German parents not responsible for piracy of their son - saves them 6000 EURO

German parents not responsible for piracy of their son - saves them 6000 EURO.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2012/11/30QXiy.jpg[/newsimage]The German Federal Court of Justice has ruled that the parents of a 13 year old boy are not responsible for his filesharing activities. 


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/german-parents-not-responsible-for-piracy-of-their-son-saves-them-6000-euro-64859/](http://www.myce.com/news/german-parents-not-responsible-for-piracy-of-their-son-saves-them-6000-euro-64859/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

My comment is not about the filesharing but about parental responsibility.
Also I don’t know what German law is on this so my opinion comes from US law.

On a much lower court level I watch some of the TV court shows like People’s Court. Supposedly real cases.
Several times the decision is that parent’s aren’t responsible even though this goes against actual law. The child is held responsible sometimes. This means that even though the plaintiff wins the case they have to wait till the child becomes an adult . Then they usually have ten years to try & collect.
The law conflicts itself in this when it suits them . Lets say in an emergency medical situation A child is treated in an emergency room . The parents will be held responsible for the child’s treatment. Even when they weren’t involved in any way except being the parent . Take it a step further & say the child was injured while doing an act of vandalism . The person that the vandalism was done to might not get a court to hold the parents responsible . When at the same time if the parents wouldn’t pay the medical bill the court will hold the parents responsible .

My opinion is this is the responsibility parents take on when they decide to have children . Parents are responsible till the child becomes an adult . If this means they need to control their children 24/7 & be held responsible when they don’t.
After all they didn’t ask my or other peoples permission to have the children . So why should I or anyone else take a loss because of the actions of someone else’s child. Or wait ten to twenty years to collect.

I think the ruling is fair. Most people are not tech savvy enough to police what other people are doing on their internet accounts. I see this as being the same as if their child committed any other crime. The parents aren’t charged for murder if their child commits a murder so why should they be held responsible for file sharing by their children?

@ UTR , Unless the minor is declared an adult by the court on the murder charge .
That would make it more questionable but since the child would have been a minor at the time of the murder . The parents could be held civilly liable for their child’s actions even if it was murder . The parents might even be charged criminally for some type of negligence in the supervision.
Remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal court & still had a decision in a civil court against him for a large amount of money .
It doesn’t matter if the parents are tech savvy or not. It is their responsibility to supervise their child until that child is no longer a minor.
If it is not the parents responsibility . Who’s’ is it the child’s ?
My contention is if a person doesn’t want to be responsible as a parent. Don’t have children.

It doesn’t matter if the minor is declared an adult. The parent can’t be charged with the murder unless it can be proven they were an active/willing accomplice. The German court decided the parents were not responsible so a civil ruling cannot supersede it. Also, OJ’s parents were not on trial. OJ was the defendant in the civil case so this example is irrelevant.

A parent is not responsible for all their child’s actions. This is a fact. IMO, the German court clarified this even further. Also, it is possible that the parents can be unaware that their Internet account is being misused. If they have no knowledge of the crime they very likely will not be held accountable. Under your scenario they could be financially liable even if their account was hacked.

IMO, you are setting a standard that no parent can meet, and shouldn’t be expected to meet. I have no problem with the ruling as it takes the teeth out of the RIAA/MPAA etc. when they file these shotgun lawsuits just to try and snag anyone they can. Even if they never committed the crime they are accusing of committing. If they have an issue with an illegal download then they need to take it up with the person that did the crime. They know that suing a minor is pointless for collecting money and bad for their image so instead they try to target people that have little to do with committing the crime. They have spit in the face of “due process” time and again while jamming up the judicial system by suing tens of thousands of “John Does’”.

I can give example after example as to why a third party can not be held accountable for a crime committed by another person when they had no knowledge the crime was, or is going to be, committed. I am happy to see a judge make a ruling based on common sense instead of doing it based on corporate influence.

I never meant to take the side RIAA/MPAA & don’t intend to . I wasn’t aware they were a party to this lawsuit & don’t believe they are. So consider me against the RIAA/MPAA .

What I posted about was the decision not to hold the parents responsible for the actions of their minor child . When a child commits a crime it is parental negligence . That is what these parents are guilty of.

I do want to answer some of your comments .

[QUOTE=UTR;2664351] The parent can’t be charged with the murder unless it can be proven they were an active/willing accomplice. [/QUOTE]
I know they can’t . I think the murder comparison to this case is a bit extreme . I didn’t check the stats but it is my belief that murder by child is still somewhat rare.
As above what the parents can be criminally charged with for a crime committed by their child is negligence.

[QUOTE=UTR;2664351] A parent is not responsible for all their child’s actions. [/QUOTE]
That is modern thinking & a part of the problem .
It is an excuse for parents not taking on the responsibility they have.
No one forced them to become parents it was their decision.
By making that decision they take responsibility for supervising their child until the law considers that child an adult . Or hiring someone to help them do that supervision. This is a 27/7 responsibility.
Anything less is negligence .
Why should another person suffer damage from someone’s child either physical or monetary without compensation from the parent ?

[QUOTE=UTR;2664351] you are setting a standard that no parent can meet, and shouldn’t be expected to meet. [/QUOTE]
They can most just don’t . If they hire adults or have others such as adult family then the child or children can be supervised 24/7 .

Now I want to take it down several notches from murder & up a couple from this internet crime.With this example:
Say the same 13 year old boy was your neighbor . His crime was vandalism . His act was to take a screwdriver & deeply scratch your car in every conceivable location . The parents had no knowledge of his intention of doing this .
Do you still hold the parents no responsible civilly?
I do & I would want a court to decide the parents were negligent in their supervision of their child & therefore responsible to pay for the damage .
Then they could have the child work for them until the debt was paid.
You wouldn’t have to wait for the money to fix the damage .
In this case the wait would be 5 years if it was decided by the court that only the child was responsible for your damages. Usually there is an additional 10 years the child has after becoming an adult to settle .
So it might be 15 years before you were compensated & even that would require more legal action if it wasn’t voluntarily paid.

My opinion is based on US law & I don’t know much about Germany’s laws. I do remember reading about Germany taking children from parents that tried to homeschool . They considered this negligence.
From that I know that a German court can hold a parent negligent.

What really disturbs me is:

[QUOTE=DoMiN8ToR;2664287]The court told them that they should have monitored his PC monthly and they should have installed a firewall and security software to prevent him for sharing files on the internet.
[/quote]

In other words, the parents should be forced to PIPA/SOPA their poor child. Of course, the child should have listened to his parents to begin with. Sad.

PS: how much money will the parents save? The title says €6,000, but the article says €3,000.

Just checked again. It was €2,380 fine and €3,000 compenstation

Parents today will and do/ buy whatever their child wants. (Internet large TVs in their room, computers,gaming consoles) They have no idea what the hell the kid is doing!!! They are just electronic baby sitters that keep the kids out of their hair. I see it all the time. It’s just like school, they send them there to be baby sitted. They could care less if they learn anything. (Just don’t spank my child) This is my 2 cents worth.

[QUOTE=cholla;2664393]What I posted about was the decision not to hold the parents responsible for the actions of their minor child . When a child commits a crime it is parental negligence . That is what these parents are guilty of.[/QUOTE]

There are times when it is parental negligence and there are times when it is not. Young people have a lot of influences in their lives beyond their parents. I did bad things when I was young that had nothing to do with my parents. They were good parents who were involved in my life. The fact is they could not be with me 24/7 or control who I met and was influenced by. I was an honor student and was really good at playing the “fine young man” role. I fooled a lot of people from my parents, to teachers and some of my friends. I wasn’t an axe murderer but I did some things that could have landed me squarely in juvenile detention more than once.

[QUOTE=cholla;2664393]It is an excuse for parents not taking on the responsibility they have. No one forced them to become parents it was their decision. By making that decision they take responsibility for supervising their child until the law considers that child an adult . Or hiring someone to help them do that supervision. This is a 27/7 responsibility. Anything less is negligence .
Why should another person suffer damage from someone’s child either physical or monetary without compensation from the parent?[/QUOTE]

Some parents do not take as much responsibility as they should. There is no way a parent can keep watch over a teenager 24/7. It is impossible. When a person reaches their teenage years they know right from wrong and should be responsible for their actions unless the parents were an active accomplice or knew about an eminent act and stood by and did nothing to prevent it.

[QUOTE=cholla;2664393]They can most just don’t . If they hire adults or have others such as adult family then the child or children can be supervised 24/7 .[/QUOTE]

Now the extended family is also responsible?

[QUOTE=cholla;2664393]Now I want to take it down several notches from murder & up a couple from this internet crime.With this example:
Say the same 13 year old boy was your neighbor . His crime was vandalism . His act was to take a screwdriver & deeply scratch your car in every conceivable location . The parents had no knowledge of his intention of doing this .
Do you still hold the parents no responsible civilly?[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. This is a good example of why we have insurance, police and a juvenile detention system.

[QUOTE=cholla;2664393]I do & I would want a court to decide the parents were negligent in their supervision of their child & therefore responsible to pay for the damage .[/QUOTE]

It is something that can be litigated in civil court. A different judge, in a different country, might rule differently.

[QUOTE=cholla;2664393]My opinion is based on US law & I don’t know much about Germany’s laws. I do remember reading about Germany taking children from parents that tried to homeschool . They considered this negligence. From that I know that a German court can hold a parent negligent.[/QUOTE]

Now you are talking about something different. If a parent is homeschooling then they are integrally involved in the process that is being litigated. For most acts of vandalism, illegal downloading etc., they are not.

I guess if we were both on the same jury & a case like this was being tried it would be a hung jury .
The simplest way I can sum up my view is:
A person is a minor & the parents are responsible for that minors actions .
Or a person is an adult & responsible for their own actions .

The US federal & state law is hypocritical in this in many ways for example an 18 year old is considered an adult in most if not all states . They can be tried for murder & sentenced to death but they are not considered adult enough to buy & consume alcohol . I don’t agree with that. Explained by my view above .

I’m even torn between whether a minor should be able to be declared an adult .No matter what the crime. That the commission of a crime can determine this. If a minor was an adult because of the crime then weren’t they one before ? If so why wasn’t this determined by the government ? Teachers ,etc. Now that would sure be a can of worms to open .

On the extended family being responsible . Only if they took on the responsibility by agreeing to supervise. Even then the parents would be partly responsible if they chose poorly on who they handed over the responsibility to. Same for anyone they hired to do the supervision.

BTW I disagreed with the German court in the homeschooling case . My understanding was this was & maybe still is being done to all that try to homeschool in Germany . I didn’t follow the case further .

In germany a person under the age of 14 is not responsible for anything (law side).
So the point is only the responsibility by their parents…