this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
137 points (96.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54462 readers
392 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A relative of mine that lives in germany told me that it used to be like that but it got changed 5-6 years ago, is he maybe misinformed?
I just looked into it briefly and you're right, there seems to have been some development:
Full text: https://www.juraforum.de/news/boersebz-direct-downloads-verletzen-urheberrechte_247270
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.
It is officially illegal since a few years ago. But they usually don't go after some person who streamed something, since it's really not worth the effort.