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

[Tom Boz]

I think you misinterpreted what Justice Alito said - he *wanted* to hear the case; that sentence comes from his dissent. He would prefer to reexamine the laws which were written before a new medium was available (or at least widely available).

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

[Antisyzygy]

I understand the finer details. I was mainly making a joke. I think what it really is, is that the RIAA/MPAA has succeeded in its propaganda effort geared towards those in government. The Judge may in fact believe it causes significant damage to share a song, he also probably makes quite a bit of money so 27750 dollars seems like an adequate punishment to him, but its clearly excessive for any person that makes less than 60,000 a year. He is mistaken simply because he hasn't heard the whole truth and is not this woman's peer. He cannot understand how excessive this punishment truly is.

Re:Stupid

[NiceGeek]

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

Re:Stupid

[Yvan256]

Could be worst. It could be the entire lyrics.

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

[DragonWriter]

Can the Supreme Court not strike down an existing law? (Curious non-USian)

The Supreme Court can rule that, e.g., an Act of Congress purporting to be a law is not a law, because it is outside of Congress's Constitutional authority, or that a state law, because it conflicts with federal law (whether the Constitution, statute, treaty, etc.) cannot be enforced by the State. These actions are often described as "striking down existing law", but they are, actually, interpreting existing law.

Re:Stupid

[cheekyjohnson]

write/speak to your congress (wo)man.

The same ones bowing down to large corporations? It likely won't work.

Re:Stupid

[Swanktastic]

I doubt being "out of touch" is the reason they declined to hear the case. Supreme Court justices aren't just sitting in some dusty old room reading law books alone, they have an entire organization of clerks to do research and advise them. It's common for 25 year olds (the top of the classes from Harvard/Yale law) to have tremendous sway over the court and our nations' laws through their clerk duties. A justice here and there may say something dumb, but the Court as a whole is quite well informed.

This particular case is beyond stupid, and not the one anyone who hates current copyright law should want to see before the Supreme Court. At issue (IMO) is the fact that laws written for Organized Criminals are being enforced in casual/personal usage situations. [Aside- I happen to believe they probably ARE appropriate for folks making their living off copyright violations.] Her claim of innocence does not strike at the root cause for our problems.

Re:Stupid

[Beardo the Bearded]

Yes, put that in and make it and unskippable on every CD. Then it'll be just like the DVD release.

Oh, they should also put in ads for other songs. I love that.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

It's common for 25 year olds (the top of the classes from Harvard/Yale law)

Precisely the problem. What percentage of Harvard and Yale students also come from wealthy or semi-wealthy backgrounds? Do they have a concept of how severe a punishment such as the aforementioned is for a lower/middle class person? Do the professors who teach these students at Harvard and Yale have anything in common with a lower/middle class?

Perhaps the last question is a bit of a stretch, but as far as justice is concerned : This woman should be able to make a case she is an "innocent infringer" simply because back when she did this alleged infringement, it was not uncommon for people to not realize the consequences of their action. I understand ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if you are allowed to copy tapes for your friends what exactly is wrong with doing it over the internet?

Re:Stupid

[Beardo the Bearded]

She was a teenager and couldn't enter into a legal contract anyway. That would have been the crux of my defence if it was me.

IANAL but my L is.

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

[Foobar of Borg]

Ok, we get it, you think all rich people are idiots with no empathy. Awesome. Can we move on now?

Not idiots, just out of touch in the "let them eat cake" style. And no, most rich people do not have empathy. It might affect their bottom line.

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.

Re:Stupid

[TheoMurpse]

That "elementary school" notion is, in fact, just the express division of responsibilities set out in Articles I-III of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no express separation of powers in the Constitution, nor was there in practice at any point during the Founders' Era.

The fact is, when Congress strikes down a law, it is called "legislation." When a court does exactly the same thing, you're calling it "interpretation."

You can change the labels all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they're doing the same thing as Congress.

Furthermore, there are plenty of times when the courts do, indeed, legislate from the bench. Check up on "gap filling," "common law," and other things like that.

The "separation of powers" is not so simple as you are taught in elementary school. It is far more complex, with numerous instances of the three branches overlapping in authority from the get-go of the nation.

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

[MozeeToby]

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. Think about targeted enforcement, anyone the RIAA doesn't like can have their life torn out from under them by sending a single letter and file some court papers, and if not them then their friends and family.

It's the same thing on the criminal side of the law. Let's pretend that I did something to piss off a member of Obama's staff. That guy calls up the FBI, the FBI starts digging into my life and inevitably finds at least a handful of felonies that I've committed over the course of my life (statistically, it's practically guaranteed that I have, even though I don't even realize it). Taken drugs? A good investigation can probably uncover it. Browsed porn online? It's highly likely that you've got some kiddie porn (or something that looks like kiddie porn anyway) in your browser cache. Lied on a job resume? That's felony fraud is some places.

The point is, it is far, far too easy in our law and judicial systems to destroy someone's life simply because everyone has done something wrong at some point. All the government would have to do is precisely enforce the laws that are already in place and we would indeed be living in a full on police state

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

[amicusNYCL]

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

If you steal a music CD from a store, and then make a bunch of copies and start distributing them, expect the same penalty. The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter. This line strikes me as odd though:

claiming "innocence" was no defense

I guess there's a reason they wrote it in quotes, but I was under the impression that innocence, by definition, is in fact always a defense. Apparently not.

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

[__aaqvdr516]

I had to look up some info on what exact precedents have been made in courts regarding this. So, here it is...
http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/01/20/recording-the-radio-is-legal-recording-satellite-radio-is-illegal/
Satellite radio is illegal to record, while standard radio is in the clear.

The main argument being standard radio is more lossy. Not a very good argument IMHO.

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

[Beardo the Bearded]

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated... How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside?
Something isn't right just because "everyone is doing it" ...

Hey, I run a mail-order bakery and I was sending samples of baking powder to every household in America. Didn't you hear of the "Killer Ingredients at Drop-Dead prices" campaign?

In retrospect, it wasn't the best marketing campaign, and I'm up for parole soon, but excuse ME for thinking that we were ALLOWED to be ENTREPRENEURS in AMERICA.

Re:This is how I see it

[drinkypoo]

Actually, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been illegal for the same reasons as today.

Actually, according to the RIAA, recording from the radio to an audio tape cassette (specifically a tape cassette, mind you) is acceptable. You may not loan the recording to a friend. Further, time-shifting has been shown to be fair use by the supremes in the Betamax decision, so you are legally permitted to record audio or video for your own use regardless of media, since January 17, 1984. Otherwise the VCR would have ceased to exist.

So no, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been legal and has explicitly been legal since 1984, or basically, as long as it has been an issue. Redistribution of that content is illegal, but you knew that.

Re:This is how I see it

[TheoMurpse]

Couple things:
1. They likely wrote "innocence" as a quote of what she claimed. For example, Cowboyneal claimed "Slashdot" is the best website in existence. This serves to place emphasis on which site was claimed to be the best. It's a writing technique, and the clerks working for the SCOTUS justices are uniformly highly educated in such techniques.

2. Innocence is not a defense to that of strict liability. Furthermore, innocence is not always a defense in civil proceedings (of which copyright infringement is a creature). Well, I suppose it depends on what we mean by "innocence." If we mean "it is factually untrue that my files were made available through my action or inaction" then it would be a defense. But I am under the impression the claim of "innocence" was "I lacked the intent but still committed the act," which is not a defense to copyright infringement IIRC.

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!

Gentleman, start your shoplifting

[Anonymous Coward]

Just googling around, the penalty for shoplifting less than $50 worth of goods in California appears to be a mere "infraction" and $250 fine.

Please note, this post is not to be construed as legal advice (IANAL) nor incitement to commit any criminal act.

All we need now is

[unity100]

wikileaks exposing this pieces of crap as they are. a few 'trade secret' communications in between execs and their henchmen should wake the whole public up to the shit these are pulling.

Re:Why not treble damages?

[suutar]

There's a special rule for copyright infringement (originally targeted, I believe, at for-profit bootlegging operations) that says "if the rights-holder wants, we can skip all that establishment of real damages and just say $250 per item", and then triple that if it's willful. The idea (if I'm right) was to keep the plaintiff from having to blow crap-loads of money on researching how many folks had bought the bootlegs, and to yield a substantial total to establish a deterring effect. Unintended Consequences, however, allow it to be used on a completely different class of infringer.

Re:One of your examples is not like the other

[Haedrian]

"they are free to model naked" ... "You don't lose those rights when you turn 50."

Maybe you should. For all of us.

so, basically, you dont know shit

[unity100]

http://mirror.infoboj.eu/

and instead, talking from the filth you are fed by american media ... well done. good for you.

A whole new can of worms...

[TiggertheMad]

The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter.

You know, if you wrote a worm that would root computers, and then set up a low bandwidth background torrent, it would really wreck the RIAA's ability to claim that people 'knew what they were doing', since it would set up a situation where anyone could be hosting files without consent or knowledge.