Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Download of Copyright-Protected Internet Content and the Role of (Consumer) Contract Law

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The software, music, and movie industries keep suggesting to consumers that if they copy digital contents they may find themselves in jail. Moreover, horrifying damage claims are in the air. The problem with these scenarios is, amongst others, that it is difficult to understand for consumers where their rights end and where illegal use of content begins. This article focuses on the contractual relationship between online content providers and consumers. It explores relevant consumer law issues and lays open the legal uncertainties of the current regimes at the European Community (EC) and national level. The article then looks at current ideas put forward by the Commission on how to regulate internet consumer law. It concludes that a sector-specific i-consumer contract law should be introduced and offers proposals related to its possible content.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. OJ 2001 L 167/10.

  2. See the press statement of the Norwegian consumer ombudsman at http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11039037&subid=0

  3. See BGH, 25/5/1964, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 1965, p. 104.

  4. ECJ, 29/1/2008, case C-275/06 Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU, not yet reported.

  5. See Constitutional Court, 27/2/2008, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2008, p. 822.

  6. The court file is available at http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/09/23/Spore.pdf.

  7. A study of the Norwegian Consumer Council illustrates how even experts in the field differ greatly in their opinions on the lawfulness of backup copies, the use of external warehouse data services, transferring files to other devices, converting files into other formats, and the like (Norwegian Consumer Council 2007).

  8. OJ 2008 L 177/6.

  9. § 453 of the German Civil Code. See also BGH, 18/10/1989, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen (BGHZ) 109, p. 97, for the law prior to the modernization of the law of obligations in 2002.

  10. See AG Rüsselsheim, 30/1/2004, Deutsches Autorecht 2004, p. 280.

  11. Whether or not the rules on exhaustion apply to online content has been discussed controversially, see Kreutzer (2006, pp. 52–59) with further references. German courts have held that no exhaustion occurs when software is downloaded so that the author’s copyright persists. See LG Munich I, 15/3/2007, Computer und Recht 2007, p. 356, confirmed by OLG Munich, 3/7/2008, Computer und Recht 2008, p. 551.

  12. See, e.g. Case C-112/99 Toshiba Europe GmbH v Katun Germany GmbH [2001] ECR I-7945, para 52; Case C-44/01 Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [2003] ECR I-3095, para. 55.

  13. OJ 2005 L 149/22.

  14. Case C-220/98 Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Lancaster Group Limited, [2000] ECR I-117.

  15. This will not change even if the Commission’s proposal for a new Directive on consumer rights, COM(2008) 614/3, is adopted. This Directive aims at total harmonization, and it contains a blacklist of terms that are always unfair and a grey list of terms that are presumed to be unfair. Both lists do not deal with the issues discussed in this paper. Therefore, terms that introduce use restrictions will remain to come under the general unfairness test.

  16. See also Commission 2007, p. 6, on the different perceptions of digital rights management by content providers and users.

  17. COM(2008) 614/3.

  18. COM(2005) 650 final.

  19. See above, n. 9.

  20. See BGH, 15/11/2006, Kommunikation und Recht 2007, p. 91.

  21. For this distinction see also BGH, 24/12/2002, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2003, p. 2014.

References

  • Bechtold, S. (2002). Vom Urheber- zum Informationsrecht: Implikationen des Digital Rights Management. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitterich, K. (2006). Kollisionsrechtliche Absicherung gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Standards im Bereich des Verbraucherschutzes: Der Vorschlag für eine Rom I-Verordnung. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft, 52, 262–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2006). Green paper on the review of the consumer acquis. COM (2006) 744 final.

  • Commission (2007). Communication on creative content online in the single market. COM (2007) 836 final.

  • Contreras, J. L., & Slade, K. H. (2000). Click-wrap agreements: Background and guidelines for enforceability. Computer und Recht international, 1, 104–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • EP (2007). Resolution on consumer confidence in the digital environment. European Parliament document P6-TA(2007)0287.

