German Appeals Court Says Video Hosting Platform Not Liable For User Uploaded Videos
from the chalk-one-up-for-proper-application-of-liability dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about a German lower court ruling that found YouTube liable for copyright infringement, for the actions of a user, uploading a Sarah Brightman song to the platform. As I noted at the time, this didn't make much sense at all, since there's simply no way for Google to know ahead of time whether or not the user has permission to upload a video. Putting the liability on the service provider is simply nonsensical. The week after that ruling came out, I actually was in Berlin, for Berlin Music Week/Popkomm/A2N, and led a session discussing the legal status of YouTube. It was quite interesting, and I talked with a lot of folks on all sides of the issue (some were... um... angrier than others). But one thing that I was told over and over again by folks is that there are some serious issues with German copyright law, which considers third party liability a perfectly normal thing (and demonstrating how ridiculous this is, one audience member angrily read aloud some incendiary comments -- one of which insulted Germans -- from Techdirt and told me I was liable for it under German law, and then demanded to know why I hadn't taken it down).However, thankfully, it appears that not every court in Germany feels that this is what the law says, or that this is acceptable. Apparently, a few years back, the very same court that issued the YouTube/Sarah Brightman ruling also issued a similar ruling against a local video hosting site called Sevenload, saying that it was liable for infringing videos uploaded by users. However, it appears that the appeals court has now reversed that decision, and ruled that Sevenload should not be liable. After the jump, I've embedded an English translation of the ruling, but the key point is that the court found that since Sevenload is not active in selecting the content, it makes no sense to hold the company liable. It also laughed off the argument from the rightsholder that since it wasn't known who uploaded the video, it could have been an employee of Sevenload. The court notes that this argument was brought up too late (i.e., not in the lower court decision) and that the plaintiff didn't offer any evidence to support such an assertion.
One part I liked in the ruling is that the court pointed out that it should be common sense that user-created content is not from the company in question:
Furthermore, from other services on the Internet, Internet users are used to areas being set up in which users can participate, in particular discussion forums. The sensible Internet user does not, as a rule, regard these areas as the site operator�s own content for which the operator intends to take responsibility.The court also cites other cases which noted online auction providers are not expected to review every auction before it goes up, "as this would call the entire business model into question." Similarly, the court finds it silly that a video hosting service should need to inspect each video. While certainly no guarantee, this appeals court ruling appears to bode well for Google's appeal of the Sarah Brightman ruling.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: germany, liability, service providers, uploads, video
Companies: sevenload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Holy crap....
Well, let's see how long it is before someone grandstands that Germany isn't being 'tough enough' on infringers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy crap....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy crap....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy crap....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incendiary comments (including against Germans)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devil's Advocate, playing merry Hob.
Whoever makes a (autonomous, unguarded) machine available that serves the purpose of copyright infringement -- without an actual contract, simply free for anyone to use at will, as *is* the current case since alleged "Terms of Service" are unenforceable except to block an IP address -- is thereby enabling and even *subsidizing* (presumably for *profit* too) any infringement that occurs using such machine.
If the above is conceded, then web sites would have to start making actual contracts with users, and for *consideration*, to shift the liability to users.
I'm not exactly *for* the above, but it's the only way I see the situation *actually* working out so long as copyright isn't completely done away with (which I don't want, but must be *restored* to pre-1970s time periods, the current forever and increasingly draconian undermines all legitimacy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate, playing merry Hob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate, playing merry Hob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate, playing merry Hob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate, playing merry Hob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a unrelated note, time for ad-block?
And no, I don't feel a strange sensation to suddenly by a Win 7 phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On a unrelated note, time for ad-block?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On a unrelated note, time for ad-block?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On a unrelated note, time for ad-block?
It was time for ad-block back in 2000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On a unrelated note, time for ad-block?
And no, I don't feel a strange sensation to suddenly by a Win 7 phone.
Ugh. Agreed. We're looking into getting those ads pulled.
Sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
Big corporations may be able to influence government, but it is the legal obligation of the courts to overturn laws that they dont feel are correct.
They cant influence every judge on earth, and once the old ill-informed ones die off, everything should be fine.
The Windows Phone ads did take over the site, but for me they werent flashing, nor did they affect my speed at all (IE8).
I really like the new comment system, there have been so many posts that I just wished there were a "like" button next to. Dont do that though, Facebook will sue you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]