Okay, I don’t agree with what you said at all. But for argument’s sake, how do you justify that they arbitrarily can raise a fine to a substantial prison sentence? That doesn’t even make sense, not even by your logic. You just said what you think is just.
So what did he do between insulting somebody and appealing in court that was so bad? Appealing in the first place?
Hi, I’m the other FGC member on Lemmy. Have my upvote.
I like your list, too! TheoryFighter is a bit hard on the ears with that constant, droning heavy metal background noise, though. But that has been there from the start, so…
I’m visiting other companies for work every now and then.
If they are in a fancy new concrete office building with open space offices, chances are that cell reception is very bad. I once was in an office where I’m certain they had installed cell blockers on the toilets.
I just looked into it briefly and you’re right, there seems to have been some development:
Full text: juraforum.de/…/boersebz-direct-downloads-verletze…
Translation: Criminal liability of the downloader
However, users who download this data also infringe copyrights if it is obvious to a reasonable and fair-minded person that the public presentation (the offer on the servers of the one-click hoster) is made without the permission of the actual rights holder. This is certainly the case if, for example, a film is offered before its theatrical release. However, the obviousness should also be given after the theatrical release, since no one can expect a film production company to make its films available free of charge on servers of one-click hosts.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
It also states that downloaders are currently not being pursued, because it is too difficult to prove.
Direct downloads von urheberrechtlich geschützten Daten über Filehoster und Sharehoster wie uploaded.net oder share-online.biz verletzen Urheberrechte und können zur Abmahnung führen.Die Durchsuchungen bei den Betreibern von boerse.bz ...