Aleksandar Silic

Cologne regional court denied the applicability of 97a II copyright in computer game that has Cologne regional court in a recent decision by 10.01.2011 (cf. LG Cologne, decision by 10.01.2011, AZ.: 28 O 421/10) in the context of a legal aid application again the existence of a significant violation of law in the meaning of 97a (2) UrhG denies. The applicant made injunctive and legal costs against the connection owner due to unauthorized making available of computer game B”in a peer-to-peer network claims. The defendant connection owner affiliated applied for legal aid, which was rejected due to lack of success of the intended legal defense. The competent Chamber saw one of the defendants in the field-run possible EUR 100,-Cap for Attorney’s fees as omitted after summary examination in addition to the requirements of the fault liability. For the disputed breach, accessible making of a computer game, to the public if it were not a substantial Infringement of rights.

The provision of section 97a, para 2 is an exception provision, which is basically interpreted strictly. A minor violation of the law could be adopted only in particularly bearing cases. For adjusting a computer game could be discussed given the considerable effort which will operate in the programming and marketing of computer game and the risk of imitation not of the qualitative irrelevance. This recent decision of the regional court of Cologne is not surprising and is part of the decisions handed down in the past to 97a UrhG. The court sees a high substantial interference as given here alone in the fact that the contested file was a computer game. Thereby it supports this finding on the significant programming and marketing effort of the game itself, without going to the specific circumstances of the contested infringement. While it plays an essential role, what time and what amounts of data via the relevant Internet connection were made available and whether the video game at the time of the offence was ever yet successfully marketed. These circumstances are on the question of whether the rights holder has been severely in his rights, always include our opinion. Your Aleksandar Silic, LL.M you will find the detailed reasoning of the District Court.