The Bundesgerichtshof released a press
release, in German, saying that the parents could not be held responsible as
they had taught their son that file-sharing was illegal and had not known that
their son was file-sharing.
The case was brought by various record
producers who, back in 2007, found that a particular IP address was linked to
the illegal download of 1,147 audio files. The IP address was traced to this
teenager's family home, specifically to a computer belonging to the teenager
himself. The computer was subsequently seized and the authorities found that "Morpheus"
and "Bearshare" had been installed, with the "Bearshare" icon
appearing on the desktop.
The record producers sued the parents of
the teenager citing a violation in their duties of parental supervision, and claimed
damages of €2,380.80. The district court found in favour of the record
producers, and the family's subsequent appeal to the appellate court was
unsuccessful. The appellate court found the parents liable for damages caused
by their son's illegal file sharing because they failed to properly supervise
him. The court relied on under s.832(1)
BGB which says [my rough translation assisted by Google Translate]:
"Any person legally required to supervise a
legal minor or a person requiring
supervision due to a mental or physical condition, will be liable for any
damage caused by the person subject to supervision. The supervising person is
excluded from liability if he meets his duty of supervision or if the damage
would have occurred had he met his duty of supervision."
The appellate court said that the parents
should have installed a firewall and security program, and that they could have
seen by checking the computer that their son had installed file-sharing
programs.
However the Bundesgerichtshof found
yesterday that given that the parents had taught their son that file-sharing
was illegal, they had met their "parental obligation to supervise a
normally developed 13-year-old child". They were not required to go so far
as to monitor or obstruct their son's use of the internet nor to conduct checks
on the computer. The court held that such measures would only be required if
parents had reasonable grounds for suspecting their child of infringing use.
Of course this raises the question of how
much any parent knows about what their teenage child does on a computer but
overall this seems to be the right decision. Parents should teach their
children the do's and don't of the internet but cannot, practically, be
required to monitor their child's every move.
TorrentFreak
labels this decision a "blow to
rightsholders in their quest to clamp down on illicit file-sharing". This
seems a step too far; in a world where teenagers often know much more about
computers than their parents do it would be unfair to make them responsible for
activities that they may know nothing about.
TorrentFreak also notes that Germany is the
toughest jurisdiction in the world when it comes to enforcing laws against on
file-sharers, as legislation means that internet account holders are almost
always found liable for activities taking place on their connections. Further, Columbia
University recently noted that most people in Germany think that it is wrong
to file-share (other than with friends or family). It sounds to
this blogger like German law is heading in the right direction, by prioritising
education and personal responsibility but clamping down on file-sharing by
finding individuals liable when it has to.
1 comment:
Very interesting post on teenagers and file sharing. Not sure where I stand on this issue but I enjoyed reading this post. Thanks for posting!
Post a Comment