Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

German Prosecutors Won't Help RIAA Counterpart 199

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A German court decision ruled that the European counterpart to the RIAA cannot invoke criminal proceedings over petty file sharing incidents. The goal was to to find out from ISPs the identity of alleged file-sharing subscribers; the requests have been refused as the judge saw the the proceedings as not in the 'public interest', and little or no economic damage was shown to have been caused to the record companies. Offering a few copyright-protected music tracks via a P2P network client was 'a petty offense,' the court declared. Within days, German prosecutors have now indicated that they will no longer permit the use of 'criminal proceedings' to procure subscriber information."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Prosecutors Won't Help RIAA Counterpart

Comments Filter:
  • Threatening Germany (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @01:58PM (#20089625)
    Will they now threaten Germany, as they've threatened Russia (no WTO until AllOfMP3 is destroyed), and Sweden (raid The Pirate Bay, or else we won't like you)?

    What this decision says that's really important is that file sharing isn't the big deal the RIAA affiliated companies -- and Elton John -- make it out to be. And the losses due to a few files shared isn't HUGE AMOUNTS OF DOLLARS, like the RIAA sues for. And that there are other crimes that are far more damaging to society than guaranteeing a profit forever (Sonny Bono Copyright Extension into Eternity Act) for an old industry in a new age. And that the public prosecutors don't work for free for the record industry any longer.

    Nice to hear someone say all that.

  • by DELNI-AA ( 1132369 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:05PM (#20089767)
    >, and Sweden Yes, even more since Swedish courts recently came to the same conclusion as their German counterparts. Freedom means Europe, these days. God knows what RIAA and the Bush administration will do to us!
  • by lilomar ( 1072448 ) <lilomar2525@gmail.com> on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:08PM (#20089819) Homepage
    Sigh, for the last time, Sir Elton John didn't say anything about file shareing. Now go RTFA.
  • by lelitsch ( 31136 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:24PM (#20090135)
    I hope that they try, because German governments tend to not react well to intimidation. But similarly to the US policy of not invading countries that (a) don't have oil and (b) could up a fight, I doubt that the US government is eager to hassle the World's third largest economy.

    On the other hand, this is a decision at the lowest tier of Germany's court system. Unless the RIAA equivalent appeals twice (first to the Landgericht, then to an Oberlandesgericht) and gets smacked down, this doesn't really have any legal binding for other German courts.

    The Heise article makes the interesting point that the prosecutors' offices in see these cases as a waste of time, so they'll probably be even more reluctant to bring charges.

  • by orzetto ( 545509 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:25PM (#20090161)

    "Hooray for Germany" is ok, "Deutschland über alles" not so much.

    ...and why not exactly? It is part of their national anthem and has no Nazi-party origins or connections. Contrary to what WW1 British propaganda said about the Hun, "Deutschland über alles" is not a claim of racial or national superiority, since "alles" means "everything", not "everybody". It was originally meant as "uniting the country is more important than petty state interest" when the country was united in the second half of the 19th century; it is basically a federalist motto.

    Then again, it's in German, and everything in German looks scary... including Geschwindigkeitbegrenzung and Streichholzschächtelchen.

  • by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:29PM (#20090233)
    not really. this comes from the first stanza, but only the third stanza is the actual german national anthem.
  • Thank God (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zatic ( 790028 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:57PM (#20090747)
    Being a German, I am actually surprised to see this. My law lecturer used to complain that over 20000 complaints were filed last year at our local court.

    The complaints never even get as far as to a single court hearing anyway. The mafiaa used to do this for reasons I commented on on another article:

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=253607&cid =19947567 [slashdot.org]
  • by Knuckles ( 8964 ) <knuckles@dantiEULERan.org minus math_god> on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:58PM (#20090763)
    Albeit its older ager (it had been composed by Haydn for the Austrian Emperor, the words as used in the 20th century had been written in 1841, and it had been the anthem of the Weimar republic since 1922) the first stanza of the Deutschlandlied [wikipedia.org] indeed was part of the Nazi anthem, and the "Deutschland über alles" was sung with particular fervency.

    As you said, the words do mean "Germany above everything", but I fail to see how you can find that alright. Your country above your family? Your love? Your honor? It's an evil concept when taken out of its original context (1848 revolutions, when nationalism was liberal and meant freedom from the German monarchs, and progress) and applied to a modern industrial nation, as the Nazis did (when nationalism became utter hell).

    You are wrong in your believe that the words are part of Germany's current national anthem. Due to its mentioned older age, post-war Germany decided to keep the anthem, but not to sing the defiled first stanza. Instead, only the third stanza is sung, "unity and justice and freedom". Freudian slips are frowned upon and for a politician would mean nearly immediate resignation.
  • by Sique ( 173459 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @03:42PM (#20091509) Homepage
    Mozart died penniless, because he was spending his money everywhere. He gambled, and when he and his family went on a way with a coach, there was a second coach accompanying him with his piano, so he could play whenever inspiration got him. He had literally hundreds of toupets, and coats.

    Mozart demanded three florins for a hour of music education he gave. The maid who was working for him and his wife, got 12 florins per annum as a salary. So basicly with half a day of work he made as much as normal people in a year.

    Later one his widow died with a wealth of five million florins, just because of the income from her late husbands work. It was not the income thad made Mozart penniless. ;)
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @04:06PM (#20091929)
    Sir Elton John didn't say anything about file shareing. Now go RTFA.

    Sir Elton said we should shut down the entire Internet for five years, because it was destroying music as he knows it. That includes every independent selling or sharing their music over the Internet. That includes Web-Radio. That includes filesharing.

    He seems to feel that independent artists like Chip Davis (Mannheim Steamroller), Mike Oldfield (Tubular Bells, Ommadawn), and every kid who can't afford a record studio, but can afford a personal computer and a bit of software, should be SOL when it comes to music, as he wants it. Because Sir Elton is a Luddite (his own admission) and has no use for the Internet and all it brings, he sees no reason that anyone else should either. F-You, Elton!

  • by Sique ( 173459 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @04:36PM (#20092489) Homepage
    Mozart was from Salzburg. And at the time he was living, Salzburg was not a part of Austria. But it was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. As a matter of fact I am living in Austria (and in a part of Austria that is austrian or at least habsburgian since the late 14th century).
  • Re:This is great (Score:4, Informative)

    by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray AT beckermanlegal DOT com> on Friday August 03, 2007 @11:01AM (#20101543) Homepage Journal

    Um, the RIAA hasn't been using criminal courts in the US to go after file sharers. So the situation isn't at all analagous.
    Actually I think it is analogous in one sense.

    The RIAA's opening gambit is to get the name and address of the person who paid for an internet access account, and then to sue that person.

    In the US it brings fake copyright infringement lawsuits against "John Does", with no intention of prosecuting those cases, but with the sole aim of getting the name and address information. They bring the action hundreds or thousands of miles from where the John Doe lives and could actually fight back, in a court where they could never get jurisdiction over that John Doe, and they bring on the discovery motion ex parte so that the defendant never finds out about until it's too late. (Process described in my article How the RIAA Litigation Process Works [blogspot.com]). They don't tell the judge it's a fake case. They just pretend it's a regular copyright infringement case, and that this is just some early discovery in the case. Then after the order is signed authorizing them to subpoena the ISP, they drop the sham case.

    In Germany they've been using -- up until now -- sham criminal proceedings to accomplish the same result, because in Germany they couldn't have gotten the identity information in a civil case. The German judges and prosecutors have finally realized how they were being used, and have put a stop to it.

    It appears that some of the United States judges are starting to catch [blogspot.com] on [blogspot.com] as well.

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Working...