back to article Lawyers: We'll pillory porn pirates who don't pay up

A law firm from the southern German town of Regensburg has threatened to reveal the names of internet users whom it claims illegally distributed pornography over file-sharing networks – unless, that is, the accused pony up some cash. As reported by the English-language German newspaper The Local, the firm of Urmann and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. DavidRa
    Stop

    How is this not extortion?

    Regardless of whether the person has committed a crime (or breached the law in another way) or not, nothing has yet been proven.

    Near as I can see from the article, and thinking of each individual case, there is a threat against the person, accompanied by a demand for money to make the threat go away.

    Since the law firm is quite obviously a private concern, how is this not extortion (demanding money with menaces if you prefer)?

    1. LaeMing
      Unhappy

      Re: How is this not extortion?

      It's not extortion because lawyers are doing it. And they are above the law.

    2. Rob 5

      Re: How is this not extortion?

      Whether it is, or is not, Blackmail is a very interesting question. Just this morning, I read a rather detailed blog on the subject, by Prof. Volokh, admittedly addressing US rather than German law.

      http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/21/blackmail/

      While I know little of German law, I can't help suspecting that the hints about prioritising "touchy cases" might prove to be their downfall.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How is this not extortion?

      No different to government tax. You pay up or something bad happens to you.

      Remember like most laws blackmail / extortion is only illegal if you are not one or more of :

      Lawyer

      Politician

      Corporation

      Police

      Very wealthy

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: How is this not extortion?

        In this case it is not a tax. A tax is just that, it's effectively a rent or payment of service. You don't think you own the roads or land do you? Do you pay the ambulances direct?

        The lawyers here though have no proof that those involved received the service. Plus a tax for the copyright industry already exists in Germany AFAIK.

    4. LarsG
      Meh

      Remember what happened

      Remember what happened to the ACS Law here in the UK. Was it the demand letters or the way they were menacing that stuffed this firm.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Ze letter

      Dear Sir/Madam,

      You haf been found to haf been downloading ze dirty schmutty disgustings videos, 'hairy girl mitt two dogs', 'brunhilde und der sclossen dick', 'funf mal Marion und der slangensnakey' and. 'arsch target treffen'.

      You vill pease pay uns €10,000 or ve vill publish your namenze on ze Internet. Your address vill also be added to identify you.

      "Granma, what the fuck have you been watching!'

    6. Graham Marsden
      Devil

      Nice reputation you have, Squire...

      ... be a shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean...?

    7. Arthur 1

      Re: How is this not extortion?

      Feels like extortion to me. The big hint is that this technique works equally well whether they have evidence or not, and in fact whether you've ever actually downloaded their crap or not.

      They're relying entirely on the threat of the release of names - and the subsequent loss of reputation even if you exonerate yourself - to force payment. At that point it seems like you'd have to step in as a government agency, or the precedent you set is that anyone can get a settlement from anyone just by threatening to sue them frivolously for downloading embarrassingly fringe videos.

      Threatening to go after diplomats from countries with touchy relations first can't possibly be the smart move, either. Yeah, let's more or less directly fire a shot at the government.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blackmail

    Sounds like blackmail - demanding money with menaces or similar.

    1. Psyx
      Facepalm

      Re: Blackmail

      It would probably have been legal had they not put their foot in their mouths by specifying that they targeted 'touchy cases', thereby announcing that they were threatening reputations as a primary concern.

  3. Eguro
    Go

    Herbert Anchovy Presents

    BLACKMAIL

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Herbert Anchovy Presents

      So it's better to be known as a murderer than someone who watches porn? I think your moral compass must be triangular, or something.

  4. corestore

    ...is why we in the USA have the 2nd amendment.

    Can you imagine a lawyer daring to try to pull this crap in a society where most of their victims have firearms?

    1. TimeMaster T
      Boffin

      I would also point out that the supposed excess of firearms in the USA has done nothing to stop the likes of the MPAA and RIAA from engaging in similar tactics.

