Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:51:44 -0400 From: nicholas@excess4all.com To: briessmann@aol.com CC: berg@suhrkamp.de Subject: your message to inbox@textz.com Dear Mr. Briessmann, it has come to my attention that you have sent a document that looks like a cease-and-desist order--quoted below--to inbox@textz.com. Please note that this is a technical address, not a person, and possibly not the recipient you intended to reach. Even though I am not the owner, administrator or technical contact of the domain in question and cannot speak on its behalf, please allow me to briefly point out why I believe your claims are lacking any substance whatsoever. (1) The book "Tod eines Kritikers" by Martin Walser is not available for download on the mentioned website. The file you are probably mistaking for it (http://textz.com/trash/walser.pdf) is the electronic version of Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier", which is in the public domain. I am unable to determine who uploaded this file to its current location--to which I assume several people have FTP access--or has given it its current filename, but I can assure you that its publication is protected by international law. (2) I am neither affiliated with the website schockwellenreiter.de, nor have I ever read--or posted to--their public forums. I have no idea by what statement on this website, which I have just visited for the first time in my life, it should have been obvious that making the aforementioned work by Mr. Walser available for download--which nobody I know about has ever done--was illegal, and to whom this should have been obvious. As far as I understand, you have sent the owner of this website a cease-and-desist order similar to the one that I am referring to, trying to keep him from publishing links to the PDF version of Mr. Walsers book. Even though I cannot say to which extent linking to potentially illegal content may be unlawful in Germany, a few minutes of research show that several major search engines are linking to the PDF in question, which is as well available through several major file sharing networks, while several major news portals are reporting that Suhrkamp Verlag itself has published the document for promotional purposes. (3) The practice of sending out e-mails at 7:13 a.m. on a Saturday, demanding action within less than five hours, seems highly dubious to me, even if your claims were formally correct and justified, which they are quite obviously not. The same goes for your attempt to charge more than USD 1,000 for the delivery of an e-mail. (4) As you may be able to imagine, I cannot judge if the incriminated domain is in full compliance with the "Kennzeichnungsanforderungen" of the German "Teledienstegesetz". Since it is both registered and located in the United States, I fail to see how German law may apply to it. Your own website may be violating the Telecommunications Act of Tuvalu. I have no doubt that you would point out to a Tuvalese law firm trying to collect similar fines from you that their claims were outright lunatic, and that you would seek legal action against them if you found out that they were systematically using such threats to shut down foreign websites. (5) Even though I was shocked by many of his public statements, some of which I believe were openly anti-semitic, I can assure you that I have never offended Mr. Walser in any way whatsoever. On the website that you are mentioning (in case my guess is correct that you are referring to http://post.openoffice.de/pipermail/rohrpost/2002-June/003042.html) I can see an anonymous posting that apparently originated from this domain. I have no idea who sent this message, or how you may have determined who did, and since there is no header information available, this e-mail may have even been forged. In case you have any additional information that indicates someone is forging e-mails from this domain, you should report this to the proper authorities. To me it looks like whoever sent the above message tried to make people believe that the content of the url cited in (1) was the book by Mr. Walser, which it obviously isn't. Due to the de-facto anonymity of most communication on mailing lists and newsgroups, it is almost impossible to take action against such pranks. Still, they are hardly unlawful. Please allow me to cc: my reply to berg@suhrkamp.de--to whom you had cc:ed the original message--and to forward it in separate mail to the aforementioned mailing list, where I expect it will clarify the issue. I would be more than happy if my reply helps saving your precious time, and I truly hope it helps saving mine in return. Sincerely yours, Nicholas Name 11 East 4th Street New York, New York 10003 -------- Original Message -------- From: Briessmann@aol.com Received: from Briessmann@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id g.95.1e0078f7 (4239); Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:13:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <95.1e0078f7.2a3c7b51@aol.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:13:21 EDT Subject: (Kein Thema) To: inbox@textz.com CC: berg@suhrkamp.de LŸbbert Brie§mann Rauch RechtsanwŠlte Prinzregentenstra§e 89 81675 MŸnchen Tel 089471035 Fax 6885508 Suihrkamp-Verlag wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung Martin Walser "Tod eines Kritikers"; hier: Versto§ gegen das Teledienstegesetz und Beleidigung Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, wir vertreten den Suhrkamp Verlag. Unsere Mandantin nimmt aufgrund eines Verlagsvertrages die Rechte am oben bezeichneten Werk von Martin Walser wahr. Sie bieten auf "textz.com" das bezeichnete Werk als pdf-Datei zum download an. Dies ist als VervielfŠltigung und Verbreitung ein Versto§ gegen die Urheberrechte des Autors. Ihnen ist ausweislich einer im Forum der Website "schockwellenreiter.de" publizierten €u§erung nachweislich auch bekannt, da§ diese Handlung unzulŠssig ist. Wir fordern Sie auf, die Datei bis heute 18.00 Uhr aus dem web zu entfernen und uns gegenŸber innerhalb gleicher Frist zu erklŠren, da§ Sie kŸnftig jede VervielfŠltigung und Verbreitung des Werkes - in welcher technischen Form auch immer - unter Ausschlu§ des Fortsetzungszusammenhangs bei Meidung einer Vertragsstrafe von 100.000 Û unterlassen werden. Gleichzeitig sehen wir der ErklŠrung entgegen, da§ Sie die Kosten unserer Einschaltung in Hšhe von 1.201,80 Û erstatten. Wir machen Sie darauf aufmerksam, da§ Ihre website den Kennzeichnungsanforderungen des Teledienstegesetzes nicht entspricht. Dieser Versto§ - noch dazu wenn er im Rahmen des Bruches von Urheberrechten erfolgt - ist mit einem Bu§geld von bis zu 50.000 Û belegt. Au§erdem haben Sie auf der website der "rohrpost" Herrn Walser als "Arschloch" tituliert. Dies erfŸllt den Straftatbestand der Beleidigung und kann auch durch die šffentliche Debatte um das obenbezeichnete Werk nicht gerechtfertigt werden. Wir fŸhren mit gleicher Post diese als Ordnungswidrigkeit und Straftat relevanten Verstš§e der Verfolgung durch die Staatsanwaltschaft bei dem Landgericht MŸnchen I zu. Hochachtungsvoll Burkhard Brie§mann Rechtsanwalt