A man is sued for downloading a porn movie illegally. The verdict Wednesday is going to be principled, believes the lawyer.
Wednesday is expected The high Court to decide the first case in a complex with hundreds of cases of illegal downloading of movies.
In the case requires the british company, Copyright Management Services (CMS) 7500 dollars in compensation from a 34-year-old man, who refuses to have downloaded the film.
– There are hundreds of cases if not thousands of lawsuits that are waiting for the outcome of this case. So it is definitely something that will have a major impact, says the man’s lawyer, Mike M Pramming.
Through the information on the man’s ip address believes the copyright-the company CMS, that the man illegally downloaded and fildelte pornofilmen 19. august 2016. Thereby violating the he copyright, sounds it.
– We have faced that with that there has been an illegal file-sharing of this here movies at a time and have shown him the evidence.
– It is our opinion that the explanation he has come up with, must mean that he is responsible and should pay a remuneration to the film producer, says Jeppe Brogaard Clausen, who is a lawyer for CMS.
the Court of Frederiksberg has taken a position on the matter, and lost the man and having to pay a compensation of 7500 crowns. But he and several others have got to appeal to the high court.
The 34-year-old refuses to have downloaded or shared the movie. The division of the film must be done through a so-called file sharing networks, where the movie downloaded while sharing files from the movie.
According to Mads M Pramming, the man had rented a room out in his apartment, like the apartment was rented via Airbnb, where guests had access to his internet.
Furthermore, the man’s internet have been hacked, as others have had access, says.
– He knows that it was not him who downloaded it. So, the question is whether it is enough proof that the movie is downloaded from his internet, to you can get him convicted for the download of the film.
– We do not believe that it is enough to get him convicted, says Mads M Pramming.
CMS is of a different belief.
– It is true that he has a tenant, but we do not know whether he has been at home at that time, and he has not given an explanation for the court, says Jeppe Brogaard Clausen.
/ritzau/
