Who a streaming warning received, peace and a cool head should preserve. Before panic was wrong, there's here all the information and quick help!

Users of various streaming portals such Burniung Series or Kinox.to app download is currently run little risk to slip in a warning wave. but otherwise it looks like the use of file-sharing services. There may well be vulnerable to penalties.

A streaming warning is often Fake

Whether streaming current blockbusters or the latest season of Game of Thrones constitutes copyright infringement, is currently legally not yet clear. The reason for the current gray area that no copies in the strict sense are created when streaming. Although locally temporary files are stored, which is, under current law, however, no copyright infringement. So who is on the side of the road, the title only to the stream, but not available for download, can breathe easy for now. The probability that the warning is a fake, is relatively high. Nevertheless, sufferers should consider how a claim can be made.

streaming warning

Which points must meet a valid warning?

Who is unsure whether the streaming warning is lawful should check the following:

  1. Generally, warnings are sent by mail, even a warning via e-mail is formally effective. However, you should be particularly wary here.
  2. Name, address and other data of both the Abgemahnt and the rights owner are both completely correct.
  3. The infringement is occupied with exact IP address, date, time and exact title of the film, the series etc..
  4. The payment claims are broken down in detail, the naming of a lump sum is not allowed.
  5. The payment period meets the current time slots and is not limited to just a few days.
  6. Since most portals not host the films themselves, but merely link, the warning on the appropriate Hoster must refer. Examples of these are services such PromptFileName, Stream cloud or Sockshare.
  7. There is the abmahnende firm? If necessary, check address and telephone number and / or phone nachhaken whether currently warning letters be sent.

The warning is formally correct! What can I do?

If the streaming warning comply with all formalities, it should not be ignored. However, the amount claimed should not be paid directly or also the attached declaration of discontinuance to be signed. Since there is when streaming a legal gray area, victims have the following options:

  1. Extension: If the payment period is too short, an extension may be requested from the Abmahnenden.
  2. Rejection: If the warning does not have the right, it can be rejected. This is for example the case if the warning does not meet the formal requirements, the Abmahnende is not owner of the rights or constitutes no infringement - as is the case currently with streaming.
  3. Legal assistance: With legal counsel may be trying to push the costs and / or to modify the cease and desist letter.
  4. Negative declaration: With such the alleged copyright infringement can be rebutted before a district court. In addition, to clarify how the Abmahner are ever gets to the user's data.

What costs have to be prepared at a justified warning?

Since currently no warnings against streaming users are present, which serve RedTube-Abmahnaffäre from the year 2013 as a reference. Among users who have received a warning, a sum made 250.00 euros contends per film, which was made up as follows:

  • 149,50 € attorney fee
  • 65,00 € Determining costs
  • 5.50 € for damages
  • 20.00 € postal package

In addition, a cease and desist letter was attached, which should be signed. However, it was here a so-called progressive download, in which the entire film was stored in a temporary folder on the hard disk.