Supreme Court Refuses P2P 'Innocent Sharing' Case

yoyo81 writes "The Supreme Court has refused to hear an 'innocent infringement case' in which Whitney Harper shared some music on the family computer when she was a teenager and was subsequently hit with a lawsuit from the RIAA. An appeals court overturned an earlier ruling from a federal court that reduced damages to $200 instead of the statutory $750 claiming 'innocence' was no defense, especially since copyright notices appear on all phonorecords. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear her case, but Justice Alito stated, 'This provision was adopted in 1988, well before digital music files became available on the Internet' and further, 'I would grant review in this case because not many cases presenting this issue are likely to reach the Courts of Appeals.' For now, though, Harper's verdict remains in place: $750 for each of the 37 songs at issue, or $27,750."

Comments

Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

"This provision was adopted in 1988, well before digital music files became available on the Internet"

So in other words "We get to bend the law to suit our corporate overlord's desires."

Re:Stupid

[MozeeToby]

It's not as though supreme court justices need to be reelected every few years. Once they're in they're pretty much in for as long as they want to be. So, unless the record companies are remodeling their houses or sending personal 'gifts' for the holidays, I see it as less likely than usual that this a case of corruption. Now, the actual laws that the justices are interpreting... there you have a point.

Re:Stupid

[tjhart85]

Wow, so their explanation of why they won't hear the case is based on the fact that she saw the copyright notice on the CD that she doesn't have? That's almost as bad as an EULA INSIDE the product you by and if you don't agree with it, you can't return the product since you've opened it.

Re:Stupid

[DigiShaman]

No, SCOTUS is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. It interpolates *existing* laws, it doesn't (or shouldn't) legislate from the bench. If you want the laws changed, write/speak to your congress (wo)man. FYI , we have three branches of government in the US. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Know their proper function please.

Re:Stupid

[yoyo81]

Not quite. That's precisely why Alito says they SHOULD hear the case. The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it. He hopes to eventually hear this case when the lower courts do disagree, as written in the summary, he thinks that the law is outdated. He also acknowledges what you're saying - that she did not have access to the copyright notice.

Re:Stupid

[NiceGeek]

Yes they can, and have if they find that the law is unconstitutional.

Re:Stupid

[DragonWriter]

Not quite. That's precisely why Alito says they SHOULD hear the case. The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it.

This is not correct. The Supreme Court has "grounds" to hear any case appealed on a question of law from a lower court (as well as those cases within its original jurisdiction.) The Supreme Court's apellate jurisdiction is, however, generally discretionary, so it may choose whether or not to here any case that someone wants it to hear on appeal. An inconsistency between the Courts of Appeals on a legal issue is one factor that is often cited, in the Court's decisions on whether or not to here an appeal, as weighing in factor of the Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, but it is not a prerequisite, and cases are not-infrequently heard where this condition does not apply.

He hopes to eventually hear this case when the lower courts do disagree, as written in the summary, he thinks that the law is outdated.

No, he says they should hear this specific case now, citing one of the specific factors that is frequently cited as weighing in favor of the Supreme Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction when there is not a division among the Courts of Appeals -- specifically, the fact that "not many cases presenting this issue are likely to reach the Courts of Appeals". His position was a dissent from the decision of the court to not hear the appeal.

Re:Stupid

[blair1q]

The seeds of corruption of the Supreme Court are sowed early, and their appointments are utterly political. The conservative wing of the court were bought and paid for every time their careers advanced.

Re:Stupid

[Attila Dimedici]

It is not just that some "new thing" happened, it is that the "new thing" means that the reason "innocence" is not a defense, according to the law, is no longer reasonable even though it was at the time the law was written.

Re:Stupid

[SETIGuy]

The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it.

Yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court would never reopen a previously decided case that wasn't even before them for no good reason just because they wanted to overturn a century's worth of precedent. That would be unimaginable. (cough, citizens united, cough)

The truth is the Supreme Court can hear any case it wants. They can bring in a case waiting for initial appeal if they want. They could probably stop an ongoing proceeding that wasn't an appeal and hold the initial trial in the supreme court, in which case the result of the trial could not be appealed. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen to political enemies of some future right wing president. The Supreme Court could just opine that the Supreme Court is a valid jury if it wanted, since their interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that matters.

Re:Stupid

[SETIGuy]

The interesting thing was that the lone dissent was Alito, whose dissent make it sound like he was giving serious consideration to protecting innocent infringement.

That one really surprised me. There may be hope for him yet.

It's equally likely that he would like to see a Supreme Court decision concluding that "innocent infringement" doesn't exist and that all infringement is willful.

Re:Stupid

[shentino]

And the fact that SCOTUS has to shed load just to avoid drowning in paperwork is a testament to the abuse of the legal system.

Re:Stupid

[Culture20]

Woosh me once, shame on me. Woosh me twice, shame on me.

Re:Stupid

[VocationalZero]

If you want the laws changed, write/speak to your congress (wo)man.

I laugh every time I see this. First off, if your congress (wo)man's political party opposes your view, you are immediately S.O.L. Secondly, if you want to effect change, a letter isn't going to do anything except prompt a bland response via form letter. Every time. Join or form a lobby and donate LOTS of money. Donate to the target party's/parties' campaign(s) as well; now that donation limits have been abolished, your ability to "help" your party has only improved, right?

Know their proper function please.

Just wow. It's their function to check each other, as powers should. It can be the difference between throwing the book at an offender to issuing the minimum fine to throwing out the case and declaring the law unconstitutional. Just as the executive branch has the option of not enforcing the law at all.

There are plenty chances for undesired, unjust laws to be swept under the rug without legislation, and the fact that no one will even bother replacing or modernizing an outdated law being used for predatory litigation is just sad.

This is how I see it

[Stregano]

I guess it is time to get my weekly -1 since some of this stuff I have a different opinion than others:

She knew exactly what she was doing. That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift.

Look. I pirate and many others on /. do as well. Everybody knows it is illegal and there is a chance of getting caught. I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.

If you do something illegal and get caught, even if we think the penalty is horrible, the excuses some people use are ridiculous. If she was so naive to think that there was nothing illegal about downloading the music and not paying for it, then how in the hell did she figure out how to do it in the first place. I am trying to say that every single person that pirates knows it is illegal. Well, most people do. If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.

If you are going to download music, there is always a chance of getting caught. This excuse is a horrible excuse as well

Re:This is how I see it

[tycoex]

True but the penalty is ridiculous. If you get caught stealing 3 cd's at a store and you aren't even an adult yet, they will most likely just take them from you and call your parents. At most you will get a small fine for stealing under $100 worth of goods, which is only a misdemeanor.

If this becomes the norm we might as well start actually stealing from stores, since the penalty is so much smaller.

Re:This is how I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

Well I guess I might as well as hop in the ring and get modded down as well. Time for one of those annoying point/counterpoint posts.

She knew exactly what she was doing. That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a
Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift.

No. It's not always like that. The article doesn't say when this took place. When I was 16, I didn't know downloading music was considered illegal. Like her - I naturally assumed that since you don't get the full content that comes with a CD, and that songs are played for free on the radio DAILY with no laws against recording the radio - that downloading music was not an issue at all. It was only once I started reading the news (as most teenagers don't actually read the news, go figure) that I found out the whole issue with Napster and Metallica causing a whole big stink. NOW I know there is an issue, and back then I didn't - which is what she's claiming.

Look. I pirate and many others on /. do as well. Everybody knows it is illegal and there is a chance of getting caught. I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.

Thats the thing - some of us disagree in it's illegality. Like mentioned with Radio before, they get to air it for free, and I can record any song on the radio, put the sound file on my MP3, and I am completely free of any Copyright issues. Mixed tapes were all the rage, why aren't there ridiculous lawsuits against every highschool romantic guy who ever made a mixed tape?

If you do something illegal and get caught, even if we think the penalty is horrible, the excuses some people use are ridiculous. If she was so naive to think that there was nothing illegal about downloading the music and not paying for it, then how in the hell did she figure out how to do it in the first place. I am trying to say that every single person that pirates knows it is illegal. Well, most people do. If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.

