Below is a Google translation of the Hamburg District Court’s press release of today, when YouTube was found liable for copyright infringement. I haven’t proof read it yet, so it might not make much sense…

Original here:

Hanseat isches Upper maybe landesger
Ge r i c s p res s ht it t le el

Copyright obligations of a video portal operator
Judgment in the lawsuit against YouTube GEMA before the Hamburg District Court
20th April 2012

The operator of a video portal like “YouTube” is liable for copyright infringement by users of uploaded videos only when he informed the GE-infringement against certain behavior and control duties violates. The Hamburg District Court today in a dispute between the collecting society GEMA and the Vi-deoportal YouTube decided.
Only after a notice of copyright infringement hits the portal operators the obligation to immediately block the affected video and take in a reasonable manner appropriate measures to prevent new violations. A commitment to review all the previously uploaded video clips platform is not.

GEMA wanted to achieve with their complaint that the defendant is the operator of the internet video portal “YouTube” banned, twelve music still works, at which GEMA perceives the rights to make accessible via “YouTube” in Germany. The defendant declined to cease and desist, as they are not for any copyright infringement liable. First, they put their video platform only available to users and have the video in question does not even created yet uploaded. Second, they have taken all reasonable measures to address copyright infringement.

The competent rights Appeal sentenced the defendant on seven of the twelve-streitbe collected works of music for an injunction and dismissed the action for the rest. Contrary to the arguments of the applicant, the court denied, however, has a so-called “perpetrator liability” of the defendant regarding the copyright violations and only a so-called “disturbance liability” is assumed. Since the defendant has the infringing videos uploaded either themselves, or had their contents as its own, they do not stick as the perpetrator. However, they have done through the provision and operation of the video platform to contribute to the infringement. Because this article defendants träfen the behavior and control duties. This has hurt them and is therefore the applicant as a “disturber” obliged to refrain.
Thus, the defendant in the amount of conviction had violated the duty to con-cerned video clips to lock immediately after the applicant about the authorship rights violations had been informed. Regarding the question seven videos a lock only one and a half months after the notification was made by the applicant. In such a period could no longer speak of an immediate action.

On the question of what further meet audit and inspection duties, the defendant, the court pointed out the necessity of a proportionality test, in which the interests involved, and legal assessments were weighed against each other. The defendant should then no requirements are imposed, the more difficult principle to their work-permeable disproportionate. However, it is unreasonable to prevent egg-nes after receiving notice of copyright infringement through the use of future software uploads, the one reported by the music recording matching contained on recording. A suitable software’m the defendant in the form developed by its Content ID program available. The defendant had said program and could even apply but the application does not, as represented by her, left to right holders. In contrast, the defendant was not required to search through their entire database, using the Content ID program to copyright violations. The audit and inspection duties would begin as a disturber of undrawn per-son always only becoming aware of a specific infringement. An obligation to care therefore applies only to the future.

In order to reduce the number of the software the defendant has acquired rights violations, the defendant was also required to install a word filter. The new word filter should filter out selected videos, with titles both the title and the artist in a video that contains offending music recording. This was necessary because it would identify with the Content ID program, only recordings that were identical with reference to the stored image. Different recordings (eg, live performance rather than studio recording) do not recognize the software.

With regard to five of the twelve nominated by the applicant’s musical works is not clear that it has come to the notice of the applicant to the defendant on the violations still further Teren uploads. This could not be established that the defendant’s breach of duty of other law violations has become the cause, and accordingly the action was dismissed in respect of these musical works.

The verdict is not yet final. Where the decision appeal should be lodged, would be the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in this jurisdiction.