Slashdot Mirror


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."

1 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Fair Price by Renraku · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I think $750 per song is a fair price. After all, we live in the Corporate States of America. If you don't like it, get out. This is a sign of things to come.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?