Warning file sharing Munich courts update their course a connection owner determined, while he is a so-called Internet Exchange a down / upload of copyrighted music or film works has made, can assume that he receives a warning with the invitation to make of a punitive Declaration and the payment of sinfully expensive claims for damages and reimbursement of legal costs of the industrial firms from the major industrial firms. What can you do? What do you do to relieve himself? The Supreme Court has accordingly in one of his classic decisions summer of our lives”was decided in the judgment of May 12, 2010: a connection owner is determined, such as in a so-called Internet Exchange a down / upload of copyrighted works does, is an actual assumption to think that he who is the offender the down / upload has made. It is now the connection owner a so-called secondary presentation load to present why this Conjecture is false. Without going too deep in legal argument, I summarize the requirements together, have hired previously Munich-based dishes on this so-called secondary presentation last for inter nice user to their relief in the following. First the courts quarreled about what be understood under a real presumption; If such was ever widerleglich. This dispute is settled, since already conceptually indexed the Widerleglichkeit conjecture. The Supreme Court has spoken of conjecture and not by fixed fact.
How do the rebuttal of the presumption of actual criminals of Internet users? The Munich State Court has expressed in detail in his judgment of the 14.02.2012 to the scale of this. It a so-called deviant action flow should be presented by the connection owner which excluded or sufficiently likely in the life experience, that the injury not can be committed during the period from the time of him themselves as perpetrators. ” This strict standard was almost a burden of proof as a result. The connection owner almost had to prove that he is not the culprit. This could be but not the correct scale indefinitely, because the Supreme Court then has not spoken in his decision of secondary burden of proof, but secondary presentation load. In 3 current proceedings of our firm we have to determine now a course correction of the magistrate in the AG of Munich. Fortunately the judges no longer assume a sufficiently unlikely after the life experience or even to exclude offenders as a relief, but it must be the serious possibility of a different sequence of events, stating that due to plausible lecture the connection owner as perpetrators can excrete. Correctly the judge justify that now just the BGH has not spoken of a secondary burden of proof for the connection owner for relief, but only by a secondary presentation load to its relief. We will be back report, as soon as we have the decisions in the 3 current procedures. Georg Schafer Attorney