      Also, Canada has more guns per person than the USA, yet a far lower rate of gun related violence. The firearms aren't the issue, its the culture.

      1. DanceMan

        Re: Canada

        Canada also has much stricter laws on handgun ownership, possibly on other aspects of gun ownership and handling.

    2. MrF
      Megaphone

      Oh, joy -- our US gun nuts have reached El Reg.

      Regarding your take on the benefits of an armed citizenry, listen up, freakshow:

      (a) The 2nd Amendment was not created to ensure average folks could own guns -- or Ak-47s; or bazookas -- for pleasure, nor for hunting or any other of the usual 'traditional culture' excuses.

      (2) How can I be sure of this? Easy -- because that's not what the 2nd Amendment says. It refers quite specifically to the maintenance of, 'a well-regulated militia'. Google that, bokay?

      (3) And there's no evidence that gun ownership has any effect on violent crime much less white collar stunts like extortion or blackmail. Want to reduce crime? Educate your citizens, while keeping your town clean and affordable. Problem solved. You're welcome.

      1. g e
        Facepalm

        Re: Oh, joy -- our US gun nuts have reached El Reg.

        "could own guns -- or Ak-47s; or bazookas -- for pleasure, nor for hunting or any other"

        Yet they do, don't they.

        1. John G Imrie

          Re: Oh, joy -- our US gun nuts have reached El Reg.

          I've always thought that the anti-gun lobby has missed a trick by not calling in the militia, on Superbowl Sunday.

          1. Arthur 1

            Re: Oh, joy -- our US gun nuts have reached El Reg.

            >I've always thought that the anti-gun lobby has missed a trick by not calling in the militia, on Superbowl Sunday.

            How this didn't get more upvotes, I'll never know. Maybe people don't understand US culture well enough to appreciate it. Brilliant in any case.

      2. S4qFBxkFFg
        Headmaster

        Re: Oh, joy -- our US gun nuts have reached El Reg.

        As MrF says, the 2nd Amendment does include the militia statement, the text is:

        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

        BUT

        There is no specification that the "bear arms" part depends on the preceding part being true. Indeed, in a legal sense, the "militia" part is *defined* as being true.

        To extend it to an absurd degree, if the amendment said:

        "The Moon made of green cheese, being necessary to the cheesiness of the heavens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

        ...it would still apply.

        The militia part is preamble, it provides background, but does not affect the applicability of the part about bearing arms. If we assume the writers of the 2nd amendment were not fucking morons, then we can assume they would have written something like:

        "If a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

        or...

        "As long as a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

        I think those writers realised how definite "shall not be infringed" sounds, I also think they would have specified if the right to keep/bear arms only applied to members of militias.

        Of course, I am not an American judge, so continue as you were; my, or anyone else's, arguments probably won't change anyone's strong opinions on this matter.

        1. Ken 16 Silver badge

          does anyone care?

          This is about German lawyers, written on a UK site, where they are threatening court cases and not shooting so why as long as the US Government limit the issue of passports to below 10% of the population, would anyone in the EU care what their constitution says about personal arms.

          1. S4qFBxkFFg
            Coat

            Re: does anyone care?

            ...because another commentard mentioned it?

            Mine's the one that's a Captain Obvious costume when turned inside-out.

          2. Nuke
            Facepalm

            Re: does anyone care?

            We need a variant of Godwin's Law, with the subject of the US Constitution being inevitably being introduced by someone, and the discussion becoming futile at this point.

      3. sgtrock
        FAIL

        Re: Oh, joy -- our US gun nuts have reached El Reg.

        Tell it to the Swiss.

    3. hplasm
      FAIL

      Really?

      Why so many not-dead lawyers then?

      1. Marvin the Martian
        Paris Hilton

        Re: undead lawyers

        So many... because they're vampires?

    4. KjetilS

      @corestore

      What, something like this?

