Central Decision of the Stuttgart District Court on Liability in Copyright Infringements via Internet Connection
The judgment of the Stuttgart District Court dated 06.01.2021 (Ref. 3 C 2844/20) addresses the question to what extent an owner of an internet connection, claimed as the perpetrator due to an alleged copyright infringement, is obligated to act when lacking personal insight regarding other possible users (so-called alternative perpetrators), specifically concerning the investigation and communication of a valid address.
Starting Point: Copyright Infringement via an Internet Connection
Copyright infringements through so-called file sharing are regularly recorded over the respective internet connection. In the context of asserting civil claims against the connection owner, the question of who actually committed the alleged violation often takes center stage. The case law requires the connection owner to bear a secondary burden of proof: They must, within reason, provide evidence of whether and which other persons might be considered the perpetrator of the claimed infringement.
Requirements for the Secondary Burden of Proof
The purpose of the secondary burden of proof in legal practice is to balance the different levels of knowledge between the parties. While the claimant typically does not know who specifically used the connection at the decisive moment, the connection owner can clarify this – at least as far as it is possible and reasonable for them. According to consistent case law, this obligation generally extends to presenting, based on one’s knowledge, who had access to the connection and may be considered a possible perpetrator.
The Stuttgart District Court has confirmed these principles but clarified an important point: There is no obligation to independently investigate to determine a valid address of potential alternative perpetrators if such information is not already known to the connection owner.
No Further Investigation Obligation for the Connection Owner without Personal Knowledge
A further obligation to actively and beyond one’s own knowledge search for the valid address of potential other users is largely rejected in case law – as in the present decision. The court held that such extensive investigative obligation would overextend the requirements of the secondary burden of proof and lead to a de facto reversal of the burden of proof to the detriment of the connection owner. The connection owner is merely required to disclose the information known to them within reason. If they do not know the address of potential alternative perpetrators, there is no obligation to proactively obtain it.
Legal Background and Practical Implications
Interference Liability and Civil Burden of Proof
Interference liability, which is based on the violation of duty to review and monitor, is increasingly giving way to direct liability. In the event of an alleged copyright infringement, the rights holder must demonstrate and prove in civil proceedings that the opposing party may be considered a perpetrator or participant in the act. The secondary burden of proof developed by the Federal Court of Justice is a special constellation that is due to the principle of procedural equality of arms but does not create a right to demand evidence.
Limits of the Obligation to Cooperate
This decision underscores that the obligation to cooperate by the connection owner in civil litigation does not translate into an investigative duty. It ends at the threshold of what is reasonable and is limited to the scope of one’s own knowledge or at least one’s own reasonably ascertainable knowledge, without expecting extensive investigations. The procedural obligation to cooperate is limited to disclosing one’s own knowledge and perceptions.
Significance for Those Affected
The decision delineates the responsibility of the connection owner and specifies to what extent connection owners are obliged to disclose information within their procedural obligations to cooperate. It also considers the rights of third parties – particularly regarding personal protection and the right to informational self-determination. The decision is an expression of a rule-of-law balancing of interests in civil litigation and helps avoid disproportionate burdens on the connection owner.
Source and Judgment Reference
The judgment of the Stuttgart District Court dated 06.01.2021 (Ref. 3 C 2844/20) is available at: https://urteile.news/AG-Stuttgart_3-C-284420_Bei-fehlender-Kenntnis-muss-wegen-Urheberrechtsverletzung-als-Taeter-in-Anspruch-genommener-Anschlussinhaber-nicht-ladungsfaehige-Anschrift-der~N29672.
Please note that the contents presented only partially reflect the complex legal requirements and current developments in liability for copyright infringements on the internet and do not allow for a conclusive assessment.
If you have further questions regarding liability for copyright infringements via internet connections, the attorneys at MTR Legal are available to examine your individual case.
