[rohrpost] fwd: walser+suhrkamp+lawyers

[nicholas@excess4all.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

L=FCbbert Brie=DFmann Rauch
Rechtsanw=E4lte
Prinzregentenstra=DFe 89
81675 M=FCnchen
Tel 089471035
Fax 6885508

Suihrkamp-Verlag wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung Martin Walser "Tod eines=20
Kritikers"; hier: Versto=DF gegen das Teledienstegesetz und Beleidigung

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

wir vertreten den Suhrkamp Verlag. Unsere Mandantin nimmt aufgrund eines=20
Verlagsvertrages die Rechte am oben bezeichneten Werk von Martin Walser=20
wahr.

Sie bieten auf "textz.com" das bezeichnete Werk als pdf-Datei zum=20
download an.

Dies ist als Vervielf=E4ltigung und Verbreitung ein Versto=DF gegen die=20
Urheberrechte des Autors. Ihnen ist ausweislich einer im Forum der=20
Website "schockwellenreiter.de" publizierten =C4u=DFerung nachweislich au=
ch=20
bekannt, da=DF diese Handlung unzul=E4ssig ist.

Wir fordern Sie auf, die Datei bis

heute 18.00 Uhr


aus dem web zu entfernen und uns gegen=FCber innerhalb gleicher Frist zu=20
erkl=E4ren, da=DF Sie k=FCnftig jede Vervielf=E4ltigung und Verbreitung d=
es=20
Werkes - in welcher technischen Form auch immer - unter Ausschlu=DF des=20
Fortsetzungszusammenhangs bei Meidung einer Vertragsstrafe von 100.000 =AC=
=20
unterlassen werden. Gleichzeitig sehen wir der Erkl=E4rung entgegen, da=DF=
=20
Sie die Kosten unserer Einschaltung in H=F6he von 1.201,80 =AC erstatten.

Wir machen Sie darauf aufmerksam, da=DF Ihre website den=20
Kennzeichnungsanforderungen des Teledienstegesetzes nicht entspricht.=20
Dieser Versto=DF - noch dazu wenn er im Rahmen des Bruches von=20
Urheberrechten erfolgt - ist mit einem Bu=DFgeld von bis zu 50.000 =AC be=
legt.

Au=DFerdem haben Sie auf der website der "rohrpost" Herrn Walser als=20
"Arschloch" tituliert. Dies erf=FCllt den Straftatbestand der Beleidigung=
=20
und kann auch durch die =F6ffentliche Debatte um das obenbezeichnete Werk=
=20
nicht gerechtfertigt werden.

Wir f=FChren mit gleicher Post diese als Ordnungswidrigkeit und Straftat=20
relevanten Verst=F6=DFe der Verfolgung durch die Staatsanwaltschaft bei d=
em=20
Landgericht M=FCnchen I zu.

Hochachtungsvoll

Burkhard Brie=DFmann
Rechtsanwalt