      That would obviously never happen in the US.

  5. P. Lee
    FAIL

    Does this work the other way?

    Can we post things on facebook, saying that my grandma said she received threatening letters, phone calls and late-night visits by men in ski masks from them and I'm thinking of taking them to court for extortion and racketeering?

    Hehe, "potential opponent naming" protected by law.

    This is not the way to do it. If you want to advertise like this, you should only be able to do so once the case has been filed and you should be required to keep the result of the case published in the same place for the same amount of time as you posted the advertising.

    For some people, reputation is everything. What if the son of a surgeon downloads a slasher flick? How much damage to the surgeon will be done if patients think he's a fan of "the human centipede"? What if there is only one computer in the house? Yes, that's my computer; yes that film was downloaded to it and stored on the disk; no, it wasn't me that did it. How do you prove that? I have an always-on computer at home and a single login is shared with all the family - there's no way we'll bother to log in and out - the point of it is to be instantly available. I'm not buying a bigger house with study space for four computers with 27" screens and going IPv6-only just to please the MPAA. Even then, what happens when the offending file is found on a r/w shared filesystem? Have you just grounded your teenage daughter for staying out past 3am on a school night? I hope your computer is locked down tight, or it could be really embarrassing for you.

    Perhaps what we need is a registry of proposed legal action. When a company want to take action like this, they have to post a bond of the amount demanded. If the defendant doesn't take the offer and the plaintiff doesn't win in (or go to) court, the defendant gets the cash.

    The whole "ip address=person" and in a domestic situation, "computer=person" needs to be kicked into touch once and for all. Its a shame that tech has outstripped our ability to serve justice, but that is the reality in many cases. No pleading cries from collapsing business models will change that.

    Having said that, I suggest not downloading porn. It damages your chances of actually having sex, never mind a long-term relationship, and it greatly increases the likelihood of your computer catching something nasty.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Boffin

      @P Lee: Re: Does this work the other way?

      I was with you right up until your last paragraph when you uttered the nonsense "I suggest not downloading porn. It damages your chances of actually having sex, never mind a long-term relationship,"

      May I succinctly say (and I'm speaking from not only personal experience here, but that of many of my customers who buy the BDSM gear I make and sell and who undoubtedly download and view porn): Bollocks!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @P Lee: Does this work the other way?

        "Bollocks!"

        I wish to make clear that I am not a fan of CBT except when applied to lawyers.

    2. Bob. Hitchen
      WTF?

      Re: Does this work the other way?

      "Having said that, I suggest not downloading porn. It damages your chances of actually having sex, never mind a long-term relationship, and it greatly increases the likelihood of your computer catching something nasty."

      Could you expand on this flight of fancy.?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Does this work the other way?

      "I suggest not downloading porn. It damages your chances of actually having sex"

      Only if the sex involves another person...

      (and, based on my experience with Mrs A/C, adding a carefully chosen and suitably tasteful piece of 'adult entertainment' to your evening viewing may even improve the chances of it being a tandem effort)

  6. DownUndaRob
    Black Helicopters

    Libel

    Sounds like Libel to me.

    1. Martijn Bakker

      Re: Libel

      That could very well be the response they're hoping for. To prove that such a statement was libel, you'd be required to prove that it was defamatory and false. Proving that someone didn't download porn illegally would be even harder than proving that they did (i.e. impossible).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Libel

        Step 1: deliberately share innocuous files with the same name as the porn movies

        Step 2: have your name published

        Step 3: sue for libel

        Step 4: profit!

      2. JohnG

        Re: Libel

        In Germany, plaintiffs would only have to show that their reputation and/or livelihood has been damaged (it doesn't matter whether the allegation is true or false). It is not uncommon for people/businesses to sue former clients (and win) who have exposed their poor service or business practices in online forums or for negative feedback. If this bunch of lawyers get some policeman or priest sacked, they might get their copyright infringement cash but then they will have to pay for loss of earnings and emotional damage. I don't believe this will fly - German courts take privacy and reputation very seriously.

      3. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re(2): Libel

        Nah. The punter would simply sue in the UK and you (the lawyer) would lose. End of story.

  7. Franklin
    FAIL

    No way THAT could go wrong...

    ...because, as we all know, police officers and clergy are all computer security experts, so there's no possible way that any of them could, just as a hypothetical for-instance, be running an open wifi router. Nope, if it comes from their IP address, they MUST be the culprits; it's the only possible explanation!

    And, naturally, that list of 150,000 names (or, surely, IP addresses?) can be relied upon absolutely. There's nary a mistake on it, I'm quite certain.

    1. Rampant Spaniel

      Re: No way THAT could go wrong...

      I was thinking the same thing. Won't the ambulance chasing sacks of kack get sued stupid by those on the list? Just because it is your IP address \ net connection or you pay the bill for it doesn't mean you are the only one to use it.

      And seriously, a police station, how did they address the letter. Dear large building? If they approached the rozzers for the login attached to the ip at a given time I would have thought the police would have dealt with the (das?) rozzer via internal disciplinary measures anyway.

    2. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: No way THAT could go wrong...

      You can spoof headers to make it look like you are a proxy server for another destination. This apparently is good enough to fool iPlayer into allowing access from non-UK based computers. I haven't tried it as for me, a VPN connection back home is easier to set up, and has other benefits.

  8. Tony Paulazzo
    Devil

    Will German justice allow this? Like, couldn't (and shouldn't?) a judge disbar the entire legal staff if they do this. They're not even pretending it's a legal issue any-more. Eat the rich.

  9. FozzyBear
    Devil

    arab nations

    Can you imagine the shitstorm this.would create in the Arab nations if individuals are fingered. Head would roll, literally.

    1. Chris007
      Coat

      Re: arab nations

      Can you imagine the shitstorm this.would create in the Arab nations if ** individuals are fingered **

      I believe it was this type of viewing they were interested in.

      1. Andy ORourke
        Joke

        Re: arab nations

        Fnar, Fnar, you said "fingered"

    2. Rampant Spaniel

      Re: arab nations

      not a chance. At least not the real culprits. They would likely blame it on their wife or the office cleaner and have them executed whilst continuing to download porn. Remember some (not all) of these countries don't let their women drive or leave the house unescorted because some of the men are such rampant perverts with no self control the women won't be safe, or at least I think that was the explanation. I always thought that was a much neater solution than something as absurd as punishing perverts.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not a good idea

    If they pick the wrong people, the Lawyers will get the fear put in them, damage or dead.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It only takes one error..

    .. to bring that method of extortion to come crashing down on them, which is why they go for the volume.

    There will be enough victims (and yes, I call them victims) who will pay up because it's easier than suffer the reputational damage even though they may not have been aware their computer was part of a distribution network. But if even one of them has the funds to drag their sorry rear ends into court they will be toast.

    (I'm assuming here that the German criminal justice system won't interfere, but given that Germany has effectively legalised data theft and even financially supports that crime I don't hold much hope there).

  12. David 45

    Sounds familiar

    Sounds a little like "speculative invoicing", as has been well and truly sorted in the UK courts and elsewhere. Either that or good ol' extortion under another name. Let's hope the German courts see sense and the victims realise it's little more than blackmail.

    "Nice little business you got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it".

    1. SuperTim

      Re: Sounds familiar

      This has an added twist of blackmail, and by that I mean libellous accusation of wrongdoing without a court finding you guilty, for financial gain. I suspect this law firm may "suddenly go bust" but one very similar suddenly spring up in the same office building.

    2. nematoad
      Unhappy

      Re: Sounds familiar

      These are the actions of a bunch of greedy chancers who are flying a kite to see just how far they can push it.

      I do expect that they will come crashing down but probably not before they have squeezed out some money from their victims.

