Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Foiled By "Innocent Infringement" Defense
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an interesting development in a Texas case against a college-age defendant who was 16 at the time of the infringement, the Judge has denied the RIAA's summary judgment motion and ordered a trial of the damages — even though the defendant admitted copyright infringement using Kazaa — based on the 'innocent infringement' defense, which could reduce the statutory damages to $200 per song file. Relying on BMG v. Gonzalez (PDF), the reasoning of which I have criticized on the 'innocent infringement' issue, the RIAA argued that Ms. Harper does not qualify for the 'innocent infringement' defense, since CD versions of the songs, sold in stores, have copyright notices on them. In its 15-page decision (PDF) the Harper court rejected that contention, holding that 'a question
remains as to whether Defendant knew the warnings on compact discs were applicable in this KaZaA setting,' since 'In this case, there were no compact discs with warnings.' Finding that there was a factual issue as to what the defendant knew or didn't know at the time of the infringement, the Court ordered a trial of the damages unless the RIAA agrees to accept $200 — rather than the $750-plus it seeks — per infringed song."
A person under 18 cannot sue or be sued, without a hell of a bunch of oppostion.
We seem to forget that.
Innocent Infringement is an exception made for people that deal with media, like schools, libraries, radio, and tv. If someone acts in accordance with the law, every day, then we aren't going to consider them a criminal because of a single accident. Someone doing nothing but copyright infringement, doesn't qualify under the innocent infringement exception, but is instead ignorant of the law. Whether copyright law is just, or needs updating for the 21st century is another matter.
it's punitive, and can be reasonable -it is meant to be a deterrent-- it is reasonable to make the financial recompse for a crime more than what the thing is worth at retail
if you shoplift, many state laws allow the store to require recompensation in
excess of the item stolen, this to repay the costs of having the security that the thieves make necassary.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Copyright infringement is the violation of any exclusive right held by the copyright owner. Infringement may be intentional or unintentional. Often called "innocent infringement," unintentional infringement occurs when an author creates an ostensibly new work that later proves to be a mere reproduction of an existing work, though the author was unaware of the identity between the two at the time the copy was made. For example, former Beatle musician George Harrison was guilty of innocent infringement when he released the song "My Sweet Lord," which a court found was the same song as the Chiffons' "He's So Fine," only with different words. The court said that Harrison had "subconsciously" borrowed the Chiffons' unique motif.
No, sir, it is $200 PER SONG and that's if you get the "innocent infringement" defense. Otherwise it will be $750 PER SONG. In addition, the RIAA does not go after someone for downloading 1 song... they go after someone who has downloaded probably thousands of songs. The total fines can easily reach $1 million or more. That is unconscionable in my book.
A penalty is fine, but a 2000% penalty? The percentages aren't that high on anything else...
It gets worse, it's actually a 20,000% penalty.
Original value = 100% ($.99/song) or ~$1.00
200% = 2 * 100% = ~$2.00
~$20.00 = 2,000%
~$200.00 = 20,000%
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
Why doesn't someone simply tell the judge about it?
Defendant is represented by counsel. I'm sure her counsel will tell the judge about it, if it comes up. If the RIAA takes the judge's offer, though, it might not come up.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The Supreme Court has held that punitive damages can virtually never exceed a 10:1 ratio of actual damages. Whether that ruling would extend to statutory damages has never been tested, but it's possible it might. Certainly the RIAA would not want to argue that the purpose of statutory damages is to be punitive, if it wishes to avoid such an extension.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There is a significant body of Supreme Court jurisprudence invoking the Due Process Clause to limit punitive damage awards in civil cases. The most recent significant decision was 2003's State Farm v. Campbell, which gave a strong presumption to the unconstitutionality of multipliers greater than single digits, and summarized some of the past decisions. To quote from the majority opinion in that case:
"We decline again to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed. Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process. In Haslip, in upholding a punitive damages award, we concluded that an award of more than four times the amount of compensatory damages might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety. We cited that 4-to-1 ratio again in Gore. The Court further referenced a long legislative history, dating back over 700 years and going forward to today, providing for sanctions of double, treble, or quadruple damages to deter and punish. While these ratios are not binding, they are instructive. They demonstrate what should be obvious: Single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State's goals of deterrence and retribution, than awards with ratios in range of 500 to 1, or, in this case, of 145 to 1."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10