Element 68Element 45Element 44Element 63Element 64Element 43Element 41Element 46Element 47Element 69Element 76Element 62Element 61Element 81Element 82Element 50Element 52Element 79Element 79Element 7Element 8Element 73Element 74Element 17Element 16Element 75Element 13Element 12Element 14Element 15Element 31Element 32Element 59Element 58Element 71Element 70Element 88Element 88Element 56Element 57Element 54Element 55Element 18Element 20Element 23Element 65Element 21Element 22iconsiconsElement 83iconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsElement 84iconsiconsElement 36Element 35Element 1Element 27Element 28Element 30Element 29Element 24Element 25Element 2Element 1Element 66
The Legal Concept of Interference Liability – Discussion of the Legal Concept of Interference Liability with Regard to the Limits of Judicial Development of the Law

The Legal Concept of Interference Liability – Discussion of the Legal Concept of Interference Liability with Regard to the Limits of Judicial Development of the Law

Presently the legal concept of interference liability is discussed extensively again in science, jurisprudence, politics and society and is partly questioned: When is a WiFi provider liable for illegal downloads made by a third party using its internet access? Is YouTube to be held responsible for uploads infringing the copyright? Such questions cannot be answered conclusively by the written law and are a solved by the construction of interference liability. A discussion regarding this legal concept is in particular required due to its almost exclusive development through case law. The pioneering decisions for the development of the concept of interference liability partially diverge among their terminology and their substances regarding key issues.
This dissertation shall answer the question, whether the developed figure of interference liability in its extent violates the principle of separation of powers. In this context it needs to be considered whether statutory regulations are required, similar to the regulations in the TMG (German Telemedia Act) amendment regarding the liability of WiFi provider.
Furthermore, this dissertation shall systematize the jurisdiction concerning interference liability in order to demonstrate the substantive and terminological divergences. The insights ought to contribute a formalization of abstract and general regulations regarding interference liability.
show more

Project Description

Additionally, I will systematise the jurisprudence of interference liability, which shows content-related and conceptual divergences. The findings are intended to contribute to the wording of abstract or general regulation of interference liability.

Project Information

Overview

Duration: 2015-2016

Research programme:
Further Projects

Involved persons

Jannik Domroes

Third party

Cooperation Partner

Contact person

Jannik Domroes
Associate

Jannik Domroes

Leibniz-Institut für Medienforschung │ Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI)
Rothenbaumchaussee 36
20148 Hamburg

Tel. +49 (0)40 45 02 17 44
Fax +49 (0)40 45 02 17 77

Send Mail

MAYBE YOU ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN THESE TOPICS?

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and receive the Institute's latest news via email.

SUBSCRIBE!