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

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

I interpolate that the second amendment is no longer relevant. You can buy steaks at the store. Predator species are no longer a threat to humans, and criminals can be taken care of by the police. Furthermore, you would not stand a chance against the modern military with semi-automatic firearms and no explosives. Thus, you have no reason and thus no right to own firearms.

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[ScentCone]

some teenager shares something somewhere, and she cant have 'innocent infringement' defense

No, some teenager somewhere directly violates copyright by distrubuting protected works. And she can't have an 'innocent infringement' defense because: she's not innocent of distributing copyrighted works.

now, tell me what would happen, if wikileaks published transcripts or audio of a conversation in between riaa and judge/jury?

So, you're comparing something that somebody actually did with a fantasy imaginary event that sounds nice and sinister, but about which you're not providing any details? That's super helpful.

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[ScentCone]

I have yet to see any proof ... to people who were predominantly unlikely to buy it in the first place

Are you even listening to yourself? You need proof that she understood copyright law (not that ignorance of the law matters ... ever try that when you've been busted speeding in your car? No?), but you're happy to make assertions about the predominant behavior of the people receiving the files she was publishing?

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[ScentCone]

Suppose she knew uploading music was illegal. She still might not have known her download software was uploading

Well, shoot. That's a fantastic excuse, isn't it? So she's innocent because she can't understand that everyone else using Limewire is making stuff available that she'd otherwise have to pay for, and she's looking at screens, right in front of her eyes that show how many people are connected to the things she's uploading, but her argument is that even though she's smart enough to install and operate the software, she's too dumb to wonder how all the magic free stuff happens? I've never met a single kid older than 10 who hasn't - for years - understood that you can buy your entertainment for pennies, through legit services, or you can go and rip it off, hoping that you'll be lost in the noise and not get caught.

Children are not expected to be adults.

Fair enough. Then her parents are the ones who are responsible for her behavior, and thus the consequences.