Filesharing: LG also rejects claim from Bielefeld, if other users have access to the Internet in a household

LG Bielefeld, 20 S 76/14, from 07.10.2014

Decision

The appeal by the applicant against the 24.04.2014 announced the judgment of the District Court of Bielefeld (The. 42 C 80/14) is rejected.
The applicant shall pay the costs of the appeal.
The most 24.04.2014 announced the judgment of the District Court of Bielefeld is unfunded provisionally enforceable.
The value of the matter in dispute to the court of appeal is to 651,80 Euro fixed.

Reasons

I.

The admissible appeal was by order pursuant to § 522 Abs. 2 S. 1 ZPO dismissed, because the Board is satisfied unanimously thereof, that the appeal obviously has no chance of success, the case has no fundamental significance, the development of the law or the assurance of a uniform law does not require a decision of the appellate court and a hearing is not necessary.
4
From the presentation of the findings of fact is in accordance with §§ 522 Abs. 2 S. 4, Abs. 3; 26 No.. 8 S. 1 EGZPO apart.
5
In support, in accordance with § 522 Abs. 2 S. 3, 2. Half sentence Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds of the decision of the Appeal of 08.09.2014 Referring. The other statements contained in the letter of 26.09.2014 lead to a different conclusion. These can be new evidence not rather recognize. The Board therefore maintains its view, that in this case the first instance identified lecture the defendant for independent access for their two family members is sufficient for their internet access, to shake at the appearance of their perpetration. The Supreme Court in its judgment to the extent required 08.01.2014 (I ZR 169/12) explicitly only, that the terminal owner submits, whether other persons and, where appropriate, the other persons independent access to its Internet and had -grundsÀtzlich- come as the perpetrator of the violation into consideration. This is exactly what is done here. In that regard, the defendant has fully complied with, also a duty of possibly existing Search, put forward by, neither her husband nor her son had downloaded from their internet movies from the Internet. This can be understood only as the Board considers, that both have against the defendant denied their corresponding inquire their responsibility. Enter the other user but in terms of a etwaig on the Internet made available to them violation of the law no further details of award, this possibility was "within reason" lack of concrete evidence for the defendant not. However, due to the intra-family permanently possible Internet use is a serious possibility of sole perpetrator of another person remains as the defendant made, since lifelike approach is also the possibility, that the true culprit this has not added due to the likely consequences. This is the result but at the expense of the applicant, since the reversal of the burden of proof is not connected to the secondary burden of proof.
6
II.
7
The cost is based on § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
8
Under § 708 Section. 10 Code of Civil Procedure was utter, that the contested decision is provisionally enforceable without security.

Please rate

For more information: