upnorth

Level 25
Content Creator
Verified
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Messages
1,449
#1
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the right to a private family life doesn't shield accused file-sharers form potential liability. This means that an accused pirate can't hide behind other family members who may have committed the infringements, without providing more detail. Doing so would harm the fundamental rights of copyright holders.

More than eight years ago, German citizen Michael Strotzer was the subscriber of an Internet connection from where an audiobook was made available on a peer-to-peer network. The copyright holder, Germany company Bastei Lübbe AG, was not pleased and demanded that he stop the infringing activity. This later escalated to a full-blown lawsuit in which the publisher demanded damages. Strotzer, however, denied that he had personally shared the work. While his network was secure, he noted that his parents, who lived at the same address, had access to his network. The defendant, however, did not provide any further details as to where and when his parents used his connection. The court initially dismissed the action against Strotzer on the grounds that the copyright infringement could not be directly attributed to him, since his parents could also have shared the audiobook. In response, Bastei Lübbe filed an appeal with the Regional Court of First Instance in Munich. Here it eventually hit a roadblock. Strotzer denied that he shared the pirated content. At the same time, German law protects the fundamental right to protection of family life, which means that he didn’t have to provide detailed information on other family members. Faced with this dilemma, the Munich court referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for guidance, which came in today.
 

Eddie Morra

Level 8
Content Creator
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
374
#2
You have to be a special person to intentionally incriminate another family member in a crime anyway. If you get caught, don't go trying to blame your own family or friends, that is the most disloyal and backstabbing thing you can do.
 
Last edited:

Umbra

Level 85
Content Creator
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
18,568
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Default-Deny
#3
You got it wrong, he doesn't specifically accuse his parents, he uses a POC.
By the fact that his network was accessible by his parents, the accusers have to prove that he and only he is responsible.
That is a valid defense, the same way you can't accuse someone to steal from you if several persons had access to your house.
 

Eddie Morra

Level 8
Content Creator
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
374
#4
I see what you mean, thanks for clearing it up. I misunderstood what was going on.

Personally though, I'd be doing anything possible to keep my family out of the case, not trying to bring them in... even if it was a valid defence that would get me off the hook. Involving family or friends where they may possibly end up in trouble as a repercussion of doing so (or lead to damage of their reputation) is just a no no in my books. I mean, who knows what the judge might order.
 
Last edited:

TairikuOkami

Level 18
Content Creator
Verified
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
896
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Default-Deny
#6
I bet the family is in the loop, and will help him cover his ass.
I can imagine, that it was his parents, who asked for the stuff like audiobook. Most people do not really comprehend the seriousness of warez.
Like a mother would say: I would like an audiobook of Harry Potter, since I have hard time reading, but it is too expensive, can it get it for free deary?