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.

Warning period and validity: how long do I have time?

 

Most law firms set a warning notice period of 2 weeks to give the opposing side the opportunity to reveal a warning reply.

 

In the case of a copyright infringement warning letter, the question often arises: How long is a warning letter valid? This question is first of all separate from the deadline of the warning notice which the law firm issuing the warning notice has set. In fact, there are statutory limitation periods in addition to the fictitiously set periods which can be examined by a lawyer or court in individual cases.

 

In particular, there is therefore no precise information regarding the question: warning letter how long valid?

 

Also the questions about when ‘receiving a warning letter’ and ‘how long after the incident’

depends on the concrete accusation in the individual case.

 

The question that most people who are taken by surprise by a warning notice ask themselves is then usually this one: Warning what to do?

 

In this context, one cannot stress often enough against simply ignoring a warning notice for copyright infringement. A warning notice is, as already mentioned, an offer for an out-of- court settlement of the accusation in question. Ignoring this offer and waiting to see if and what a judge decides is in any case comparable to the idea of going to the next casino and betting one thousand euros on the zero at one of the roulette tables. Without any strategy?!

 

You can certainly do that and it can also lead to success. However, this involves risks and the majority of people who have already received a warning would advise against it.

 

Regardless of the probability calculation in a warning case, one should not go into the claims in the warning or contest the warning with all means.

 

In an extreme comparison these behaviours would be tantamount to fleeing from the opponent or vehement resistance in the form of destruction, attack or even war. In the second case, only the hardness of the selected guns decides the outcome in your warning notice copyright infringement. One thing is clear from the outset when selecting the guns: pressure creates counter-pressure! In the worst case this leads to a dispute.

 

Looking at the history books of the past and present, one thing can be exaggerated: the most extreme form of dispute is war, and war does not lead to an economic solution in any case, but in any case merely fills the state coffers.

 

So to get rid of an unjustified warning, one does not necessarily have to file an objection against a warning. With this approach you make your position clear, but you do not make yourself happy!

 

In out-of-court proceedings it is of little relevance which side represents which position. Rather, it is a matter of skilful negotiation in the matter in order to bring both sides together in a profitable way.

Is an Objection of the warning useful?

 

Signing the warning notice means that you agree to the out-of-court settlement offer. A warning notice of objection simply means that you do not accept or reject the offer. Neither of the two actions gives a reliable statement about the hotly discussed question of guilt on the net. So in both variants there can only be losers.

 

 

The question of guilt can only be clarified after the complete legal process has been completed. With an objection warning, the question of guilt can be clarified before a judge as a last step. However, the question of guilt is completely unimportant for the solution of the accusations, as the question of costs and effort can be solved out of court without legal assistance by far more favourable means.

 

If a clear legal outcome and the question of guilt are important to you, you can clarify this by means of a lawyer in several court instances. Here, both the question of guilt and the question of the appropriate compensation claim can be clarified. Nevertheless, in most cases where a warning letter has been served on a copyright holder, it is not important to determine who is responsible or guilty or, if applicable, who is innocent. In order to answer this question, one has to pre-finance considerable sums of money in lawyer’s fees and court costs. What good is it if you know that you are innocent but in case of doubt you have to pay a part or even all of the (procedural) costs?

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.

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.