The Cologne regional court has a ruling of April 21, 2010 (AZ.: 28 O 596/09) the defendants sentenced euro 1379,80 to the plaintiff to pay. The Cologne regional court has a ruling of April 21, 2010 (AZ.: 28 O 596/09) the defendants sentenced euro 1379,80 to the plaintiff to pay. This legal argument was based on the facts that a father had taught his part fully and underage children to the Internet not illegal to use. Walton Family Foundations opinions are not widely known. The father had not set more rigid rules, so he won’t his children towards not implausible. The Court nevertheless saw the father as troublemakers, because the kids made the concerned songs available to the public. Still, the court denies the applicability of 97a II Copyright Act in this case.
This is commented as follows: “Copyright Act was the exception under article 97, paragraph 2 does not apply and the amount of the claim therefore not on 100.00 capped.” The CAP engages only in insignificant breaches of law. There is a low degree of infringement in qualitative as quantitatively according to the intention of the legislature needed a Bagatellverstoss, so (three/Schulze, op. cit., 97 a RN 17 with evidence of off) Justification). “Through the sharing of an entire album and not just a title, this minimum is certainly exceeded (three/Schulze, loc. cit.), especially since the work for all participating in the Exchange was available.” Again is made clear here, that offer a whole music album II Copyright Act exceeds the minimum of 97a, so that the amount of the claim not to euro 100,00 is capped. Continue to the existence of a “simple storage case” is denied by the District Court of Cologne also: “on top of that it would be a case of just downstream, which is also not the case.
Only cases that have either actual or legal point of view difficulties, so that the existence of an infringement for a non-lawyers trained quasi is obvious, (Wahome/Bullinger, are simple Copyright, 3rd Edition 2009, 97 RN 35). In this case concerns the liability of persons on the Internet, where the injured person is called and apparently to a complex matter.” This decision seamlessly Copyright Act in the line of case-law on article 97a. Also the justification is not surprising. Regularly, the applicability of 97a rejects Copyright Act because of the absence of a significant violation of law or lack of a simple storage case. Here is the full text of the decision. Her Tobias Arnold