What happens if a court decision maneuvers the court itself into a untenable legal position?
<p>A long open question for the law was how responsible someone is if he sets up a link for another site and this site contains illegal stuff or changes its content to illegal stuff. For the exact purpose we assume copyright violations.</p>

<p><a href="https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2016/09/C0160_2015-EN.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The EU court</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS_Media_v._Sanoma" rel="nofollow noreferrer">finally decided</a> (September 8th, 2016 Az. C-160/15) that sites which are operating for profit <strong>can be hold responsible</strong> for links pointing to sites violating copyright. Not only that, but even deleting the offending link the very same day may not be fast enough. This decision caused an uproar because it threatened internet commerce, especially small shops which have not the manpower to continously search for violations.</p>

<p>Now in Germany there is a specific court which extended now the EuGH decision (Az. 310 O 402/16, November 18th, 2016) and <a href="https://www.spiritlegal.com/files/userdata_global/downloads/LG%20Hamburg,%20Beschluss%20vom%2018.11.2016,%20310%20O%2040216.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">declared exactly that site owners working for profit should inquire for each link if the linked site contains copyright violations.</a></p>

<p>The <strong>court itself</strong> has a website where decisions are made public. What happens now is that <a href="https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Warum-heise-online-derzeit-keine-Links-zum-LG-Hamburg-setzt-3567571.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">some aggrieved parties</a> decided that they will now ask the court if the court can guarantee that their website does not contain copyright violations. Not only that, but as the court itself decided in former decisions that violations are "time-critical", the parties set an short ultimatum for an answer.</p>

<p><strong>What exactly are the consequences if the decision of a court can be used to force it into violating the law itself ?</strong></p>

<p>CLARIFICATION: The problem is not that the court may have a site with content violations, the problem is that a party having a website containing content must answer to an inquiry if their site contains illegal content in a short timeframe. The court is now flooded with requests which the court cannot answer in a reasonable timespan.</p>

<p>Because the question itself triggered inquiries for the exact implications, <a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2016/befuerchtungen-bestaetigt-erste-entscheidung-in-deutschland-nach-eugh-urteil-verschaerft-linkhaftung/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here some overview in German</a>.</p>

<ul>
<li><p>"Operating for profit" includes advertising and self-presentation for
paid services: <em>"Da der Antragsgegner im Rahmen seines Internetauftritts im Eigenverlag vertriebenes Lehrmaterial entgeltlich anbietet, wurde die Webseite als gewerblich eingestuft".</em></p></li>
<li><p>Someone operating for profit who sets a link must ask the site owner where the link is pointing if the content is legal to be on the safe side: <em>"Für denjenigen, der mit Gewinnerzielungsabsicht handelt, [gilt] ein strengerer Verschuldensmaßstab: Ihm wird zugemutet, sich durch Nachforschungen zu vergewissern, ob der verlinkte Inhalt rechtmäßig zugänglich gemacht wurde, wobei die widerlegliche Vermutung einer Kenntnis der fehlenden Erlaubnis bestehe."</em></p></li>
</ul>

<p>The court cannot be in violation as it is not a for-profit organisation and (presumably) its sites contains no advertising.</p>

internet court