Nadine Jansen - Milena Velba

"Warning of the little dog / does not protect the owner. The reason for signs and wonders

happy to read of garden doors
warning about the dogs animals
times funny, sometimes vehemently
is thus of limited access
to (dog) house and the Garden:
The guest should then wait outside and
gegeb'nenfalls be grateful
with calls from the steps.

But if at the garden gate turn
is not ringing, what then?
And the guest instead of waiting
rather straight through the garden to the front door
rushed and pressed, then plays
when the dog crazy
and the host bites into Waderl,
a piece of the jeans pulls out.

Who will then pay the damage
euro on it draw on the check?
The fact that the Holder is this,
might BGB 8-3-3. can
And the sign with dogs
warning him not to serve as camouflage
contributory negligence Zero percent -
the dog owner has slept:

No bell in front of the garden
guests need not wait for drum
can spite of the warning sign go
not need to garden
see whether a pet, master of the house there stand
drum was taken then the decision
that the owner must pay.

OLG Stuttgart, decision of 24.06.2010, application No: done 1 U 38/10

Incesto Paternal Italiano

: OLG Köln said IP address determination in file-sharing process is error prone

There are signs and wonders:

The Higher Regional Court of Cologne has determined that the identification of IP addresses in filesharing cases reliably and doubtful. The owner had been warned connection therefore violated his rights been, as to allow the Cologne Regional Court decided, the provider of the information on the IP address associated address data.

party to the proceedings: Gröger MV GmbH & Co. KG, represented by law firm CSR lawyers, logging companies: iObserve GmbH

The reasoning of the court in a nutshell:

• many IP addresses have been well identified errors: identical IP addresses were with different dates in the list, it is very unlikely that these different port owner the same film under the same IP address had offered;
• have of this repeatedly recognized IP addresses but only one at a Warning out for references to obviously incorrect data entry; were
• submitted opinions on the reliability of the identification software inadequate.

Therefore, the Cologne Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked already an obvious violation of law by the port owner and the decision of the Court of Cologne was unlawful.

decision of the Higher Regional Court Cologne on 10/02/2011, file number: 6 W 5 / 11
previous instance LG Köln, reference: reports 203 O 203/10

The case detail colleague Mathias Straub.

Note

It remains to point out that this is a Individual decision is that one should not generalize rashly. One also pointed

copyright infringement through file sharing admonish me colleague, referring to posting this to the fact that other than identifying the affected company (GmbH iObserve) had been no explicit judicial rebuke suffered. Further, it is just including the Senate of the Higher Regional Court Cologne, which had consistently held the view that investigations of other investigation companies are without error and in court.

I leave that is at times like this ...