nsane.forums Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Following accusations from record labels that their copyrighted works were being made available via a file-sharing network from a specific IP-address, the companies managed to obtain the identity of the person who paid for the Internet connection in question.The subscriber, the mother of several young children, was taken to court by four record companies on allegations that around 1000 music tracks had been made available on her connection.The woman said that although she was the owner of the connection, she had no idea about computers and file-sharing. She denied carrying out any infringements but suggested that one of her children could have been responsible.The plaintiffs hoped the court would find the defendant liable as “Mitstörer”, which means that although the woman did not directly commit the infringements, it’s possible she could be held responsible for not taking measures to stop them.The Higher Regional Court of Cologne decided that even though the woman did not carry out the infringements and even forbade the use of file-sharing networks, parents still have a responsibility to monitor the behavior of their children, or take measures to ensure that file-sharing sites are blocked. This considered, the Court ruled in favor of the record companies.This court case was about recovering the legal costs for bringing the copyright claim, which are calculated based on the value of the alleged infringements. The claim was for 1,000 violations at 50 euros per track (a value set by the court) which comes to a total of 50,000 euros.According to Aldor Nini who helped with this article, based on the above the women will have to pay 2615 euros (less VAT) to the record companies’ lawyer, 1368 euros to the court, and up to 2,615 (less VAT) to their own lawyer.Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits. View: Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeetPirate Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 What a load of crap. Now they don't even need a legitimate reason to charge innocent people. Not to mention "The claim was for 1,000 violations at 50 euros per track (a value set by the court) which comes to a total of 50,000 euros." 50 euros per track? WTF song costs that much? A typical song costs 99c USD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Owl Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 They must think that one song is shared with about 50 other people so they're suing for their lost revenue.I agree, what a load of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Kind of funny, somehow they screwed up somewhere and now others have to pay?I'd say that's sad, very sad. They should be sent back to primary school, I mean there you can play that game as well: 'He did it! - No, he did it! - Mommy!!!'. Even my avatar, who is a fourth grader, is more grown up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizarre™ Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 These bastards only have one thing in mind: ignorance of the law excuses no one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
implague Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 fuckin retard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HX1 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Easily coined as the term ' fuktard ' .. which can be said several different ways and have meaning depending upon the 'tense' of the adjoined context.. I secretly use it often.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.