this judgement would be to put all of these places at risk.

But it is a little like suing the government for providing the roads that enabled someone to break the law by speeding...

Yeah hypothetically it would. That is why I am thinking in your case it may be handled differently, as yours was not a private internet connection in the first place. I am not sure if a case like yours has ever been taken to court. But generally, for private internet connections the connection owner is liable for anything illegal committed through their connection.
I hope it turns out for the best for you, let us know about any updates on the situation.

Because what they are wanting to do is make somebody responsible for the actions of people using a service provided.

I liken it to road deaths because it is like saying that the government is responsible for the actions of those who use the road. What is the difference between a drunk driver killing somebody on the road and somebody using a WLAN connection to do file sharing? Both are transportation systems, one physical the other electronic.

The holding of liability of one third party is a really dangerous precedent and one the law should think long and hard about. My understanding they have gone after ISP's before but failed to get anywhere on that one. Are the people who provide the cables also liable?

The record and music industry are like a spoiled 6 year old kicking and screaming when they don't get their way. Ultimatly they lost the battle a long time ago though.

By co-incidence I was watching this last night. It's very interesting watching.

Steal This Movie II

I am not saying I agree with the law, but what I am saying is that is how it is. And in the end that is what matters, not your or my opinion.
In the case of roads, it is simply not what the law says.

Yeah. They've obviously made the person who subscribed to the connection liable because it's often impossible to find who was actually responsible - unlike a road user.

I'll keep you updated on this. I tried to call my lawyer, but he's away until Wednesday so I'll call him then.

And a civilised society should challenge bad laws.

Hazza...

I dont suppose you have a copy of "Alternative Ulster" By Stiff little fingers that you can send me, do you?

You mean challenge them as in bitch about them? Or actually do something about them? If you actually want a law to change, I am not sure TT is the right place. To bitch about them, it sure is perfect though.

Exactly.

Hazza is in a position where he has to make decisions whether to challange or take it though.

I'm not just bitching on TT - I'm actually seeking legal advice on this one

Surely if he's responsible for leaving an open connection to allow his clients to use the net, then his provider is responsible as well for carrying the illegal items ? and so on and so forth.

It's a difficult sitation, but I think it's reasonable to classify the hotspot owner just like Telekom, as they are just the carrier...

I know, Hazza, I wasn't talking about you.
Regarding legal advise, I think you should ask your lawyer to find out if there have been any court decisions more closely related to your case. Especially since the law firm that contacted you seems to be referencing court decisions that have been made in their favor.
But to be honest, I am not sure you would get good reliable legal advice on TT. So my advice would be to wait to talk to your lawyer.
By the way, I do not think that the Staatsanwaltschaft dropping a case does not mean it cannot be picked up again, as no decision was reached. It does not mean the Staatsanwaltschaft will pick it up again, though.

I am in exactly the same situation. I admit it was extreme idiocy on my part. A friend recommended a program so I could download some American TV shows, and only after using it for some months did I realize that it was making my music files available to others to download. I immediately disabled the sharing function, but I got a letter saying they´d observed my computer downloading a song and there was this big questionnaire attached. I didn´t respond. A few months later I got a letter saying the case had been dropped, and yet some more months later (a couple of weeks ago) I got this big package from a law firm saying I should admit my guilt for sharing 413 songs and they would drop the price to 4000 euros instead of 5000 euros. Hazza, maybe you could PM me your lawyer´s info?

But to Hazza´s case, I think having a WLAN in a public place should be a good defense. Keeping my fingers crossed for all of us...

I wonder what you would do hazza if you found people "Beer Sharing" in your pub... lets just say that someone found a leak in one of your beer lines and just drank from that!...

Interesting. I wonder what a hotel with 100 rooms providing WLAN would do when the same letter landed in the manager's in tray?

Also a perfect example of why the parasitic middlemen need to be surgically removed from music.

This might be interesting for you too:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk#Rechtliche_Fragen
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/78289
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77921
Also related to the court decision by the LG Hamburg.

I still think the Press is the way to go as well as simultaneously going the lawyer route. This has huge implications. Don't think just file-sharing, think plotting terrorism or any other illegal activity via the use of an open line. Would Hazza be going to jail as an accomplice if Sheik Yabooty used his line to set up a bombing plot? How about emails that discussed black market activity? Where does it end?

miwild and Mariposa are correct: The fact that the DA does not see a criminal action on your part does not in the least influence the fact that the files were downloaded from your WAN connection. The lawyer is following the civil aspect in making you as provider of the connection liable for any illegal activities on that connection. I do not know how closely you are supposed to have monitored your customers, that's for your lawyer to know or find out. But, and this is a big but to your advantage, a criminal conviction makes it a lot easier for a claimant to succeed with a civil damage claim. Your lawyer will, of course, know this and milk it accordingly.
Good luck, Hazza, and Happy New Year!

