• Copyright Act

  Filed under News
  Aug 10

  AG Munich, judgment of November 11, 2009, AZ.: 142 C-14130/09 also was in an earlier decision of the AG of Munich (judgment of November 11, 2009, AZ: 142 C-14130/09) noted that comes an application of 97a II Copyright Act only if there is a substantial infringement into account. In the matter was the Audiobook of “The way of the beam” accused the defendants of Dieter Bohlen on the Internet Exchange eDonkey to download offered. The Court sentenced the defendant to pay EUR 1006,00 to the plaintiff. In this decision, the applicability of 97a is negated II UrhG. The AG Munich took this as follows: “a capping of the incurred costs in accordance with article 97 a paragraph 2 UrhG present also did not come into consideration. The offer one Urheber Recht lieh LIEH copyright protected work within the framework of an Internet Exchange as eDonkey, is already not insignificant violation of law in the meaning of that provision. This arises from the fact that the contested infringement of rights in the public make of is a copyrighted work.

  It arrives for the infringement just not so, how many users actually accessed the offered work, but how many users of Internet swap copyrighted and made publicly accessible plant would have to access”the other versions are remarkable, because the Court assumed that regularly several 100,000 users is to use this Exchange. “It’s known court that at Internet exchanges such as eDonkey regularly several 100,000 users at the same time provided can access files on the download. Of this magnitude can be no longer assumed by a minor violation of the law, since unchecked and without reservation the copyrighted work was made available to a wide public. The referred to as far as exemplary cases of a minor violation of the law (insert a map on a private website, use a photograph in the) Under a sales offer an Internet auction Exchange) affect completely different bearing cases, because a significantly lower, gated persons addressed or is but offered the protected work is not for reproduction.” Attention should be also two further points of this decision. For one, the Court does a damages claim gem.

  97 para 2 UrhG amounting to 500.00 as appropriate. This is determined in the context of the license analogy. Still the Court makes it clear once again that no original power of attorney should be attached to a warning: “the warning was also due, even if no original authority according to section 174 BGB was attached to her. Although section 174 applies to BGB of its wording also business-like actions. A cease and desist letter as such but has no right shaping effect opposite the Dunned down. The injured person can successfully sue the infringer even without warning. The warning is only at the question of how the costs distribute ZPO are a role within the framework of the balance in accordance with article 93. “The provision of section 174 is a power of attorney be accompanied BGB with unilateral legal transactions, but not intended to make it easier for the infringer, to estimate the risk of costs of a process (OLG Hamm, judgment of 17. 7.2008, business signs 4 U 60/08).” More information is available on our website: your Tobias Arnold

  Tagged as: law, law & taxes
  
  Comments Off on Copyright Act

Comments are closed.