Warning answer legal instruction episode 41 law podcast legal instruction

The "RightInstruction is a monthly law podcast dedicated to law and its impact on modern technologies and society.

Behind the Podcast stand the radio journalist Marcus judge as well as the attorney Dr. Thomas Schwenke. Both have previously conducted many radio interviews together. Found it too bad to always have to stop after 5 minutes. From this the idea of the "Rechtsbelehrung" (legal instruction) a podcast in which interesting legal topics can be discussed in more detail.

While attorney Schwenke explains the legal background, Marcus Richter leads through the show and ensures with his questions and technical explanations that the podcast remains understandable even for non-lawyers. To this end, they like to invite interesting guests to also learn more themselves about the wide worlds of technology and law.

This mixture inspires about 13.000 subscribers per episode, for which the two podcast hosts are very grateful (as well as for being nominated for the Klicksafe Award as part of the Grimme Online Awards 2017).

Abmahnbeantworter – Legal Instruction Episode 41 (Law Podcast)

The Abmahnbeantworter is a tool that can be used to create responses to file-sharing warning letters. This should make it easier for unjustified warning letters to be countered. The cease-and-desist letter was published by the Forderverein freie Netze (Freifunk) and the Chaos Computer Club (CCC).

On the side of the legal profession, the Abmahnbeantworter has been received in part very negative. The following was criticized.a., that the respondents are hardly helped by the answering letter and that they can even harm themselves.

This controversy was an occasion for us not only to look at the Abmahnbeantworter, but also to talk about the current status of file-sharing warnings. For this we invited the lawyer Beata Hubrig (Twitter), who u.a. represents warned freifunker and has significantly contributed to the Abmahnbeantworter.

Attorney Niklas Plutte Attorney Beata Hubrig

A rather critical view is expressed by lawyer Niklas Plutte (Twitter, podcast), who himself represents clients in file-sharing cases. According to him, every case is different and the defense of cease-and-desist letters cannot be effectively handled by an online generator.

We would like to thank our guests for a competent, but also controversial discussion. We now know about the political signal of the warning letter responder, its possibilities, but also limits, which result from the complicated legal situation.

Notice: You can also talk to Beata Hubrig about the Abmahnbeantworter on the 33. Congress of the Chaos Computer Club in the context of the talk "Kampf dem Abmahnunwesen", on 27. December 2016 at 16:30, discuss.

– 00:00:00 – Introduction of the guests and the topic – 00:06:30 – File sharing, IP addresses as identifiers and the function of warning letters. – 00:10:00 – How does the "warning industry" work, why does it have a bad reputation and what does it cost to defend against warning letters. – 00:14:00 – Incapacitation with text modules and the question of whether everyone should be able to understand warnings even without a law degree. – 00:26:00 – Why is the owner of the connection liable for legal violations that he did not commit?? – 00:39:00 – Cease and desist letter, its modification and possible consequences in the future? 00:41:50 – "Mc Fadden vs Sony". Nonsensical obligations for user identification. 01:02:00 – Interference liability. The secondary burden of proof. – 01:16:00 – Abmahnbeantworter, its functions, possibilities and goals. 01:30:00 – Criticism of the warning answering service. Possible negative consequences for users. – 01:54:00 – Warning letter responders as a political statement

Mentioned consequences

Further links

Addressed sources, cases, laws and judgments:

– ECJ, 15.09.2016 – C-484/14 ("Mc Fadden vs Sony Music") – ECJ on the "Stoererhaftung" (Breach of Duty of Care) of the operator of an open WLAN network. – BGH, 06.10.2016 – I ZR 154/15 – Secondary burden of proof and no obligation of the connection owner to identify the perpetrator.


"I was on vacation." is actually no longer an effective argument. There are technologies to access his computer from anywhere (remote desktop, VNC) or to access the torrent programs (WebUI). In addition, there is also the automatic download via RSS feeds.

None of the podcasters is obligated to anything here, Mr. Richter could have simply said "Mr. Schwenke is not here, why is none of your business", because that's exactly how it is. Everything beyond that is pure friendliness.

I'm sure the podcasters are especially motivated by friendly feedback like yours to produce more elaborate podcasts for us in the future. #Ironietag

I think the original comment referred to the argument of the recipients of the warning and should not be interpreted as an affront to dr. Swivel to be thought.

Haha, I didn't take it as an affront either, but actually as a warning for neglecting my podcast duties. Thanks for the hint! ?

I was standing in front of students at the university and because it is not easy to find an appointment with four people, I suspended. Especially since I would have much less to say in this field than our guests. A vacation does not hold me against it from the Podcasten🙂 S. Episode 33 https://rechtsbelehrung.com/rueck-view-and-great-hear-survey-legal-instruction-episode-33-law-podcast/

You are all wrong. My argument referred to the argument that you can not have made the warned download yourself, because you were on vacation and not at home.

It's too late at night.

Correction: my NOTE referred to the argument….

I was a bit disappointed with today's episode, if I may be frank.

The conversation between the guests was in parts a bit "passive-aggressive", which did not help my understanding as a listener at all. I just "got off" on it in stretches. All in all maybe not your best episode, but I would like to thank you of course nevertheless for your trouble, the one or other I could already "take along" in detail. I look forward to the next episode, then hopefully again in full occupation.

Unfortunately a weak performance of the Koleggin Hubrig. She does not want to evaluate the matter politically, but legally, but in the end argues too mostly ideologically. Whereby I basically stand on their side.

By the way, the owner of a car is liable for damages caused by third parties with the car. Called holder liability. It's in the law. There you need no complicity construction. But there would be no need for an explicit standardized liability of the owner, because all this follows the recognized principle that the one who exercises control over potentially dangerous things is subject to a particularly strict standard of liability. I also think this rating is basically correct. Whether this is also the case with internet connections is another question. I think in comparison to the car, the differences are obvious and an injury to life and health is a higher value of protection than the violation of copyrights. However, it could look different with the distribution of child pornography. So the question is definitely more controversial than one might think at first glance.

The warning industry has, according to my observation, but anyway drained itself dry. Because because of her thorough work, hardly anyone is so naive anymore and downloads blockbusters at file sharing clients. For commercial W-Lan operators it looks possibly different. There is however the legislator in demand.

The advice not to give a cease-and-desist declaration if the person being warned has committed the copyright infringement is adventurous, to say the least. With the dwindling margins of the warning industry, this is a found food, in order to flay again a few fees.

Too bad, I am used to better things from you guys!

This was my first episode of legal instruction, as I was recently warned off and tried to help myself with the warning answering service. So the theme fit perfectly.

I had likewise the conception that with the warning answering machine the thing clearly facilitate and/or. in the best case would keep completely from the neck. Nevertheless I had the generated letter confirmed by a lawyer again. A paragraph was changed thereby. The consultation has cost 80€.

The law firm from Munich has recognized the letter as a warning reply and has completely disassembled it. Whether justified or not, since I as a layman was at the end of my self-help, I would have had to consult a lawyer again. This time with the lawyer drafting a situation-related letter. The costs for this would certainly have been a multiple of the 80€ for an hour's consultation. And then it is still not guaranteed that the case would have ended with it and further costs come on me. From this consideration, I then considered a payment of 490€ plus modified cease-and-desist letter generated by me to be more economical. In addition, such a situation simply sucks the life energy out of you. As was said in the podcast, you want to get rid of the thing as soon as possible.

The warning answering machine gives the impression of an effective tool, which in my case had rather the opposite effect. The statement that it should help to solve problems even without a lawyer I can also not confirm, because it has brought the case to a legal level, which I could see through even less than the initial letter. If I had had a lawyer write a letter directly, it would probably have cost me more, but the effect might have been better, I don't know. However, it leaves an insipid aftertaste.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: