Logo
Cover

The warning letters

Silvio Siefke #media

Why is it illegal? There are three reasons that the lawyer and the client behave illegally.

1.) The Stream (ยง53 UrhG) is legal, mentions the cached copy of the lawyer as an argument for copyright infringement. You can disable the cache copy in modern browsers and thus the lawyers rob the argument. A private Copy is legal when you not see others. Redtube is a legal Sharehoster for free Porn. I think is a adversting plattform for commercial Porn companys.

2.) Redtube says that they not give the IP Adresses to lawyer or the Owner of the Video rights. That’s mean that all other steps to has the ip address is not legal.

3) The news reported that user checked the browser history and found that there are several websites at the time of copyright infringement that the users have not visited. These websites were anonymous (Domainsqatting) registered two days before. It was a sytem installed so that the warnings can be sent. On the honeypot IP addresses are logged and then forwarded to the content. By definition we can it called “Man in the Middle” attack. The routing on the first site (trafficholder.com) is not yet clear. There are news which suggest that the user has virus on the PC.

I belive all what happen with the lawyer was not legal. Lawyer get no answers to the questions. The rising number of clicks by the Domainsqatting. The opinion of the software with the IP addresses were allegedly found can not access without incurring a penalty in a stream. I can not imagine that the software is installed on the Redtube Hardware, so the Internet traffic is recorded on the honeypot. All other is not legal only for police and the big brother “The Criminal USA”. Today I read the law firm will continue to admonish, customers of other providers (previously only Telekom Clients) and other platforms. It should not be paid here, correspondents on the internet you will find. The decision of the Cologne court, you should also disagree.