Warning about alleged file sharing?

My landlord, who also runs our internet, has received a warning from the law firm Waldorf Frommer for alleged file sharing. My friend was at work at the time and I was shopping. We definitely did not do that. Is there any way I can prove it? Any data flows on the laptops or something? The specified IP address in the write is the external IP that each device running through the port has.

The specified IP address in the write is the external IP that each device running through the port has.

This is so common. What happens behind the router can't be determined from the outside.

Who uses this LAN or WLAN? How is it protected?

As a rule, you have bad cards because you have to substantiate your innocence in a potential process. Denial with ignorance is regularly not enough.

My friend was at work at the time and I was shopping.

Unfortunately, that's not enough. Computers can load independently. Especially with file sharing, this is even more common, because the downloads often take a long time.

For the moment, I would advise to make a modified declaration of discontinuance ("without prejudice to the factual and legal situation and without acknowledgment of legal obligation, nonetheless legally binding").

The risk of an injunction or injunction is then off the table, then only a performance claim is possible.

Under no circumstances contact the law firm. Do not give a cease and desist and appeal immediately. Prove that the charge is denied that the Wi-Fi was sufficiently secured, that unauthorized persons have no access, that all persons had access had not in the house were (witnesses can be named.), That all were informed about it was not so make etc.

This includes such sentences as:

My WLAN is sufficiently protected, as provided by the BGH: backup mode WPA2 set, firewall activated, software firewall and virus protection installed on all computers, … A personal, sufficiently secure and long password was assigned and the item "Hide SSID" is enabled.

https://www.ra-plutte.de/filesharing-sekundaere-darlegungslast-was-bedeutet-das/

In the end, the law firm will be annoyed again… And continue to threaten… Then it may be ignored. The likelihood that it comes to the lawsuit is low, because the cost is enormous and the law firm makes enough money with idiots willing to pay…

But does not one admit his fault with a declaration of omission? Is not there a way I can prove that I was not. For example, in Task Manager I can see my network activity since 29/12/2018. The highest is represented by Explorer with almost 17 GB. Is that enough for file sharing?

I still have my internet pages and download history

In the omission explanation it comes to the exact formulation. The delivered UE is usually formulated to be a guilty admission. Therefore, the mod. Of course, UEs are modified to the extent that they do not.

For example, in Task Manager I can see my network activity since 29/12/2018. The highest is represented by Explorer with almost 17 GB.

That will not help you. For the allegation of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, it is sufficient if a single data packet of the file in dispute comes from your computer.

Basically, the companies that pursue copyright infringements work in a simplified way to display the protected works of their clients, e.g. Search and download in file-sharing networks. It is then logged, from which computers (or IP addresses) data was sent to this file. With this list, the right holder obtains a court order that the respective provider must issue the connection data of the determined IP addresses (§ 101 (9) UrhG).

The likelihood that it comes to the lawsuit is low, because the cost is enormous and the law firm makes enough money with idiots willing to pay…

Here you are wrong, I'm afraid. Firstly, the risk of legal action is extremely high if, according to your advice, you are not surrendering a UI - this does not eliminate the risk of repetition and thus threatens an injunction or an injunction.

Secondly, I know from a friendly judge at the AG that the number of copyright infringement cases has declined in recent years, but there are still a lot of cases going on. The cost risk for the right holders is manageable; most of the dishes are very industrial-friendly.

Incidentally, this is also apparent from your link, if you read through the reasons for the verdict times.

Maybe I was lucky a few years ago?! I sat for hours in front of the computer and reached without a lawyer, without cease and desist and without further help, that I never heard from the law office… Surely it is also the law firm itself what they send in the tens of thousands of warnings they out in the year, ultimately pursue. The problem with the omissions is that often a part of a sampler is criticized (when it comes to music). One signs and thinks: hey, everything paletti and then the right holders of the other pieces with their lawyers come… Also with me it was: absolutely innocent (that I can say to 1000%!). I was shocked at first and completely unsure. But I just think, you do not have to (immediately) run to the lawyer. The warnings also often based on a consent from the court in Cologne or Munich, which allow the lawyer to find the address behind the IP out… "My" law firm was based in Hamburg…

In any case, it is wrong not to react! Especially at this law firm. Of course, there's a process risk and of course you have to weigh on a case by case basis. But my nerves and my acquired knowledge helped me enormously.

Here are some tips for further action: https://www.abmahnwahn-dreipage.de/abmahnung-was-nun-was-tun/

But can I find out if such a thing actually happened on my laptop? Can I somehow find such programs with me? So far they have not contacted me yet. But if I sign an omission statement (set up by my own lawyer), I also want to make sure that this can't happen anymore. I have not done it myself now. I have already asked my landlord to change the password for the Internet, which unfortunately he has not done yet. I installed an antivirus program on my laptop. Should I search for a better one or visit a specialist who is looking at my laptop, if it could have gone over it without my knowledge and help?

If the router is in the custody of the landlord - and that sounds like it to me - is the black Peter ("Störerhaftung") probably with him.

This could significantly improve your situation, since you have no influence on who uses the (W) LAN and for what. This topic you should address the lawyer in any case!

Approximately 12 days before the event, a Windows employee using a VPN client on my laptop was running because an update did not work, and has downloaded several files: chipset 10.1.17 (a zip folder for driver updates), win64_ any further numbers (Windows Update), another driver update for the video card and a MediaCreationTool (to save my data and reload later). He was on the laptop for several hours. Can it be that he has installed a malicious program? He had paused my anti-virus program in between and turned on again at the end.

So the router is with us, but does that mean that we can change the password? I thought that can only the one who has made the contract with the provider?

Uh no, the router password can be changed in the configuration of the router. In the manual look how it works. Often the password is written on a sticker on the router.

On this occasion, it should also be checked if WPA2 is set as encryption method.

WPA2 is the encryption method. The landlord has given us the password for the FritzBox. He had previously changed the Internet password from the router below. However, we could also see that about 50 to 100 more devices were already connected to our router, probably from the time when the landlord himself still lived here. Could that help us with our defense when the law firm turns to us?

Waldorf Frommer has sued your ISP for verbalizing your customer data before the warning. According to the case law, you are now considered guilty and must now explain and prove why you are innocent. For more detailed defense strategies, visit the following website:

https://rarw.de/waldorf-frommer-abmahnung/

Personally, I prefer to sit out and compete against the order, because Waldorf Frommer has no proof that you have received the warning. Of course this works only if your landlord, your friend and you have not answered and you have no problems with alternative facts.