Slashdot Mirror


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."

50 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. German commies by slashdotlurker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bush should break off diplomatic relations with such an evil country. That will show them ...

    1. Re:German commies by lbmouse · · Score: 4, Funny

      "German prosecutors only pursue larger-scale file sharers. Bush attacks Paraguay."

  2. logic error by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The RIAA is using civil suits.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:logic error by Icegryphon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which takes up time in court, Which wastes tax money, Which you and I pay.

    2. Re:logic error by Gewalt · · Score: 2

      What's the RIA of AMERICA got to do with GERMANY? ...just curious...

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    3. Re:logic error by The+Moof · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't think that our borders will stop the RIAA from attempting to impose their will across the globe.

    4. Re:logic error by pha7boy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which takes up time in court, Which wastes tax money, Which you and I pay.

      Sorry, but that is irrelevant. If you suggest that we should create a system in which only "fair" lawsuits could be brought to court, I'd ask you who would decide which is fair.

      In any case, the court can always ask the looser to pay court costs if they decide that the lawsuit had no merits.

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    5. Re:logic error by Elektroschock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The criminal sanctions are the wrong instrument. Copyright infringement is a matter of civil enforcement, not criminal enforcement. You cannot spam the Staatsanwaltschaften with copyright infringement.

      The RIAA works hard to get the IPRED2 directive adopted which would make criminal sanctions more widely available, effectively messing up the criminal penalty system for the sake of a dying Hollywood movie industry that already lost the war.

      It is like the SS who hanged ordinary citizens on the fly who didn't want to defend their Fuhrer until the Endsieg and combat Russian tanks. We are close to that Endsieg of the movie industry. It is about to destroy the foundations of the internet and rule of law just to prevent creative destruction that is about to happen anyhow.

    6. Re:logic error by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're backing off in Germany because many people don't enjoy viewing BDSM and scheisse movies as the prosecution presents their evidence.

    7. Re:logic error by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correct.
      But to sue somebody, they have to know whom.

      So what they do in Germany, they send the IP adress of a suppost pirate to the prosecuters, who investigate the matter. While doing this they ask the internet providers for the identity of the person who used that IP address at that time.
      In most cases, they stop investigating once they come to the conclusion that no crime was commited.

      Now the lawyers of the recording industry get the opportunity to look into the files of the prosecuters, get the information of the suspected pirate and sue him in a civil case.

    8. Re:logic error by SoVeryTired · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, given that the RIAA have attempted to sue people who don't own a computer, I'd be inclined to disagree...

      --
      Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    9. Re:logic error by swabeui · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. We either have a system or we don't. Allowing general exceptions because we don't like it is a slippery slope. On the other hand, I think they may be onto something here. Right now a large number of people (dare I say majority) feel the RIAA is just a bully group picking on the weak. The RIAA will not run out of people to sue, they can find 100 people tomorrow based on these limits. But.. BUT! Instead of people feeling they are picking on the weak, they will see the defendant as stupid for sharing so much. Think about it... if you are sharing 200 movies or 3000 songs, you deserve to get caught and it is not going to happen by accident.

    10. Re:logic error by BPPG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is entirely within your power to stop the RIAA suits as well.

      Turn off your file-sharing software.

      What about legitimate file-sharing, such as creative commons, open source, and free as in free beer content? And how exactly do you define "File sharing". File sharing can be done through anything as simple as e-mail or ftp.

      The RIAA's been known to target the most trivial instances of file sharing, and in some cases you don't even need a computer

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    11. Re:logic error by haystor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure the RIAA is guilty of abuses. They should be punished.

      There are legitimate uses of file sharing. They should not be prohibited.

      There is an enormous population of people using p2p software to copy movies, music and software with no plans to ever pay the producers for what they use. This should at least be acknowledged.

      It is the people in that third group provoking companies to lash out.

      I personally have taken a different course and just don't buy what isn't worth buying. I'll do without. I'm not entitled to every song I kind of like but not enough to pay for.

      Now, please proceed to mod me down again. I'm as on topic as anyone else in Slashdot, but I'm disagreeing with you and that is usually enough.

      --
      t
    12. Re:logic error by crabboy.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why should only the looser pay? What about the tighter??? This is fricking tension discrimination!!!

      --
      The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money
    13. Re:logic error by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is an enormous population of people using p2p software to copy movies, music and software with no plans to ever pay the producers for what they use. This should at least be acknowledged.

