Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Abonnentens skadeståndsansvar vid olaglig fildelning från dennes internetanslutning - särskilt med hänsyn till Bastei Lübbe-målet samt Infosoc och IPRED

Brüggemann, Franziska LU (2018) JURM02 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Fildelning innebär bland annat nedladdning och tillgängliggörande av upphovsrättsligt skyddade verk på internet. Detta orsakar ekonomiska förluster för rättighetsinnehavarna till verken. För att komma tillrätta med det utbredda fildelningsproblemet har rättighetsinnehavare börjat rikta ersättningsanspråk mot enskilda abonnenter. Detta bland annat genom att utsända förlikningserbjudanden i Sverige och Danmark. Problemet med dessa anspråk är att det är mycket svårt att bevisa att det var abonnenten som begick intrånget på sin internetanslutning. Det kan ha varit en familjemedlem, en vän eller någon annan som använde internetanslutningen vid tidpunkten för intrånget. Samtidigt ställer Infosoc och IPRED-direktivet krav på att... (More)
Fildelning innebär bland annat nedladdning och tillgängliggörande av upphovsrättsligt skyddade verk på internet. Detta orsakar ekonomiska förluster för rättighetsinnehavarna till verken. För att komma tillrätta med det utbredda fildelningsproblemet har rättighetsinnehavare börjat rikta ersättningsanspråk mot enskilda abonnenter. Detta bland annat genom att utsända förlikningserbjudanden i Sverige och Danmark. Problemet med dessa anspråk är att det är mycket svårt att bevisa att det var abonnenten som begick intrånget på sin internetanslutning. Det kan ha varit en familjemedlem, en vän eller någon annan som använde internetanslutningen vid tidpunkten för intrånget. Samtidigt ställer Infosoc och IPRED-direktivet krav på att rättighetsinnehavare ska ha tillgång till effektiva åtgärder och sanktioner för att beivra intrång i sina immateriella rättigheter. För att möta dessa krav har domstolar i Tyskland och Danmark börjat tillämpa en viss presumtion för att underlätta rättighetsinnehavarnas bevisbörda. Om presumtionen görs tillämplig presumeras det att abonnenten har begått intrången från sin IP-adress. I Bastei Lübbe-målet från oktober 2018 fann EU-domstolen att det är oförenligt med direktiven att en abonnent kan undkomma både ett presumerat ansvar, och all skyldighet att effektivt bidra till utredningen, genom att påstå att en familjemedlem har haft tillgång till anslutningen. Ett presumerat abonnentansvar har även diskuterats i Sverige. Här har det vidare diskuterats om abonnentens givande av tillgång till sin internetanslutning kan utgöra medhjälp.

I denna uppsats utreds huruvida svensk domstol kan komma att tillämpa ett presumerat abonnentansvar eller ett civilrättsligt medhjälpsansvar, särskilt med hänsyn till kraven i Infosoc och IPRED-direktivet. Detta görs i syfte att fastställa huruvida abonnenten kan bli ersättningsskyldig, inte bara för sitt eget, utan även för andras upphovsrättsintrång på dennes internetanslutning. Resultatet av utredningen är att abonnenten, framför allt med stöd av ett presumtionsansvar, kan komma att bli ersättningsskyldig även för andras intrång på sin internetanslutning. Ett civilrättsligt medhjälpsansvar har visat sig vara svårt att motivera rättsligt, bland annat med hänsyn till hur medhjälpsinstitutet i allmänhet är utformat. Däremot dras slutsatsen att det kanske inte är omöjligt att ett culpaansvar skulle kunna aktualiseras för abonnenten, efter att den har mottagit brev från rättighetsinnehavaren. Avslutningsvis bedöms både presumtionsansvaret och culpaansvaret kunna vara förenliga med krav på respekt för abonnentens grundläggande rättigheter. Med hjälp av dessa åtgärder skulle det således kunna skapas en rättighetsbalans mellan rättighetsinnehavaren och abonnenten, samtidigt som Infosoc och IPRED-direktivets syften kan uppnås. (Less)
Abstract
File sharing means, among other things, downloading and making copyrighted works available on the internet. This causes economic losses to the rights holders of the works. In order to address the widespread file sharing problem, rights holders have begun to claim compensation from individual subscribers. This, among other things, by sending settlement offers to subscribers in Sweden and Denmark. The problem with these claims is that it is difficult to prove that it was the subscriber who committed the infringement from his internet connection. It may have been a family member, a friend or someone else who used the internet connection at the time of the infringement. At the same time, the Infosoc and IPRED directives require that rights... (More)
File sharing means, among other things, downloading and making copyrighted works available on the internet. This causes economic losses to the rights holders of the works. In order to address the widespread file sharing problem, rights holders have begun to claim compensation from individual subscribers. This, among other things, by sending settlement offers to subscribers in Sweden and Denmark. The problem with these claims is that it is difficult to prove that it was the subscriber who committed the infringement from his internet connection. It may have been a family member, a friend or someone else who used the internet connection at the time of the infringement. At the same time, the Infosoc and IPRED directives require that rights holders have access to effective measures and sanctions to protect their intellectual property rights. To meet these requirements, courts in Germany and Denmark have begun to apply a presumption to facilitate rights holders’ burden of proof. If the presumption is applicable, it is presumed that the subscriber is responsible for infringements committed from his IP-address. In October 2018, the European Court of Justice stated in the Bastei Lübbe case that it is incompatible with the directives if a subscriber can escape a presumed responsibility, and all duties to effectively contribute to the investigation, by claiming that a family member has had access to the internet connection. A presumed subscriber responsibility has also been discussed in Sweden. Here it has furthermore been discussed whether the subscriber can be liable for complicity by giving others access to his internet connection.

