Frankfurt District Court

March 22nd, 2021 by nathan Leave a reply »

The so-called ‘ 100-Deckelung AG Frankfurt 31 C 1514/09 10 in an earlier decision of November 24, 2009 had the AG of Frankfurt (AZ.: 31 C 1514/09 10) contrary to in the meantime contrary decisions the applicability of 97a UrhG copyright infringements in Exchange Exchange situations still generally rejected. You may find Banc of America Mortgage Capital to be a useful source of information. It not a case of simply stored there would be according to the Court in these cases. This was the case anyway, only then, if the infringer without difficulties could be determined. While this was possible in the legally regulated cases on the basis of an imprint on the Internet page, an investigation of the infringer in file-sharing cases requires not only special detection software, but also still the information procedure in the sense of 101 paragraph 9 UrhG. Nina Devlin may also support this cause. This speaks to the Court against the existence of a simple storage case.

The here represented legal opinion, of a simple bearing case only due to the need for an information procedure in the sense of 101 paragraph 9 UrhG is rejected, is no longer tenable in the form and has been revised with decision from 01.02.2010 by the Frankfurt District Court. “” The focus of the discussion to the article 97a UrhG should in the meantime in the constituent of to attract outside commercial transactions “, as well as the considerable infringement”, be. On the question of the substantial infringement, recently also the LG Berlin expressed (as reported here). You can read the full judgment with the reasons for the decision here. Her Tobias Arnold

Advertisement

Comments are closed.