      An enormous population? No. That cannot be acknowledged until it has been proven. The RIAA, for example, claimed that billions of songs were being illegally downloaded a month. Billions, with a B. A couple of months later, they reported that their profits grew a few percent from the previous year.

      I can easily picture there are people out there downloading stuff and never paying for it. But lots of people? No, I can't. If all the P2P traffic out there was really about avoiding paying money to producers, you'd think it'd correlate to some actual measurable numbers somewhere. Until that happens, it's just a baseless accusation.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    14. Re:logic error by DHalcyon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, and if the english summaries of this were actually done properly, people wouldn't be confused like this. If you can read german, do yourself a favor and read up on this on a german website.

      For a civil suit, you need to know who to sue. An IP address only won't fly for that in germany - you need identities. But the ISPs are not giving out customer details to private companies. So what the industry does is filing a criminal suit first, so the police has to investigate, subpoenaing the infringers identity from the ISP. Then, the criminal suit is retracted - as there has been no commercial infringment, so there's no success to be found there - but because of court documentation, the infringers name, address etc. are still known to the RIAAish organization. They then use this information for filing a civil suit. The new policy closes this loophole. You could still be prosecuted for downloading even one song, but there is now pretty much no way to get your IP unless you're _probably_ guilty commercial copyright infringment. Where the line is to be drawn is upon the courts to decide. FYI, downloading an only very recently or not yet released movie _does_ probably count as commercial - as it probably hurts the commercial interested of the rightsholder.

      It's overally a quite sane way to go about, given how things are(tm).

    15. Re:logic error by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The anecdotal rate at which I was finding Kazaa (and thereby spyware) on customer computers a few years ago indicates there was a better than 50% chance that a home computer with a broadband connection was being used to get copyrighted media via P2P.

      Okay. Correlate that with actual money not being spent.

      Since we're using anecdotal evidence here, I'll throw some in on my own. I know lots of dudes that are fully capable of downloading movies, games, music, you name it. They know how. They have the means. Some of them even have a theater system set up so they can enjoy that content rather luxuriously. Of all those dudes, and I'm talking 20'ish here, only one of them actually avoids spending money on those things because he can get them on the net. The rest? They don't care. They run out and get the DVD or run to iTunes or whatever. Why? Heck, I dunno. They each probably have their own reasons. It doesn't matter. They're spending their money.

      I'll tell you this much, though: The big fear is that getting this stuff for free will mean nobody pays for content. Okay, understandable, right? Then I have to ask this: If coffee, for example, is so easy and cheap to get, why are chains that sell coffee for $3 a cup so popular? Heck, why are juice places that sell 32oz carrot juices for $5 so popular? The United States, at least, cannot easily be generalized as being populated by 300 million tightwads.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  3. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    welcome our German overlords.
    Wait, what?

    1. Re:I, for one, by snoyberg · · Score: 5, Funny

      France, is that you?

      --
      Thank God for evolution.
  4. Signed/Unsigned tags by Spatial · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Signed/Unsigned tags by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Funny

      Articles tagged signed can become negative.

      Articles tagged unsigned however, can become twice as positive as signed articles.

      Capiche?

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:Signed/Unsigned tags by Gewalt · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll float you on that.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    3. Re:Signed/Unsigned tags by norminator · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think the system needs to be fixed.

    4. Re:Signed/Unsigned tags by znerk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the system needs to be fixed.

      Now that's funny! Too bad most moderators will only hear the "whooshing" as it goes way over their heads...

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  5. "In return" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    1. Re:"In return" by Wdi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent up. This is the only relevant post so far.

      There will be a new law which gives copyright holders the tools to request infringer user data directly from ISPs which are required to store it for some time. Before that, it was not possible to get this data without a criminal warrant due to personal data protection laws, and so an enormous case load resulted for the public prosecutors. They do not want to play along any longer for smaller cases where no criminal trial will ultimately result. Copyright holders are of course still eligible for compensation by infringers by means of a civil suit. This whole process has just been streamlined. That is all. No free passes for anybody.

  6. Re:First they came by Gewalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:In other news... by Sneftel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:First they came by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  9. Only in one part of Germany by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:In other news... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  11. stupid analogy by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:stupid analogy by knight24k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And whenever someone uses this stupid statement I always like to point out that if this was truly the case, why do the geeks get mad when someone takes the code to Linux and uses it in an appliance without posting modified source? Can't have it both ways.. sorry.

      And we don't call it theft now do we? Copyright Infringement != theft. You want to label illegal downloading Copyright Infringement, do so. Don't call it theft.

