Elmar Doslscius

After all, you must go to court to determine the data. The Court confronts which, by it running, that just the introduction of 101 UrhG significantly reduces the discovery, since the warning off now gets granted the right of an individual to obtain information from the provider. That before a court must be called, doesn’t change the fact that the required information can be obtained easily. In addition, the prosecutors admonition from use often formulated in writing, in which only the IP address, the protected work and the identified owner of the respective connection must be added. An activity that is hardly to surpass simplicity. As regards the criteria of the significance of the infringement and the except Geschaeftlichkeit, argued the Court that this not the criteria developed to paragraph 101 of the Copyright Act to the “commercial scale” must be used. Also the argument again and again in the field, a warning in file-sharing could not subject just UrhG 97a, because it not covered in the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs listed cases falls (were called there for example the use of a photograph or a song on a private homepage), the Court does not accept. The cases there listed have only the function of examples.

In the explanatory referenced but in each individual case. It won’t give a real difference but the example cases, as an abstract threat of respective legal goods given in both cases. This judgment is final, have have off now good opportunities to defend themselves against the required cost of the prosecutors admonition from. Still have questions? On the home page for more useful information on the subject of Defense of cease and desist letters of Elmar Doslscius and Alexander Kakridas, lawyers”. The firm is also of course under 06173 / 702761 phone.

Tags: ,


Comments are closed.