tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2832658747239089436..comments2024-03-19T10:15:37.338+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Friday fantasiesVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90316611368082522282010-02-26T16:59:51.616+00:002010-02-26T16:59:51.616+00:00Don't know anything yet about the latest decis...Don't know anything yet about the latest decision, but:<br /> <br />1. "... in which the Regional Court of Hamburg fined file-sharing site RapidShare AG 24 million Euro for copyright infringement in respect of 5,000 tracks which had been shared through the site."<br /> <br />This seems to have been a bit of a myth: http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Hamburg_Court_rules_copyright_liability_RapidShare.Aspx<br /> <br />2. As far as I'm aware Rapidshare is a hosting site, nothing to do with P2P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-480820127782232282010-02-26T15:33:46.006+00:002010-02-26T15:33:46.006+00:00Rapidshare was not fined 24 Mio Euros, only the va...Rapidshare was not fined 24 Mio Euros, only the value of dispute was 24 Mio Euros. The value of dispute is the basis for the calculation of court and lawyers fees according to the German Court Fee Act (Gerichtskostengesetz) and the Lawyers Fee Act (Rechtsanwaltsverg tungsgesetz).<br /><br />Also, the reported legal fees of 7,2 mio. will not be correct. I would suppose the costs that have to be reimbursed are around 200.000 lawyers' fees (plus expenses for travelling etc.) plus court fees to the amount of 220.000. Costs have to be reimbursed only according to the Fee Acts I mentioned, even if the winning party paid more to their lawyers.Eva N. Dzepinahttp://www.stroemer.de/en/lawyers/rechtsanwaeltin-eva-n-dzepina-llm.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75544782629173284532010-02-26T13:46:14.290+00:002010-02-26T13:46:14.290+00:00The jury is out on whether the Rapidshare approach...The jury is out on whether the Rapidshare approach could get rolled out across Europe. In Germany an online intermediary that has previously been made aware of copyright-infringing material on its site can be obliged to monitor for similar future infringements. The E-Commerce Directive’s prohibition against general monitoring obligations is not considered to apply to injunctions. As we have recently seen in the Sabam v Scarlet case in Belgium, not all European courts are so confident of this interpretation – clarification by the ECJ can be expected in a couple of years... http://chilp.it/8028f7Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com