Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Secondary Liability for Open Wireless Networks in Germany: Balancing Regulation and Innovation in the Digital Economy

  • Chapter
Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 25))

  • 1340 Accesses

Abstract

This Chapter analyses the recent changes in the regulatory environment for open wireless networks in Germany. Starting from the general liability principles for online intermediaries, in particular the concept of Störerhaftung, recent case law regarding the liability of network operators for unlawful acts by network users is examined. Against this background, the Chapter considers whether the latest reform of the Tele Media Act, which aims at creating the necessary legal environment for better Wi-fi coverage in Germany, is well designed to achieve its aim. It is argued that in its current form the new law does not provide the necessary legal certainty for network operators. The Chapter concludes that the German legislator should have waited for a clarification of the legal framework at the European level and may have to revise again the Tele Media Act in the light of the recent CJEU ruling in the McFadden case.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) there are only 1.87 WLAN Hotspots per 10,000 inhabitants in Germany (as compared to 37.35 in South Korea, 28.67 in the United Kingdom and 9.94 in Sweden), see BMWi Website: <http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Digitale-Welt/Netzpolitik/rechtssicherheit-wlan.html> (all websites last visited 31 March 2017).

  2. 2.

    Open wireless networks are not only an essential part of the infrastructure for the digital economy, they also play an important role as a communication infrastructure in case of natural disasters where they can facilitate emergency services. For examples see the open letter formulated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation regarding the McFadden case (C-484/14) available at <https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/20/closedwifiasanobstacletolegitimatetrade-4.pdf>

  3. 3.

    Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes of 25 September 2015, Bundesrat-Drucksache 440/15. The original legislative proposal also provided for an amendment of the Tele Media Act to the effect that host providers whose business model is largely established on violations of IPRs are no longer able to rely on the liability privilege under § 10 Tele Media Act. In the final version adopted by the German Parliament in June 2016 this part of the proposal has been dropped. For details see Volkmann 2015, 289, 291.

  4. 4.

    CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689.

  5. 5.

    See Ohly 2015, 308–318; see also Ohly 2014.

  6. 6.

    See Hoeren and Yankova 2012, 503.

  7. 7.

    See Kur 2014, 532–535; Leistner 2014, 78–82; Hoeren and Yankova 2012, 504–506; Busch 2014, 765–779. For a comprehensive overview see Neuhaus 2011.

  8. 8.

    The application of the doctrine of Störerhaftung in the context of IPRs was well established before the age of the Internet. Based on this concept, injunctions could be issued, for example, against freight carriers who were unaware of transporting goods infringing third party trademarks, see e.g. BGH, Judgment of 15 January 1957, Case ref. I ZR 56/55, GRUR 1957, 352; see also Neuhaus 2011, 44 and Kur 2014, 532.

  9. 9.

    Leistner 2014, 78 and Busch 2014, 768.

  10. 10.

    Kur 2014, 533.

  11. 11.

    For more details on §§ 7 to 10 Tele Media Act, see Hoeren and Yankova 2012, 507–509. For case law examples see Busch 2014, 769–774.

  12. 12.

    See e.g. BGH, Judgment of 11 March 2004, Case ref. I ZR 304/01, MMR 2004, 668 at 670 (Internetversteigerung I); BGH, Judgment of 19 April 2007, Case ref. I ZR 35/04, MMR 2007, 507 at 508 (Internetversteigerung II); BGH, Judgment of 30 April 2008, Case ref. I ZR 73/05, MMR 2008, 531 at 532 (Internetversteigerung III); see also Kur 2014, 533.

  13. 13.

    See infra, Section “Scope of the liability privilege for access providers”.

  14. 14.

    For a brief overview of recent case law, see Hoeren and Jakopp 2014, 72–75. See also Hofmann 2014, 654–660; Borges 2014, 2305–10.

  15. 15.

    See e.g. Spindler 2010, 592–600; Borges 2010, 2624–2627.

  16. 16.

    Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 12 May 2010, Case ref. I ZR 121/08, GRUR 2010, 633 (Sommer unseres Lebens).

  17. 17.

    In two more recent decisions local courts in Frankfurt am Main and Hamburg decided that the WLAN subscriber complies with his duty of care if he does not change the individual 13-digit password printed on the back of the router. This password usually meets the high safety standard by the Bundesgerichtshof, see Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 14 June 2013, Case ref. 30 C 3078/12 (75), MMR 2013, 605 at 607; Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 9 January 2015, Case ref. 36a C 40/14, BeckRS 2015, 08939.

  18. 18.

