Court decision in music industry vs. heise online

In the legal dispute (reference: 21 O 3220/05) between eight companies from the music industry and German publisher Heise Zeitschriften Verlag, the first-instance district court of Munich I has just presented its written ruling. The matter in dispute was a report by heise online on a new version of software to make copies of DVDs. In the original version, this report not only took a critical view of software vendor Slysoft's claims, but also provided a link to the company's web site.

The Munich court ruled that, by providing a link to the company's homepage, heise online had intentionally provided assistance in the fulfillment of unlawful acts and is thus liable as an aider and abettor in accordance with Section 830 of the German Civil Code just as the vendor in itself is.

In its ruling, the court explained that the news ticker report neither constitutes "advertising for the sale of illegal goods" as defined in Section 95a of the German Copyright Act (UrhG), nor does it provide instructions on how to get around technical measures. Instead, this type of reporting is justified by the freedom of the press and is in the public interest. In other words, the court ruled that the press has the right to mention the name of the product, the name of the vendor, and the name of copy protection systems affected by the product.

The court specified the amount in dispute at 500,000 euros. This amount, the court found, reflects the "considerable profit losses" of the music industry and the "great publicity" due to the prominence of heise online among readers of IT information.