11–20 of 54 posts
People like to complain about laws/regulation/tax/etc. in the US but it is on an entirely different level in the EU.
Germany is not the EU and this is not final; it'll never pass EU wide nor will it in Germany for that matter.
People like to complain about laws/regulation/tax/etc. in the US but it is on an entirely different level in the EU.
It is also important to note that in difference to the US court rulings cannot be used as reference for future cases in Germany.
People like to complain about laws/regulation/tax/etc. in the US but it is on an entirely different level in the EU.
Hint: none of this has fuck all to do with the EU. Germany is a sovereign nation.
Edit: And at least this is happening in a proper legal process (which is far from over). It doesn't even come close to the FBI barging in and hijacking domain names of foreign sites without any form of legal process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also important to note that in difference to the US court rulings cannot be used as reference for future cases in Germany.
No way? I thought the supreme court was like ..... supreme?
Original article is much more informative. http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/tech-industry/3501030/german...
> The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe had already ruled that DENIC is generally not liable for rights violations, the verdict showed.
> However, the Regional Court of Saarbrücken found that the rights violations of h33t.com were obvious and easy to identify, said Brüß.
> Since the album was still shared through h33t after several requests sent to the website's operator by Key-Systems to stop the infringing activity, the registrar had to act to stop the infringement, the court found.
No, this is not what the court has said. In fact they pretty much explicitly said the opposite, i.e., in principle they are not liable.
The court has said that a supplier that clearly knows that it is supplying services to an illegal operation should stop supplying those services.
There's nothing wrong with that in principle, it is applied to all kinds of things. The problem comes when it is applied to alleged copyright infringement, and it becomes even more problematic when it's indirect, like with torrent indexing sites.
That is something that is very difficult to ascertain, and it should not be left up to ISP's, registrars, telco's and alike to decide whether or not copyright infringement is going on.
The court is going to have to define what "obvious use of a domain for copyright infringement" means in order for companies to make such a decision.
For example a torrent tracker isn't copyright infringing, it may be considered in court to be a contributory infringement [? don't know German caselaw on this?] but that's a non-obvious call for a company to make without the benefit of expert advisers.
Trackers point to [not exclusively] infringing material, like Google/Bing point to infringing material.
Indeed it may be impossible for a tracker host to establish the legality of any particular torrent without court powers to seize evidence and call witnesses and such.