    Hoeren and Jakopp 2014, 73. The BGH only discusses whether § 10 Tele Media Act concerning host providers is applicable in the case, which is eventually answered in the negative.

  19. 19.

    See supra, Section “The Concept of Störerhaftung ”.

  20. 20.

    BGH, Judgment of 15 November 2012, Case ref. I ZR 74/12, NJW 2013, 1441 (Morpheus).

  21. 21.

    BGH, Judgment of 11 June 2015, Case ref. I ZR 7/14, NJW 2016, 942 (Tauschbörse II); see also Obergfell 2016a, 910.

  22. 22.

    BGH, Judgment of 8 January 2014, Case ref. I ZR 169/12, NJW 2014, 2360 (BearShare).

  23. 23.

    Ibid. para. 27–29.

  24. 24.

    Sesing 2015, 424; see also Borges 2014, 2308.

  25. 25.

    Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 18 August 2010, Case ref. 2-6 S 19/09, MMR 2011, 401.

  26. 26.

    Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 28 June 2013, Case ref. 2-06 O 304/12, GRUR-RR 2013, 507.

  27. 27.

    Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 10 June 2014, Case ref. 25b C 431/13, CR 2014, 536; see also Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 24 June 2014, Case ref. 25b C 924/13, BeckRS 2014, 13884.

  28. 28.

    Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 18 August 2010, Case ref. 2-6 S 19/09, MMR 2011, 401; Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 10 June 2014, Case ref. 25b C 431/13, CR 2014, 536; Amtsgericht Koblenz, Judgment of 18 June 2014, Case ref. 161 C 145/14, BeckRS 2014, 15122.

  29. 29.

    Amtsgericht München, Judgment of 15 February 2012, Case ref. 142 C 10921/11, CR 2012, 340.

  30. 30.

    Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 28 June 2013, Case ref. 2-06 O 304/12, GRUR-RR 2013, 507; Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 24 June 2014, Case ref. 25b C 924/13, BeckRS 2014, 13884.

  31. 31.

    Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 16 December 2014, Case ref. 30 C 2801/14 (32), NJOZ 2015, 588.

  32. 32.

    Landgericht Hamburg, Decision of 25 November 2010, Case ref. 310 O 433/10, MMR 2011, 475.

  33. 33.

    Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Judgment of 17 December 2014, Case ref. 217 C 121/14, CR 2015, 192.

  34. 34.

    Sesing 2015, 424; cf. also CJEU, Judgment of 27 March 2014, UPC Telekabel Wien, C-314/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192, para 49, where the Court notes that ‘the freedom to conduct a business includes, inter alia, the right for any business to be able to freely use, within the limits of its liability for its own acts, the economic, technical and financial resources available to it’.

  35. 35.

    Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 12 May 2010, Case ref. I ZR 121/08, GRUR 2010, 633 (Sommer unseres Lebens), para. 24; see also BGH, Judgment of 11 March 2004, Case ref. I ZR 304/01, MMR 2004, 668 at 670 (Internetversteigerung I), para. 671.

  36. 36.

    For an overview of the discussion and recent proposals see Mantz and Sassenberg 2015a, 298.

  37. 37.

    See Sesing 2015, 423–427; Mantz and Sassenberg 2015a, 298–306; Volkmann 2015, 289–91.

  38. 38.

    Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes of 11 March 2015. A revised draft was published on 15 June 2015. Both drafts are available at the website of the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy: <http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/S-T/telemedienaenderungsgesetz-aenderung>. Multiple language versions of the revised draft, which has been notified to the European Commission under the EU Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS) and is currently being scrutinized for compatibility with EU law, are available online: <http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/> (Notification Number: 2015/0305/D).

  39. 39.

    Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes of 25 September 2015, Bundesrat-Drucksache 440/15.

  40. 40.

    Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170.

  41. 41.

    Case C-484 (Tobias McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH).

  42. 42.

    Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 1766.

  43. 43.

    See e.g. Spindler 2010, 595; Kaeding 2010, 168; Mantz 2013, 498; Spindler 2016a, 48, 50.

  44. 44.

    Drücke 2015, 95; Mantz and Sassenberg 2015a, 298; Sesing 2015, 423; Solmecke 2015, 95; Volkmann 2015, 289.

  45. 45.

    Solmecke 2015, 95; Müller and Kipker 2016, 87, 89.

  46. 46.

    See § 13(6) of the Tele Media Act (emphasis supplied). There is some disagreement whether § 13(6) Tele Media Act gives the user only a right to anonymity towards other users or also towards the service provider. Cf. Schnabel and Freund 2010, 718.