  • Girot, C. (2001). User protection in IT: A comparative study on the protection of the user against defective performance in information technology. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glinski, C., & Rott, P. (2003). Umweltfreundliches und ethisches Konsumverhalten im harmonisierten Kaufrecht. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 14, 649-654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann, B., & Liepe, A. (2002). Vertrieb von kopiergeschützten Audio-CDs in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht, 46, 362-375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk, E. (2003). Das Ende von “fair use“?—Technische Schutzmaßnahmen im Urheberrecht der USA. Multi-Media und Recht, 6, 148–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann, S. (2001). European sales law—reform and adoption of international models in German sales law. European Review of Private Law, 9, 239–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibault, L. (2002a). Copyright limitations and contracts. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibault, L. (2002b). Copyright limitations and contracts: Are restrictive click-wrap licences valid? Journal of Digital Property Law, 2, 144–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helberger, N., & Hugenholtz, P. B. (2007). No place like home for making a copy: Private copying in European copyright law and consumer law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22, 1061–1098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, G. (2005). Information and product liability—a game of Russian roulette. In G. Howells, A. Janssen, & R. Schulze (Eds.), Information rights and obligations (pp. 155–169). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzer, T. (2006). Verbraucherschutz bei digitalen Medien. http://www.vzbv.de/mediapics/anlage_pm_digitale_medien_06_2006_copy.pdf.

  • Marly, J. (2004). Softwareüberlassungsverträge, (4th ed.). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M. (2003). Die Umgehung des Rechts des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs im Gebrauchtwagenhandel. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 56, 1975–1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nippe, W. (1995). Einzelne Vervielfáltigungsstücke – Der Kampf um die Zahlen. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht – Internationaler Teil, 44, 202-204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwegian Consumer Council (2007). Legal or illegal? http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2007/legal_or_illegal.

  • Patalong, F. (2008). DRM: Musik mit Ablaufdatum. Spiegel online. http://www.spiegel.de. Accessed 24 April 2008

  • Riesenhuber, K. (2001). Party autonomy and information in the sales directive. In S. Grundmann, W. Kerber, & S. Weatherill (Eds.), Party autonomy and the role of information in the internal market (pp. 348–370). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rott, P. (2004). Privatkopie und Urhebervertragsrecht aus der Perspektive des Verbraucherrechts. In R. Hilty, & A. Peukert (Eds.), Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht (pp. 267–287). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rott, P., & Twigg-Flesner, C. (2007). No closer to harmonisation? The implementation of directive 1999/44/EC into English and German law three years on. Yearbook of Consumer Law, 1, 121–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schack, H. (2001). Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schack, H. (2002). Schutz digitaler Werke vor privater Vervielfältigung—zu den Auswirkungen der Digitalisierung auf § 53 UrhG. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht, 46, 497–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Nölke, H. (2007). EC Law on the Formation of Contract—from the Common Frame of Reference to the ‘Blue Button’. European Review of Contract Law, 3, 332–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Bar, C., Clive, E., Schulte-Nölke, H., et al. (2008). Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law—Draft common frame of reference (DCFR). Munich: Sellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Diemar, U. (2002). Die digitale Kopie zum privaten Gebrauch. Münster: Lit-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, D. (2008). Expectations for the final common frame of reference. ERA Forum, 9, S7–S11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand, P. (2001). Technische Schutzmaßnahmen und Urheberrecht. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westkamp, G. (2007). The implementation of directive 2001/29/EC in the member states. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/InfoSoc_Study_2007.pdf.

  • Wilhelmsson, T. (2006). Harmonizing unfair commercial practices law: The cultural and social dimensions. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 44, 461–500.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Private Law, University of Bremen, Faculty of Law, Universitätsallee, GW1, 28359, Bremen, Germany

    Peter Rott

Authors
  1. Peter Rott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Rott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rott, P. Download of Copyright-Protected Internet Content and the Role of (Consumer) Contract Law. J Consum Policy 31, 441–457 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-008-9081-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-008-9081-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation