Liability of Google/YouTube/Störerhaftung

The recent decision of the Hamburg Regional Court on GEMA v. YouTube has been variously reported in English - for instance by Birgit Clark on IPKat. In this decision, a wonderful legal translation problem arises: the term Störerhaftung (literally disturber's liability). This is a term which doesn't exist in English law and has a widish range in German law, of which the internet form is only part. You can read about it at great length if you download Alexander Hartmann's Ph.D. thesis Unterlassungsansprüche im Internet (so this is what he was writing when he started the jurabilis blog). It becomes clear - or unclear - from this that even defining the term in German is far from straightforward. So if you are looking for a global term covering all potential meanings of Störerhaftung, the search is doomed to fail, and we will stick to the internet context and create a term, and the first time it comes around will put the German term in brackets. This is what is done on IPKat:
The court disagreed with defendant and held that YouTube was not liable via the legal instrument of “Täterhaftung“, that is by actually having committed the infringing acts itself, but could only be held liable via the principle of disturber liability (“Störerhaftung”).
This absolutely does the job. An alternative to disturber is interferer, which I slightly prefer. But it remains that it seems odd in English to see YouTube as a disturber or interferer. (I tend to see GEMA as a disturber!). Störerhaftung is a term which has been mentioned on IPKat before, btw ...Zum vollständigen Artikel

Cookies helfen bei der Bereitstellung unserer Dienste. Durch die Nutzung erklären Sie sich mit der Cookie-Setzung einverstanden. Mehr OK