      I just hope that the German courts are able to get restitution for those attacked by these bandits a before they can shift the money out of reach.

  13. localzuk Silver badge
    FAIL

    EU Data Protection law?

    I'm pretty sure that the law firm in question here would be in breach of EU Data Protection laws, regardless of that court case or not. Holding personal data (names are personal data), requires them to protect it. Sticking it on a website alongside a claim they breached copyright, which itself could be libel, would be the most ridiculous thing this firm could do.

    The counter-suits would be asking for more than €1300, that's for sure.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Paris Hilton

      Re: EU Data Protection law?

      Except they wouldn't be infringing the law if they have a statutory gateway that allows disclosure as they claim.

      I'm not saying they are right, merely that DP laws wouldn't automatically prevent disclosure

      Paris... does it need explanation?

  14. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
    Coffee/keyboard

    Fnarr Fnarr

    producers of such seminal works as "So Swings Germany," "Amili Learns to Swallow," and "Alone Among Brutal Fuckers."

    You owe me a new keyboard

    I Think the last one is a documentary about the Bundesbank and the current euro crisis

    1. Jedit Silver badge
      Coat

      " Think the last one is a documentary about the Bundesbank"

      From the makers of that famous documentary about the life of the 20th Century's greatest scientific mind, "Zwei Madchen, Einstein".

    2. Ken 16 Silver badge
      Childcatcher

      Re: Fnarr Fnarr

      I am not familiar with the artistic works in question but I trust the gentlemen of the press to have done their research diligently in this case.

    3. Fatman

      Re: Fnarr Fnarr..."Alone Among Brutal Fuckers."

      And here, I thought you were speaking about Wall Street WBankers!!!

      1. perlcat
        Coat

        Re: Fnarr Fnarr..."Alone Among Brutal Fuckers."

        I thought it was a remake of "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"

  15. Gordon861

    Blackmail

    I think they will be OK publishing these names only if they actually go ahead with the cases against every person that they name on their webpages. But if they are using this threat as a way to destroy someones reputation then it was blackmail and becomes libel after the fact if the claims are unproven.

    1. JohnG

      Re: Blackmail

      "...and becomes libel after the fact if the claims are unproven."

      Whether the claims are true or not, in Germany this would be "Beleidigung", to damage someone's reputation. When you understand that in Germany, you can be sued for Beleidigung if you stick your middle finger up to a motorist who has just cut you up, it becomes clear that Germans take offence seriously and that they also take it to court.

  16. Turtle

    Can Porn Be Copyrighted: A Possible Issue To Be Decided.

    The article from this link is about a legal theory that claims pornography can not be copyrighted. Although not having a direct relation to the specific subject of the clearly extortionate and criminal enterprise of Urmann and Colleagues, and although I note that that criminal enterprise is being played out in Germany, it is interesting all the same.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/can-porn-be-copyrighted-one-file-sharing-defendant-says-no/

    1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

      I'm not a lawyer but that doesn't seem likely does it?

      Further up this page there's a discussion of the right to bear arms in the U.S. If the argument there is valid, a law may contain a statement of the reason for the law's existence without relying or depending on that statement. So in this case, school books are worthwhile and are protected by copyright, but mere filth is also protected. And anyway your pornography may be not mere filth but art after all - look at D. H. Lawrence et cetera. You used to have to get that from Paris, you know what they"re like there.

  17. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Porn pirates?

    I say - hang them from the yards!

    Being attacked by pirates is already a highly dangerous and traumatic experience. But if they board your ship while being stark naked and simultaneously having sex in various position that must be sheer terror beyond human imagination!

  18. g e

    Massive fail in the making

    The ghost of ACS Law past is coming to visit...

    Popcorn please!

    (Popcorn icon please, too!)

  19. teacake

    Arkell v Pressdram 1971

    It would be very tempting to respond to one of these letters by saying, "Thank you for your letter. May I direct you to the response given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram 1971? I am sure your clients will be able to explain the first word of that response to you if you are having difficulty with it."

