Accused of torrenting copyrighted material

3,078 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

 

Good question!

 

I guess they will say if the content was upload from or to an EU country.  But of course if they use a VPN then they can disguise this.

Another reason why the law is actually bad, because it can be easily bypassed in this way.  Also, because it will not apply to all companies! 

 

BTW:  I am not advocating  the law, and my post was tongue in check to point out that it won't stop all problems and P2P clients will not need to implement such filters.

 

sorry, I did not intend to get at you personally.

 

and I need to read up on all the implications of this new ruling, its just you seemed to know more than me :lol:

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

sorry, I did not intend to get at you personally.

 

and I need to read up on all the implications of this new ruling, its just you seemed to know more than me :lol:

 

 

 

I don't think anyone knows yet what the implications of this will be.  And how the companies, and later courts, will interpret the law and apply it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, marcolopes said:

 

No, if you stumble into a WEB site that shows you a movie catalog and all you have to do is install a PLUGIN (that you are not aware it's going to upload anything) to start "streaming"!

 

Installing a plugin falls into my instructions of "Do not install anything without asking a parent first".

 

I do have small kids and they use the Internet.   So far it is working and I do not think they are specially clever or Internet gurus. 

 

You can as well use whatever your operating system and browser configuration offers to secure the PC.   For example, only admins can install new programs.   In the browser you can activate the secure mode and maybe only allow plugins from the official plugin store from your browser, etc. 

 

Sorry but those excuses are in 99.99% of the cases very lame, I didn't know it was illegal, sure.    It is more like, I didn't know it would upload, or I didn't know I would get caught.

 

5 hours ago, marcolopes said:

 

Bottom line: We may come to a point where NO ONE will permit others to use their internet connection... even family members should have their own dedicated access so they can be liable! (i'm joking... or am i? :\) Foreigners? Forget it! NEVER give access to anything on your network!

 

 

Since the laws are there and I can't change them, the only thing I can do is take measures in order to avoid problems.   So if I have guests in my house and they want to use my Internet connection I only allow smartphones to be connected and first I have to check through their list of installed apps.    They do not want me to see their phones, OK, then no Internet for you.   If I see any apps I can't figure out what they are for then I ask, if the guest thinks it is too much asking, well, sorry, no Internet for you.

 

 

 

I guess they can't and the "upload blocking law" is useless.  A win-win I guess.

 

54 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

I guess we won't have to worry soon.

 

With the new "upload filters" having to be implemented to avoid copyright abuse according to the new EU law then this should stop all illegal sharing of content, right?  So then the problem will cease to exist!   ;)

 

You can't really stop piracy with censorship.    The only effective way to do it is offering legal access to the media for reasonable prices.    See the current state of the music business, with the introduction of Spotify and co. the music piracy has reduced a lot.   The convenience of having most of the existing commercial music ever created in your pocket for $10 a month in developed countries and $20 a year in some third world countries is enough to convince many pirates that it is not worth and it is much convenient just to pay for the service.

 

But then talking about the technical side, I really want to see how they are going to stop illegal uploads when the illegal material is split in small blocks and every block is heavily encrypted and then encapsulated in a HTTP connection to another random user who can be just anyone.  

 

48 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

and how will they block copy write abuse when the offender uses a VPN ?

 

 

 

I guess they can't, so it is a win-win situation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Krieg said:

...

You can't really stop piracy with censorship.    The only effective way to do it is offering legal access to the media for reasonable prices.    See the current state of the music business, with the introduction of Spotify and co. the music piracy has reduced a lot.   The convenience of having most of the existing commercial music ever created in your pocket for $10 a month in developed countries and $20 a year in some third world countries is enough to convince many pirates that it is not worth and it is much convenient just to pay for the service.

..

 

 

I agree.  In fact one could argue that the mass piracy of music a few years ago forced the music industry to embrace change and finally adapt.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Krieg said:

...

 

encrypted and then encapsulated in a HTTP connection ...

