German Court Rules Parents Must Out Their Family Members For Copyright Trolls Or Pay Fines Themselves
from the family-first dept
Copyright trolls are a plague spreading across the world, one which has received far too little social medicine for the taste of many. This virulent form of rent-seeking tends to put out some of the more despicable strategies, from flatout falsely accusing people of piracy, lying to international students about the punishment for copyright infringement, and threatening those that expose their actions.
But a case that was winding its way through German courts sees copyright trolls there now going even further, winning the argument over whether parents should have to serve their own children up to the courts for copyright trolls.
In 2011, a family received a letter from Universal Music, demanding cash alongside claims that Rihanna’s album ‘Loud’ had been illegally shared via their Internet connection. The parents, to whom the letter was addressed, indicated that they had no interest whatsoever in the R&B star. However, one of their three children apparently did, and the parents knew which one had committed the infringement. Perhaps understandably, however, the parents didn’t want to throw their child to the lions. It’s a position that’s supported by a local law which protects family members from having to testify against each other.
The case ended up at the Munich Court of First Instance and the parents were held liable for copyright infringement and ordered to pay almost 3,900 euros. From there the case progressed to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH), which handed down its ruling Thursday. In a big win for Universal, the BGH upheld the decision of the lower court, holding the parents liable for copyright infringement.
In other words, in the name of copyright trolls that have naught but an IP address to go on, parents in Germany may now face a flavor of Sophie's Choice: give up your children to the copyright troll or pay all fines themselves. Given that we're talking about children here, that likely amounts to the same result, as parents will be the one footing the bill. Still, there is something sadistic about trying to cooerce parents into naming their own children before the court. Keep in mind that this is mere copyright infringement we're talking about, not the typical crimes for which parents have long been expected to be responsible for when their children violate the law. And keep in mind as well how often these copyright trolls are wrong, have faulty or incomplete evidence, and so on.
Levying responsibility for the failure to out one's own family member is almost comically pernicious. That the court saw fit to route around local laws protecting families from this sort of thing in the name of copyright trolls seems doubly so.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: children, copyright, copyright trolling, families, germany, liability
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's Germany...
If their citizens don't like it, they can do something about their government. Until then... I will just keep eating my popcorn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Germany...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's Germany...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the one of the many reasons ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the one of the many reasons ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must Out Their Family Members...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How a letter with nothing more than an IP address as evidence get taken seriously?
But then this is Germany where they demanded a woman without a computer pay fines for a movie DLed on her connection because the idea that she would download a title that was graphic (iirc pro nazi type movie) shouldn't enter into it. Your connection your responsibility, even if you lacked the machine to have done it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Information Kops
To run for office, of any kind, there should be written tests to determine levels of intelligence and psychological evaluations to establish eligibility.
Now, let us speak of ballots and ways of inhibiting accuracy and other methods of suppression.
Now, let us speak of: So-called democracy is effective with only an educated, sane, INFORMED slaves... er, citizens.
Now, let us speak of (your turn)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parental Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parental Liability
Well, Timothy messed his article up. Indeed parents are liable for the offenses of their minor children.
The unique part about this decision was that the case was about adult children. In Germany, you cannot be forced to testify against close relatives.
And the court basically said "if you don't want to identify the adult infringer in your household because it is a close relative, you'll just be held liable for the infringement yourself".
And that's a very peculiar end run against not having to testify against relatives in court.
In the case of close relatives the court cannot force the witness to testify, so instead it just punished the witness in effigy. Mind you, not as a parent (since we are talking not about a minor) but as a witness with the right not to cooperate in this case of a common household.
That's the iffy bit, and Timothy messed it up completely by overlooking the aspect that the suspects were all adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parental Liability
I don't think that this would pass Supreme Court muster but it's not like I have a hit quota of 100% with such predictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parental Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parental Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not pay any money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not pay any money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could agree with the judge if...
- there is a standard of proof, not just an ip-address;
- the fine is set to what a fine should be: hurt a little to deflect future action, not bankrupt a family with 3900 euros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Didn't the Swiss accept a law to monitor all internet/phone traffic just last year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 4th Reich Lives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The 4th Reich Lives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Germany...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Germany...
Do you really want to take a look at history? 2 of those things above happened during the Nazi time. Germany has learnt from history, America still bombs innocent people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hand them over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"a plague spreading across the world"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More lies about the ruling, this time with Techdirt's spin
A week on and this stream utter and absolute bullshit continues to flow unabated¹.
tl;dr: The "children" are all legal adults!
An essplanation:
First, the family copped to having committed "theft" of some sort. The claim was based on their IP address. They could and should've fought that but didn't. Easy to say 'cuz I wuzn't there? Perhaps, but I'm personally familiar with what's involved having received my very own love letter from Waldorf-Frommer, the "troll" firm noted for demands made on anyone using torrents. I fought back and they fucked off. I didn't risk fighting them back to try and recover my legal costs.
Second, and more importantly here, the "children" of this family are all legally adults. Parents are automatically responsible for most actions of their minor children but not so with adults. However, the parents took it upon themselves -- after admitting guilt -- to refuse to identify which legal adult (for whom they were not legally responsible) committed the crime². They know who did it and wouldn't tell. That's their prerogative, morally and under the law. And therefore they're paying the fine.
I don't see the point to it since this is a matter of civil, not criminal law. At least for now anyway, although GEMA and the RIAA/MPAA equivalents would love to change that.
The headline is bullshit. The write-up is bullshit. But I'm sure Geigner scored a few hundred clicks from redditurds for it. Sadly, in order to grab eyeballs most German media are also, if not outright lying or spinning it the same way, at the very least failing to mention that the "kids" are adults and the parents are intentionally withholding the name of the lawbreaker.
¹ Oh, it's Geigner, the guy who vilifies foreign courts for not being American except when glorifying their sensibilities as a model American courts desperately need to learn from. No wonder.
² It is a crime in this context and case because they accepted it as such and admitted their participation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More lies about the ruling, this time with Techdirt's spin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]