German Constitutional Court confirms BGH's 'AnyDVD' copyright decision

In October 2010, the Bundesgerichtshof ("BGH"), Germany's highest court in civil law matters, decided in the 'AnyDVD' case (case reference I ZR 191/08) a lawsuit brought by several music companies against Heise Verlag, an online publisher specializing in IT and computer news (see the IPKat's earlier report here).

The music companies took objection to reports published on Heise’s website which included links to a third party website ("SlySoft") that offered software that allowed circumventing copy protection for DVDs. While the lower courts, the Regional and Higher Courts of Munich I, had held that Heise's online reports were itself copyright infringing, the BGH took the view that adding the links on Heise's website which linked to SlySoft's website -- where SlySoft offered copyright right infringing software -- was covered by the constitutional right of freedom of press and freedom of opinion under Article 5(1) German Constitution. By way of further background: the 'AnyDVD' decision is, inter alia, based on Article 95 a German Copyright Act which is based on Article 6 of the Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC) (“Obligations as to technological measures”).

On further appeal, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court), Germany's highest court, has now confirmed the BGH's decision (case reference: 1 BvR 1248/11 of 15 December 2011, full German text here) and agreed with the lower court's balancing of Intellectual Property Rights and freedom of press and freedom of opinion. In summary: placing a link to a third party website on one's own website "could not only be interpreted as a mere technical service and thus in isolation, but was due to its character of providing information" also covered by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of press and freedom of opinion. The Bundesverfassungsgericht thus agreed with the BGH, which had held that purpose of the links on Heise's website was not only to technically facilitate to access the SlySoft's website but the links were to be regarded as part of Heise's reporting because they were complementing and 'backing up' what was reported with additional information. The BGH had also held that the fact that Heise was aware that the software offered on SlySoft's website was copyright infringing did not change this and so could not be blamed on Heise since the information interest of the general public was of higher importance.

In its appeal decision Bundesverfassungsgericht stressed that by placing the link to SlySoft's website on its own website, Heise did not automatically make the content of SlySoft's website its own opinion. Finally, the Bundesverfassungsgericht poined out that the BGH had correctly balanced the conflicting rights when it had found that Heise's placing of the link did not further encroach ("no deepening of the encroachment") in the claimant's copyrights since SlySoft's website could very easily be found via an Internet search engine anyway.

A rather complex decision - neatly argued by the court in only 38 paragraphs. No further appeal is possible (within the German court hierarchy....).
German Constitutional Court confirms BGH's 'AnyDVD' copyright decision German Constitutional Court confirms BGH's 'AnyDVD' copyright decision Reviewed by Birgit Clark on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.