Again and again, send cease and desist letters for copyright infringement in the Internet estimated to result the large law firms in Germany, shipped daily thousands warnings for copyright infringement in Germany. Here, a peek behind the scenes should be thrown now. Who are the law firms admonition from and how do these data and the first suspicions for claiming to have made the public protected files on peer-to-peer networks? At the top is the rights holder. These are usually companies such as Sony music, universal or BMG. These instruct large firms such as BaumgartenBrandt, schulenberg and Schenk, or Waldorf of Frommer to examine where a violation has taken place and require them to deal with. But where the firm knows what goes on in the Filesharingnetzwerken is? Ask companies for anti-piracy.

These log in eMule, eDonkey or BitTorrent and crawl the movies offered to download and songs. If they find a specific file, a screenshot is made, the file is on the basis of their Compare hash values and test pieces of the file to be downloaded. Hash values are the fingerprint of a file. Information on name and address of the holder is obtained on the basis of the information obtained at the provider (Telecom, AOL, 1und1). Based on the collected data, a warning is created and sent to the parties concerned. The result is a claim that consists of a punitive injunctive relief and a lump-sum amount of compensation. Learn more about this topic with the insights from BSA. The law firm warning from has of course the cease and desist so formulated as it is for them and the owner of advantage. Sign the have from ignorance, he acknowledged his guilt and undertakes to refrain from downloading files of copyright holder for 30 years.

In addition, he must pay the often too high fixed lump sum. Therefore you can warn only without to be consultation with a lawyer. Further instructions and a short, free initial assessment for patients here get: law firm Dr. Wachs

Law firm Andrea Sautter informs about new judgment of the District Court judgment Stuttgart from the 11 to the eligibility of residual value offers on the 11 to the eligibility of residual value offers. The law offices of Andrea Sautter informs what has changed through this judgment. If a residual value proposition promptly goes to the injured after a traffic accident and he has not yet sold his car, he needs to this offer yourself have, if it is otherwise content acceptable. Content acceptable principle is a binding offer, the injured party by means of a call at a specified phone number can assume and where a collector the vehicle for the injured free of charge after consultation with this pick and paid cash.(Principles of the Amtsgericht Stuttgart). The expert opinion of the plaintiff side had a residual value of EUR 50 for the totally damaged vehicle. The opposing insurance had the claimant but a binding offer of residual value a non local Aufkaufers submit to over 870 EUR. This offer was acceptable in terms of content, according to local Court Stuttgart, because there was a binding purchase offer in which the vehicle guaranteed free of charge should be picked up from the present location and paid.

To accept a call at the phone number was sufficient. It doesn’t matter that the offer not from the area of the plaintiff came because the offer donors would have picked up the vehicle and no higher costs or greater uncertainty would imposed on the claimant, as at an offer from the regional market. The offer was also time still acceptable. Anyway, as long as the claimant has not yet sold his vehicle after a traffic accident, he must be adhere to a residual value proposition, which promptly and in otherwise acceptable way leads to the wrongdoer or whose insurance him. Thus the victim must then, if he his car cheaper sold to access of such a purchase offer on an other collector, the difference (here: 820,00 EUR) by the opposing Insurance can be drawn off. Contact: Law firm Andrea of Sachin owner: Andrea SAUTTER Wackerstein road 32 72793 Pfullingen Tel: 07121/506252 fax: 07121/576257 email: Web site:

The unauthorized evacuation a no-fault liability for damages of the tenant threatens the landlord. If a tenancy which is ever finished, is the lessee pursuant to 546 BGB shall specify out the leased property to the landlord. The landlord has a claim against the tenant on clearance and release of the leased property. (Source: Boy Scouts). Unfortunately it happens time and again that a tenant not voluntarily releases the leased property upon the termination of the lease. The question then is whether and how the landlord can enforce its expressly enshrined repossessions and issuing claim against the tenant. If the tenant does not voluntarily gives the leased property, there is only one legitimate way to enforce the repossessions – and publishing claim of the lessor perspective author working particularly in the law of tenancy in the LK Verden: it must first imposed a corresponding eviction. If bound by a judgment or a settlement at the end of the legal proceedings of the tenant the rent thing is to clean, but always still does not voluntarily comply with this obligation, is to apply for the eviction of the bailiff.

The eviction is the subject, by the costs of the Court and any m.j. determine value, usually after the annual rents to measure in the tenancy law ( 41 para 2 GKG). For the eviction, the bailiff about requests also an advance in the amount of evacuation costs. So considerable costs be on the landlord, if the lessee does not voluntarily publishes the leased property. Occasionally landlords on the idea to save these costs.

You waive an eviction and spaces the apartment itself, without having obtained a corresponding judgment. This is extremely dangerous for the landlord from a legal perspective, because it raises claims for damages of the lessee against the owner. The lessor shall be liable here regardless ( 231 BGB). It is so not even on whether the landlord may believed or E.g.