Advanced

Bevisbördans placering vid olovlig fildelning - vilken bevisbörderegel kan lämpa sig för fastställandet av intrångsgöraren?

Rakovic, Stefan LU (2019) LAGF03 20191
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I uppsatsen utreds vilken bevisbörderegel som i ett tvistemål om olovlig fildelning ska utformas för fastställandet av intrångsgöraren i 54 § i lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk. Den huvudsakliga frågeställningen besvaras utifrån situationen där rättighetsinnehavaren, till det fildelade upphovsrättsliga verket, riktar skadeståndsanspråk mot abonnenten av den internetanslutning som brukats för olovlig fildelning. Med hänsyn till bevisbördans väsentliga betydelse för utgången i tvistemål behandlas rättsläget genomgående utifrån ett rättviseperspektiv.

Utredningen berör huvudsakligen de grundläggande reglerna om bevisbördans placering, vilket innefattar de allmänna bevisbördeteorierna och dess grundsatser.... (More)
I uppsatsen utreds vilken bevisbörderegel som i ett tvistemål om olovlig fildelning ska utformas för fastställandet av intrångsgöraren i 54 § i lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk. Den huvudsakliga frågeställningen besvaras utifrån situationen där rättighetsinnehavaren, till det fildelade upphovsrättsliga verket, riktar skadeståndsanspråk mot abonnenten av den internetanslutning som brukats för olovlig fildelning. Med hänsyn till bevisbördans väsentliga betydelse för utgången i tvistemål behandlas rättsläget genomgående utifrån ett rättviseperspektiv.

Utredningen berör huvudsakligen de grundläggande reglerna om bevisbördans placering, vilket innefattar de allmänna bevisbördeteorierna och dess grundsatser. I syfte att besvara frågeställningen behandlas även upphovsrätt och rättighetsinnehavarens tillvägagångssätt för att beivra intrång genom fildelning.

Slutsatsen av utredningen är att ett flertal bevisbördeteorier motiverar att abonnenten åläggs med bevisskyldighet genom en presumtionsregel. Emellertid är det inte alltid säkert att presumtioner i tvistemål om olovlig fildelning anses berättigade eller att bevisbördan över huvud taget ska placeras på abonnenten. Uppfyller inte abonnenten det beviskrav som riktas mot vederbörande finns det en risk att abonnenten hålls ansvarig för andra personers olovliga fildelning genom vederbörandes internetanslutning. I det fall rättighetsinnehavaren misslyckas med att påvisa presumtionsgrundande omständigheter, kan skadeståndsanspråket komma att ogillas av domstolen. Detsamma gäller om rättighetsinnehavaren ensam är bevisskyldig för utredningen av intrångsgöraren i 54 § URL och misslyckas med att uppnå beviskravet. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis investigates which burden of proof rule that, in a civil case concerning illegal file sharing, should be designed for the determination of the infringer in Article 54 in the Swedish Copyright Act (1960:729). The main issue is answered based on the situation where the right holder, to the file-shared copyright work, directs claims against the subscriber of the internet connection which was used for illegal file sharing. With respect to the essential significance of the burden of proof in civil cases, the legal position is addressed from a perspective of justice.

The investigation deals mainly with the elementary rules on the placement of the burden of proof, which include the general burden of proof theories and their basic... (More)
This thesis investigates which burden of proof rule that, in a civil case concerning illegal file sharing, should be designed for the determination of the infringer in Article 54 in the Swedish Copyright Act (1960:729). The main issue is answered based on the situation where the right holder, to the file-shared copyright work, directs claims against the subscriber of the internet connection which was used for illegal file sharing. With respect to the essential significance of the burden of proof in civil cases, the legal position is addressed from a perspective of justice.

The investigation deals mainly with the elementary rules on the placement of the burden of proof, which include the general burden of proof theories and their basic principles. In order to answer the question, copyright and the right holder’s possibilities to take measures against infringements conducted through file sharing, are also examined.

The conclusion reached by the investigation is that a variety of burden of proof theories justify that the subscriber is subject to an onus of proof through a presumption rule. However, it is not certain that presumptions in civil cases concerning illegal file sharing are considered justified, or that the burden of proof is to be placed on the subscriber at all. If the subscriber does not meet the evidentiary requirement directed to the person concerned, there is a risk that the subscriber is held responsible for illegal file sharing through his or her internet connection conducted by other persons. In the event that the right holder fails to prove presumptionary circumstances, the claim may be dismissed by the court. The same applies if the right holder hold the burden of proof for the investigation of the infringer in Article 54 in the Copyright Act and fails to fulfill the evidentiary requirement. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
@misc{8977155,
  abstract     = {This thesis investigates which burden of proof rule that, in a civil case concerning illegal file sharing, should be designed for the determination of the infringer in Article 54 in the Swedish Copyright Act (1960:729). The main issue is answered based on the situation where the right holder, to the file-shared copyright work, directs claims against the subscriber of the internet connection which was used for illegal file sharing. With respect to the essential significance of the burden of proof in civil cases, the legal position is addressed from a perspective of justice.

The investigation deals mainly with the elementary rules on the placement of the burden of proof, which include the general burden of proof theories and their basic principles. In order to answer the question, copyright and the right holder’s possibilities to take measures against infringements conducted through file sharing, are also examined.

The conclusion reached by the investigation is that a variety of burden of proof theories justify that the subscriber is subject to an onus of proof through a presumption rule. However, it is not certain that presumptions in civil cases concerning illegal file sharing are considered justified, or that the burden of proof is to be placed on the subscriber at all. If the subscriber does not meet the evidentiary requirement directed to the person concerned, there is a risk that the subscriber is held responsible for illegal file sharing through his or her internet connection conducted by other persons. In the event that the right holder fails to prove presumptionary circumstances, the claim may be dismissed by the court. The same applies if the right holder hold the burden of proof for the investigation of the infringer in Article 54 in the Copyright Act and fails to fulfill the evidentiary requirement.},
  author       = {Rakovic, Stefan},
  keyword      = {processrätt (en. civil procedure),immaterialrätt (en. intellectual property),civilrätt (en. private law),fildelning (en. file sharing),bevisbörda (en. burden of proof),bevisbörderegel (en. burden of proof rule),bevisbördeteori (en. burden of proof theory)},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Bevisbördans placering vid olovlig fildelning - vilken bevisbörderegel kan lämpa sig för fastställandet av intrångsgöraren?},
  year         = {2019},
}