Very interesting. And best of luck to you both!

1. Sounds like the thing you were "guilty" of is sharing files, and not just downloading them?

2. Any network specialists out there know to what degree one computer is able to be tracked? Obviously there is the IP address, and an internet service account, which can be used by multiple computers, but it's not hard to imagine some data mining software that would identify individuals based upon web usage patterns (ie, with a computer that is auto-checking ones email address every 20 minutes).

How do these guys get your address? Can your ISP give your details without a judge order?

Actually I take my original comment back.

Bitching about it on bullitin boards is the place to do it.

The music industry is trying to bully people by scaring them. A few high profile cases and everybody else will stop. The modern equivelent of putting the head of a criminal on a pole at the entrance to the village.

It's just not justice and people know it. The more people talk about it and turn against the industry then the better. They are trying to use mass media to scare but it is in fact turning the consumers against them.

I have a larger music collection than most people. It's one of my massive passions and cost me many many thousands to collect. I've had enough of the industry though. They are scum. A shame for the artists who make the music but they are nothing more than pawns to be used and abused.

All ISP's are required to keep detailed records of their customers and their connections (including IP addresses)
They (ISPs) are required to turn over said info, in the process of a lawsuit, which is exactly whats going on here.

The copyright holders have many companies around the world scanning all the P2P/Filesharing network looking for
copyrighted files. If/when they find them then the IP address of the person offering them to the network is recorded.
After that its quite easy to figure out who's behind that IP.

@PAS
Then you'll be interested to know that the Record companies don't give a shit how much you spent on your collection
and will still go after you if you decide to rip one of your legally bought CD's to MP3 for use on your iPod.. Thus going
against the entire doctrine of fair use..

@Darkside.

And this is what happens because of all the anti-terror legistlation.

They apparantly want to stop terrorists but in fact use it to try and screw an ex-bar owner for a crime he did not commit.

As someone once said. 1984 was a warning not a manual.

Concerning Mariposa's quote:


Unterlassung means you have to stop doing it. It doesn't mean you have to pay damages, fines, etc.

Though:


That's the expensive bit of going to court and losing...

Hey Hazza - though break dude.

I dunno about the legal side, sounds a bit iffy if they are changing they're minds on shit but your law-talking-guy should be able to handle that.

From a techy point of view thou securing your internet connection, especially a public one is not just about passwords. You can selectively choose which internet ports are allowed to be open and which programs are allowed to use which ports etc etc -i.e. you can block filesharing programs if you know how. So if one is running a public connection one really has to tighten up the security, precisely because you don't want to end up in the position you find yourself in now. I realise its too late in this case Hazza - but for future reference if anyone is running a public link like this - if you don't know how to harden security yourself then you should get someone to come in and do it for you!

Interesting Fascinating documentary on the subject of copyright: Good Copy Bad Copy

Seems to me the lawyers have found a way to print money

http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-432.html

All they have to do is send out a bunch of form letters, wait to see who pays up, and bill their clients acordingly.

If you got the identical letter twice, after the case has already been eingestellte, you might be able to silence them with a lawyer's letter (more money for lawyers :-( ) Try to get them to remove your details from the database they undoubtedly have.

Is the letter from a lawyer in Hamburg? Gunter Jauch did a TV report on Stern TV about 3 months ago on this subject, this lawyer firm works for the music industry and they send about 5000 "bills "per month . what i remember about the report is , that it is not illegel to down load music, the problem starts ( and i dont understand much about computers) is when you down load the music you must use a provider ,and then other users can down load the music from you,then it becomes illegel.
But i do remember these lawyers can only sue the user (downloader ) and not the "owner" of the IP address.
I would go to a lawyer, but wouldnt worry about it to much.

Geoff

Read thishttp://www.stern.de/tv/sterntv/599656.html?p=1

Yes - it's from Hamburg and I just Googled the name. Clemens Rasch is the lawyer. He's all over the net and he apparently sends out hundreds of these letters every month.

Let's see what my lawyer says about it. I'm sure he's heard of the guy.

check this out


taken from

http://www.rasch-vs-djs.de/faq.html#_Toc175638125

Yes I've seen that, but as I said before, if that is indeed the way the law works, then it puts every WLAN Hotspot at risk.

Hazza sorry to hear about that. It's always shit when you try to do the right thing, help other people & offer something more as a business only to get this sort of shit after.
Hope your holidays were good though dude :-)

Welcome back to Germany!