Tekijänoikeuden erikoiskirjasto

*000      ab a        ar
*00118767
*008      s2023||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||            
*040  $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*24500$a"DNS Block (DNS Sperre)" /$bDecision of the Federal Supreme Court of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof) 13 October 2022 – Case No. I ZR 111/21; ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:131022UIZR111.21.0 /$cTelemedia Act, Sec. 7(4).
*264 1$aHeidelberg :$bSpringer,$c2023.
*300  $as. 591–600
*336  $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337  $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338  $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v54(4)
*520  $aa) The rightholder has no other possibility within the meaning of Sec. 7(4), first sentence, of the Telemedia Act to remedy the infringement of its right if reasonable efforts to bring a claim against the parties who have committed the infringement themselves or contributed to it by providing services have failed or have no prospect of success. The access provider, which merely provides access to the internet in general, is only subsidiarily liable with respect to those participants who (like the operator of the website) have committed the infringement themselves or (like the host provider) have contributed to the infringement by providing services and are therefore significantly closer to the infringement of the right (continuation of Federal Supreme Court, decision of 26 November 2015 – I ZR 174/14, BGHZ 208, 82 [juris headnote 2 and paras. 82 et seq.] – Störerhaftung des Access-Providers [IIC – “Disturber Liability of an Access Provider”, 47:481–490 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0478-5]; decision of 15 October 2020 – I ZR 13/19, GRUR 2021, 63 [juris paras. 27 and 31] = WRP 2021, 56 – Störerhaftung des Registrars). b) The limitation of the blocking claim under Sec. 7(4) of the Telemedia Act by the requirement of subsidiarity is in accordance with Art. 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (continuation of Federal Supreme Court, decision of 26 July 2018 – I ZR 64/17, GRUR 2018, 1044 [juris para. 58] = WRP 2018, 1202 – Dead Island). c) Which efforts to bring claims against the operator of a website and the host provider are reasonable is a question of the individual case. The rightholder is obligated within reasonable bounds to make inquiries to determine the primary targets of claims among the participants involved. As a rule, it is also reasonable for the rightholder to assert an extrajudicial claim against a known operator of the website or the host provider for removal of the copyright-infringing content. With regard to the judicial enforcement of claims for injunctive relief and information, however, it must be particularly taken into account that no measures may be imposed on the rightholder that lead to an unreasonable delay in the enforcement of its claim. However, the right holder must in principle initiate proceedings for interim relief against operators or host providers established within the European Union. In individual cases, efforts that are in principle reasonable may be dispensed with if they have no prospects of success for reasons to be shown by the claimant.
*650 7$atekijänoikeuslaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$aInternet$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p20405$2yso/fin
*650 7$apäätökset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2868$2yso/fin
*651 7$aSaksa$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105087$2yso/fin
*653  $ablokkaus
*830 0$aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v54(4)
*852  $hSA-IIC
^