Action against Uploaded.net goes on Tuesday at the ECJ

The procedure against Uploaded.net goes into the next round. The Federal Court of Justice has submitted fundamental questions to the European Union regarding the liability of filehosters for copyright infringing contents. Next week Tuesday will begin after more than a year break, the trial before the ECJ.

Four lawsuits against the operator company of Uploaded.net, the Swiss Cyando AG, rest, while from Tuesday the fifth similar case presented to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). That gave the Federal Court (BGH) in September last year known .

Does Uploaded.net have to pay damages?

Among other things, will be clarified next week, whether the Cyando AG itself as the perpetrator or only the appropriate user must adhere. The BGH saw a close connection with another complaint, which concerns claims of a music producer against YouTube. This case will also be postponed until the decision of the ECJ.

Is the download from a movie host a public play?

Uploaded.net has different requirements than YouTube. For example, one can safely assume that more than 90 percent of the content stored there contains a copyright infringement. In addition, Uploaded.net has created incentives, among other Sharehosters, for the acquisition of particularly sought-after works. For example, the uploaders will be paid according to the number of downloads made. In addition, it is clarified whether it will play a role that uploaded.net can upload the files anonymously. The catalog of criteria of the BGH is long and sounds very complicated. In essence, it is also about whether you can speak in a download of a Sharehoster legally speaking, even from a public replay.

The Berlin public lawyer Ehssan Khazaeli considers this to be questionable because the wording of the regulation would be stretched far too far. Khazaeli, who works for the law firm Von Rueden, also has doubts as to whether operators can invariably prevent, as required, that previously reported works can not be re-uploaded. Anyone who wants to prevent an examination of the content, would have to be provided as an uploader archive only with a password. That's why German competitor Netload wanted to force its uploaders to reveal passwords until it stops .

The expected verdict is not less exciting. The European Court of Justice was called to bring about a ruling on similar actions. In the future, all other courts will be guided by this.

Does Uploaded.net close the gates if you lose?

The question will also be what the management of Cyando AG will do if it loses its case against the publisher. With numerous expected compensation payments a profitable operation at a certain time would simply not be possible. Or will the provider be shut down as a precautionary measure in order to prevent further no less high demands for damages from entering them? If Uploaded.net has to be directly liable for the behavior of its users, this would also affect other Swiss providers such as the multi- host Smoozed and much more. That would be like a warning signal to go offshore or, if possible, to take other precautions.

Lawyer Ehssan Khazaeli believes that Uploaded.net will likely continue in the event of a lost Supreme Court decision. One thing is certain: Cyando AG could recover the compensation payments by way of a recourse from the actual infringer (uploaders). But then you would have to change the registration process to force the uploader to submit a copy of ID or other scanned official document. The identification would be similar to PayPal.

In any case, it would be exciting to see if, under the assumptions of the uploaders, someone would stay or would be willing to provide the correct information about their own identity. Then he would have to carry the full risk and not the operating company of the filehosters. It also remains to be seen which of the two procedures will be completed first. That against Cyando or against RapidShare, the mother of all Filehoster ...