Zur Forderung der Presseverleger nach Einführung eines speziellen Leistungsschutzrechts .Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung

In recent months newspaper publishers have done extensive lobbying to promote their claim to introduce a new ancillary copyright into German copyright law. However, until today no specific details have been made public. Nonetheless, many politicians have stated to support the claim. The idea to introduce such a new ancillary copyright for newspaper publishers has even been included in the 2009 coalition agreement of the new government. Under German copyright law, ancillary copyrights are granted for certain technical and organizational efforts in respect to the production or exploitation of creative works subject to copyright. Such rights aim primarily to protect underlying investments (»sweat of the brow«). For Example ancillary copyrights have been granted to producers of films, sound recordings and databases or to broadcasting companies. However, with good reasons an ancillary right for publishers has so far not been introduced into German copyright law. According to public statements, the current claim predominantly aims at »aggregators« such as search engines (e.g. Google News). Publishers argue that such services monetize their »quality content« as freeloaders, while they go away empty-handed. According to newspaper publishers, the new ancillary right is necessary to enforce a »fair share« of the profits that those services make on the basis of the newspapers quality content. Moreover recent statement of publishers suggest, that the new ancillary right shall enable them to collect lump sump payments for every computer used in a commercial environment. Such levies shall be collected by a new collecting society. From a legal and economic perspective, the demand to create a new ancillary right seems to lack any justification. Publishers already enjoy broad and sufficient protection under existing copyright and unfair competition laws. If introduced, the ancillary right specifically designed to promote interests of newspaper publishers would provide them with an exclusive right with respect even to smallest information units (e.g. snippets). It would pose a threat to the basic principle of copyright that pure information is free, and would thus interfere with constitutional rights such as the principles of free speech and freedom of information. Search engines generate considerable traffic to newspaper websites. They do not exploit content of newspapers as freeloaders. Also in other European countries no similar right exists. In particular the British »Publisher Right« only protects the (typographical) layout of a newspaper. Instead of demanding the introduction of a new ancillary right and respective compulsory levies, news publishers should develop their own and attractive business models to generate revenues from online distribution of quality content. Der vorliegende Beitrag setzt sich kritisch mit der Forderung der Presseverlage nach Einführung eines neuen Leistungsschutzrechts für Presseerzeugnisse auseinander. Nach einem kurzen Überblick über den derzeitigen Stand der Diskussion, soll die Forderung der Presseverlage unter rechtlichen Gesichtspunkten beleuchtet werden. Dabei wird zunächst der bisherige rechtliche Schutz von Presseerzeugnissen dargestellt. Im Anschluss daran wird auf die Besonderheiten des (urheberrechtlichen-) Leistungsschutzes eingegangen und insbesondere die Unterschiede zum Urheberrecht in Bezug auf den Schutzgegenstand und insbesondere den Schutzumfang von Leistungsschutzrechten dargestellt. Im Anschluss daran wird der Versuch unternommen, die genaue Zielrichtung der Forderung nach Einführung eines Leistungsschutzrechtes herauszuarbeiten und auf mögliche Auswirkungen für die Betroffenen hinzuweisen. Schließlich werden die wesentlichen Argumente zusammengefasst, die gegen die Einführung eines speziellen Leistungsschutzrechts für Presseverlage sprechen. Um das Ergebnis vorwegzunehmen: Kaum ein Argument lässt sich für die Einführung eines Leistungsschutzrechts ins Feld führ