 

 

 

Just a small correction, P2P does not use HTTP(S) but works on a lower level using TCP (and UDP I think also for some things)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

Just a small correction, P2P does not use HTTP(S) but works on a lower level using TCP (and UDP I think also for some things)

 

P2P uses whatever they want to use.    Of course you can send your packages via HTTP if you want.   Actually it is pretty much desired.   Why?  Because no network admin would block the HTTP port because then we will have no access to the web.

 

Typical things a clever P2P client does when they can't get out via their default ports:  Try the HTTPS port (443) if fails, which in most cases it won't because we all need HTTPS, then try HTTP (80). 

 

This is the main reason why blocking this kind of stuff is pretty much impossible.   You can block whatever you want, but you still have to leave at least one exit point to the Internet, that's the one they will use.

 

Then you might try to introduce filters to catch things going through your HTTP pipe, well, if they are encrypted you can't see anything.    And we need encryption to be reasonable safe otherwise the world's economy collapses.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

P2P uses whatever they want to use.    Of course you can send your packages via HTTP if you want.   Actually it is pretty much desired.   Why?  Because no network admin would block the HTTP port because then we will have no access to the web.

 

Typical things a clever P2P client does when they can't get out via their default ports:  Try the HTTPS port (443) if fails, which in most cases it won't because we all need HTTPS, then try HTTP (80). 

 

This is the main reason why blocking this kind of stuff is pretty much impossible.   You can block whatever you want, but you still have to leave at least one exit point to the Internet, that's the one they will use.

 

Then you might try to introduce filters to catch things going through your HTTP pipe, well, if they are encrypted you can't see anything.    And we need encryption to be reasonable safe otherwise the world's economy collapses.   

 

Well it is still possible to use a different protocol over these ports, TCP is after all an underlying protocol of HTTP.  But yes, you can still filter for only allowing certain types of traffic over these ports and as you said, even if the traffic is wrapped in HTTP packets it is still difficult to determine what is inside it for which you need deep packet inspection and if it is encrypted then it does not help anyway.

 

But P2P prefers TCP and HTTP is normally used as a secondary preference.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all traffic, when it enters the P2P is un encrypted.

 

When you buy a VPN , the data is encrypted from your computer/router until the exit port of the VPN network, for example a UK IP address, once it leaves the last IP address, its un encrypted, the data is then sent it the P2P site.

 

Everybody can them see the contents, however most/all VPN companies will not reveal where the originating request came from. Some companies will reveal the person/ip address - in some circumstance, for example one guy was sending lots of very rude messages to a girl in the US, and using the VPN to hide to hide his activity. The police got the VPN company to reveal the person who was sending the messages - and he took the consequence.

 

But the VPN companies do not reveal the real person for copy write reasons, for some reason, probably they would go out of business if they did.

 

if you want it to be encrypted, in the P2P network ( or maybe with HTTPS, if they accept the protocol), you have to encrypt it, yourself before you send it through the P2P host.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

 

Well it is still possible to use a different protocol over these ports, TCP is after all an underlying protocol of HTTP.  But yes, you can still filter for only allowing certain types of traffic over these ports and as you said, even if the traffic is wrapped in HTTP packets it is still difficult to determine what is inside it for which you need deep packet inspection and if it is encrypted then it does not help anyway.

 

I've been trying to explain things in layman terms, but you are a tough keyboard warrior.  So, I will be more direct.  You are writing nonsense.

 

Quote

But P2P prefers TCP and HTTP is normally used as a secondary preference.

 

This sentence is pretty much ridiculous.

 

I will try to put it simple.   Networking is like an onion, it has layers, it is normally called the OSI model.   You build new protocols on top of the other protocols.  

 

So TCP/IP is one of those lawyers, it is sitting low before going to the layers talking to the network card and this moving data though the ethernet cable.

 

TCP/IP communicates via "sockets", every socket communicates a port in the one system (computer) with another port in another, or the same, system (computer).  Those ports are just numbers.   So it is like making a phone call, from one IP address and port number to another IP address and port number, the port numbers are like office or extension numbers.

