By Jo Best, 21 June 2005 15:15
NEWS A 14-year old music pirate could be about to send her mum to court.
Emily Price was caught in the third wave of anti-piracy action by music industry trade body the BPI and landed with a £2,500 bill for her file-sharing habit, according to reports.
Due to the girl's age, her mother Sylvia Price is legally responsible for the bill. Price has until 1 July to make the payment. If she is unable to pay by the July deadline, the fee will rise to £4,000.
Price, however, said she cannot afford to pay for her daughter's uploading - leaving her liable for a court appearance.
According to a BPI (British Phonographic Industry) spokesman, the association believes that a third of the 90 or so cases it has taken out to date against file-sharers have been as a result of young people uploading and landing their parents in hot water.
The BPI's spokesman added that file-sharers aren't treated any differently regardless of age.
"We don't do any screening for political correctness," he said. "Whether it's a 12-year-old [uploading] or a 50-year-old man stealing a CD from a shop, you wouldn't expect them to be treated any differently."
Comments
There are 28 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Quote:
"We don't do any screening for political correctness," he said. "Whether it's a 12-year-old [uploading] or a 50-year-old man stealing a CD from a shop, you wouldn't expect them to be treated any differently."
Yes, exactly the kind of blinkered attitude from the music cartel we've come to expect having missed the boat on providing a sensible music download service years ago.
Well done BPI! We all love you!
x
2. anonymous
What complete trash from BPI...a 12-year old uploading compared to 50-year old stealing a CD WOULD be treated differently by the courts - BPI are only going after the small fry - would they dare tackle the big organisations...I doubt it!
3. Bob Harris
I in no way endorse copyright theft but, recognising that many of those involved are under the age of 18 I'd be interested to know if the BPI issued any sort of warning to the ISP account holder BEFORE hitting them with the demand for £2,500. If you want to stop kids doing this you have to educate the parents.
4. anonymous
Just because the Mother pays for the connection should not mean she is responsible for the actions of her child using it.
If a child ordered something via the telephone the parent would not be liable for the purchase only the cost of the call??
What happens if the download was made at an Internet Cafe. Would they be responsible using that logic??
5. anonymous
Surely there is difference between stealing a CD from a shop (a criminal offence) and infringing copyright by downloading (a civil offence)?
6. anonymous
Downloading is no more killing music now than Home Taping did in the eighties. Billing parents for large amounts as a result of their chldren's downloading is offensive in the extreme and I think we should ALL respond by refusing to purchase product from these exploitative bastards and download it for free instead. My congratulations and wholehearted support to this woman for standing up for herself and refusing to submit to bullying.
7. Angus
A twelve year old would hardly get a £2,500 fine if she was too steal a CD from a shop now.
The BPI's draconian measures are an insult to the british people. A bunch of wannabies and dropouts.
Downloading or previewing music is a try before you buy if I enjoyed it then I would happily go out an buy the CD.
The BPI like most in the Entertainment industry are craving the press attention. These arrest will not stop the downloadin, it will only further push it underground.
The methods they use are nothing short of entrapment. I will put my money on the fact that one day this will get challenged and they will have to refund all this cash, or the will in fact arrest the wrong person and S**t will hit the fan..
I once respected the BPI.. but now.. they are a disgrace to the term British.. even the name Phonographic is outdated just like them...
8. Tim Jackson
Download or upload?
Your headline says download, but the girl appears to be being fined for uploading. There is a big difference.
It's kind of hard for parents to stop children listening to copyrighted music from sites which claim to be legal when there is also plenty of perfectly legal free music on the web. How do we explain to them what is legal and what isn't? I suspect that some of the music my daughter downloads is illegal, but she has been assured (by other parents) that it is all legal, and I can't reasonably supervise all her listening. Anyway I'm afraid I'm too old to tell the difference between a promotional demo and a chart track just by listening.
Uploading is another matter entirely, that is easy to explain - if you don't own the copyright, you can't upload it.
