Germans who watched porn on Redtube told to pay up

[Stavros]

Germans who have accessed porn on Redtube have been contacted by a law firm acting on behalf of the owners of the copyright to porn films and warned they face fines of 250 Euros in what is being seen as an important test case. How the firm got the IP addresses of the users is one of the contentious issues...

from the Guardian:

Thousands of Germans get warning letters for watching copyrighted porn

Letters ask recipients to pay €250 fine for watching films on streaming website RedTube.com


It is the kind of letter that might well lead to a distinctly uncomfortable conversation around the breakfast table: this month, between 20,000 and 30,000 German households received legal warnings for having viewed copyrighted pornographic films via the streaming website RedTube.com.
Initially, it had been assumed that a court error had led to the sending of the letters, which ask for the payment of a €250 fine to the Swiss media agent that claims to hold copyright for the films, including Amanda's Secret, Miriam's Adventure and Glamour Show Girls. But now the legal firm behind the warnings says it plans to look into more infringements on porn streaming sites in the coming year. "Redtube was more like a test balloon," Thomas Urmann of U+C told Welt am Sonntag newspaper.


Were the Bavarian law firm to succeed, it would set a worldwide precedent. In the past, streaming sites have been able to circumvent copyright law, as no copy of the original work is created. But U+C, which specialises in file-sharing cases, argue that viewing clips on streaming sites can constitute a proliferation of copyrighted material since a tiny copy of the file is created in the memory of their computer.
Urmann said the letter had elicited responses from hundreds of internet user households, some of them from irate wives and partners. "Most of the conversations, however, have been very factual and businesslike."
RedTube's Alex Taylor released a statement saying: "RedTube stands by its firm opinion that these letters are completely unfounded and that they violate the rights of those who received it in a very serious manner," describing the court's actions as blackmail and a violation of privacy.
The copyright lawyer Christian Solmecke told the Guardian that there was not only "no legal basis" for the fines, but that it was possible that the law firm behind the letters may have broken the law: "It is hard to imagine how the IP addresses of the users could have been obtained on a legal basis."
He suggests that the Cologne state court that handed out the IP addresses to U+C law firm only did so in the mistaken belief that RedTube.com was a file-sharing site like BitTorrent. Furthermore, research by online news portal heise.de suggests that those users who received the warning were redirected to the copyrighted clips without their knowledge, in what the site calls a "computer scam".
Solmecke said he had received thousands of calls from people unsure whether to pay the fine or not. "Most of them remember having accessed RedTube.com in the past, though none of them had very clear recollections about the titles and storylines of the films they had watched."


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...pyrighted-porn

[Kevin Dong]

Kevin Dong approved

[danthepoetman]

Very interresting. But it's not going to work. How should the people know who has a copyright for one clip or another? Why should they believe that Redtube, or any other site doesn't have the rights? The law firm should be able to prove that each person who watched a copyrighted film didn't know Redtube had no right to stream it. Was there really a court judgement allowing such billing? It would seem quite surprising, and I would rather think that it's probably some kind of mix up, as is suggested in the article. Or if it is not so, I can't imagine such a decision not being overturned in a higher court, be there a probable appeal.
It's not that I don't approve the measure, but I don't think it's practicable.

[Stavros]

If it can be done because it is practicable, but can it be done to everyone who downloads illegal content? The American example in the link below suggests that prosecuting individuals is costly and backfires on producers, although there have been well-known cases of people being sued, in one case for $220,000, and there might be a difference between a teenager downloading tracks from a new album to someone downloading thousands and then re-selling them on another website or offering them for free in return for advertising.

The alternative is to use data gathered by ISP providers and ask them to intervene and issue warnings to customers and cut them off if they persist in downloading material from known torrent sites such as (now defunct) megaupload and thepiratebay. But I am still not sure what the legality is of obtaining data from ISPs on web visits, although there must be a legal argument for it if the police believe, for example, that illegal trading is going on. As for the Germans, I find it hard to believe people going to Redtube are not aware they did not produce the films whose extracts they show, and that they do not have permission from the producers to show it. You would have to be pretty naive not to know that the films are available at a price on the sites they originate from. Its not as if you are either warned when visiting a tube site or asked to pay a small fee or register to use it.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...lly-downloaded

[danthepoetman]

This makes a lot of sense, Stavros; making commerce of it is largely different from simple occasional downloads. As to the person who downloads being most probably aware of the illegality of the gesture, I agree with you. But in court, you have to prove an intention. That's why it seems difficult to imagine such suits working against particulars rather than against the site itself.
You're also right: I'm sure that with sufficent elements of suspicion, they can have a warrent to get private infos from the providers. But on the simple basis of some private, occasional downloads, as related by the article? That seems indeed more doubtful...

[bluesoul]

there is in no way this is going to work. they already tried this with mp3s and only ended up fining a mom and the ocassional kid all concluding with them finally changing their tune

another problem is that they don't understand the infrastructure and landscape of piracy. suing the occasional random joe for plopping into a tubesite is exactly like going for the occasional drug user who buys for a few bags of his favorite narcotic from the popular streetdealer whilst behind the scenes you have an entire cartel making sure the market is well stocked. eventually, drug user 1 is replaced by another newb in the scene asking "where can i get my drugs?"

in fact, in the "fantasized" event they do even shutdown a bunch of tubesites, i only see others (or the same ones) coming back online with a more secure design to protect their user base, you know, exactly like the back online and better secure, mega upload

[bluesoul]

turns out what i suspected ain't gonna work, ain't working. in fact, turns out the ones serving the copyright claims are trolls

[SammiValentine]

in fact, in the "fantasized" event they do even shutdown a bunch of tubesites, i only see others (or the same ones) coming back online with a more secure design to protect their user base, you know, exactly like the back online and better secure, mega upload

Sorry to butt in but............lol at kimble dotcom !! He is just one of those people who has to cheat in life to get anywhere. He was shit at quake2, 1v1, rocket arena2 when we was "youngsters" on barrysworld servers. So shit he resorted to having an aimbot coded, maybe he coded it himself(?)
must be some brains in that cranium... and here we are.... 16 years later What a fucking spud head. GG WP.

Apologies, rant over. Carry on

[bi-smooth]

are the 20.000 the ones that downloaded films from redtube? or are they the ones that just watched the clips without downloading the films?

[Jamie French]

I'm an adult producer and a musician so I can say without any speculation where folks ought to stand on this issue. Busting some schmuck for downloading music = bad. Anyone who is earnest about making music will be making it whether they get paid or not and live performance will always be a viable form of income. The music business model has simply changed with the times. There is a less profitable platform on which to profit from music making, but a lot of good comes with the loss in the form of independent, non-homogenous musical offerings made at an accessible grass roots level.

Porn on the other hand... there's is no freakin' reason to make porn other than to profit from it, (or to have a never watched personal copy of a shitilly executed home movie made by you and your gross wife, hidden away in a closet for years.)

They'll never stop online theft but I'll definitely root for folks who would act as a thorn in the side those who insist that I shouldn't be able to pay rent by providing a service people love. I hope this German thing goes far. When you peel back all the layers the thief has to answer to ME, not Redtube, not a lawyer, not his wife or family. Fuckin' ME. Continue to justify your theft then be prepared to make your own shitty porn cause that's the only option you'll have left.

Cameras are expensive, start saving up. (It'll be easy with all the money you save on free porn.)