91–100 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wait, you're embarrassed because a politician has an accent when speaking English?
No, because his english is horrible, and then he said, during a press conference "we’re here in Germany, we talk Deutsch!". In general, his english is so bad that it’s become some kind of running gag.
You're confusing Westerwelle with Öttinger.
I'm currently suffering two copyright infringement cases, which I can only assume are the result of the storm that reset my FritzRepeater back to factory settings, leaving an open bridge into my network. Two copyright claims, from two law firms, for albums I've never heard of, at times that I wasn't in the house. Because of an arcane, but largely logical German law named "Störerhaftung" I am by default responsible, a…
"Störerhaftung" does not make you liable. It only allows for injunctive relief, not damages [1].
What's creating problems is that the courts make a (rebuttable) presumption that the owner of an internet endpoint is also responsible for copyright violations (and torts in general) arising from its use.
[1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb....
[2] http://www.offenenetze.de/tag/sekundare-darlegungslast/ (German only, sorry)
Oh, that explains. I've always wondered why there are so incredibly few hotspots in Germany - and the few existing hotspots are paid. Voiced it a few times to Germans but nobody knew it was because operators would be held liable.
They're basically working around Störerhaftung by channeling the traffic over a gateway as an ISP. Everyone can offer up part of their traffic, and there are quite a few members (as shown in the local groups, they have maps). Feel free to use some of our traffic, for example. No problems so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because his english is horrible, and then he said, during a press conference "we’re here in Germany, we talk Deutsch!". In general, his english is so bad that it’s become some kind of running gag.
> No, because his english is horrible, and then he said, during a press conference "we’re here in Germany, we talk Deutsch!". You're confusing Westerwelle with Öttinger.
It doesn’t change anything anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a sidenote: I think the reason the term "WiFi" never caught on in Germany is that 1. It sounds really awkward in German (most speakers will pronounce the "W" as in German, i.e. "Vi-Fi"). 2. WLAN is easier to say (think "V-LAN"). 3. It can easily be confused with "HiFi" (which, btw, is commonly pronounced as "Hi-Fee" for some reason, creating additional confusion about the acceptable pronunciation of "WiFi" in Ge…
I'd guess HiFi is pronounced Hi-Fee as it takes the "fi" sound from "High Fidelity".
> as long as they secure the network properly How do I prove it? This right here is so abmahnung trolls can keep on threatening > and get users to agree not to act illegally Yet another useless popup, cookie popup is not enough > ”digital agenda” aimed at blanketing the country with high-speed Internet by 2018 A yeah, "VDSL for all". Where do I buy VDSL modem in 2018? I will have to break into Technisches Museum and…
[0] Note: I'm a USian who is rather happy with his EdgeRouter Lite + UAP-AC-LR.
I'm currently suffering two copyright infringement cases, which I can only assume are the result of the storm that reset my FritzRepeater back to factory settings, leaving an open bridge into my network. Two copyright claims, from two law firms, for albums I've never heard of, at times that I wasn't in the house. Because of an arcane, but largely logical German law named "Störerhaftung" I am by default responsible, a…
In Poland company bought out rights to one porn movie, then claimed to the police that that file was downloaded by random ip addresses (out of major providers pools) on torrent. Police ordered the companies to release home addresses of those ip users. Then the company slent email demanding settlment money. Some people paid. Now they are suing the company to get their money back. So many people police about this that they issue public statement that there was nothing criminal and they dropped the case.
This bill is actually heavily criticized in germany, for example by the Freifunk initiative: http://freifunkstattangst.de/2015/06/16/neuer-tmg-entwurf-zu... (german) The bill requires network operators to make "reasonable effort to secure the network against unauthorized access" and to "allow access only to users that have agreed not to violate the law during their use" of the network. The bill also takes service pro…
I think "gefahrgeeignete Dienste" could be translated as "services with potential for dangerous misuse", no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would a bad person actually refuse to agree with not breaking the law? A 'bad' person already has a willingness to not follow the rules, so how would an agreement matter?
I think the point is to clearly shift the moral hazard away from the provider to the user. The user may not uphold the agreement, but then they are clearly the morally wrong party.