individuals can an injunction, acc. I § 97 Copyright Act, be eligible if you are not sufficiently secure Wi-Fi connection from unauthorized third parties for copyright infringement is used on the web. However, no claims relating to a claim for compensation, acc. II § 97 Copyright Act, be made. This is now the First Civil Division of the Federal Court decision.
The applicant owns the rights to the song "summer of our lives." With the aid of the prosecution was determined that this title from the Internet from the defendant, had been on a sharing network to download, available on the Internet. The defendant was in the period in question but on a vacation trip. Prior to arrival he had all the technical equipment, including its complete PC systems and also the wireless router off. The applicant seeks injunctive now the defendant, damages and the reimbursement of Abmahnkosten.
The LG Frankfurt has the defendant in the first instance, convicted in the application. The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal had
found it liable to the owner of an Internet connection generally not as spoilers for the unauthorized use of a wireless connection by unauthorized third parties who are not affiliated with him.
The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the verdict, as far as the Frankfurt Court of Appeal had dismissed the application with the application for an injunction and the request for payment of Abmahnkosten. The Federal Court but also believed that the liability of the defendant as the perpetrator or participant in a copyright infringement not be considered. According to § 97 I
Copyright Act, a person who violates the copyrights illegally will be taken in re-offending for an injunction to complete. The claim for injunctive relief exists, even if an infringement is threatening the first time. In the present case the defendant is the violation of copyrights, acc. I § 97 Copyright Act, adequate cause causal. And private port owners responsible for the opinion of the Supreme Court a duty to consider whether their wireless connection is protected by adequate safeguards against the risk of being hit by an unauthorized third party misused to commit copyright infringement. The private operator of a wireless network should not be expected to network security continuously adapt the latest technology and spend it with adequate funding. Their audit requirement refers to the observance of, at the time of installation of the router for the private sector, market fuses. So it would have been reasonable for the defendant to prevent the violation of this duty, the defendant, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, violated in this case. He had left at the factory default security settings of the wireless router and replace the password by not a personal, long enough and safe.
So here is an injunctive relief under § 97 I 1 UrhG. In addition, there is also, according to § 97 a I 2 Copyright Act, a claim for compensation the Abmahnkosten. The Supreme Court makes it clear to the fact that a defendant is liable under the legal principles of the so-called nuisance liability, for restraint and for reimbursement of Abmahnkosten. The liability is the opinion of the Supreme Court after the first, to the wireless terminal of the defendant committed copyright infringement.
liable for damages under § 97 Copyright Act II, however, only those who violated a foreign copyright or related right. But the offense has as perpetrators themselves committed or taken part be causally adequate (instigator / assistant). The Supreme Court makes it clear that the defendant not to pay damages, acc. II UrhG § 97 is required. A liability as the perpetrator of an infringement of copyright is denied because the defendant does not question the songs on the Internet. A liability as an accomplice in the foreign copyright infringement would have required intent, where it was lacking in the dispute.
Conclusion: The Federal Supreme Court clarified that Abgemahnt at inadequately secured wireless internet access for injunction, but can not be made to a claim for compensation. The repayment of Abmahnkosten here was limited to 100 €. acc. § 97 a UrhG. The Court of the Supreme Court Abmahnkosten are thus now 100 € "capped". This cap is designed to ensure that no undue hardship.
Supreme Court ruling of 12th May 2010 - I ZR 121/08 - our summer Life
Federal Court - Statement of Press Office No. 101/2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment