German Court rejects Sony Music copyright infringement case

[Index.php]

Nobody is liable for copyright infringement, secondary burden of proof fulfilled

Once again, the law firm of Waldorf Frommer , also known as Abmahnkanzlei, suffered a defeat in court. The district court Charlottenburg ruled on 10.09.2019 in a P2P lawsuit with the Az. 224 c 312/18. Above all, it was negotiated whether a Berliner connection owner had fulfilled her secondary burden of presentation.

The subject of the meeting was the use of an illegal file exchange offer of copyrighted music recordings of the music album "Lemonade" by Beyoncé. The court found that the secondary burden of proof was fully met because the defendant contributed concrete evidence to possible other perpetrators. No one is liable for the damage incurred. The lawsuit was dismissed.

Sony sued for damages

The plaintiff, Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH, represented by the law firm Waldorf Frommer, claims that the defendant is liable for damages of not less than € 1,000.00, and to reimbursement of expenses for infringing its copyrights. The initiated investigations for the downloading and simultaneous provision of the disputed music album in an exchange led to their IP address. Thus, Sony Music reminded the defendant. The latter requested that the application be dismissed.

Defendant pleaded not guilty

In court, the defendant, represented by lawyer Ehssan Khazaeli of the law firm of Rueden , expresses her innocence. Since she has subscriptions at Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Prime, she did not need an illegal acquisition of music titles. In addition, she has purchased said, disputed album on iTunes. She also can not handle P2P file sharing software, she explained.

In shared flat had all Internet access

At the time of the copyright infringement, the defendant lived in a student housing association. The connection costs to the Internet has been shared. The password was on the back of the router. Her two roommates, two sisters, as well as the friend of one of the two sisters, would also have had the opportunity to load disputed album via P2P. The internet was used in the WG to watch movies, listen to music and social media platforms. Asked about copyright infringement, the roommates denied being responsible for the crime. Whether they had visit at the time of the crime could not be reconstructed.

Defendant fulfilled secondary burden of presentation

The defendant asked her former roommates to investigate their computers on file sharing software or said music album. They told her that that was not the case. Both in the computer, as well as on the defendant's iPhone was "Lemonade" by Beyoncé in the iTunes library as a purchased item. Said friend also had access to the Internet connection of the defendant at the time of the infringement. He also had an increased musical interest. He owned a hard drive with large amounts of music files.

In court, these insights were only partially revealed, which is why the Berlin media lawyer Ehssan Khazaeli of the law firm VON RUEDEN had yet to add further evidence in the session minutes in the appointment. He also sharply attacked the witnesses: It could not be that such details come to light in a court procedure. The lawyer turned to the court and stated that the two were apparently hiding something and intentionally stupid. So one of the witnesses asked if "file sharing is something like eBay classified ads". "It is quite common that potential perpetrators on demand - often for self-protection - deny an offense, so as not to be claimed. With siblings, it is obvious that they cover each other, "

The friend of a roommate would "according to previous findings also considered the perpetrator of the infringement into consideration". This explained Khazaeli in the appointment. In addition to friends and AirBnB guests had Wi-Fi access. The sisters rented rooms through AirBnB if one of them was not there. "We have noted these new findings with surprise," Khazaeli said. At the time, they were all there.

Court ruled against Sony

The court came to the facts to the conclusion that the admissible action would be unfounded. With the decision that the plaintiff "from any legal point of a claim against the defendant for damages for unauthorized public offering of the music album disputed on the Internet" has, you carried the bill. Although the music album was undoubtedly downloaded from the Internet connection of the defendant, so it would be initially assumed that she has committed the copyright infringement. However, the assumption does not apply if other people could use the connection at the time of the infringement.

General requirements for the secondary presentation load

The defendant takes in this case a secondary burden of presentation. It must explain which other persons had independent access to their Internet connection and are seriously considered as perpetrators of the infringement. Furthermore, it has to explain in a comprehensible manner which persons had the opportunity, with regard to user behavior, knowledge and abilities as well as in terms of time, to commit the infringing action in question without their knowledge and assistance.

It is also obliged to make reasonable inquiries and to notify. She must state what insights she gained about the circumstances of a possible infringement. It must communicate the circumstances in which it can be concluded that the act of infringement in question may indeed have been committed by a third party who is the only person liable. If the connection owner meets the secondary burden of presentation, then the plaintiff is on the train again. It must set out and demonstrate the circumstances that support the defendant's liability as the perpetrator of the copyright infringement.

verdict

According to the verdict, the defendant has complied with its secondary burden of proof. "It is clear from her allegation that her two roommates are seriously considered to be the perpetrators of the infringement, since both of them at that time independently used the Internet connection, were at home during the period of the offense and heard a lot of music.In addition, the defendant has demonstrated that she has interviewed her roommates about the infringement and has also communicated the results of this survey. In this procedural situation, the plaintiff was required, according to general principles, to demonstrate and prove the circumstances that led to the liability of the subsequent party as a perpetrator of a copyright infringement. She did not succeed. On the basis of the evidence, it is not certain that the co-inhabitants of the defendants would be the perpetrators of the infringement and that the defendant alone would be considered a perpetrator. "
"The testimony of the two witnesses, no exchanges used and the disputed music album not downloaded or uploaded, are not sufficient to prove the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant itself committed the infringement. Because even the defendant has stated, no exchanges used and the controversial music album not downloaded. Other circumstances that would speak in favor of the defendant's culpability did not arise from the taking of evidence. "Sony Music as the plaintiff has to bear the costs of the lawsuit. An appointment is allowed.