    1. Suricou Raven

      Re: Arkell v Pressdram 1971

      You want to start a lawyering fight with a law firm? I think they might have a slight advantage there. Even if your arguments are infinitely better, they can still make the case drag on for a decade and cost you several times your lifetime earnings.

      1. teacake

        Re: Arkell v Pressdram 1971

        "You want to start a lawyering fight with a law firm? I think they might have a slight advantage there. Even if your arguments are infinitely better, they can still make the case drag on for a decade and cost you several times your lifetime earnings."

        But that's the whole point, isn't it? The last thing they want is to end up actually having to argue one of these cases in court. Their whole business model is predicated on the threat of legal action, if they have to follow through and end up losing a case or (worse) end up with a ruling against certain of their practices, it could blow them out of the water.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So does this mean I can set up a website (in Germany) accusing their lawyers of all sorts of juicy shenanigans along with their addresses as long as I suggest that I might (possibly one day if I can be bothered which I probably can't because I just made it all up) sue them?

    Awesome - libel is legal now

  21. SJRulez

    Publishing the names what a great idea, brings back memories of the days when doctors were attacked because somebody published names of Pediatricians instead of Pedophiles.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    just counter sue for slander. the lawyers are still the ones getting rich, either way, not the poor peon who went naked.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Typo

    You wrote "could potentially be huge business for U+C, even if none of the cases go to trial."

    Should be "could potentially be huge business for U+C, especially if none of the cases go to trial."

    Now it's a write-once, send-many spam attack on users, with (like all 419s) some fraction of users sending cash. For each user going to trial, you have to one-on-one spend expensive hours lawyering about, plus there's a good chance of the whole scheme collapsing.

    /Note to self: do not join german clergy or police for a while.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sauerkraut

    These guys need to lighten up.

    Oh that's right, they're lawyers.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They'd better hope there's a decent sprinkler system in their office...

    ...well, accidents often happen to companies behaving like gangsters.

    There's no justice like angry mob justice...

  26. Neil 23

    How is this even legal?

    Henry VI (Pt 2), Act IV, Scene II springs to mind

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Alone Among Brutal F*ck*rs

    can, of course, be rearranged as "El Reg, a nonfactual mob rusk".

  28. Miek
    Linux

    "A law firm from the southern German town of Regensburg has threatened to reveal the names of internet users whom it claims illegally distributed pornography over file-sharing networks – unless, that is, the accused pony up some cash." -- As others have mentioned, this is Blackmail. I would just call their bluff and let them reveal my name. Then I would sue them for defamation, loss of reputation and of course, Blackmail and Extortion. It's like a big sue-ball shit-sandwich for them and they would run a mile, particularly if they were facing a swathe of just such legal actions against them.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You can buy a lot of ddos service for 1200 euros, I suspect they might have problems publishing some peoples names...

  30. Gordon Stewart
    Alert

    The first time the lawyers reached out..

    Did you just use the term 'reached out'?

    Arrrgh, my eyes!!!!!

  31. fLaMePrOoF
    WTF?

    Pretty sure this would count as blackmail here in the UK, and prolly Germany as well?

  32. 2Fat2Bald

    Well......

    Of course this would be defamation (specifically, under UK law it would be Libel). But's that's whole point - you'd have to go to court and dispute and present arguments & evidence - which is what they want you to do. OR just not say anything, at which point you'll find it harder to subsequently deny it. Not a nice tactic, nonetheless.

    As regards the second amendment thing. Could you present an argument that anyone who wishes to keep a gun has volunteered for the Militia? ;-)

    I have to say I can understand someone wanting a sporting gun, or a gun for pest control, or a historical weapon, or even a weapon for self-defence. Not quite sure why someone in civilian life needs to own a range of AK-47s or a Bazooka, though.

  33. Draybird

    Dray

    Lawyers checking out porn for profit?

    Who'd have thought it?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like