This paper examines whether Swedish courts may apply a presumed subscriber responsibility or a civil complicity liability, especially with regard to the requirements of the Infosoc and the IPRED directive. This is done to determine whether the subscriber may be held liable for compensation, not only for his own, but also for the copyright infringements of other persons. The result of the investigation is that the subscriber, in particular on the basis of a presumption, can be held liable for the infringement of others from his internet connection. A civil complicity liability has proven to be difficult to justify legally, amongst other with regard to how the complicity is generally designed. However, it is concluded that it may not be impossible for a subscriber to be held responsible for compensation by negligence, after receiving a letter from the rights holder. Finally, both the presumed responsibility and the negligence responsibility are deemed to be compatible with the subscriber's fundamental rights. These actions could thus create a fair balance between the fundamental rights of the rights holder and the subscriber, while at the same time meeting the objectives of the Infosoc and IPRED directive. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Brüggemann, Franziska LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The subscriber's compensation liability for illegal file sharing from his internet connection - especially considering the Bastei Lübbe case and Infosoc and IPRED
course
JURM02 20182
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
immaterialrätt, EU-rätt, upphovsrätt, Infosoc, IPRED
language
Swedish
id
8964971
date added to LUP
2019-01-28 11:37:17
date last changed
2021-01-29 05:27:43
@misc{8964971,
  abstract     = {{File sharing means, among other things, downloading and making copyrighted works available on the internet. This causes economic losses to the rights holders of the works. In order to address the widespread file sharing problem, rights holders have begun to claim compensation from individual subscribers. This, among other things, by sending settlement offers to subscribers in Sweden and Denmark. The problem with these claims is that it is difficult to prove that it was the subscriber who committed the infringement from his internet connection. It may have been a family member, a friend or someone else who used the internet connection at the time of the infringement. At the same time, the Infosoc and IPRED directives require that rights holders have access to effective measures and sanctions to protect their intellectual property rights. To meet these requirements, courts in Germany and Denmark have begun to apply a presumption to facilitate rights holders’ burden of proof. If the presumption is applicable, it is presumed that the subscriber is responsible for infringements committed from his IP-address. In October 2018, the European Court of Justice stated in the Bastei Lübbe case that it is incompatible with the directives if a subscriber can escape a presumed responsibility, and all duties to effectively contribute to the investigation, by claiming that a family member has had access to the internet connection. A presumed subscriber responsibility has also been discussed in Sweden. Here it has furthermore been discussed whether the subscriber can be liable for complicity by giving others access to his internet connection.

This paper examines whether Swedish courts may apply a presumed subscriber responsibility or a civil complicity liability, especially with regard to the requirements of the Infosoc and the IPRED directive. This is done to determine whether the subscriber may be held liable for compensation, not only for his own, but also for the copyright infringements of other persons. The result of the investigation is that the subscriber, in particular on the basis of a presumption, can be held liable for the infringement of others from his internet connection. A civil complicity liability has proven to be difficult to justify legally, amongst other with regard to how the complicity is generally designed. However, it is concluded that it may not be impossible for a subscriber to be held responsible for compensation by negligence, after receiving a letter from the rights holder. Finally, both the presumed responsibility and the negligence responsibility are deemed to be compatible with the subscriber's fundamental rights. These actions could thus create a fair balance between the fundamental rights of the rights holder and the subscriber, while at the same time meeting the objectives of the Infosoc and IPRED directive.}},
  author       = {{Brüggemann, Franziska}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Abonnentens skadeståndsansvar vid olaglig fildelning från dennes internetanslutning - särskilt med hänsyn till Bastei Lübbe-målet samt Infosoc och IPRED}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}