You cannot sue a minor in the UK afaik. So, the courts would not allow the BPI to sue a minor.
I actually think the BPI would have more luck suing the ISP.
I believe the BPI targeted children in this sweep in order to fire a warning shot. Other posts suggest that they were looking for people that published specific titles. bearing in mind that the music industry knows the rough age groups of people that listen to specific music titles, here's my theory:
"Find a representative person from a range of demographic groups and find out if we can scare them (or their parents) into submission. If we can do that, it's possible that the rest of that demographic group will follow."
But being a parent myself I'd prefer to publically defend the legal status of my kids than cave into these demands. Especially as this is [probably] untested ground.
I'm not saying, don't punish the kids. However if the law cannot get involved, then it should be the parents responsibility to punish (if the law cannot get involved)...
Bullying - yes, there was that. However, that is a different type of crime completely. And that is because the case WAS tested in court. The law COULD get involved.
However, either way, I'd still give my kids a right earful and ban them from the internet until they were 65.
Err...surely the courts decide the degree of responsibility and not society.
Yes the courts reflect societies ethics and desires, but they must test and prove the quality of those ethics and desires (Otherwise the lynch mob would rule). I doubt this specific type of crime has actually been tested in UK law.
How is this crime different from a minor committing a material crime, such as shoplifting:
Suppose a minor is caught shoplifting in the UK. The child is cautioned. Yes, they can have an ASBO slapped on them by law, banning them from going into the area where they commit crime, but that is quite unusual. And only under extreme circumstances can parent be held responsible under law (society may think differently).
Does the store that suffered the theft get to chase the parents for loses caused by children? (I've never heard of that happening) Wouldn't the BPI have to prove the culpability of the parents in order to obtain damages?
All I really want to know is: what exactly were the children/parent's threatened with by the BPI? And how solid would their prosecution be if it is targeted at minors.
Any layers out there want to pitch in?? (as if any read/. !)
The BPI said some were parents and it was "highly likely" they settled on behalf of their children.
In the UK is this normal practice? - If you cannot crack the bat over the head of a minor, go looking for a parent.
If this had gone to court and the courts sided with the BPI, what sort of punishment would have been dished out, and who would be punished? - the minor, or the parent, or both?
Specifically, if the parent didn't know a crime was going on (meaning they genuinely didn't know their child was downloading copyrighted material), how can the parent be held accountable?
If the parent cannot be held accountable, in these circumstances, why the hell did they settle out of court?
--all typos created using myKeyboard(TM) (patent pending)
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the HTML! They're so lame that they didn't fix the TITLE tag!!
You cannot sue a minor in the UK afaik. So, the courts would not allow the BPI to sue a minor. I actually think the BPI would have more luck suing the ISP. I believe the BPI targeted children in this sweep in order to fire a warning shot. Other posts suggest that they were looking for people that published specific titles. bearing in mind that the music industry knows the rough age groups of people that listen to specific music titles, here's my theory: "Find a representative person from a range of demographic groups and find out if we can scare them (or their parents) into submission. If we can do that, it's possible that the rest of that demographic group will follow."
But being a parent myself I'd prefer to publically defend the legal status of my kids than cave into these demands. Especially as this is [probably] untested ground.
I'm not saying, don't punish the kids.
However if the law cannot get involved, then it should be the parents responsibility to punish (if the law cannot get involved)...
Bullying - yes, there was that. However, that is a different type of crime completely. And that is because the case WAS tested in court. The law COULD get involved.
However, either way, I'd still give my kids a right earful and ban them from the internet until they were 65.
I'm not a lawyer (how can you tell), but...
/. !)
Err...surely the courts decide the degree of responsibility and not society.
Yes the courts reflect societies ethics and desires, but they must test and prove the quality of those ethics and desires (Otherwise the lynch mob would rule). I doubt this specific type of crime has actually been tested in UK law.
How is this crime different from a minor committing a material crime, such as shoplifting:
Suppose a minor is caught shoplifting in the UK. The child is cautioned. Yes, they can have an ASBO slapped on them by law, banning them from going into the area where they commit crime, but that is quite unusual. And only under extreme circumstances can parent be held responsible under law (society may think differently).
Does the store that suffered the theft get to chase the parents for loses caused by children? (I've never heard of that happening)
Wouldn't the BPI have to prove the culpability of the parents in order to obtain damages?
All I really want to know is: what exactly were the children/parent's threatened with by the BPI?
And how solid would their prosecution be if it is targeted at minors.
Any layers out there want to pitch in?? (as if any read
In the UK is this normal practice? - If you cannot crack the bat over the head of a minor, go looking for a parent.
If this had gone to court and the courts sided with the BPI, what sort of punishment would have been dished out, and who would be punished? - the minor, or the parent, or both?
Specifically, if the parent didn't know a crime was going on (meaning they genuinely didn't know their child was downloading copyrighted material), how can the parent be held accountable?
If the parent cannot be held accountable, in these circumstances, why the hell did they settle out of court?
--all typos created using myKeyboard(TM) (patent pending)...he would have been banged up in prison (sorry - "under house arrest") for being a threat to national security.