This is EXACLTY the point she is trying to make: She was just a teenager. She wasn't some leet phreak hacker like you or I - she wasn't visitting Slashdot every day of the week and wasn't a proud supporter of open source technology. She was someone who probably went over to a friends house, they said "Hey, see this thing called Limewire? You can use it to download songs. Its great! Here', I'll set it up when I'm over at your house next".

She likely had NO idea of the consequences when this happened.

If you are going to download music, there is always a chance of getting caught. This excuse is a horrible excuse as well

Yes - but when you aren't aware it's illegal, thats where the contraversy arises. No - ignorance of the law is not an excuse - you can't say "But I didn't know!". What creates a problem is the double standards - when it is perfectly fine for someone to create a duplicate copy of a song in one way without any consequence but doing it in a certain way ends in multiple thousands of dollars in lawsuits.

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

They did not equate the two things, they compared them.

And it's a relevant and revealing comparison: Actual theft would be more acceptable and have a lesser penalty than duplicating bits.

Re:This is how I see it

[WrongSizeGlass]

When 90+% of the population is engaging in an activity, maybe it shouldn't be illegal, especially when very few of the perpetrators are being caught and tried.

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated, would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth? How about committing vandalism or looting? How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside?

Something isn't right just because "everyone is doing it" ...

Re:This is how I see it

[Burning1]

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated, would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth? How about committing vandalism or looting? How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside?

But 90% of the population isn't smoking meth, or looting, or vandalizing. So your argument might support the idea that popular activities should be legalized.

And in fact, through history most of the things that 90% of the population do have been legal until there is a significant enough portion of the population that disagrees with it to illegalize it. See: Racism.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case the word "innocence" is not used to mean "not guilty" but to mean "young, naive, and ignorant"

Re:This is how I see it

[ScrewMaster]

Would you allow me to decide what the limits of punishment should be if someone deprives you of your rights? And you don't get to decide which rights are under consideration, just because this conversation happens to be about copyright in particular.

Is copyright a right in the same sense as freedom of speech or religion? In the US, Congress merely has the power to establish (or abolish) copyright laws. One could argue that even if it is a right, then it exists in a balance with the others. Why does your copyright trump my freedom of speech?

More to the point, copyright, in its current incarnation, is an abomination that is being used in wholly inappropriate and (I presume) unintended ways. Human lives are being destroyed for ... what? Profit? Not even that. There has been no significant legal redress in these cases: by most accounts the RIAA is losing money (or maybe making some, depending upon who you talk to) but no additional funds are being distributed to the creators of the music, nor are the rightsholders gaining any remuneration. Matter of fact, the media companies themselves are losing millions of dollars on this stupid, destructive, downright inept abuse of our copyright system, and that's in addition to whatever losses (real or imaginary) they have sustained through copyright infringment via P2P. Anyone who thinks what the RIAA is doing is appropriate is whacked in the head, or on somebody's payroll. The RIAA is doing this solely for the benefit of the RIAA: they're the only ones getting anything out of this. Presumably they still bill by the hour.

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

And theft, so far, has never been a super or subset of copyright infringement in any sense - affirmed, for example, by Dowling v. U.S [1985] and the Grokster case, unless you call Judge Noonan a liar.

The Judge only found it to not be a subset in a legal sense, and I'm not disputing that, so no.

In the non-legal practical and ethical sense of what is actually lost here, it is in fact a superset.

Re:This is how I see it

[sjames]

The claim that ignorance of the law is no excuse might have once held water, but these days it's unconscionable. There is not a single person anywhere in the U.S. that actually does know every law in their jurisdiction. There's not even a formal listing of laws in their current form, just a bunch of patches to patches to patches with the final resulting text recorded nowhere at all.

We all know that murder, robbery and such are illegal, and those of us who drive understand the major traffic laws reasonably well, but there's a bunch of stuff hardly any of us know. It's quite easy to imagine we might innocently break those laws.

Back in the days of Napster, I can easily see people believing file trading to be perfectly legal. After all, there was a corporation that existed solely to help us trade files, it MUST be legal!