Tobias Arnold
On these issues in more than two years since entry into force of the regulation, many courts had to decide. The decisions many depending on the facts of the case very differently from. In our series of articles, we want to show the significant decisions handed down to this topic and this will give you an overview of the existing legal situation. Credit: Danone-2011. 1 97a II Copyright Act – the so-called “100 – Cap”-judgment AZ. AG Frankfurt am Main: the District Court of Frankfurt am Main has 31 C-1684/09 with judgment of October 16, 2009 (AZ.: 31 C-1684/09) the defendants sentenced euro 801,80 to the plaintiff to pay.
The process was the fact, that the son of the defendant at the weekend to visit was and unnoticed by the defendant, an Internet connection could build and invoke the appropriate page with the Filesharingprogramm. This notice AG Frankfurt: “with the establishment of a computer with an Internet connection the owner creates a source of danger for whose protection he has to make and he has to be responsible for their unauthorized use. “In the judgment, the Frankfurt district court denies the applicability of 97a II UrhG. Which establishes as follows: “However, a limit of 100 euros in accordance with 97a para came present UrhG not taken into consideration. Only cases that have either actual or legal point of view difficulties, where so the existence of an infringement is more or less obvious are simple”(Kefferputz in: copyright, 3rd Edition 2009, Wahome/Bullinger, 97a RN 34-39). This is already questionable, because on the one hand a not insignificant effort must be operated in actual terms in the framework of the investigation of the violator. Because on the one hand, the IP address is to determine an application for obtaining the data of the holder in addition to perform the following procedures, and then can contact with the connector holder appeared in are.
All of this already suggests that it is not about one in fact simply storage case is. On the other hand, also the liability of the holder as opposed to the liability of the acting is further not without controversy, what shows the confrontation of the Parties present, so also, as far as not possible to speak of a simple storage case, the infringement of the Dunned on the hand would be the. “In this matter, the applicability of 97a is negated II Copyright Act due to lack of existence of a simple storage case. The investigation and research on the party admonition from was so high that a case of simply stored no longer exists. It is also interesting that the Court continues to lead the ambiguous legal situation to the liability of the holder as opposed to the liability of the acting.
Comments