Responsibility of the Connection Owner for Copyright Infringements by Third Parties
The attribution of copyright infringements via an internet connection is regularly the subject of legal disputes. A notable case before the Local Court of Stuttgart (Case No. 3 C 2844/20) sheds light on the limits of the secondary burden of presentation for the connection owner who is being pursued for an alleged copyright infringement. The judicial decision was published on January 6, 2021 (Source: urteile.news).
Requirements for the Connection Owner’s Explanation
Scope of the Secondary Burden of Presentation
If the owner of an internet connection is held liable as the perpetrator for injunctive relief and/or damages due to an alleged copyright infringement, they bear what is called a secondary burden of presentation. This obligates them to provide verifiable information about whether and which other persons may be considered as perpetrators of the infringement. The court clarified that this obligation ends when the connection owner does not possess any further reasonable knowledge regarding the actual perpetrator of the infringement.
No Obligation to Determine a Summonable Address
The Local Court stated that the connection owner is neither legally nor factually obliged to determine the summonable address of a potential alternative perpetrator if they are not aware of it. The court’s assessment is based on the principle that the secondary burden of presentation does not create an investigative obligation, but merely requires disclosure of any knowledge the connection owner may have.
Distribution of the Burden of Proof in Copyright Law
Lack of Duty for Further Cooperation
The decision emphasizes that, as a rule, it is not the responsibility of the connection owner being sued to conduct investigations beyond mere identification, such as providing clarification about the current address of possibly responsible third parties. Such a duty of investigation is not supported by law and would inadmissibly undermine the presumption of innocence.
Significance for Legal Defense
The current legal situation stipulates that the plaintiff – for instance, a rights holder – must still prove that the connection owner themselves could be considered the perpetrator or credibly demonstrate that the alleged act of infringement can be traced back to them. The mere fact that no summonable address of third parties involved is provided does not result in an extended liability for the connection owner.
Relevance for Proceedings Involving Multiple Potential Perpetrators
If, in addition to the connection owner, a group of people is considered who also had access to the internet connection, such as family members or cohabitants, the connection owner’s secondary burden of presentation is limited to indicating those circumstances that are known or reasonable to them. Unknown addresses do not have to be obtained or disclosed, as long as they are not already known to the connection owner.
Conclusion
The judicial clarification avoids placing an unreasonable burden on the connection owner in civil copyright disputes and ensures the necessary balance between the interests of rights holders and the rights of private or business connection users. However, in proceedings with several possible perpetrators, a precise and appropriate presentation of the circumstances is recommended in order to minimize risks.
If you have further questions about liability in connection with the use of internet connections or if you are uncertain about the secondary burden of presentation in civil proceedings, we recommend seeking comprehensive legal advice. MTR Legal Attorneys offers detailed support in all aspects of litigation. For more information, visit Litigation.