  47. 47.

    Drücke 2015, 95. Effective protection against violation of IPRs and personality rights would only possible if the WLAN operators were entitled to record and retain communication data, which, however, would be incompatible with the principle of telecommunications secrecy under § 88 Telecommunications Act.

  48. 48.

    See the case law cited supra at section “Private networks”.

  49. 49.

    BGH, Judgment of 8 January 2014, Case ref. I ZR 169/12, NJW 2014, 2360 (BearShare).

  50. 50.

    Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170.

  51. 51.

    Case C-484 (Tobias McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH).

  52. 52.

    Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Energie zu dem Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung – Drucksache 18/6745, Bundestag-Drucksache 18/8645.

  53. 53.

    Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 1766.

  54. 54.

    See Flisek, Klingbeil & Held, ‘Freies WLAN in Deutschland kommt!’ <http://blogs.spdfraktion.de/netzpolitik/2016/05/11/wlan/>

  55. 55.

    See e.g. Sesing 2016, 507; Spindler 2016b, 2249; Conraths and Peintinger 2016, 297.

  56. 56.

    Spindler 2016b, 2452.

  57. 57.

    For an analysis of the McFadden case from a German perspective see Obergfell and Thamer 2017, 203; see also Obergfell 2016b, 3492; Mantz 2016, 817; Nordemann 2016, 1103; Bisle and Frommer 2017, 54.

  58. 58.

    Case C-484/14 (Tobias McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH).

  59. 59.

    Landgericht München, Decision of 18 September 2014, Case ref. 7 O 14719/12, GRUR Int. 2014, 1166. The case has been listed as at the CJEU. For a detailed analysis of the preliminary reference see Mantz and Sassenberg 2015b, 85–90; Stögmüller 2014, 542–5.

  60. 60.

    BGH, Judgment of 12 May 2010, Case ref. I ZR 121/08, GRUR 2010, 633 (Sommer unseres Lebens).

  61. 61.

    Question 1 referred to CJEU by the Landgericht München, Decision of 18 September 2014, Case ref. 7 O 14719/12, GRUR Int. 2014, 1166 at 1169.

  62. 62.

    Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, para. 41.

  63. 63.

    Ibid. at paras. 42 and 48.

  64. 64.

    CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 41.

  65. 65.

    CJEU, Judgment of 11 September 2014, Papasavvas, C-291/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2209, para. 29; see also CJEU, Judgment of 26 April 1988, Bond van Adverteerders, 352/85, ECLI: EU:C:1988:196, para. 16.

  66. 66.

    See Recital 18 of the E-Commerce Directive.

  67. 67.

    A quite similar question arises with regard to the scope of application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU. According to the definition in Art 2(6) of the Directive, the notion of ‘service contract’ means ‘any contract other than a sales contract under which the trader supplies or undertakes to supply a service to the consumer and the consumer pays or undertakes to pay the price thereof’ [emphasis added]. Based on this definition the German legislator has restricted the scope of application of the provisions implementing the Directive to contracts for a ‘paid service’ (entgeltliche Leistung) in § 312(1) of the Civil Code. It is doubtful, however, whether such a limitation can be justified in light of the nature of the digital economy, cf. Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, para. 47.

  68. 68.

    Ibid. at para. 50; see also CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 37.

  69. 69.

    Questions 2 and 3 raised by the Munich court deal with the interpretation of the phrase ‘transmission in a communication network of information’ and the term ‘provide’ within the meaning of Art 12 of the E-Commerce Directive. It seems rather obvious that the provision of an open WLAN does fulfill these requirements, cf. Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, paras. 51–56.

  70. 70.

    Ibid. at para. 37.

  71. 71.

    Until the CJEU clarifies this point, free WLAN operators would be well advised to link the provision of their services to an economic activity. For this purpose it might be sufficient if the landing page or the name of the WLAN network is used for advertising a commercial service.

  72. 72.

    CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, paras. 76–78.

  73. 73.

    BGH, Judgment of 11 March 2004, Case ref. I ZR 304/01, MMR 2004, 668 at 670 (Internetversteigerung I); BGH, Judgment of 19 April 2007, Case ref. I ZR 35/04, MMR 2007, 507 at 508 (Internetversteigerung II); BGH, Judgment of 30 April 2008, Case ref. I ZR 73/05, MMR 2008, 531 at 532 (Internetversteigerung III).

  74. 74.

    Kur 2014, 533; Leistner 2014, 78.

  75. 75.

