Although it denied many of the warnings in the area of file sharing firms again and again, so now is a certain tendency can be seen in the case law that are regularly made to amounts claimed in copyright warnings from the Court be reduced more and more.
In the following, therefore some decisions from this and last year are presented in support of this trend.
I. The value of the item omission
The copyright in the lichen warnings regularly scheduled object value for the omission is crucial for the reimbursement of the opposing lawyers. So it comes naturally tend to provoke the recognized object values are estimated too high in the warnings in many cases. For example, when alleged copyright infringement of music albums or films of some Abmahnkanzleien object values in the amount of 50,000.00 € deemed appropriate in order to then a corresponding "settlement offer" to suggest Proper, the relevant firms refer here often to the jurisdiction of the Higher Regional Court Cologne, the correspondingly high amounts in dispute seems to be the case, however, more and more to want to put a stop to..
first (Judgement of the district court of Aachen, 16.07.2010, Az: 115 C 77/10)
In this context, the District Court of Aachen in a file-sharing case to the problem of illegal offers of an actual music album with twelve titles decided this year that a contrary of the established in the original warning amount in dispute in the amount of 50,000.00 € such must be considered only in the amount of € 3,000.00 as reasonable. If one were to apply the appropriate decision on copyright warnings of music albums, so could the warnings firms in terms of financial compensation for their use only an amount of € 265.70 demand.
second (Judgement of the District Court of Halle, 24.11.2009, Az: 95 C 3258/09)
In this regard, another decision of the district court hall from the year 2009 is mentioned. There, the district court hall for a reasonable amount in dispute for the illicit supply of a film had to judge. There, the court had an object of the amount of € 1,200.00 for maintained properly, which also significantly differed from the original in the warning or action in the alleged object of value.
third BGH of 12.05.2010 "Summer of our lives" (Federal Supreme Court 12.05.2010-I ZR 121/08)
Regardless of the foregoing, this is not the cost cap of § 97 a UrhG II considered. Also in this year furore caused and euphoric awaited ruling by the Federal here has unfortunately brought no clear clarity. subject of the proceedings in this case was the allegation of copyright infringement on a single song. In the contemporary press release had the Supreme Court announced that it the provision of § 97 a II Copyright Act, which in turn provides a corresponding cost ceiling for the reimbursement of the opposing attorneys to 100, 00 €, holds to be applicable. The Federal Court had then expressed in the grounds with no word on the subject. From the ranks of the warning of this fact is interpreted on a regular basis so that the rule did not apply. Here, however, frequently overlooked that the relevant question for the case to be decided by the Supreme Court was not decisive. Because of the time alleged infringement took place at a time when the relevant provision was not yet existent, so that the Supreme Court in its Enzscheidung this not comment on it and had also waived. In our view, the former press release, however, had clear indication of action, which is rejected by the warnings firms regularly for obvious reasons. The further development remains to be seen.
II license for damages
In the case of a legitimate warning, the owners generally require the Abgemahnt a so-called royalty damages. Here are the warnings from law firms regularly required amounts, for example, for copyright infringement on a track, in the amount of 150,00 €. However, in this respect, as a recent decision of the Landgericht Hamburg Caused a stir (see the LG Hamburg, 10.08.2010, Az: 308 O 710/09). There, the court had in relation to the alleged royalty damages for breach of copyright in a song such a salary in the amount of 15.00 € is appropriate. In this case, was correctly parked on what reasonable parties would have agreed with the conclusion of a fictitious license agreement as a reasonable royalty. In this regard must be given of course that it was at the disputed work to older titles. However, this decision also shows a certain tendency in the case law that the amounts for the appropriate license for damages are often set too high. It means, for example in some of the relevant copyright warnings firms that own the license subject to the offender liable for damages in the five-digit would be set. This is the case of copyright infringement on a single plant in this side view, totally unrealistic, while in reality the court is not even enforceable.
III. Conclusion
Even if it is only such decisions are individual decisions, it some trends in case law can be derived. What is certain is that these decisions the defense positions in the file-sharing defense improved significantly since the the Abmahnkanzleien despite the possibility of selecting the court can not be quite as safe as before. Due to a variety of machined warnings we have the necessary experience to advise you comprehensively in the area of file sharing and defending.
0 comments:
Post a Comment