German court finds parent liable for child's file-sharing

Someone's going straight to bed


Parents can be legally responsible for the unlawful behaviour of their children using home internet connections, a German court has ruled. It said that a woman had a duty to monitor the use to which her internet connection was put.

German law firm Dr Bahr has published details of the case, which was heard by the Higher Regional Court of Cologne.

A woman said that she forbade her children from using the home computer and internet connection to engage in copyright-infringing behaviour. Around 1,000 songs were made available from that connection, though, and the woman was sued by record labels.

The woman argued that she was not behind the making available of the songs and that it was due to the actions of one or more of her five children. The Court said, though, that the woman must be liable for the activity.

The case was an appeal from the original ruling, which also said that she should be responsible. The ruling said that living with the woman was her husband and five children, aged from one to 13 years old.

"Which children have used the port, she did not say," said the ruling, according to an automatic Google translation of the document. "In a response formulated by lawyers... the 'older children' are mentioned. It remains unclear whether the middle child is counted among the users or not."

"Given this overall lack of speech it must be the responsibility of the defendant for the alleged violations," it said.

The German Court heard that the woman had "constantly reminded" her children not to engage in illegal file-sharing.

Both Scots law and English law provide that a parent generally is not liable for the actions of their child, and that a civil judgment is as binding on a child as it is on an adult.

There are, though, some circumstances in which a parent can become responsible for the child's actions. That can happen when a child causes injury to others or where a parent has previously authorised or subsequently ratified the child's unlawful act.

"It is possible that someone could argue that a mother was authorising copyright infringement if she had turned a blind eye and provided the computer and the internet connection," said Kim Walker, a copyright expert with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM.

"Cases in the past, though, have said that the fact that someone provided facilities which make infringement impossible is not of itself enough to make them liable," he said. "It sounds as if the woman in this case did make it clear that this was not how her children were to use the computer."

See:

* The ruling in German * The ruling in English (automated translation by Google)

Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021