The So-called

97a II Copyright Act – the so-called “100 – Cap”-a conclusion in our series of articles to the section 97a II Copyright Act and the 100,-ceiling is regulated “were a series of court decisions presented to you. A would due to the participation in a so-called Internet Exchange was regularly accused of the defendant. Specifically, it was about the alleged to have offered other Exchange stock exchange participants to download a copyright protected work such as a movie or piece of music, or music album. In addition to claims for damages made by the rights holders claim in particular also Attorney’s fees of several hundred dollars. In addition to the general question of whether the person concerned connection owner for the claimed copyright infringement to the responsibility can be dragged, it brought into question also regularly, whether in the case of liability the legal fees, not at least in the sense of 97a EUR 100,-to reduce II Copyright Act would be. The applicability of section was in the predominantly featured cases 97A II Copyright Act and thus a reduction in Attorney’s fees on EUR 100,-denied. A lump-sum non-application of the regulation of 97a II Copyright Act on Filesharingkonstellationen cannot be seen in it nonetheless.

As also in the presented decisions, it is in particular to consider whether a substantial infringement of the copyright holder or a simple bearing case of a would should be seen in the specific alleged violation. During the question of a simple bearing case in previous decisions (like including AG Frankfurt, AZ.: 31 C-1684/09 23) already alone due to the actual discovery effort of the holder by the prior information procedure within the meaning of 101 UrhG nor in favor of the copyright answer was, rethinking is recognizable in this regard. The procedures must be considered alone due to the mass of cases as a largely automated process.

Comments are closed.

© 2010-2024 Stock Investing Coach All Rights Reserved