    Landgericht München, Decision of 18 September 2014, Case ref. 7 O 14719/12, GRUR Int. 2014, 1166 at 1170.

  76. 76.

    CJEU, Judgment of 27 March 2014, UPC Telekabel Wien, C-314/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192. For a critical review of the decision see Spindler 2014, 826–835; for a more positive view see Lehmann 2015, 680; see also Leistner and Grisse 2015, 19–27 and 105–115.

  77. 77.

    Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, para. 74.

  78. 78.

    See e.g. § 97a para. 1 German Copyright Act.

  79. 79.

    For an overview see Schmitz and Ries 2012.

  80. 80.

    Spindler 2016b, 2451.

  81. 81.

    CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, paras. 77–78.

  82. 82.

    Bisle and Frommer 2017, 61.

  83. 83.

    Spindler 2016b, 2451.

  84. 84.

    CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, paras. 81–83.

  85. 85.

    CJEU, Judgment of 29 January 2008, C-275/06, Promusicae, ECLI:EU:C:2008:54, paras 68–70; CJEU, Judgment of 27 March 2014, UPC Telekabel Wien, C-314/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192, para. 47. For an example of such a balancing of fundamental rights based on the principles set out in UPC Telekabel Wien see now also BGH, Judgments of 26 November 2015, Case ref. I ZR 174/14, NJW 2016, 794 (Goldesel) and Case ref. I ZR 3/14, ZUM-RD 2016, 156 (3dl.am); see also Hofmann 2016, 769.

  86. 86.

    CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 87.

  87. 87.

    Ibid. at paras. 88–89.

  88. 88.

    Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, at para. 146.

  89. 89.

    Ibid. at para. 150.

  90. 90.

    CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 96.

  91. 91.

    Ibid. at para. 99.

  92. 92.

    See Nordemann 2016, 1103.

  93. 93.

    Mantz 2016, 820; Nordemann 2016, 1102.

  94. 94.

    On the privacy issues see Mantz and Sassenberg 2015b 90; see also Husovec 2017, 123.

  95. 95.

    Entwurf eines Dritten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes of 23 February 2017. The draft is available at the website of the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy: http://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Service/Gesetzesvorhaben/entwurf-telemediengesetz-drei.html.

  96. 96.

    For a more detailed discussion of this question see Husovec 2016.

  97. 97.

    Oberlandesgericht Köln, Judgment of 18 July 2014, Case ref. 6 U 192/11, MMR 2014, 832 at 836; on the technical possibilities for the blocking of access to certain websites and the legal implications see also Leistner and Grisse 2015, 19-27 and 105–115.

  98. 98.

    Ohly 2015, 317; see also Landgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 20 October 2010, Case ref. 308 O 320/10, ZUM-RD 2011, 561.

References

  • Bisle, R., and B. Frommer. 2017. EuGH klärt Verantwortlichkeit bei anonym nutzbaren WLAN-Hotspots – Das Ende der Pläne zur “Abschaffung der Störerhaftung”?’ Computer und Recht 32: 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges, G. 2010. Pflichten und Haftung beim Betrieb privater WLAN. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 63: 2624–2627.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Die Haftung des Internetanschlussinhabers für Urheberrechtsverletzungen durch Dritte. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 67(32): 2305–2310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, C. 2014. Secondary liability of service providers. In German national reports on the 19th international congress of comparative law, ed. Schmidt-Kessel, 765–779. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conraths, T., and S. Peintinger. 2016. Der neue § 8 TMG: Kein Wegfall der Störerhaftung von W-LAN-Betreibern. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht 8(14): 297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drücke, F. 2015. Haftung bei offenem WLAN? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 48(3): 95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeren, T., and S. Jakopp. 2014. WLAN-Haftung – A never ending story? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 47(3): 72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeren, T., and S. Yankova. 2012. The liability of Internet intermediaries – The German perspective. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 43(5): 501–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, F. 2014. Die Haftung des Inhabers eines privaten Internetanschlusses für Urheberrechtsverletzungen Dritter. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 58(8): 654–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Störerhaftung von Access-Providern für Urheberrechtsverletzungen Dritter. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 69(11): 769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husovec, M. 2016. Accountable, not liable: Injunctions against Intermediaries. Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC) Discussion Paper 2016. Available at. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2773768

