Have you received a warning?

This can be sorted out quickly and easily. But how can you take action against a warning?

There are several things to consider:

1. Warning for copyright infringement definition – Why did I receive the warning letter and what happens if I do not react.
2. Deadline to react on the warning – How long do I have time to react before further legal steps are taken against me.
3. How do I deal with the issue in general?

Definition: What is a warning?

A simple definition of a warning notice, can be found fairly quickly and easily on the Internet. Besides warnings related to copyright infringement, there are warnings in many or almost all legal areas.

A warning notice is therefore the first attempt to reach an out-of-court settlement with the opposing party. If it is not possible to reach an agreement within a legally fixed or fictitiously set time limit, further legal steps will be taken to clarify the accusations.

Therefore, there are different points and topics to be considered for all kinds of warnings. The warning copyright infringement or also warning internet’ or warning download’ is one of the most frequent types of warning letters. In addition, there is also a ‘warning related to a poor rating’, for example, in Google comments.

The bottom line is that there is no warning law that regulates the legal framework in the various areas. Instead, there is on the question of the warning validity only to note that one should not ignore the offer of a submitted out-of-court settlement or leave unnoticed.

Is an Objection of the warning useful?

To be right or to get right?

To be right and to get right are therefore also two different pairs of shoes. Dealing with a warning notice is decisive for the best result. Each party must define its own desired result.

In the case of the law firm issuing the warning, the desired result is clear, because in case of doubt, the law firm only wants compensation for the expenses that it has earned on behalf of its client. Furthermore, the law firm only has to justify the result achieved to its client. Regardless of the maximum compensation demanded in court, both the law firm and its clients are prepared to settle for a lower compensation if you have it in your account tomorrow and not after the end of a court case.

The party who has received the warning, on the contrary, is often unsure about the desired outcome in this matter.

On the one hand, many of those affected are concerned about the targeted minimization of damages, but on the other hand, they are also concerned about the question of acknowledging guilt. Economically, the latter is of no importance, however, as it can only redress a damaged subjective perception. The party that has been warned vehemently resists the accusations that have been made and thereby overlooks the actual intention and effect of the warning. This refers purely to the extrajudicial solution of the matter.

This brings us back to the question of costs and effort. In the context of an out-of-court solution, it is therefore possible to negotiate very well and purposefully about the lowest common denominator of both parties.

Negotiating instead of arguing

In principle, anyone who runs into you on the street can negotiate. However, it is good to find someone who can judge the matter with a neutral point of view and knows which critical factors are important for an agreement. Furthermore, he should know the consequences if the parties are not willing to accept each other’s claims and come to an agreement. This also means that it is the task of the negotiator to make the parties understand what is at stake and what they risk if they do not agree.

Depending on the point of view, this is either a compromise, or positively formulated, a win- win result. Both sides give something to achieve a better result. Here it is clear that a legal procedure is not a good result. Rather, a legal or judicial procedure is a final instance for the clarification of inter-party mutual claims.

There are enough examples in today’s world that show that better economic or substantial results are achieved at the negotiating table rather than through clarification by the highest court.

Furthermore, judicial independence must not be called into question, because although the parties are very much concerned with clarifying their own understanding of the law, the judge is probably also concerned with a decision within the scope of their activity as such. A judge does not only decide on such an important case within the scope of her activity.

Although this is certainly the task and at the same time the appeal of most judges, it is impossible for them to spend the time to find a fair and just solution in every case. The only consequence is the decision as such. The decision in the sense of both parties is therefore in the individual case rather in the background. The judge decides on the basis of the given rules of procedure. This is also less about the question of guilt or innocence.

Impact of the WWW

Another important aspect in the search for a solution to the disputes in the area of Internet warning letters is the search for the actual circumstance by which the problem first arose. It is to be noted that producers of creative works of any kind, although film, series, gaming and the like produce equally to offer them on a limited market.

This is the original principle of copyright, trademark and other laws that protect the works of creative creators.

Since the invention and development of the Internet, there are no more limits to supply and demand.

The reason for the high number of warnings and their validity is the seemingly impossible regulation of supply and demand on the Internet. This includes both the sincere services of numerous streaming platforms as well as providers who partly use the unlimited possibilities of the internet to make creative works publicly available.

Of course any kind can be used for ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Therefore you will always have difficulties in finding the culprit.

The boundaries of the internet are known to be endless.

It is therefore much easier to take action against those who are on the demand side and suffocate in the abundance of supply. A wrong click or a wrong use of the protected works and the consumer suddenly violates legal regulations that were established to protect consumers and producers in the same way.

But where exactly do you draw the line. Who is more in need of protection in this situation. This discussion is left to the relevant academics and real scholars. For us only the question of how to deal with the warning notice counts,

Unhappy things happen in life. Consciously or unconsciously, we make millions of decisions every day that have consequences. Does this make us guilty or innocent?

Arguing about such things is therefore superfluous! The only way to get your head out of

the noose of the warning madness is for both sides, suppliers and consumers, to sit down at the same table and negotiate the best possible result!

Receiving a warning: the best alternative?

There is no more effective and economical alternative than to deal with the warning received by finding an appropriate solution oneself or through a suitable negotiator. The effort that one sacrifices is the financial expenditure with which we afford all our time and freedom in life. Money is the replaceable means by which we maintain our freedom and time. This freedom of possession and use is already anchored in the German Civil Code (BGB). Unfortunately one cannot sacrifice one’s time in life to take care of all things in the same way. Therefore we distribute our time in a way that produces the lowest possible (opportunity) costs.

In other words, the one who wants to answer the question of guilt for his warning for copyright infringement has the possibility to do so at any time with the appropriate means. The freedom-loving, solution-oriented and effective spirit delegates this responsibility to a conscientious negotiator who achieves the best possible result with a minimum of effort.