 

Because things got complicated then additional layers were built, someone decided that the port number 80 would be the incoming port number for plain text web transmissions, known as HTTP.    And then someone thought what about secure transmissions, so someone decided that the port 443 would be used for encrypted web transmissions, known as HTTPS.

 

Then someone decided to build additional layers on top of HTTP(S).  But that's not relevant right now.

 

It was decided that the port 80, which is a TCP/IP port was used for web.  People looking for a door to get out would take any available door.   So I can ignore that the port 80 is traditionally used for Web and use for another thing.   Then it might be enough to break your "security".   You might decide you will check if the things travelling there are actually HTTP packets.   Then I put actual HTTP packets in my pipeline, the headers would be correct HTTP packets, so I am again in business.   So you decide to do deep inspections and check what data I am transmitting in those HTTP packets and you found out it is about terrorist, or piracy or kiddy porn, or whatever illegal and you decide to block the packets.  Well, then I take the last step and encrypt all DATA in the valid HTTP packets.  You will have access to the headers but no access to the data itself.   If you can't find some other way to identify the illegality of the data traveling then there is nothing you can do.  And it would be very difficult without checking the data itself.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Almost all traffic, when it enters the P2P is un encrypted.

 

Every bittorrent client let you encrypt your data.  The default configuration of some clients comes with encryption activated.

 

But the intention of this is for something else, not to protect privacy.   

 

Most ISP nowadays know something called as "Traffic Shaping", this is basically giving more priority to some services, for example, giving more priority to Netflix, YouTube, etc.  Because most ISP oversell their networks they will have traffic problems during peak hours, with the traffic shaping they give more priority to things people value more, so they keep happy most of their clients.   But this of course is crap because it goes against net neutrality.

 

The encryption in bittorrent was implemented so that they can directly identify the connections as P2P traffic and put them at the bottom of the priority list.    If they do not know what it is inside they will put them somewhere in the middle with no high priority but at least not at the bottom of the barrel.

 

If you want to protect your identity when using P2P then this encryption is not enough because it does not change your originating IP address.    You need a VPN which changes your IP address to something else.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

I've been trying to explain things in layman terms, but you are a tough keyboard warrior.  So, I will be more direct.  You are writing nonsense.

 

 

This sentence is pretty much ridiculous.

 

I will try to put it simple.   Networking is like an onion, it has layers, it is normally called the OSI model.   You build new protocols on top of the other protocols.  

 

So TCP/IP is one of those lawyers, it is sitting low before going to the layers talking to the network card and this moving data though the ethernet cable.

 

TCP/IP communicates via "sockets", every socket communicate a port in the one system (computer) with another port in another, or the same, system (computer).  Those ports are just numbers.   So it is like making a phone call, from one IP address and port number to another IP address and port number, the port numbers are like office or extension numbers.

 

Because things got complicated then additional layers were built, someone decided that the port number 80 would be the incoming port number for plain text web transmissions, known as HTTP.    And then someone thought what about secure transmissions, so someone decided that the port 443 would be used for encrypted web transmissions, known as HTTP.

 

Then someone decided to build additional layers on top of HTTP(S).  But that's not relevant right now.

 

It was decided that the port 80, which is a TCP/IP port was used for web.  People looking for a door to get out would take any available door.   So I can ignore that the port 80 is traditionally used for Web and use for another thing.   Then it might be enough to break your "security".   You might decide you will check if the things travelling there are actually HTTP packets.   Then I put actual HTTP packets in my pipeline, the headers would be correct HTTP packets, so I am again in business.   So you decide to do deep inspections and check what data I am transmitting in those HTTP packets and you found out it is about terrorist, or piracy or kiddy porn, or whatever illegal and you decide to block the packets.  Well, then I take the last step and encrypt all DATA in the valid HTTP packets.  You will have access to the headers but no access to the data itself.   If you can find some other way to identify the illegality of the data traveling then there is nothing you can do.  And it would be very difficult without checking the data itself.

 

 

 

 

Ok so although I am an IT guy but I admit I don't know all the details of networking.  So I am open to learning more.

