3 ms·

I think the point is to clearly shift the moral hazard away from the provider to the user. The user may not uphold the agreement, but then they are clearly the

• TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  Why not simply give the moral hazard to the user by default? If I give someone a pen and paper and they use it to write a letter ordering a terrorist attack, am I morally responsible for the attack simply because I didn't get them to agree to use it lawfully?
  • jdmichal 11y ago
    > Why not simply give the moral hazard to the user by default? I agree, but in this case the German law has very clearly decided that this is not the default. And so this new law is seeking to address that.
• scotty79 11y ago
  Isn't there some meta rule about the first world countries law systems (us excluded) that the only crimes you are responsible for are the ones you personally commited?
  • germanier 11y ago
    Few things: Firstly, this is about civil cases, not crimes. Secondly, the wrongdoing here is allowing someone else to use your internet connection to perform illegal actions, not those actions themselves. Thirdly, in any law system I can think of there are crimes you can commit by literally doing nothing (neglect). For example, in Germany it's a crime to know about a planned murder and not do anything about it.
  • DanBC 11y ago
    Joint enterprise would be one example of someone being responsible for a crime they did not commit.