One very interesting aspect is how they got the IP addresses in the first place. There is some evidence that they bought traffic from a traffic broker, redirected that through their on domains and then to the final target.
If it happened that way, it does seem very unlikely that they would have any chance to succeed before a court. They can't prove that the user actually intended to see the video in question, they can't prove that they actually arrived at the target site and saw the video.
Summarizing the heise.de article: apparently someone put links to porn-broker trafficholder.com somewhere, there the requests got redirected to the freshly registered movfile.net, forwarding to redtube.net. On movfile.net the IP addresses got harvested. trafficholder.com was primarily used to generate traffic from Germany to the videos in question.
If this is what happened it seems a bit more far-reaching than just an exploit of IP law challenged courts.
Comments
One very interesting aspect is how they got the IP addresses in the first place. There is some evidence that they bought traffic from a traffic broker, redirected that through their on domains and then to the final target.
If it happened that way, it does seem very unlikely that they would have any chance to succeed before a court. They can't prove that the user actually intended to see the video in question, they can't prove that they actually arrived at the target site and saw the video.
Some more recent information in german about this is at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Porno-Abmahnungen-Ind...
Summarizing the heise.de article: apparently someone put links to porn-broker trafficholder.com somewhere, there the requests got redirected to the freshly registered movfile.net, forwarding to redtube.net. On movfile.net the IP addresses got harvested. trafficholder.com was primarily used to generate traffic from Germany to the videos in question.
If this is what happened it seems a bit more far-reaching than just an exploit of IP law challenged courts.