BGH: No payment of damages with WLAN abuse - VoIP General, VoIP News, VoIP Providers, VoIP hardware, VoIP software, VoIP Technology

Hello together,

current judgement:

http://www.onlinekosten.de/news/arti...LAN-Missbrauch

Kind regards from Bavaria

Guude,

and informatively supplementing naturally also Heise

… interesting with it the fixed height of the claim for damages of max. seems to me. (only) 100€

Not the claim for damages is limited on 100 EUR, but the lawyer costs of a warning.
A claim for damages is completely impossible.

It remains hoping that for the 100 euro the “business model” Abmahnunanwalt is not worthwhile itself any longer.

At other place times, the 100 applies€ only to the first warning, there must one was written times be waiting. Think times those ~~Warn~~Music industry will rave.
The judgement was even in the news of the day topic.

jo

Guude, Quotation:

[….] The judgement was even in the news of the day topic.

. .gerade along-brought in the “daily topics” also, but likewise unfortunately quite “populist” with the “of-nothing-knowing” WLAN owner.

… however back to the topic also gladly-discussed in the IPPF “the Anschlusshaber clings. ”…

. I personally see momentarily still the except-lateral in-complainable payment of damages sum limited by this BGH judgement on these€ 100 firstonce….!!

….thus in the Umkerhrschluss….
….all the same some copyright infringement is present, costs in individual cases after available valid proof only possibly. maximally “Hunni nen.”

… lies I with my estimate momentarily unfortunately correctly…??

No, not at all. You should read times the linked articles.

It essentially concerns that the subscriber committed as can be prove no copyright infringement, because he was not at all present in the questionable time. And nevertheless it had to strike itself up to the highest instance thereby.

Guude,
and that is just as restrained my topic… each WG will itself with the p2p Abmahnern…

And how they prove that they were not at all there in the questionable time?

Quotation:

Quotation of effmue

Heise

Quotation:

To the private operator of a WLAN net is not however to be zuzumuten to adapt network security sequentially to the newest state of the art and to spend for it appropriate financial means.

Well.

Quotation:

However it is not obligated to carry payment of damages out because it only as a disturber function, not however as authors.

Quite right.

Quotation:

Thus the BGH might out-lever the business model of the warning lawyers, who make cash with high fees and demands for payment of damages.

Well, the misuse of rights has finally an end, it gives nevertheless still competent lawyers.

Thus I try to show that times in such a way, as I understood it:

As an operator of a W-Lans is one obligates its rout with the maximum safetycondition kind to operate. One usually makes this with the installation of selbigen. Corresponding later added safety precautions (firmware updates) are to be used not compellingly.

Now over these rout illegaly music exchanged in an exchange stock exchange. Thereupon the operator gets post office of a warning lawyer. If now the operator through e.g. a Sceenshot to prove that a strange Mac in its rout was, would have it knows those to maximally 100 euro for the warning to pay and around the omission guarantee, its password to change.

If it cannot prove that another in its rout was, is it liable.

I understood so correctly?

My comment:

Quotation:

Quotation of Joe82

As an operator of a W-Lans is one obligates its rout with the maximum safetycondition kind to operate.

No, with the delivery status of the manufacturer/Providers or maximally incoming inspection (which petrol normal user white already which WPA is). Everything else costs specially, exactly the extra expenditure the BGH answered in the negative, also the own expenditure of time:
Quotation:

The test obligation refers therefore to the observance that at the time the installation of the Routers for the private sector usual market safety devices.

Which is usual market determine manufacturers and Provider by the delivery status and that is despite TR069-Fernsetup still mostly incoming inspection or openly.

Quotation:

Quotation of Joe82

If now the operator through e.g. to prove it knows a Sceenshot that a strange Mac in its rout was

No, one must only the installation condition in at least. Incoming inspections prove, in addition Screenshots with witnesses hand, open or cracked WLAN cost max 100€ as a disturber, that does not have authors is determined:

Quotation:

Who therefore or a completely open WLAN insufficiently secured after these criteria operates, can be taken up in the future for each copyright infringement on omission, which was committed over the connection.
However now the warning costs which can be refunded might be limited to 100 euro, in addition no payment of damages must be carried out to the right owner

Who on the next time safe to go wants places on WPA.

Quotation:

Quotation of woprr

… No, one must only the installation condition in at least. Incoming inspections prove, in addition Screenshots with witnesses hand, open or cracked WLAN cost max 100€ as a disturber, that does not have authors is determined: …

That cannot have an interview I with the best will. Do I understand you correctly? An open WLAN does not mean the fact that one committed a protection device injury and cannot thus is sued. Which proofs from which side are to be furnished then? Then I could drive and say something illegal at any time: I wars not….

As a disturber without WPA one pays only 100€. The burden of proof has the Abmahner. And because of the BGH judgement the lower courts do not occur there only any longer proceedings to take evidence?

How do you deduce that the burden of proof of the Abmahner has?

Quotation:

Quotation of RalfFriedl

It essentially concerns that the subscriber committed as can be prove no copyright infringement, because he was not at all present in the questionable time.

Thus my connection is used regularly by me, if I am not there, and nobody others in the dwelling was also provable. Remote Desktop calls itself. The sucking waits then with my return to me.

And in order to remain with the topic of this forum: Of course also my fixed mains connection is used by me, if I am not there. PABX with internal VoIP branch calls itself.

But whether lawyers would understand that?

Relying you drauf, those have also people, which there which of

Finally times somewhat one did. I felt the whole warning nature for file sharing inclusive robbery copiers am criminals (wrong - is a passing) as very covered.

For many it is to be interpreted heavily the medium Internet legally correctly. If one suddenly gets things free of charge is pleased one stop, it gives oneself also free product samples in the Internet, why not also song samples? Who is to squat there please by pastes except the Usern those for decades at the PC?

Therefore I find it better if one only 100 euro punishment pay which rather a warning equal, evenly as a punishing note for wrong do not park because one the park prohibition sign did not see or it does not put on stop drauf to be gotten.

I take to that also made because the public prosecutor's offices with such requests was partly very strongly braked and from the important cases to little work on could. Is already uncanny a little that the lawyers obstruct themselves only over fat abzukassieren. Stop gives everywhere black sheep.

For this the following information from me:

Whether covering the lawyer costs of the warning actually seizes on 100 euro or can not, probably only then say exactly if the reason of the judgement is present, even if the press release lets this assume. But even if covering should seize, it applies in each case to the first warning.

Quotation:

97a UrhG, sentence 2

(2) The replacement of the necessary expenditures for the recourse to of anwaltlicher services for the first warning is limited simply stored cases with an only insignificant law breaking outside of the trade to 100 euro.

Regardless of its I that from the reason this covering will result, hope because thus the business model “turn piracy into profit”, which is not to be agreed with my right understanding absolutely, sensitively was disturbed.

And who took place after first warning far its WLAN protects insufficiently (or even even far cannons and which exchanges works by P2P strange user forward in its WLAN only as protection statement put), that is finally debt, if the following warnings become more expensive then.

C.U. Nano-offered

Quotation:

Quotation of Nano-offered

(or even even far cannons exchanges works by P2P and put the strange user forward in his WLAN only as protection statement), that is finally debt, if the following warnings become more expensive then.

Hardly believe I, or how the opposite side wants to prove ever?
The foreign user could be also a representative of the warning industry rumfhrt and the open WLANs searches and over it P2P briefly operates around cases to generate? Do not find so wrong I that, as long as there are special companies those in P2P hangs up itself and as one is to prove?

Hello together,

here to reread:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...s-1014360.html

Unfortunately the merry Abzocke continues by those relevantly admitted law mongers:

Quotation:

It does not cling however as an author, therefore the music label does not have a requirement on damage replacement. As disturbers it must ensure however that the Rechtsverletztung cannot repeat itself (omission). And because this requirement of the plaintiff is justified, the deplored one has to bear the cost of the warning.

In its press release of 12. May had still marked the BGH that into the available case covering of the warning fees valid since 2008 would probably have reached on 100 euro. In the grounds such a reference is missing, so that covering on 100 euro, hoped for of many, was not confirmed with warnings because of only a Songs by the BGH.

Kind regards from Bavaria