Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Knocks Out "Innocent Infringement"
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled that a Texas teenager was not entitled to invoke the innocent infringement defense in an RIAA file-sharing case where she had admittedly made unauthorized downloads of all of the 16 song files in question, and had not disputed that she had 'access' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices. The 11-page decision (PDF) handed down in Maverick Recording v. Harper seems to equate 'access' with the mere fact that CDs on sale in stores had copyright notices, and that she was free to go to such stores. In my opinion, however, that is not the type of access contemplated in the statute, as the reference to 'access' in the statute was intended to obviate the 'innocence' defense where the copy reproduced bore a copyright notice. The court also held that the 'making available' issue was irrelevant to the appeal, and that the constitutional argument as to excessiveness of damages had not been preserved for appeal."
Whether she was innocently infringing or not isn't really the point because it's fairly obvious that no teenager on the planet who pirates music doesn't know that it's illegal.
The problem is that she's in court for downloading 16 songs. Randomly attacking people who will find it difficult to defend themselves legally isn't the right way to go about reducing piracy.
When will it finally be seen that the effect civil law has when applied to criminal cases is really rape? The civil law if I'm not mistaken was for big counterfeiters and other corporations screwing each other over. If copyright is never to be reformed then at least apply criminal law against music file sharers: 24 songs -> 1 CD = $20 = $200 fine, move along. Not $1.92 million rape judgement. And yes, rape is a strong word but so is what American courts are doing to their citizens at the behest of a minority of corporations.
Shh.
I motion before the assembled citizens that Texas have it's state status revoked with immediate effect. Lately it seems like every legal ruling and precident that comes out of that state is a violation of one human right or another, or at least criminally stupid. We beat them once, I'm sure we can do it again! :(
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The RIAA is the best argument in the world not to buy music. They've made me lose respect for the entire profession of musician. I'm not going to buy anymore music until they stop this crap. The buck stops with the people on stage. I have bought -1- CD in the past 5 years. I used to spend $100 a week minimum on them. Every week, every year, for close to a decade of music buying. Then, because of the RIAA I just stopped cold. Now I just stream music, listen to the radio, and play what I already own. Yes, that's a lot of money I'm not spending on "art" anymore. It works for me though. I'm entirely capable of managing my own digital rights in a legal manner, and this is part of my chosen regime to avoid the risk of predatory abusers of the US legal system. Don't get me started on DRM either. In a nutshell DRM means it needs to be discarded, not purchased, used, or otherwise exposed to the use of electricity in any way. DRM is a disease that needs careful washing to avoid. It's most noticeable in that it makes whatever has it smell like shit.
seems to equate 'access' with the mere fact that CDs on sale in stores had copyright notices, and that she was free to go to such stores.
I don't read it like that; the Court seems to be saying the trial judge's ruling, that the copyright notice alone wouldn't bar an innocent infringer defense, is incorrect as a matter of law. Since she did not contest she had access, her understanding (or lack of it) does not support an innocent infringer defense under the statute. If she had argued access, she might have had a shot.
How is the RIAA running their sting operations anyway? You figure they'd go after mass production counterfeiting at flea markets instead of just sitting on their asses hijacking or sniffing or whatever the hell they're doing. I thought the main reason such downloads took off in the first place was because of the price gouging of legal downloads. Since prices for legal downloads haven't really dropped in a meaningful way, I assume they're more in it for the money than the moral purpose of legal behaviour. So, if they're going to stoop to making an example of a kid, then I say they've opened the door for anyone to stoop to any level to make an example out of them. Damn I'm scatter brained this morning!
NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about "access" (i.e. the argument that the defendant would have had *access* to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music).
But the decision clearly states [page 9], "Rather than contest the fact of "access", Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music."
Thus, the issue of "access" was NOT AT STAKE. It was not contested. The decision was made purely on whether Harper's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense. And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense. (If it were, then someone would be able to violate e.g. GPL merely by persuading the court that they didn't know how copyright worked.)
on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access
It doesn't refer to the fact that somewhere else in the world, there is a copy lying around somewhere which does have a copyright notice. It refers to the fact that the specific phonorecord being copied has a notice. The statute rationally provides that if you're copying something with a copyright notice on it, you lose the "innocence" defense. The undisputed facts in this case were to the contrary. It was undisputed by anyone, according to the Court, that these copies were made from mp3 files in a filesharing community which did not bear a copyright notice. Accordingly, the lower court was right, and the appeals court wrong, on this point.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
They will lose money on the overall deal.
If you include the people they've pissed off so badly they will no longer give any money to any media company for any reason whatsoever, and will do whatever they can to deny them income beyond that, I'd say the damage they've caused themselves goes quite a bit beyond losing money.
Personally I can certainly afford buying a lot of media, but people raping teenagers simply are not getting my money.