The Federal Court of Justice has ruled against Uploaded.net in several proceedings. Above all, the business model of the provider was criticized.
According to the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), the same principles apply to the operator of a share hosting platform as Uploaded.net as to the operator of a video sharing platform. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) announced this in its press release today.
Uploaded.net has done too little
In the proceedings I ZR 53/17, I ZR 54/17, I ZR 17/53, I ZR 54/, and I ZR 56/09 According to the judgement, however, there are important indications for the assumption that Uploaded.net has not taken adequate technical measures against copyright infringement. Specifically, this means proactive measures such as keyword filters when downloading, hash filters, manual controls and research in link resources.
In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, the abuse form and the advanced take-down tool from Uploaded.net are also merely reactive and therefore not sufficient. The BGH requires that in principle no infringing content can be uploaded. This means that there are no technical options for rights holders to have illegal files deleted after the abuse report. After publication, it is already too late for publishers, etc., because their works have already been distributed. In addition, after deletion, the same uploads often appear again under a different address after a short time.
Business model is based on the availability of illegal content
For the judges, there are also “ important indications ” for the assumption that the business model the defendant (Uploaded.net) “based on the availability of infringing content“. It tempts users to share infringing content on their platform. You have to let the formulation melt in your mouth first.
But the process for Uploaded.net is far from over. Just as with the judgment regarding YouTube, the BGH returns the six proceedings to all the lower courts.
No liability for disturbance: Uploaded.net is now also considered a perpetrator
But a few points have at least been finally dealt with today. In short: Anyone who does not install an upload filter as a social network, video platform or online storage service is no longer only considered a disruptor, but can be directly convicted as a perpetrator. The judges don’t care that the e-books, pieces of music or films are uploaded by the users of the platforms. There is therefore no longer liability for interference in this context.
The operators of YouTube or Uploaded.net can also be sentenced to claims for damages from record labels, publishers, film studios, etc. This was not previously possible. In addition, the platform operators must disclose the identity of the uploaders of illegal works to the plaintiffs.
How long can the provider last?
Uploaded.net used to be very reluctant to pay out its uploaders. Because of this, the provider is suffering from a veritable decline in users and uploaders. However, a lot of water will still flow down the Rhine before the six procedures are completed at the respective OLG. At least until then, Cyando AG should hold out. The further development remains to be seen. In the case of the clear BGH ruling, the judges at the higher regional courts will decide to the detriment of Uploded.net.
About Lars Sobiraj
Lars Sobiraj started in 2000, to work as a career changer for various computer magazines. 2000 numerous other online magazines were added in addition to gulli.com. He is the founder of Tarnkappe.info. In addition, Ghandy, as he calls himself in the scene, since 2014 at various universities and training institutions attendees on how the Internet works.