AfterDawn: News

German court throws out P2P lawsuit

The Frankenthal district court in Germany has thrown out a lawsuit against a suspected unauthorized file sharer after claiming that the evidence used to prosecute him was "obtained in an unconstitutional way".

The evidence was originally obtained by Swiss-based anti-piracy agency Logistep, which provided the users IP address to the content owners. The rights holders then used the IP address to begin the criminal complaint. Prosecutors then asked for the user's name from his German ISP and used it to begin the civil lawsuit. That same process has been used to start almost 30,000 similar lawsuits in Germany over the years.



The court has now ruled however that the ISP is not allowed to give out the defendant's names because file sharing "doesn't count as a serious criminal offense." That his name and address were handed over violates citizen's constitutional right to privacy, the ruling read.

As there is no common law in Germany the case wont affect the thousands of other alleged file sharers in the same position but the decision should give defendants more leverage if they choose to take the case to court.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 15 Jun 2008 17:40

• Previous article

• Verizon shuts down access to Usenet

• Next article

• New app turns iPhone into radio

• 9 comments

• ZippyDSM

  its nice to see them limiting entrapment, the ISP should not be a middle man untill the law ensures a crime is done and the law can not break the law to find law breakers...

  15.6.2008 17:54 #1

• Blackjax

  but zippy doesn't two wrongs make a right?! It does in the eyes of the mafiaa.

  16.6.2008 01:37 #2

• susieqbbb

  Yea.
  
  This i am glad to read about i am tired of groups using isp's and fake torrents to entrap users who share files.

  16.6.2008 01:39 #3

• nobrainer

  The thing is that the Germans have already lived with fascist, totalitarian behaviour and recognise it, while ppl in many other countries are giving up their rights to corporations and governments without a single objection.
  
  

  The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
  The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
  The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
  The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

  16.6.2008 03:07 #4

• 7thsinger

  Originally posted by ZippyDSM: its nice to see them limiting entrapment, the ISP should not be a middle man untill the law ensures a crime is done and the law can not break the law to find law breakers...Well said Zippy.
  
  It's almost like having Miss Cleo help out on supposed criminal investigations.

  16.6.2008 23:24 #5

• borhan9

  Quote:The court has now ruled however that the ISP is not allowed to give out the defendant's names because file sharing "doesn't count as a serious criminal offense." That his name and address were handed over violates citizen's constitutional right to privacy, the ruling read.
  
  As there is no common law in Germany the case wont affect the thousands of other alleged file sharers in the same position but the decision should give defendants more leverage if they choose to take the case to court.This is great news for the file sharer but would this rulling set a precident for file shrers and other court cases around the world. Heres hopping.

  17.6.2008 01:12 #6

• XENON

  Quote:Well said Zippy.
  
  It's almost like having Miss Cleo help out on supposed criminal investigations.This is a little off topic but what you said ACTUALLY happened up here 7thsinger!
  
  http://www.citynews.ca/blogs/familymatters.aspx The link takes you to a blog from one of our reporters in Toronto. Apparently the school board took the word of a psychic claiming an autistic girl at the school was being sexually abused. There was no evidence whatsoever but they still called children's aid to investigate whether the mom was involved!

  19.6.2008 18:00 #7

• Mez

  More likely, they must have gotten the wrong person a while back. I suspect the same thing has happened in the US. After nailing 60,000 in the US most of which per either parents of naughty kids or being so criminal to hire the Geek Squad to set up their wireless internet. The Geeks din't encrypt the network because that is more work. Plus their contract removes them from all liability.
  
  I have watched some new anti-piracy bills get cut down quickly. I don't even think the politicians believe the media mafia when they claim they are trying to protect the artists.

  23.6.2008 14:12 #8

• vudoo

  No the GVT does not believe that the music industry is actually being hurt by file sharing. The reason I made this statement is because in the past there was all this hype about the industry requiring DRM to protect intellectual property from being pirated via the masses. History shows that copy Protection no matter what brand you want to give it: CSS, Macrovision, Rip Guard, Sony's brand, Flux DvD, SafeDisk, and a host of others too many to mention simply put DOES NOT and never will work. Therefore the only reason for DRM is to lock to customer into a certain manufacturer's product. A good example is the Sony Playstation and the Xbox 360 both in which can be emulated and their games can be played on a PC. Not only does the emulator allow the games to be played, it too allows the customer to make a BACK-UP of his or her investment.
  
  The Turning Point
  
  Now we're seeing a about face from both the industry and the government's rulings (take the case of the apple iPod). In this case there has been discussions about Apple and Steve Jobs using their Fair Play DRM in order to monopolize the on line music industry. Many lawmakers have considered forcing apple to either allow Microsoft to put its technology in players such as the ZUNE or start allowing non DRM Mp3's to be sold. I believe Apple was the first to start selling Non DRM music in the iTunes store.
  
  After Apple came Amazon and now Rhapsody has joined the band wagon and is selling non copy protected music. So too will be the movie industry with their DRM WMV files and protected Apple videos. We are already seeing some DvD's with what their toting as "digital Copy" built into the DvD. However this is not good enough for if the company goes out of business the files that are DRMed won't be able to check for validity and therefore be non back up able anymore.
  
  The few people who have joined the consumer rights groups are apparently making a difference. One difference could be AEM (ads enforcement management). This concept would either show an ad banner ticker at the bottom and top of the screen as the movie plays or play an ad before the song plays. The ads will pay the artists.
  
  Germany is finally making the stand that most Americans should be making and mo more of this "Your stealing" nonsense.

  8.7.2008 14:30 #9