  • ———. 2017. Holey cap! CJEU drills (yet) another hole in the e-Commerce Directive’s safe harbours. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 12(2): 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaeding, N. 2010. Haftung für Hot Spot Netze. Computer und Recht 26: 164–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur, A. 2014. Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement on the Internet: The Situation in Germany and the Throughout the EU. Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts 37: 525–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, M. 2015. Digitalisierung, cloud computing and Urheberrecht. GRUR Int. 64: 677–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leistner, M. 2014. Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 9: 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leistner, M., and K. Grisse. 2015. Sperrverfügungen gegen Access-Provider im Rahmen der Störerhaftung. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 117(2): 19–27 and 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantz, R. 2013. Die Haftung des Betreibers eines gewerblich betriebenen WLANs und die Haftungsprivilegierung des § 8 TMG. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht – Rechtsprechung Report 13(12): 497–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantz, R., and T. Sassenberg. 2015a. Die Neuregelung der Störerhaftung für öffentliche WLANs. Computer und Recht 30(5): 298–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015b. Verantwortlichkeit des Access-Providers auf dem europäischen Prüfstand – Neun Fragen an den EuGH zu Haftungsprivilegierung, Unterlassungsanspruch und Prüfpflichten des WLAN-Betreibers. Multi Media und Recht 18(2): 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantz, R. 2016. Rechtssicherheit für WLAN? Die Haftung des WLAN-Betreibers und das McFadden-Urteil des EuGH. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 27: 817–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, V., and D-K. Kipker. 2016. Der Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes – Hat die Bundesregierung eine zeitgemäße Angleichung des TMG verfehlt? Multi Media und Recht 19(2): 87–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhaus, S. 2011. Sekundäre Haftung im Lauterkeits- und Immaterialgüterrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordemann, J.B. 2016. Nach TMG-Reform und EuGH “McFadden” – Das aktuelle Haftungssystem für WLAN- und andere Zugangsprovider. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 118: 1097–1103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obergfell, E.I. 2016a. Internettauschbörsen als Haftungsfalle für private WLAN-Anschlussinhaber. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 69(13): 910.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016b. Gerichtlich verordneter Passwortschutz für WLAN-Hotspots – Zur Reichweite der Access Provider-Privilegierung von kommerziellen WLAN-Anbietern. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 69: 3489–3492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obergfell, E.I., and A. Thamer. 2017. (Non-)Regulation of online platforms and internet intermediaries – The facts: Context and overview on state of play. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil 66: 201–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohly, A. 2014. Urheberrecht in der digitalen Welt – Brauchen wir neue Regelungen zum Urheberrecht und zu dessen Durchsetzung?, Gutachten F zum 70. Deutschen Juristentag. Munich: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Die Verantwortlichkeit von Intermediären. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 59(4): 308–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, S., and T. Ries. 2012. Three songs and you are disconnected from cyberspace? Not in Germany where the industry may ‘turn piracy into profit’ European Journal for Law and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1. Available at. http://ejlt.org/article/view/116/190#_edn70

  • Schnabel, C., and B. Freund. 2010. Ach wie gut, dass niemand weiß… – Selbstdatenschutz bei der Nutzung von Telemedienangeboten. Computer und Recht, 718–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sesing, A. 2015. Mehr Rechtssicherheit für Betreiber von (kostenlosen) Funknetzwerken? Multi Media und Recht 18(7): 423–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Verantwortlichkeit für offense WLAN – Auswirkungen der TMG-Reform auf die Haftung des Anschlussinhabers. Multi Media und Recht 19(8): 507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solmecke, C. 2015. Haftung bei offenem WLAN? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler, G. 2010. Haftung für private WLANs im Delikts- und Urheberrecht. Computer und Recht 25: 592–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Zivilrechtliche Sperrverfügungen gegen Access Provider nach dem EuGH-Urteil „UPC Telekabel. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 826–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016a. Die geplante Reform der Providerhaftung im TMG und ihre Vereinbarkeit mit Europäischem Recht – Warum die beabsichtigte Reform ihr Ziel verfehlen wird. Computer und Recht, 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016b. Die neue Providerhaftung für WLANs – Deutsche Störerhaftung adé? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stögmüller, T. 2014. LG München I: Vorlagefragen an den EuGH zur Verantwortlichkeit des Access-Providers eines offenen WLAN. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, 542–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkmann, C. 2015. Freies WLAN für einen Cappuccino. K&R, 289–291.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Christoph Busch

Authors
  1. Christoph Busch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Busch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Graeme B. Dinwoodie

  2. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Oxford, Illinois, USA

    Graeme B. Dinwoodie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Busch, C. (2017). Secondary Liability for Open Wireless Networks in Germany: Balancing Regulation and Innovation in the Digital Economy. In: Dinwoodie, G.B. (eds) Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers. Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation