Warning music filesharing Court: incurred costs capped to EUR 100.00! Warning music filesharing Court: incurred costs capped to EUR 100.00! Since September 2008 section 97a para 2 UrhG has been in force. Pursuant to 97a para 2 UrhG only euro 100,00 must be charged for warnings provided involves 1 the initial warning, 2nd in a simple storage case 3. Nobel Laureate is actively involved in the matter. coupled with a substantial infringement 4. outside of the commercial transactions. Warnings in the file sharing area are associated with significantly higher costs but regularly and move mostly in the order of EUR 350,00 Euro 1.500,00. Whether the so-called Euro 100,00 clause of 97a Copyright Act on warnings in music file-sharing (warning file sharing, peer-to-peer networks, P2P) applies, is extremely controversial. While representatives of affected strong for this, to limit warnings on euro 100,00, Run industrial firms’ storm against the euro 100,00 Clause.
Background emerged the tendency of the courts since September 2008, Copyright Act not on file-sharing warnings to apply section 97a, para 2. “” The courts lacked the irrelevance of the infringement “as well as on the need for a simple storage case”. Now seems the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (see Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, URT. v. February 1, 2010, AZ.: 30 C-2353/09-75) to have completed a change of direction. In a remarkable judgment, the Court declared the euro 100,00 clause with a full music album for applicable and heightened the legal fees on euro 100.00 so for the first time! Result of the decision the verdict makes many sufferers breathe easier, is nevertheless (yet) no reason for euphoria. Copyright infringement on the Internet of Abmahner can determine freely the venue (the so-called flying place of jurisdiction). The AG Frankfurt am Main is a decision left only isolated so far.
It remains to be seen whether other dishes such as follow the AG of Munich of this tendency. On warnings in the Film and pornography will not affect but initially the decision. We inform you in a free initial consultation about your options on a cease and desist letter to respond. Call it us under 07151 2095528 or via email at your lawyer Dr. Sven greets you warmly j.
New rules in the law of succession into force new inheritance law for successions from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2010. The reform of inheritance and statute of limitations law changed the inheritance law of the civil code paragraphs but (very) moderate (BT pressure. 16/8954). It would have been desirable a bolder reform, especially as it’s the most comprehensive reform of the succession since 1900. Essentially the following changes: moving deadline for mandatory part supplement claims under old law, which applies to successions until December 31, 2009, the beneficiaries equal to its rate can claim a percentage of the value of the gifts made by the deceased in the last 10 years before his death. Where are these gifts in full amount to use. The inheritance law reform moves away from the \”all or nothing\” principle and leads a pro-rata solution of a (melting). Donations from the first year of death will become 100%, from the second year with 90%, from the third year with 80% etc.
in Approach taken (2325, paragraph 3 BGB new version). Thus, the compulsory portion supplement claim reduced steadily. The welcome melting model does not affect on the usual in practice donations of real estate, where the donor reserves itself the usufruct. Through the usufruct the 10-year time limit does not begin namely to run; the same applies for donations among spouses. Reserved portion removal for extreme misconduct of entitled to a compulsory portion can his compulsory portion withdrawn this will or contract of inheritance ( 2333 BGBff.), such as when the son the father to seek life, then can the father in his will to disinherit his son not only, but evade him even his legal compulsory portion. The inheritance law reform eliminates the previous suspension reason \”dishonorable and indecent life\”. Even after the reform not to the removal of the compulsory portion entitled \”Alienation\” or \”Family breakdown\”.
Timo Stapf, a lawyer from Mannheim is able to advise and represent you in civil matters, such as in family law, tenancy law, traffic law and employment law around Ludwigshafen, Heidelberg, and Mannheim. Especially in tenancy disputes frequently occur between tenant and landlord. It is helpful, therefore, if their lawyer has a center of interest in the leases. Stapf lawyer advises tenants and landlords with all problems associated with the tenancy. Will the lawyer to the clients with comprehensive and exhaustive information legally, a knowledge of current legislation and case law requirement. Lawyer Stapf regularly reports on current judgments and advise you gladly in a personal conversation about the current legal situation of their case. With effect from 1 July 2007 has entered the new path in force. It brings a number of simplifications for the apartment owners with them.
Below are some key points are explained: 1 Decisions on renovations and upgrades to the house no longer have in the owners’ be taken unanimously. The decision for renewal of the facade, roof or heating system can now be taken by a majority. The other owners are bound by the decisions. Half of the ownership interests must be represented, however. The decision is binding on all owners. In many cases, block number of owners necessary renovations to their individual voice.
This is not now. The renovation backlog is resolved. 2nd Even just a simple majority now, the change in the distribution of the operating costs are brought about. If has been charged by square meters, the owners may decide that now settled on the number of heads per apartment. 3rd Previously, a craft his bill sent to any owner. The then had to pay the whole bill and claim subsequently in the other the owners paid too much money. This is no longer now. In a statement the craftsmen homeowners responsible only for his share of ownership. 4th Documents and decisions of the owners must now be collected. This is for the caretaker. He must create an archive of resolutions. If there is no property manager must notify the Chairman of the Management Board to make. It can be followed accurately in the future what was done to the house and how the owners have voted. There was no requirement for the collection of the decisions it so far. 5th It is now the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply with the result that, inter alia in dismissing the application, the process losing the cost of the process have to bear. So far, this was at the discretion of the court. In most cases the costs were shared. It can be expected to be off at once complained of not quite lightly if the cost risk is imminent. With application of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant also must provide proof of his claim and conclusively say. The previous determination principle for the FGG deleted. Abstracts: All in all this is to much of a progress and a relief. It must not all decisions are adopted unanimously. Troublemakers have a harder time from July 2007.