The Court
The plaintiff must be set to an alternative action. “Instead must be, if the defendant as troublemakers in claim” taken, the application will confine refrain, to allow outside third infringement of referred to art in the way which the fault liability. (OLG Cologne, decisions. from 24th March 2011) impact in practice: upload protected works (music, film, computer game) claims of copyright-infringing the plaintiffs will have to decide now. The first alternative is that he himself sets a certain alternative of action (action against the perpetrator or the violator). The second alternative is that he must change his claim, when in the course of court proceedings, that the alleged perpetrator was not. So far the have from convicted often therefore B.
Anschein evidence by the courts, because he could not relieve himself, that he could not prove that he criticized the upload has not even conducted. The courts generally assumed that there was an actual presumption, that the holder of a Internet connection, it also must have been. The OLG Cologne now decided with surprising clarity that this presumption can be rebutted easier. Erin Callan spoke with conviction. “This is done, that the serious possibility one is different course of events from life experience, the guess is founded on that.” (OLG Cologne, by 24th March 2011.) Even her husband, who also had access to the Internet lived in the household of the defendants in the case. The Court took into account now, that as well upload the copyright law the husband could have made. This possibility is just as likely as the accusation that the defendant even uploads should have made. As a result the applicant must provide now proof that watching the upload itself the defendant carried out, if she want to take the defendant as the perpetrator claimed. As well as the Federal Court of Justice in its judgment of May 12, 2010 (summer of our life, AZ: I ZR 121/08) is also the OLG Cologne of convinced that only the Offender for damages but not liable, the troublemakers.