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."
The question is not whether there should be punishment, the question is whether the punishment fits the crime. $200 a song is outrageous (let alone the $750 normally fined). There is a huge difference between punishment and enslavement. This person would have to work forever to pay off this debt. That hardly fits the crime. Make him pay 2, 3, 4 or even 6 times the cost of the song and that would be punishment enough... but 200 times?!? That is unconscionable. The RIAA needs to be taken down a few notches and SHAME on the courts for allowing them to run their racket as long as they have.
I mean most people think, and correctly so in most cases, that if you pay for something, that means it is legal for you to use/have it.
That is so true. I remember a 'cable descrambler' case that occurred about 10 years ago. A guy bought this thing in a big chain electronics store; it was the featured item on display in the front of the store; it cost a small fortune, about 2 or 3 times what a VCR cost at the time; he assumed there was some kind of license fee built into it.
Apparently, there wasn't.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
By definition any industry that needs a subsidy is a "failed business model," except that it hasn't failed yet because there are government subsidies. (example: US farms - although they would probably not fail, they'd just have to innovate instead of get paid to not grow anything).
Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
A penalty is fine, but a 2000% penalty? The percentages aren't that high on anything else...
But, but but this is electronic media! It involves computers and intarwebs and a series of tubes and electrons and stuff, you're supposed to abandon all logic and common sense and instantly enter into Dummy Mode whenever that's the case! Certainly you can't use critical thinking and compare it to the penalties you'd face when dealing with anything else! Why, that might amount to treating IP as though it were like tangible property! Oh, wait...
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Yes, and something from the Constitution comes to mind... something about cruel and unusual punishment. If you can't be sent to prison for life for shoplifting, why should the RIAA be able to charge you 750 times the sale price (the court was going "easy" on the defendant here by only fining him 200 times the sale price) of their crappy music? Again, read my post... I don't necessarily have a problem with the existence of punishment for these crimes... it is the severity of the punishment that I think is outrageous. You don't see a 20,000% mark-up a little unconscionable?
The difference between $200/song and $750/song goes something like this.
RIAA: She knew what she was doing.
Ms Harper: No I didn't. I was 16 and everyone was doing it.
Judge: Okay, I'll accept that. You'll have to take her house, her parent's house and her car as damages, but she can keep the shirt on her back.
RIAA: But your honour, it's a lovely purple coloured silk shirt, and she really did know what she was doing.
Judge: No. She can keep her shirt. Let that be a lesson to you RIAA.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
You can't figure out how to get into a rock concert if you're slightly underaged?
Kids today have no imagination whatsoever.