9. Anon
Get the cost of CDs and DVDs down and then people might start paying for them more readily!
10. Victor the Vigilante
Its about time parents realised that they are responsible for the actions of their children. they chose to have them afterall.
This child has comitted a criminal offence. Its a shame that more serious offences committed by youths - vandalism, graffiti, theft, anti-social behaviour - aren't subject to similar fines.
Maybe if the parents of every yob got fined £2500 when their little tearaway decided to bricks through their neighbours windows they might actually start taking some responsibility.
In this case the mother is responsible, but the fine does seems ridiculous when you put it in to context of crime in our society.
11. Charles Wood
It is an interesting point in law: if the goods were supplied to a child, surely it is the responibility of the supplier to ensure she can pay for it, and get the correct permissions?
If I run into a child of 12 on the road I become liable for the action regardless of what the child was doing, as an adult I have a "duty of care" to ensure the child's safety, regardless of other circumstances.
The question here then is did the person supplying the goods (the download in this instance) get the clear permission of the responsible adult? If they did not, then surely they are guilty of running the child over, just as I would be?
This sort of case: corporate with lots of money, against child of 12 is classic American silly laws, and I thought we had (sensible) judges in this country to stop this sort of "childish" nonsense!!
The owner of the work must have a responsibilty to ensure the goods do not get in the childs hands without permission. Who would be responsible if it was Porn?
12. Charles Wood
Actually, regardless of the nature of the theft (if indeed this is theft), there is a HUGE difference between a 12 year old and a 50 year old.
The law in this country recognises it in most circumstances, and I think this should be one of them.
I would suggest a remedy:
The child should hand the downloads back (and the BMi pay the bandwidth costs), and be banned from the computer for a year, thus improving their health immensly!
Or is this different from a CD?
13. anonymous
Let's be clear about this, making a COPY of an intangible item is in NO WAY the same as STEALING a CD. In one case the 'owner' has lost an item which he may rightfully demand be returned to him. In the other case, the 'owner' is seeking to recover the potential profit he would have made if the downloader had purchased the item. If music companies can prove that the downloader would have paid for the track if he hadn't been able to download the music 'illegally' then they should be able to recover, and not unless they can do this!
14. David John
How on earth does saddling a single mother with a huge bill or perhaps even a prison sentence help the music industry? How do these people sleep at night?
They've had two new revenue streams (DVDs and ringtones) that have emerged in the last few years, CD sales in 2004 reached record highs and they're STILL bitching about losing money and resorting to tactics like this.
If they really cared about their artists starving they'd pay them more than 5% of the wholesale price of a CD in royalties.
Perhaps if you stopped putting money into looking for the successors to Busted and showed a little more imagination you'd be able make more of a profit.
And for heaven's sake have a word with Shawn Fanning. Start considering Snocap as a way of making money out of p2p rather dragging children and their parents through the courts like this.
15. Andy
This needs somebody to stand up and challenge it in court. As someone else has put it, this is a civil offence of copyright.
How do they work out the size of the fine,do they just pull a figure out of thin air?
If the parent is responsible as the owner of the ISP account then does that mean that my company is responsible if one of our users was found to have downloaded child porn?
This will just turn more and more people against the music industry with their self styled intimidation.
As Basil Fawlty would say, "This is just how Nazi Germany started, a load of layabouts with nothing better to do than cause trouble"
16. Pirate
Almost every kid I know is doing this. Will they all end up in court? Physical impossibility... The music industry has to change, bring back live music, but not in enormous stadiums
http://www.maryportblues.com/
17. anonymous
Whats the difference between recording from a Radio and downloading. "Nothing" So why don't the radio channels have to give out information about their listeners?
Just shows how stupid our Judges are in the UK, £2500 you don't get that for assult or rape.
Wake Up ! Nobody cares in the UK any more as we have been taxed to the bone by this Labour Government and people are looking after themselves now.
