WebGuard organized an exemplary legal proceeding about ads on illegal websites. In this case WebGuard focused on sites violating the German youth protection act.
The Higher Regional court of Stuttgart decided that a company has to stop advertising on illegal sites once they are informed.
- If they don’t stop placing legal ads on illegal sites they would be seen as supporting an illegal business model which would be a vicarious liability.
- Once they know that their ads are being placed on illegal sites they have to avoid placing ads on this or similar sites.
- The company is also liable if an agency places the ad.
[OLG Stuttgart, verdict of 14.03.2013, Az.: 2 U 161/12]
In 2008 the Higher Regional Court of Munich gave a similar verdict, but used „Störerhaftung“ as the reason for the liability.
[OLG Munich, verdict of 25.9.2008, Az.: 29U 3629/08]
In March 2013 GfK and OpSec published the first study about the way consumers are using sharehosters (filehoster, one-click-hoster).
The GfK Media Efficiency Panel made it possible to get a detailed overview of the surfing behaviour of Internet users visiting the three sharehosters uploaded, rapidshare and share-online.
These three hosters had more than 7.8 million German users in 2012. 60% of them visited the sharehosters at least twice a year.
OpSec, who checked the links, found out that the 96.5% of these visits were to download of illegal files. More than 50% of all downloads were movies and TV-shows.
For further details please visit (German language):
WebGuard organized an exemplary legal proceeding in 2010 to find out if the right of information according to article 8 EC-Directive 2004/48 (Germany: § 101 UrhG) gives the right to demand payment information.
The Higher Regional Court in Cologne decided that:
- File hosters have to offer information.
- Moreover, hosters based in Switzerland have to provide information.
- They have to disclose the name and the address of the uploader.
- They also have to disclose e-mail addresses and telephone numbers.
However, the copyright owners don’t have the right to receive the bank account information, because such information is not part of the EC-Directive 2004/48 (article 8).
[Higher Regional Court – OLG Köln, verdict of 25.03.2011 – Az. 6 U 87/10]