Tuesday, November 26, 2013

ECJ opinion provider may not lock cinema portals indiscriminately - THE WORLD


article by e-mail

Kino.to was forcibly taken from the grid in Germany 2011

providers must cinema portals not indiscriminately block

Internet providers could this be forced to block illegal movie sites. However, the corresponding vote of an expert at the European Court leaves open what content will be blocked.

Internet providers could this be forced to block illegal movie sites. However, the corresponding vote of an expert at the European Court leaves open what content will be blocked. By Benedikt Fuest

The users of illegal streaming portals must anticipate future network locks their Internet provider. The provider will in the future probably block access to sites like Kino.to that allow the free use of movies via streaming.

with IP and DNS blocking copyright infringement under court order could be stopped, said Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg in a final application to a process between an Austrian internet provider and the German Constantin Film rental.

The procedure was referred to the ECJ by the Austrian Supreme Court. Previously, courts had already Wiener engaged in the dispute and were thereby come to different results.

“intermediary” illegal Offers

In the present case of Constantin Film rental and production company in Austria wanted to enforce that the Wiener internet provider UPC Tele cable locks access to the now-closed site kino.to.

About this 2011 in Germany forcibly taken from the network website users could watch for free or download movies without permission of the copyright holder via streaming.

Because Internet providers no legal relationship was to Kino.to, the Supreme Court submitted the case to the ECJ. The Advocates General at the ECJ to take in the process the role of independent legal experts, their opinions follow the judges later in most cases when ruling.

In his opinion, Advocate General Villalón came to the conclusion that it is expected of individual Internet service providers very well by blocking of IP addresses and non-forwarding of DNS requests to access to make it difficult to websites that are most often involving pirated copyrighted material made public. Villalón sees the provider as a “facilitator” of the illegal deals.

Technically adept users clientele

Although, as the Advocate General has to admit, in its opinion, the locks of a technically more experienced users clientele were bypassed – yet they seemed daunting. In addition, not everyone is tech-savvy enough users.

According Villalón the operators of illegal movie portals often sit unattainable outside Europe. Another reason why the blocking of IPs is the provider an adequate remedy against copyright infringement.


Villalón also pointed out that a provider should not be a general obligation for blocking – must be precisely specified in each individual case by a court decision which content will be blocked through which technical means should. The provider must not lock far-reaching in anticipatory obedience, just because the rights holder demands it.

report leaves questions open

“With this regulation shall also be avoided that the Internet provider then be made responsible of the rights holders, even though they have done everything reasonable to block a website” explains Holger Gauss, lawyer specializing in intellectual property law at the Munich Grünecker.

“Should the ECJ follow the ideas of the Advocate General, the judgment no clean bill of health for unrestricted power locks would nevertheless. Providers would otherwise ill-advised when their users without final judgment would deny access to a website. “

Gauss doubt that blocking such Villalón it provides a legally adequate means for the fight against copyright infringement are: “I see the danger of over blockings, namely a barrier to widespread of addresses in the network.


The Advocate General that such a barrier even in predominantly illegal content may be appropriate. But what does predominantly? 51 percent? 70 percent? What if on a server not only illegal but also legal content from different websites to be kept? There is still much need for clarification in the national courts. “

Villalóns final opinion is kicked to the end of the procedure. The final judgment of the ECJ is expected to follow in the coming weeks.

© Axel Springer AG 2013. All rights reserved

No comments:

Post a Comment