18. Jerrold Baldwin
I am surprised that the Labour Government will allow such draconian and illiberal measures to be inflicted on a British subject. No, wait…
19. anonymous
This is preposterous! I remember a story about a jester who while walking through a market took a deep sniff of the smell of BBQ'ing steak. The butcher BBQ'ing the steak was in an uproar and demanded payment for the jesters stealing the smell of his steak. In the end it was decided that the butcher could be repayed for the theft of the smell by the jingle of the sound of coins in payment! This is clearly how this matter should be dealt with.
20. Ron
If they dont want this copying to happen then price the goods correctly. The price of music is a rip off that's why people dont buy it.
I also think that they might find that as no one is profiting from the transfer/sharing and that the files are being shared its impossible to realistically prosecute someone. This is big against little, this Lady in question probably doesnt have enough money to even start a defence case so she looses straight away. £2500 before the deadline or £4000 afterwards. That's bullying.
They should be happy that someone actually likes their music! most of it's rubbish anyway.
These music companies promote their music on the TV and radio but not on P2P, What's the difference?
21. anonymous
Although I think file downloading should be discouraged & have a simple remedy / solution to the problem of grossly overpriced, (in the UK) CD's & DVD's. The BPI & their US counterpart do bear some responsiblity, by burying their metaphoric heads in the sand & seeing legal downloading as an opportunity to embrace another revenue stream.
I do not really accept that the 12 year old did not know that it is not entirely legal to download music & films. (The age of criminal responsiblity having been set at 10.)
If the mother did not know what the child was downloading it also points up the recurrent problem of lack of supervision of minors on the Internet.
Ringtones: Mentioned by one correspondent are an area where many unscrupulous outfits are selling subscription service type ringtones to minors without making the fact that it is an expensive subscription service, rather than a one-off download. Which dubious practices will of course ricochet against the 'ringtone' suppliers who operate a more ethical policy & business model.
Finally, I would be quite pleased to see the back of the 24/7 downloaders, because of the concentrated & intensive amounts of bandwidth they consume. Although some ISP's are asking excessively heavy downloaders to desist, reduce their bandwidth consumption, or go elsewhere.
This of course mainly affects users on 'Home' or 'Residential' consumers, if on the same 'Gateway' or whatever that the 24/7 downloader is on. The action by some ISP's, of putting all the heavy & excessive downloaders on the same 'Gateway' or whatever, is I think to be commended.
22. anonymous
Re-read the Article...
This girl has been penalised for UPLOADING, which is effectively publishing copyright material.
23. anonymous
the BPI's spokesman is arrogant, stupid or both. He was quoted as saying "Whether it's a 12-year-old [uploading] or a 50-year-old man stealing a CD from a shop, you wouldn't expect them to be treated any differently."
Yes I would expect them to be treated differently and the law treats them differently. This is a most unedifying spectacle, to see a mega-rich industry targetting kids. The music industry that has exploited kids since the Top 20 began should make some effort to protect copyright instead of going for the easy option of targetting kids and their parents.
24. anonymous
When I purchase a CD in store or on-line I know that a high proportion of the ticket price is going to distribution, packaging, in-store promotion not to mention retailer's and distributor's profit.
So why is that when I download the price is so close to price I pay picking the CD off the rack in Tesco. I presume the Artist is paid more for the downloaded album?
25. anonymous
Could silicon.com come up with a way for readers to see all the comments at a time, without having to click on each one in turn, waiting for the page to load.
26. Keith Hague
Copyright was created to protect the livelihood of individual artists who, at the time would perform to a finite audience, live, for a reasonable fee. The music industry have been exploiting this law to create great wealth selling recorded performances at many times the cost of production. They have come to expect too much return on too little effort for too long. Music lovers should no longer have the obligation to maintain their decadent lifestyles.
27. anonymous
Can someone find contact details for Mrs Price. I, for one, am am willing to contribute because I think it is disgusting to target children.
28. Alan Smith
Have I missed something here? .. Has she appeared in Court? Just because a computer using here IP address was uploading music, how does it prove that this girl was resposible. SORRY let the BPI prove it.. not a chance