The actual assumption of the BGH in copyright the eternal classic, the BGH ruling of May 12, 2010 “is summer of our lives from all sides the industrial firms, as well as the lawyers who want to help from the Dunned, interpreted in various ways. The courts are divided nationally. The key point of this decision is that the Court assumes that there is an actual presumption that determined connection owner actually offenders of copyright infringement, such as the illegal download / upload for music or film works was. What to do with such a supposition? Such conjecture is purely teleological already linguistically widerleglich. “Some industrial firms assume that this is not so, because it to an actual presumption” would go. Is it important? Yes, most definitely! Would the legal opinion prevail, that such actual conjecture the offenders of the holder is not widerleglich, so could the connection owner is only in part a sog.
Burden of proof, save he leads a real strict rebuttal. The Supreme Court has rejected this but clearly. The actual assumption of the criminals of the holder would not go. A so-called secondary discourse last met him now. What do you mean? The connection owner must can no longer join a rebuttal to his relief, but credibly explain that he would leave as perpetrators or participants in a copyright infringement. What do think the courts in Germany? The courts have now again extremely different requirements for such a discourse load for the connection owner. The OLG Cologne has defined in one of his last decisions of the 16.05.2013 that it receive would be sufficient, if the connection owner can demonstrate that not only he, but another person in the household or the family uses the connection and this could be so also in the contested case. In principle, quite rest Germany of this notion of the OLG Cologne had joined in.