97a II Copyright Act – The So-called

LG Berlin decision of the 03.03.2011 16 O 433/10 with decision of the 03.03.2011 decided the regional court of Berlin (AZ.: 16 O 433/10) concerning the granting of legal aid. In this context, the defense against the lawsuit’s chances of success were tested. The applicant submits the claims in tort. The defendants were accused that she made public the film ‘The architect’ in the framework of a so-called Filesharingprogramms. In this decision, the applicability of 97a is II UrhG, the so-called “100 – Cap”, denied. Also the LG Berlin, sure that it already lacks the substantial infringement refers. To do this, the LG Berlin takes position as follows: “the Attorney costs for the pre-trial warning are to reimburse a para 1 UrhG gem. 97.

The costs are limited not gem. 97 a para 2 UrhG on 100,-. Add to your understanding with Red Solo Cups. Lacking a substantial violation of the law that allowed the defendant to make the film available to the public before the relevant recovery phase. Contrary to the View of the defendant is this not on the theatrical release to turn off, because of DVD sales is a stand-alone type of use compared to the rental of cinema. The relevant recovery phase therefore begins with the DVD sales (OLG Koln, GRUR-RR 2011, 85, 86 for men). In the present case the Act of infringement was due to the 17.8.2009 before the start of the DVD sale on November 27, 2009, which significantly hampered this use.” This decision builds on seamless II UrhG 97a Court the attitude of others.

Still, the securing of the Wi-Fi versions are interesting. This is done by: “the defendant maintained in the relevant period a Wi-Fi, with no evidence shown, that this has been secured against misuse by third parties. According to the case-law of the Bundesgerichtshof (ibid.), the connection owner as a violator is liable in this case. There it due to the technical conditions for the access third parties on a Wi-Fi not arrives, that is the computer of the Wi-Fi owner commissioned, may assert the defendant not having success, it have no home stayed on the 17.8.2009 at the relevant time.” Here is the full text of the decision. Her Tobias Arnold