2009-08-25 – by Attorney Dr. Stefan Lausegger (Column)
In a recent decision of July 14, 2009 (4 Ob 41/09x), the Supreme Court made a very interesting statement: A mere "access provider" is not obliged to disclose to whom a so-called "dynamic" IP address was assigned at a certain point in time. This is not the case even if it is clear that the user was involved in copyright infringements.
However, this much-noticed decision must be put into perspective: Firstly, the Supreme Court only comes to the conclusion that the thief should be protected from anonymity because dynamic IP addresses require the processing of so-called "traffic data" (internal data relating to data traffic as such) in order to identify the respective user. However, this traffic data is given special protection for data protection reasons. Therefore, users who participate in peer-to-peer networks with a static IP address are not protected under current law: static IP addresses are "master data" that enjoy less, only relative (data) protection. Secondly, the Supreme Court concludes that revealing identity is inadmissible because the current legal situation is stricter than Community law; a change in the law would certainly be possible. Thirdly, the decision only concerns the area of civil law.
However, the government's proposal to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Copyright Act of August 21, 2009 provides that private prosecutors could be provided with tools that would enable them to track down initially unknown copyright infringers. The last word has not yet been spoken.
Further information on the topic Intellectual property law.