      In both the case of the car being stolen and the 100 million dollar movie being pirated what is REALLY being stolen is the time and money of the people who made them/owned them. You don't get a free pass just because you can easily make a copy.

      Really? I notice all those DVDs of the movie I just downloaded still being sold at WalMart, so exactly whose time did I steal if the product is being sold everywhere? I also notice the back wall of Blockbuster filled with that same movie and being rented repeatedly. Again, whose time is being stolen? A downloaded movie != a lost sale and may, in fact, result in more sales of not only the movie in question but associated merchandise. Point is, no one knows and no one can claim to know what, if any, impact downloads have.

      How about this scenario. Instead of going to the theater or downloading or renting I just wait for it to come on cable for free. I pay nothing extra for it since I pay for cable every month, yet the end result is the same. I did not buy the CD, rent it or download it yet the effect is the same so I have stolen those people's time? Yes, I am well aware that the cable company pays the studios, but I paid the same amount as if I downloaded it. You cannot claim that one behavior steals time and the other does not.

      Does it make downloading right? No, but please spare me the theft argument. No one is being deprived of anything or has had anything, including time, stolen. These movies make millions in profit so all the associated people that worked on it were more than adequately compensated for their time. It still makes it wrong, IMO, but don't try to compare it with theft.

  12. Anti-equivocation and conflation post by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Interview with the district attorney by nkuttler · · Score: 2, Informative

    part 1 and part 2. Beware, google translation ahead.

  14. Re:It's OK by Miseph · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  15. This must be what JFK was talking about by Moleculo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ich bin ein Berliner. Or, at least my IP is.

  16. Summary of TFA's source by stsp · · Score: 5, Informative
    English summary of TFA's source, an interview with chief prosecutor of the German state North Rhine-Westphalia for all ye non-German speakers here:
    • He is saying that they primarily want to focus their resources on prosecuting copyright violations which have a commercial background.
    • They consider 3.000 illegally shared audio files and 200 illegally shared movie files lower bounds for commercial background, respectively.
    • He is saying that they derived these numbers from the assumption that, on average, an audio file was worth 1 euro, and a movie file was worth 15 euro, resulting in commercial damages of 3.000 euro each.
    • He's saying that, inspite of this, illegally sharing copyrighted material is still illegal.
    • Furthermore, he states that in his jurisdiction (the biggest one of three total in North-Rhine Westphalia), there were around 25.000 cases related to copyright infringement filed in court within the first half of 2008.
    • He is saying that in his experience, most of these cases get filed to get at the identity of people behind IP addresses in order to sue them for damages.
    • He's saying that network operators charge the prosecutors (that's him) 17 euro per hour for matching up IP addresses to people. They can do this according to German law.
    • He also states that all these cases add considerable overhead to their day-to-day operations because they are binding a lot of their resources.
    • While he's saying that copyright infringement is to be considered a criminal act, he also says that it is a lesser criminal act than others.
    • The interviewer compares filesharing to consuming Cannabis, which the interviewer says is being treated similarly. The interviewer says that both copyright infringement and consuming Cannabis were primarily done by younger people.
    • The chief ackknowledges the interviewer's remark that both of these are primarily done by younger people. He says that juvenile behaviour should not be criminalised in each and every case, and that focusing their entire resources on such cases was out of proportion.
  17. Re:Strange question by L+Boom · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  18. No logic error by Timosch · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  19. Contributions to RIAA/MPAA by h8sg8s · · Score: 2, Informative

    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..
  20. Re:First they came by nabsltd · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  21. Re:First they came by flappinbooger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  22. Re:I'm safe! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!
  23. Re:First they came by GTRacer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!
  24. Germans doing Republicans a favor. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Germans doing Republicans a favor. by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the actual actors, directors and set workers may lean democratic, but I posit that the actual owners lean heavily to the Republicans. You know, companies like General Electric and so on. Board members, people like that. The sort of people that see movies and songs as commodities, not as artworks. The people behind the RIAA and MPAA, who constantly lobby for longer copyright protections.

      It isn't much different in newspapers either. The reporters may be more liberal and social-minded, but the owners often are Authoritarian and will lean on the editorial staff to ensure that the peons don't rock the boat.

      All you are doing is repeating an old canard, one that has been stated for so long that "everyone knows" without even stopping to consider who "everyone" is. Cheers!

  25. Re:John McCain: Warmonger +1, Informative by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  26. not a logic error by wzzzzrd · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.