The Legal Concept of Interference Liability – Discussion of the Legal Concept of Interference Liability with Regard to the Limits of Judicial Development of the Law
In which cases is a WiFi provider liable for illegal downloads made by a third party using its internet access? Is YouTube to be held responsible for uploads infringing the copyright? Such questions cannot be answered conclusively by the written law and are a solved by the construction of interference liability which this dissertation takes a critical look at.
Presently the legal concept of interference liability is discussed extensively again in science, jurisprudence, politics and society and is partly questioned: When is a WiFi provider liable for illegal downloads made by a third party using its internet access? Is YouTube to be held responsible for uploads infringing the copyright? Such questions cannot be answered conclusively by the written law and are a solved by the construction of interference liability. A discussion regarding this legal concept is in particular required due to its almost exclusive development through case law. The pioneering decisions for the development of the concept of interference liability partially diverge among their terminology and their substances regarding key issues.
This dissertation shall answer the question, whether the developed figure of interference liability in its extent violates the principle of separation of powers. In this context it needs to be considered whether statutory regulations are required, similar to the regulations in the TMG (German Telemedia Act) amendment regarding the liability of WiFi provider.
Furthermore, this dissertation shall systematize the jurisdiction concerning interference liability in order to demonstrate the substantive and terminological divergences. The insights ought to contribute a formalization of abstract and general regulations regarding interference liability.
Additionally, I will systematise the jurisprudence of interference liability, which shows content-related and conceptual divergences. The findings are intended to contribute to the wording of abstract or general regulation of interference liability.
