PDA

View Full Version : Retired, Computerless Woman Fined For Pirating ‘Hooligan’ Movie.



Ponce
22nd December 2011, 05:53 PM
Retired, Computerless Woman Fined For Pirating ‘Hooligan’ Movie.

December 22, 2011

Despite not owning a computer or even a router, a retired woman has been ordered by a court to pay compensation to a movie company. The woman had been pursued by a rightsholder who claimed she had illegally shared a violent movie about hooligans on the Internet, but the fact that she didn’t even have an email address proved of little interest to the court. Guilty until proven innocent is the formula in Germany.

The just-concluded case in Germany demonstrates perfectly that in some jurisdictions the standard way to deal with a file-sharing claim is guilty until proven innocent.

At 09:10 during a cold January morning in 2010, the defendant in the case says she was tucked up in bed. A movie copyright holder, however, insists the retired single woman was illegally sharing files on the Internet.

The settlement letter sent to the woman by the copyright holder stated clearly that on January 4th she’d been using the eDonkey network to share a violent film about hooligans. For this offense she must pay compensation of around 650 euros or face court, they said.

Like so many claims of this nature, the accusation was problematic. Although she previously subscribed to a 2-year Internet and telephone package, six months earlier the woman had sold her computer and didn’t even maintain an email address. After refuting the allegations of the rightsholder, the case went to court.

The Munich District Court handled the case, and heard evidence that not only is the woman computerless, she lives alone and doesn’t possess a wireless router either. How the alleged offense could have been carried out even by a third party remains a mystery.

Nevertheless, none of the above protestations were of interest to the court. Despite the fact that the copyright holder and/or their tracking company could have made errors, or that the woman’s ISP could have identified her account incorrectly, none of these avenues were examined.

“Normally the copyright holder has to prove who did the copyright infringement. As this is hard for him – because he has no chance to look into thousand houses – the courts in Germany alleviate this burden of proof,” explains Christian Solmecke, a lawyer with Wilde Beuger Solmecke, the law firm that defended the woman.

Solmecke told TorrentFreak that initially all a copyright holder has to do is show that a protected work has been traded via a specific IP-address, then the accused has to prove their innocence.

“In the next step the defendant has to prove, that neither he nor anyone else who had access to his internet account did the copyright infringement. In my opinion our client has proved that fact. If you have no computer and no W-LAN, there has to be a failure in the backtracking of the IP-address,” he added.

The bottom line in Germany is that account holders are responsible for everything that happens on their account and if they can’t prove their innocence, they are found guilty. The woman must now pay just over 650 euros in damages to the copyright holder.

There can be little doubt that German law is tipped heavily in the favor of rightsholders. Little surprise then that Germany is without doubt the worst place in the world for pay-up-or-else-schemes. So how often are people wrongly accused?

“Every second person tells me, that he or she appears to be wrongfully accused,” says Solmecke. “Some of them lie even to their lawyer but most of them tell the truth. From my point of view, there has to be a big mistake in some of the different backtracking-systems.”

So for now the formula for rightsholders seems incredibly simple.

IP address. Accusation. Profit.

http://torrentfreak.com/retired-computerless-woman-fined-for-pirating-hooligan-movie-111222/

Dogman
22nd December 2011, 05:56 PM
Hang them high and if they live they are innocent. But if they die they must be guilty.

palani
22nd December 2011, 06:04 PM
“Every second person tells me, that he or she appears to be wrongfully accused”

If you APPEAR then you will be accused, wrongfully or otherwise.

People don't know how to not appear.

You cannot be FORCED to appear.

De non apparentibus et non existntibus eadem est ratio. The reason is the same respecting things which do not appear, and those which do not exist.

ximmy
22nd December 2011, 06:10 PM
If you APPEAR then you will be accused, wrongfully or otherwise.

People don't know how to not appear.

You cannot be FORCED to appear.

De non apparentibus et non existntibus eadem est ratio. The reason is the same respecting things which do not appear, and those which do not exist.

In this instance the term "appear" is not referring to the accused corporal presence...

palani
22nd December 2011, 07:08 PM
In this instance the term "appear" is not referring to the accused corporal presence...

Wouldn't you say that depends upon the sense the word is used in?

The first question that is always asked is "Do you understand the charges?" As you don't wish to appear to be a dummy the answer is always going to be "Yes." Yet you do not realize that "understand" is legalize for "agree to".

By this little charade is consent granted.

By rights you should begin by asking for an interpreter because English is not spoken.

ximmy
22nd December 2011, 07:39 PM
Wouldn't you say that depends upon the sense the word is used in?

The first question that is always asked is "Do you understand the charges?" As you don't wish to appear to be a dummy the answer is always going to be "Yes." Yet you do not realize that "understand" is legalize for "agree to".

By this little charade is consent granted.

By rights you should begin by asking for an interpreter because English is not spoken.
::)::)

Joe King
23rd December 2011, 01:43 AM
Wouldn't you say that depends upon the sense the word is used in?The surrounding words, when taken in context, indicate that the word "appears" was used in the sense of something that seems likely. {#4 in the list}

It wasn't used in the sense of appearing before an authorative body, as you seem to think it did. {#6 in the list}
ap·pear (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-pîrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)
intr.v. ap·peared, ap·pear·ing, ap·pears
1. To become visible: a plane appearing in the sky.
2. To come into existence: New strains of viruses appear periodically.
3. To seem or look to be: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seem).
4. To seem likely: They will be late, as it appears.
5. To come before the public: has appeared in two plays; appears on the nightly news.
6. Law To present oneself formally before a court as defendant, plaintiff, or counsel.





The first question that is always asked is "Do you understand the charges?" As you don't wish to appear to be a dummy the answer is always going to be "Yes." Yet you do not realize that "understand" is legalize for "agree to".

By this little charade is consent granted.

By rights you should begin by asking for an interpreter because English is not spoken.So, do you understand the charges? :p ;D

palani
23rd December 2011, 08:11 AM
The surrounding words, when taken in context, indicate that the word "appears" was used in the sense of something that seems likely. What SEEMS likely is what is going to get you hung.



So, do you understand the charges? :p ;D Are you asking me to injure myself?


The lady in question in the OP apparently showed up. She had no way to commit the crime yet was found guilty. Exactly what else do you suppose would lead the court to a finding of guilt?

Silver Rocket Bitches!
23rd December 2011, 10:05 AM
Well that'll teach her to pirate movies without a computer!!