 

But reading what you said here is also what I previously understood.  But there obviously is a mismatch somewhere.  Maybe I just can't explain it in the same way, or maybe I miss just one point which throws my ideas off, I don't know.  I also haven't kept on top of P2P developments, so maybe things have developed further which I am not aware of.

 

But my understanding is that HTTP is an application protocol and so is Bittorrent.  Bittorrent might be able to also use HTTP in order to try to avoid detection, but that it just wraps the bittorrent protocol inside HTTP packets.  But in the end any application protocol can use any port in order to communicate.  Port 80 & 443 are normally open due to being used by HTTP/HTTPS so are often see as an easy entry point and hence require additional protection to inspect/limit the type of traffic.   

 

So, in order to detect the contents of the package then deep packet inspection is needed.  But all of this is mute if the data is encrypted.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More or less.  Stopping all P2P is basically impossible.  It is like trying to stop the Dark Web, you can make things difficult, but as long as the other party is willing to continue trying they will find a way out if they have enough know-how.

 

Now, you might handicap them a lot to the point that people give up.    And you might win, but only because the other party gave up.    An example of this is the big win from Netflix vs VPNs.   Netflix won, they managed to block most VPNs and SmartDNS do not work anymore in most platforms.   But this is because Netflix catalogue became decent in most countries, so there is no real need for this and the hacker community never really got involved that much, only a few companies who tried to make a business out of it and they were outsmarted by Netflix.

 

But the bittorrent implementation is another thing, they have plenty clever developers around the world improving it, so as long as they have a personal interest in continuing making it work it will be very difficult for ISPs and normal people like us to block it.

 

P.S., I used the HTTP only as an example to show why it is an impossible task.  Actually bittorrent is much clever nowadays, they moved out of tracker based torrents and it is now all tracker-less, they use a protocol they called DHT in which the swarm is just a head less monster.   So who and what is the ISP going to block?  You can block my communications with any random person, and detecting what I am doing is very difficult if I use encryption.   Old school torrents still have the trackers inside because using trackers is still faster for finding your peers, but you do not need them.  Everything you need is a MAGNET link, which is just a very long number, and that's it.  You connect to the swarm and start finding your peers with no one orchestrating anything and at the end you will get all files associated with you magnet link.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit, I am not sure why you want to encrypt in the P2P system.

 

I thought, when the people ( almost acting for the lawyers )  request a movie from a P2P service the P2P host organizes the transfer from the people who are offering it. While the transfer is occurring the people who want that part of the file can see the ip address of the person sending it. Once the receiver has this, they then contact your ISP to find the name and address of the transmitter , who then gets a bill from the lawyers.

 

Is that right ?

 

so whether the file is encrypted or not does not really mater, because the receiver gets the un encrypted file on his computer, so he can watch it. But the only bit of information, the lawyers want to know is who sent it - from the IP address.

 

again, that's why you use a VPN, to stop the receiver finding out where it was sent from, as the receiver can only see the exit node of the VPN company, and they will not tell who is the real originator was. Of course the ISP cannot use bandwidth management , because they cannot see inside the link between your computer and the VPN company.

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Must admit, I am not sure why you want to encrypt in the P2P system.

 

 

I just told you up there.  To avoid traffic shaping.  So your P2P downloads do not become slow during peak hours due to your ISP deciding your P2P traffic has low priority.

 

Or your ISP blocking at all your P2P traffic.

 

Quote

 

I thought, when the people ( almost acting for the lawyers )  request a movie from a P2P service the P2P host organizes the transfer from the people who are offering it. While the transfer is occurring the people who want that part of the file can see the ip address of the person sending it. Once the receiver has this, they then contact your ISP to find the name and address of the transmitter , who then gets a bill from the lawyers.

 

Is that right ?

 

so whether the file is encrypted or not does not really mater, because the receiver gets the un encrypted file on his computer, so he can watch it. But the only bit of information, the lawyers want to know is who sent it - from the IP address.

 

More or less correct.   Your missing bit:   Encryption is always about avoiding third parties from tapping into your data.   

 

In this particular situation the lawyer is not a third party, they join the swarm, so the lawyer is your peer.   So you are right, of course the lawyer needs you see your data after decryption (if it was encrypted for transmission).

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that p2p isnt a single thing, its a family of technologies that are sometimes public sometimes private sometimes encrypted etc etc. Many legal things like linux are often distributed by bittorrent, but also as we know many "illegal" items are also shared.  The whole thing is complex technically and legally.

 

Encryption is as @yesterday suggests often a bit of a placebo because anyone can typically connect, download something, check what it is and sue you, so the fact the connection is secure doesnt bring much. It does however prevent various classes of attack, for example a lawyer (or ISP) cannot simply watch everyones traffic and prove what everyone is uploading, they must actuallly connect themselves. In principle it might be possible to block ip addresses of all lawyers (dont ask me how, I can think of ways around anything I can think of, but maybe its possible), or use a whitelist for only trusted peers.

 

Other advantages are already given by krieg, and indeed there are some people that simply think all traffic should be encrypted because it makes monitoring (NSA, russian hackers, lawyers, whoever) more difficult and that is an end in itself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Krieg said:

 

 

I just told you up there.  To avoid traffic shaping.  So your P2P downloads do not become slow during peak hours due to your ISP deciding your P2P traffic has low priority.

 

Or your ISP blocking at all your P2P traffic.

 

 

More or less correct.   Your missing bit:   Encryption is always about avoiding third parties from tapping into your data.   

 

In this particular situation the lawyer is not a third party, they join the swarm, so the lawyer is your peer.   So you are right, of course the lawyer needs you see your data after decryption (if it was encrypted for transmission).

 

 

 

ok, I try to improve my knowledge a bit :wub:

 

why do P2P systems not install a kinda of proxy address system within it, so the receiver, never knows the real IP address of the up-loader ?? or maybe its already there, but just do not know how to switch it on  :(

 

ok, in the past, how can I put it, a friend showed me how to download file of a movie that he wanted to have, he put that into the bit-torrent client, and the whole thing started. Now it seems you can do it with  'magnet'. What is the difference - what advantages are there of either system 

 

  

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, yesterday said:

why do P2P systems not install a kinda of proxy address system within it, so the receiver, never knows the real IP address of the up-loader ?? or maybe its already there, but just do not know how to switch it on  :(

 

Because P2P move lots of traffic, they are responsible for a big chunk of the total of Internet traffic worldwide.   So if you want to run all that traffic through a Proxy or VPN, someone has to pay for that traffic.   You won't find anyone who is willingly going to provide for that service.

 

However as part of the big cake, P2P has been actually going down.   It is somewhere around 10% from the total traffic nowadays, which looks small compared to the 70% that was some years ago.    Still it is a lot of traffic.

 

You could run your traffic through a "free" proxying system, like Tor, but it is slow and not optimal for big transmissions like P2P, and at the end you might just throw the blame to someone else. 

 

50 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

ok, in the past, how can I put it, a friend showed me how to download file of a movie that he wanted to have, he put that into the bit-torrent client, and the whole thing started. Now it seems you can do it with  'magnet'. What is the difference - what advantages are there of either system 

 

 

 

Magnets are tracker-less.   You do not need anymore any tracker to find your files, everything is done directly in the swarm by some clever peer discovering mechanism.   

 

Former time:  You download a torrent file which has inside the ID of your download and at least one tracker.   Everyone interested in downloading that material connects to that tracker and finds there the peers who are currently downloading the files.

 

Nowadays: You only need the Magnet file/link, which is just the ID of the download.   You connect to the swarm and use a community driven mechanism to find your peers, the name of the protocol os DHT.

 

How a magnet looks like?

 

ea321616782afbdac177af27fa6d6ce342af88a4

 

That's an example of one.   It belongs to an illegal download for a movie called "Welcome to Marwen".    Everything you need to download the movie via bittorrent is that magnet ID.    So now Toytown is illegally distributing copyrighted material?  I wouldn't say, I found that magnet ID with Google Search.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Toytown community. I just concluded my own little Erfahrung into copyright infringement in Germany, and thought I would share my experience. 

 

In March I received a large envelope in the mail from Waldorf-Frommer. They were suing me for 1481,30 €  over 3 episodes of an American television sitcom, payable within 10 days.  After reading everything here in Toytown, I sent WF a request for an additional 30 days (Fristverlängerung), which they granted me in writing. 

 

Then I started searching for a lawyer. There are many of them. In the end, I found a local guy in Freiburg (see below) who specializes in these things. He charged me a flat fee of 150€ to handle the situation. Note that I was not contesting the charge; I was trying to bring down the amount WF was asking for. In the end, they brought it down to 600€ total, or 200 € per episode. They would not negotiate anything lower than that. They offered me a payment plan of 100€ per month and would not give me a better deal for paying the whole thing at once. 

 

My personal thoughts? I have to say, I'm pretty disturbed about this whole business. I'm surprised that Germans, who seem to express outrage at every perceived attack on their personal freedoms and privacy, allow this system to continue, as it seems to mainly serve the lawyers who represent all sides. If the concern is genuinely over intellectual property rights, then I think that a warning letter for a first offence would be more than enough to deter most people. For example, we have a house in Canada that we are renting out while we're in Germany, and we did in fact receive a letter from our ISP regarding an illegal download by one of our tenants. I forwarded the letter to the tenants (it was their son who did the deed), and they responded with deep apologies and promises never to do this again. I haven't received any more letters from the ISP, so I would say this has been an effective process. The only thing missing is the massive amounts of money going into the lawyers' pockets.

 

The existing legal framework is especially troubling for families with children (like me), who may not be aware of the online activities going on within their bandwidth. Children as young as seven years old can be held accountable for this activity! I mean, I think one 7-year-old is pretty easy to control in terms of their access to the internet, but put a few of them together and watch out. My kids are teenagers, and I have informed them to the best of my abilities about the risks of online activity. But online activity changes all the time. A couple of years ago, they all watched Vines. Now they all watch YouTube. What if there is some other portal that looks like these sites but in fact involves sharing files without knowing it? I guess I better start saving up. 

 

Anyway, I am finished with this business. If you're looking for representation, I recommend Cristian-Oskar Marcachi in Freiburg. His website is http://itrecht-freiburg.de/. He was very personable and well-informed about the topic. He also speaks English, French, and Romanian, in addition to German. 

 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, YouChick said:

The existing legal framework is especially troubling for families with children (like me), who may not be aware of the online activities going on within their bandwidth. Children as young as seven years old can be held accountable for this activity! I mean, I think one 7-year-old is pretty easy to control in terms of their access to the internet, but put a few of them together and watch out. My kids are teenagers, and I have informed them to the best of my abilities about the risks of online activity. But online activity changes all the time. A couple of years ago, they all watched Vines. Now they all watch YouTube. What if there is some other portal that looks like these sites but in fact involves sharing files without knowing it? I guess I better start saving up. 


While I understand that accidents might happen, in general the solution is explaining your kids how things work.   For example, a website dedicated to stream user made material is most probably legal.  A website streaming all the movies that are currently in the cinema for free is most probably illegal.  When in doubt, do not do it and ask the parents.   Actually I don't see this any different from plenty of other subjects.   Do kids believe the ads saying in very big fonts that they are selling the latest smartphone for 1 EUR?  No, any kid that already knows how smartphones work will know that that's impossible, most of them will even tell you that the 1 EUR price is with a contract.

 

The excuses when people are bitten by the leeching lawyers is that it is too easy to make a mistake in the current system.   I do not really buy that.   If the kid has the understanding to use an Internet browser will most probably have the capacity to understand that there are illegal activities in the Internet and to be able to correctly identify most times those "this is too good to be legal" things.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YouChick said:

Hi Toytown community. I just concluded my own little Erfahrung into copyright infringement in Germany, and thought I would share my experience. 

 

In March I received a large envelope in the mail from Waldorf-Frommer. They were suing me for 1481,30 €  over 3 episodes of an American television sitcom, payable within 10 days.  After reading everything here in Toytown, I sent WF a request for an additional 30 days (Fristverlängerung), which they granted me in writing. 

 

Then I started searching for a lawyer. There are many of them. In the end, I found a local guy in Freiburg (see below) who specializes in these things. He charged me a flat fee of 150€ to handle the situation. Note that I was not contesting the charge; I was trying to bring down the amount WF was asking for. In the end, they brought it down to 600€ total, or 200 € per episode. They would not negotiate anything lower than that. They offered me a payment plan of 100€ per month and would not give me a better deal for paying the whole thing at once. 

 

My personal thoughts? I have to say, I'm pretty disturbed about this whole business. I'm surprised that Germans, who seem to express outrage at every perceived attack on their personal freedoms and privacy, allow this system to continue, as it seems to mainly serve the lawyers who represent all sides. If the concern is genuinely over intellectual property rights, then I think that a warning letter for a first offence would be more than enough to deter most people. For example, we have a house in Canada that we are renting out while we're in Germany, and we did in fact receive a letter from our ISP regarding an illegal download by one of our tenants. I forwarded the letter to the tenants (it was their son who did the deed), and they responded with deep apologies and promises never to do this again. I haven't received any more letters from the ISP, so I would say this has been an effective process. The only thing missing is the massive amounts of money going into the lawyers' pockets.

 

The existing legal framework is especially troubling for families with children (like me), who may not be aware of the online activities going on within their bandwidth. Children as young as seven years old can be held accountable for this activity! I mean, I think one 7-year-old is pretty easy to control in terms of their access to the internet, but put a few of them together and watch out. My kids are teenagers, and I have informed them to the best of my abilities about the risks of online activity. But online activity changes all the time. A couple of years ago, they all watched Vines. Now they all watch YouTube. What if there is some other portal that looks like these sites but in fact involves sharing files without knowing it? I guess I better start saving up. 

 

Anyway, I am finished with this business. If you're looking for representation, I recommend Cristian-Oskar Marcachi in Freiburg. His website is http://itrecht-freiburg.de/. He was very personable and well-informed about the topic. He also speaks English, French, and Romanian, in addition to German. 

 

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

I totally agree with you... And this should be on the front page of every newspapers in europe, and even on tv shows. People should know and be informed about what's going on in Germany, that affects thousands of foreign people who visit (and who are visited!)

 

I'm not defending piracy... just that this should be handled very differently.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, YouChick said:

 

 

My personal thoughts? I have to say, I'm pretty disturbed about this whole business. I'm surprised that Germans, who seem to express outrage at every perceived attack on their personal freedoms and privacy, allow this system to continue, as it seems to mainly serve the lawyers who represent all sides. If the concern is genuinely over intellectual property rights, then I think that a warning letter for a first offence would be more than enough to deter most people. For example, we have a house in Canada that we are renting out while we're in Germany, and we did in fact receive a letter from our ISP regarding an illegal download by one of our tenants. I forwarded the letter to the tenants (it was their son who did the deed), and they responded with deep apologies and promises never to do this again. I haven't received any more letters from the ISP, so I would say this has been an effective process. The only thing missing is the massive amounts of money going into the lawyers' pockets.

 

 

 

 

See you're writing and reasoning like a normal human, but unfortunately the system in Germany doesn't function by that standard (and some people in this thread don't either). Warning letters work. I now live in Canada and yes it's how it works here... it's more civilized.

 

In some places you might get your hand cut off for stealing. Stealing is wrong, of course. The solution is not to steal and teach your kids not to steal.

However this neglects to consider whether or not the punishment is perhaps a bit too severe for the crime. 

 

While that's not exactly a perfect comparison, it matches in that the punishment does not fit the crime. It's the unthinking solution.

 

Your point about germans and internet privacy is a good one. It's someone amusing that in a place where you can't get a simple google streetview from the last decade for whatever paranoid reason, these sorts of piracy lawsuits happen all the time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now