| | engineer has given good advice.
There is often a structure behind it:
Usually the letter from the lawyer will begin with mentioning whose copyrights they represent, they mention when the files have been supposedly shared revealing the IP address that points to the addressee.
They state they have used the discovery procedures according to § 101 Abs.9 UrhG (German copy right law)
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__101.html
and forced the internet service provider to divulge the user data.
They go on saying that as the owner of the data connection you have civil liability for any copyright infringements perpetrated via this connection. The letter continues affirming that they have a claim for a pecuniary cease and desist promise, for damages and elimination of the file.
They demand that the file be eliminated and that you issue the cease and desist declaration. In order to make it easy, they have annexed a pre-formulated letter to that effect which you have just to sign within a short dead line.
After that they explain that according to § 97a Abs.1 UrhG
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__97a.html
you have to pay for the costs of the lawyer. As value of claim they cite an amount of, for example, € 25.000,00. They say that § 97a Abs.2 UrhG
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__97a.html
is not applicable as this is not a bottom-of-the-line case.
Further, they remind you that their client can claim damages and, finally, offer the following settlement:
Vergleichsangebot
„Namens und im Auftrag unserer Mandantschaft können wir Ihnen allerdings anbieten, dass durch Zahlung eines einmaligen Betrages in Höhe von
650,00 € und Abgabe der anliegenden Unterlassungserklärung, die Angelegenheit zivilrechtlich erledigt ist.
Mit der Zahlung dieses pauschalen Betrages und gleichzeitiger Abgabe der Unterlassungserklärung sind alle Schadensersatzansprüche aus der Rechtsverletzung (§97 UrhG) sowie alle anwaltlichen Gebühren abgegolten. Davon umfasst sind insbesondere
• die Kosten der Abmahnung einschließlich der Geltendmachung der Unterlassungs- und Schadensersatzansprüche,
• die Anwalts- und Gerichtskosten des Verfahrens vor dem LG Köln
• die Kosten der Ermittlungsfirma zur Feststellung der Rechtsverletzung
• die Aufwendungen, die Ihrem Provider gemäß § 101 Abs.2 UrhG zu erstatten waren.”
They close with a deadline for payment and bank account details.
As engineer warned, one should not prematurely and unreflectedly sign the enclosed letter. Doing so would be admitting and acknowledging liability also with regard to the legal fees. One would be bound for 30 years without taking into account possible changes in law.
On the other hand, staying passive could provoke more costs if the claimant takes the next step and files for injunctive relief. That is why it is usually prudent to issue the cease and desist statement in a modified form.
In this context, it is worth pointing to a recent decision of the Federal civil Court (BGH, Urt. v. 12. 5. 2010 – I ZR 121/08) which was much publicised.
In this case the BGH ruled that not securing one’s W-Lan access point can result in being liable for such cease and desist claims. In this particular case the defendant was accused of a similar file sharing copy right infringemen. The plaintiff demanded a cease and desist promise and additional damages. The defendant was in the lucky position that he could prove that, at the time of infringement, he was actually on vacation and therefore could not have been the perpetrator. On the downside, however, his W-Lan access point was unsecured. The BGH held him therefore liable for having to grant the cease and desist promise, but rejected claims for damages. |
Recent Bloggers 
trust7 
VAK 
trust 7 
Ame Elliott 
Katja Ponert 
Rebecca Müller 
Andreas von der Heydt