Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Innocent Infringement" Defense May Reach Supreme Court

Posted by timothy on from the or-it-might-get-kicked-from-the-stoop dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Several years ago a federal court in Texas ordered the RIAA, in an 'innocent infringement' case against a teenager, to either accept $200 per infringed work, or to go to trial over the innocent infringement issue, in Maverick Recording Co v. Harper. Recently, an appeals court reversed, saying that the defendant could not avail herself of the innocent infringement defense since there were CDs, bearing copyright notices, available in stores, even though the copies she had made were from MP3 files which bore no such notice. Now, a petition for certiorari has been filed on the defendant's behalf, arguing that the 5th Circuit's ruling would make it impossible for anyone to interpose an innocent infringement case, even where they had never seen a copyright notice. The lawyers filing the petition on defendant's behalf are the same firm that represented Jammie Thomas in her second trial, and the motion which resulted in her verdict being reduced from $1.92 million to $54,000."

9 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Did you check the disused lavatory? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

    The copyright notices have been posted there for the last nine months, though the leopard might have used them for kitty litter.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:Did you check the disused lavatory? by kent_eh · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think you should write a note to ask the author. If he doesn't respond with an objection, you can take that as permission.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    2. Re:Did you check the disused lavatory? by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ahh... But that's proper Fair Usage. Just because we didn't need to be told, doesn't mean that the GP poster isn't obligated to attribute to make it legit usage within the Copyright Code. :-D

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  2. Re:No sign, no crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Nice logic work there, chief. Except that it isn't - you moronic sack of crap.

  3. Simple solution: Watermarks by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Funny

    All copyrighted songs should be required to have at least one "Backup Singer" that sings the lyrics to the license agreement for the duration of the song.

  4. Re:No sign, no crime? by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Funny

    The RIAA can lick my scrotus humungous.

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  5. Re:And that, kids.... by stonewallred · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have never seen this crap you speak of. Must be removed by the nice people who give me movies and music and programs for free from the torrent thingee.

  6. Re:No sign, no crime? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 3, Funny

    The RIAA can lick my scrotus humungous.

    You may want to get that checked out.

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  7. Re:No sign, no crime? by oddTodd123 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What are you talking about? Both phrases show up if you google them, and the results tell me they mean precisely what the AC said they mean!