> One has to wait and see
> if the issue will be cleared up by an ammendment of the MDStV and the TDG
or
> if the Federal Constitutional Court will have to settle the dispute.
A good way to expedite this would be to:
1) Find all the innocent online service providers you can within Germany,
who are capable of 'caching'.
2) Get your hands on some sensitive copyright materials owned by a company
outside Germany
3) Insert these materials into each German online service provider. Make
sure you do so via a chain of offshore anonymising proxies, so it can't be
traced to you. Better still, ask a friend outside of Germany to do this for
you.
4) Verify that the illegal materials are now available from these innocent
German OSPs. Guard your anonymity while doing this.
5) Anonymously notify the copyright owners that their work is being ripped
off, and tell them where the downloads are available from. Advise them that
the correct procedure is to file an official complaint with the German
police. Make sure to use an offshore anonymous mailing facility, like
hushmail or better.
6) Sit back and see what happens.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Volker Stolz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 08:49
Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: Node operators responsibility
> In local.freenet, you wrote:
> >IANAL either, but IMHO proxy caches fall under the provisions of article
1,
> >paragraph 5, section 3 of the Information and Communication Services Act,
> >available online at http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html:
> >
> >(3) Providers shall not be responsible for any third-party content to
which
> > they only provide access. The automatic and temporary storage of
third-
> > party content due to user request shall be considered as providing
access.
>
> I found some more comments on
> http://www.barkemeyer.de/PROVIDEN.html
>
> ******
> For other providers, liability is only engaged if the following
circumstances
> apply :
> [...]
> The access provider is not responsible for external contents, indeed he
will
> not become a service provider even if the external contents are being
> intermediately stored on his server using the 'proxy-cache' procedure
> (�� 5, para 3, MDStV / TDG).
> ****
>
> However, the next paragraph says that 5.3 is questionably and may be void:
>
> ****
> As far as the provider's privileged liability merely results from the
MDStV,
> there is still some legal uncertainty. In the view of part of the
critics,
> � 5 para 3 MDStV is contrary to the Constitution because it interferes
with
> the civil and penal liability of the provider under the German Civil Code
> (BGB) and Penal Code (StGB) which belong, however, to the competence of
the
> Federal State and not of the L�nder. This would mean that the privileged
> liability position is void and that, as a principle, providers will still
> be liable in the future (Koch, CR 1997, 193[198]). One has to wait and
see
> if the issue will be cleared up by an ammendment of the MDStV and the TDG
or
> if the Federal Constitutional Court will have to settle the dispute.
> ****
>
> This point of view can be found in several places (all over Google).
> It would be nice if someone from FITUG, Heise, NETLAW whatever could
> comment on this. I�ll see if can get some more facts...
> --
> Volker Stolz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * PGP + S/MIME
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
>
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
