Code of code … And all questions open

Part 1: "Out of exchange bolts, no legal copies are made"

At 13th. September stepped "Law on the regulation of copyright in the information society" In force, the EU Directive 2001/29 / EC "Harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related property rights in the information society" Convert (cf. Copyright reform enters into force).

The German Music Policy Association and the Total Association of German Music Forks explained in Bonn, with the amendment to find the wait for legal certainty. The opposite is the case. the "Copyright reform" creates – as well as the show processes currently organized in the US – rather a paranoid climate, as it prevailed in totalitarian states. The population is suggested that it can meet everyone – from 12-year girls to the 71-year gross farm (cf. Teenies, Opas, Homeless).

Opinion or disinformation?

After changing the copyright law, the media industry uses general uncertainty in order to enable its clients that they still allowed much less than the law. A proven strategy: Already in the 1980s, the plate companies in a coarse-applied advertising campaign tried to spread the impression that every copy of a stucco was illegal on audio cassette. The case law decided later different.

The new campaign currently ongoing campaign is that in addition to the music industry, the IT industry also disseminates plenty of supervised representations of the legal situation in order to deprive the required taxes to the collecting societies on gaule prices. The PR outset of Verband und Industrie reached a scope in August, who had actually been the consumer protection ministry. On some days, the PR spammers with their mails survived allegedly illegal downloads their colleagues with the penis extension pills around Langen.

But not only in the crowd, but also in the truth content, the two categories of spam can be compared well: nobody can say exactly what is allowed or prohibited. There is only one legal text with coarse interpretation and indefinite legal concept of obviousness, the "a significant MAB to interpretation margin and thus legal uncertainty."1 with judgments in which the consumer can orientate is expected to be at the latest three years.

But although the legal gray area has increased significantly after the new legal situation, it has to be braced by the case-law, there are a variety of legal opportunities to copy music and films. These possibilities are not "Litigation", but deliberately left legal clearance.

The new copyright allows private copies, "as far as not to multiplication, an obviously unlawful template is used". That downloads illegal or "Copies of illegal sources" were forbidden, is not in the law, but in the PR reports of the media industry. "A ‘money socket’ from music will no longer give it", For example, for example, the IFPI chairman Gerd Gebhardt and supplemented: "Out of exchange bolts, no legal copies are made." But the golden fool cap deserved Bernd Graff with an article for the Suddeutsche Zeitung, who suggested the user, he has to destroy all copies of which he has no originals at home.2

This is incorrect in multiple terms: On the one hand, copies that have been made before the new copyright came into force, in any case. The Federal Ministry of Justice explicitly established that the law has no effect on the circumstances concluded in the past. On the other hand are quite legal copies of "unlawful templates" Conceivable: If the template is an improper copy of a copyrighted work, which is not characterized by an addition such as ‘cracked’, the characteristics for criminal liability are not fulfilled.

Likewise, the user must be legally checked whether the content copied by him come from unlawful templates. If something "apparently" must be, can not be expected by the user carefree. For the third, the regulation does not prohibit any download from the network, but only creates legal uncertainty.

Federal Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries spoke on the entry into force of the law that it is punishable, who "Offers music, movies or computer games on the internet for download and distributed without being authorized for this purpose". Mind you: she spoke of the upload – not free download. On the contrary: Section 52 paragraph 1 notes a few days later on the copyright symposium a wink: "I hope the practice will handle it – for science it will certainly be more difficult", and asked the media jurists to find out, "What the legislator has thought or what he should have thought about". The supposed anecdote refers to a particular problem of inflation of the "obviously unlawful templates".

The Formulation found in § 53 Urhg takes into account the knowledge of the experts in the Federal Ministry of Justice that it is neither possible to assess the average burger of neither possible to assess the legalism of a copy template. An actual ban on all downloads had the most comprehensive criminalization of gross populations since the abolition of the prohibition of the horens of "Enforcement" means and for enforcing a IFPI equipped with NKWD powers. That is why the ban was explicitly limited to the trap in which the illegality of the production of the template "apparently" is.

If that is the fact that the download is legal in any case? No: There is legal uncertainty. It is possible, for example, that the case-law is at copies of not yet started films "obviousness" affirm. So you should do better no file with a name additive like "Illegal Preview Screener" download.

Away from their press releases, the musical industry also sees the legal situation slightly more differentiated, and therefore processes politicians in one "next step" – so the music functionary thorsten brown – not just copies of "obviously unlawful templates", but out "every non-legal source" Forbid (see. New copyright is ensured for new discussions). The Phonoverband Chairman Gebhardt also liked the private copy even completely abolish (see. In the area of Halborneism). The envision of Thorsten Hansen from the Federal Association of Phonographic Economics, that there are plans to take place legally against Filesharing in Germany, too, was acting as imminent "Action shaft against illegal download" striking. Anyone who read the qualification exactly said that Hansen is not from "Download", but from "Off the download" – So from the upload -s preach (cf. ExchangeBorsen users in Germany threatens complaints).

The goods of the download with the current formulation actually banned flatly, as brown postulates in his statements to the press, he and the music industry did not have to reach a renewed legislation.

The upload in FileSharing systems, however, is actually problematic from a legal point of view – but he was already after the old copyright law. Who does not want to change to P2P software, which works both with trapping and IP numbers anonymization (ie, for example, on Freenet, Entropy or Fileetopia), which should only provide public-free works – of which there are more than one thinks. Such shared-free stucco must by no means "second choice" be – on the contrary: Many recordings of blues traditions from the 1940s are considered the uniform superstar dear in far more aspects than just the legal essential.

A problem, however, are the protection periods: a wirrad from various deaths and receptionists for various media and investment forms, the transmission of various foreign periods and (alone in America) 11 deadlines, between which works challenges. So for the layman rarely can be seen whether a work of the 20. Century is already in public or not yet. In fact, the various deadline regulations in copyright law are so complicated that four respondents 3 were not able to agree on the protective periods of FUF different works4 – a relatively easy task compared to recognizing a "unlawful template".

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: :???: :?: :!: