Sharing 2,999 Songs, 199 Movies Is Safe In Germany
unassimilatible writes "Torrentfreak is reporting that German prosecutors will now only pursue larger-scale file sharers on the Internet, as they are tired of being the entertainment industry's profit collector. 'Prosecutors in a German state have announced they will refuse to entertain the majority of file-sharing lawsuits in [the] future. It appears that only commercial-scale copyright infringers will be pursued, with those sharing under 3,000 music tracks and 200 movies dropping under the prosecution radar.' And the money quote: 'It seems that the legal system in Germany has had enough of this "abuse" of the criminal law system for "civil" monetary gain.' If only an American politician would make this point. Why should taxpayers underwrite their government becoming enforcers for the entertainment industry? Then again, when you see how much politicians are being paid, an answer suggests itself."
Bush should break off diplomatic relations with such an evil country. That will show them ...
The RIAA is using civil suits.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
welcome our German overlords.
Wait, what?
What on Earth do those mean? When I click on them, I still don't see any relationship between the articles that've been tagged with them.
Beginning next month, copyright holders can just ask ISPs directly for the address of filesharers, so they don't need the public prosecutor anymore. Until then, having the public prosecutor investigate copyright infringement was the only way to get the name and address of the filesharer. No case was actually pursued. It was always just a vehicle to get the necessary information for a civil suit (actually just a way to get people to sign cease-and-desist declarations and pay up: The civil suit also rarely goes to court).
s/downloaded/shared
come on people, its about distributing, not obtaining, it's ALWAYS about sharing, NEVER about downloading. STOP SPREADING THEIR FUD FOR THEM! [/rant]
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Well, sure. Why should taxpayers underwrite their government becoming enforcers for car owners?
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
OTOH, it doesn't really take much to be up to 200 "movies".
A nice long running single TV series will get you to that point.
My current total is up to about 2200.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Germany is a federal state, comprised of multiple independent states with their own governments. According to TFA, this only counts for prosecutors from the Nort-Rhine Westphalia.
Come on. Learn a little something about the rest of the world.
Your argument would actually have merit if there were a private organization (say, the Vehicle Owner's Association of Germany or some such) that was filing suit against thousands upon thousands of individuals with at best flimsy evidence. Furthermore, if numbered among their victims were people that were bedridden, paralyzed, legless or otherwise physically unable to drive a car, and if they continued to pursue those cases when clear evidence was presented that the person in question could not possibly, under any conditions, be the perpetrator then yes, you might have a point.
Court time is a limited resource, and prosectors in Germany are making the point that it shouldn't be spent on hundreds or thousands of frivolous lawsuits. Not all crimes are the same, and some "crimes" have no business in court, particularly when they're only there as part of a multinational private-sector terror campaign having nothing to do with redress of grievance.
The Courts have better things to do.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You're comparing theft of actual property with making duplicates of intellectual property.
In the former case, you deprive the owner use of said property. In the latter, the owner still has the property.
The slippery slope is actually people like you making stupid analogies about this kind of thing, prompting ever more draconian laws and malicious prosecution.
I've already seen it:
This is akin to the local sheriff saying he will no longer prosecute muggings where the victim did not go to the hospital.
This equivocations seem to say that these people want *all* the laws enforced without any regard to a prioritizing by benefit to society.
The key they mentioned was "criminal law for monetary GAIN."
They are right in refusing to criminally prosecute citizens where no appreciable harm was incurred for the monetary enrichment of a single party. Its like watching a car speeding a little but otherwise safely and *NOT* pulling them over and giving them a ticket.
There isn't a single country in the world in which you would want all the laws enforced consistently.
part 1 and part 2. Beware, google translation ahead.
Yeah, when we shot or hanged all of the leaders, took all of the money from the banks, looted the museums and split the entire country in half for almost 50 years it was just a slap on the wrist.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Ich bin ein Berliner. Or, at least my IP is.
It's even trickier: Universal recently argued that there is effectively no such thing as Fair Use and that any use is potentially infringement.
The reason? They want to avoid liability for being sued over frivolous lawsuits. If Fair Use is inherently questionable, then they can sue anyone they want whenever they want without consequence while they stick ordinary people with huge legal fees and no chance of recovering them from the people who dragged them into court in the first place. The whole point, of course, is simple intimidation.
Yes, they do (and also their German version), but they need to get the names behind the IP addresses. So they start a criminal trial, ask the police for the IP data, then start their civil law suit and let the criminal case go to hell. That is exactly what this stuff is about. You should have RTFA.
Amazing that the RIAA/MPAA don't "own" more of the laws in the US with their contribution record. Democrats: $11,163,030 Republicans: $2,104,737 I had always assumed the "Law and Order" party (Republicans) would be the major force and benefactor of the industry. I'm going to have to re-think my support based on these numbers. Five to one contribution rate over the GOP is a pretty telling statistic against the Democrats..
Organization? You must be joking..
I guess German broadband speeds aren't as good as those in Japan or Finland.
At 60Mbps, you could keep 200 torrents running at better than 30KB/sec. That's only 7 hours to download a 2-hour movie at the normal size that most people use with MPEG-4 compression.
They came first for those who downloaded 3000 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 1000 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 100 songs, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for those who downloaded 1 song, and I didn't speak up because I didn't download any.
Then they came for me,
And everyone complained because I stopped seeding the torrents
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Soviet General: "My troops get 2000 calories of food every day!"
American General: "My troops get 4000 calories of food every day!"
Soviet General: "Nonsense! Nobody can eat that much of potatoes!"
Soviet General: "My troops have 200GB of films!"
American General: "My troops have 400GB of films!"
Soviet General: "Nonsense! Nobody can wank that much!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Apples and oranges my friend, but, nice try.
In OS, the plan was to transfer money (sub-cent fractions) from the bank's customers into a central account and let them aggregate. Ignoring plot holes like simply editing the account balance, money in this system can only be in one account at a time. It can go to Peter & friends, the customers, the bank, or the void, but not to more than one at once.
File sharing is making clones, at near-zero cost of something that can very well exist in multiple places at once, without affecting its original owner's or creator's ability to use it.
Note: I understand why unauthorised sharing can be bad, and is immoral. I also see that we desperately need a new system of content distribution that takes into account the new model presented by P2P and customers being able to choose exactly what they want on their own and being able to make informed decisions without the need for a content cartel to tell them how to choose.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Why? Bush should say something about how terrible it is, and do absolutely nothing. Let's face it - the entertainment industry is not exactly packed with Republicans these days. Republicans need to be about as friendly to the entertainment business as the entertainment business is to coal and nuclear. If the whole world and all of your allies want you to let your political enemies be driven out of business by too much copying, why should you really stop them? Come on liberals, copy away. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but its still a weakling compared to the greenback
This is my sig.
This reads like a Martian found a Thesaurus and a copy of English: the Journal of Literary Criticism and then got stoned on too much Dr. Pepper.
The entire point of communication is to transfer ideas. This is just a really bad attempt at that. It's like someone juggling chainsaws as an attempt to build a house.
I drank what? -- Socrates
The RIAA is using civil suits.
In germany, the RIAA abuses the criminal courts to get the ID of file sharers. They file a criminal report on which the authorities have to act. Then they demand access to the records in order to obtain the identity of the "terrorist". Criminal charges are dropped in 99.9% of all cases, but the RIAA has the identity and files a civil suit.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.