Appeals Court Knocks Out "Innocent Infringement" 232
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled that a Texas teenager was not entitled to invoke the innocent infringement defense in an RIAA file-sharing case where she had admittedly made unauthorized downloads of all of the 16 song files in question, and had not disputed that she had 'access' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices. The 11-page decision (PDF) handed down in Maverick Recording v. Harper seems to equate 'access' with the mere fact that CDs on sale in stores had copyright notices, and that she was free to go to such stores. In my opinion, however, that is not the type of access contemplated in the statute, as the reference to 'access' in the statute was intended to obviate the 'innocence' defense where the copy reproduced bore a copyright notice. The court also held that the 'making available' issue was irrelevant to the appeal, and that the constitutional argument as to excessiveness of damages had not been preserved for appeal."
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Informative)
Hi, I'm a teenager in Canada, which is on the planet. I know that downloading music is legal where I am.
Re:Not really the point (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not really the point (Score:4, Informative)
In this case the RIAA didn't bother pursuing the "uploading" angle. Instead it asked for $750 per song, the minimum damages for non-innocent DOWNLOADING.
(Harper said it should just be $200 per song, the minimum damages for INNOCENT downloading, on the grounds that she was too young and naive to know that her downloads were illegal. But the court ruled that ignorance of copyright law is not a defense in this case.)
Re:Not really the point (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NewYorkLaywer gives another dishonest summary (Score:5, Informative)
NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about "access" (i.e. the argument that the defendant would have had *access* to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music). But the decision clearly states [page 9], "Rather than contest the fact of "access", Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music." Thus, the issue of "access" was NOT AT STAKE. It was not contested. The decision was made purely on whether Harper's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense. And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense. (If it were, then someone would be able to violate e.g. GPL merely by persuading the court that they didn't know how copyright worked.)
1. The name is "NewYorkCountryLawyer".
2. Your characterization of my summary as "dishonest" was quite dishonest on your part.
3. The decision was based on access; it was because of their conclusion on "access" that her lack of knowledge, etc., became irrelevant. Had she not had access, it would have been quite relevant.
4. I found the discussion of "access" vague, and for that reason used the term "seems". I wasn't sure exactly what they were saying. From their decision it seems that they had established that the copies were downloaded from copies that bore no copyright notice. So it would seem that the record supported the lower court's finding that there was no "access", and that they were defining access differently.
Re:Rape. (Score:1, Informative)
A strong word perhaps, but in many cases the punishment for actually raping someone is a lot more lenient compared to downloading an mp3. Society's priorities are completely out of wack.
Re:Not really the point (Score:3, Informative)
As an American, my attitude toward Canada is "Beers and moose, eh?" Every country has its lighthearted jokes about it (the French are rude/cowards, the Irish are drunkards, Americans are imperialist hillbillies, etc.). If you honestly believe that the GP's very obvious troll is in any way representative of the average American's opinion of Canada than you are sorely mistaken.
The plain wording of the statute (Score:4, Informative)
on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access
It doesn't refer to the fact that somewhere else in the world, there is a copy lying around somewhere which does have a copyright notice. It refers to the fact that the specific phonorecord being copied has a notice. The statute rationally provides that if you're copying something with a copyright notice on it, you lose the "innocence" defense. The undisputed facts in this case were to the contrary. It was undisputed by anyone, according to the Court, that these copies were made from mp3 files in a filesharing community which did not bear a copyright notice. Accordingly, the lower court was right, and the appeals court wrong, on this point.
Re:Not really the point (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NewYorkLaywer gives another dishonest summary (Score:3, Informative)
What I don't understand NewYorkCountryLawyer, and IANAL (... Yet and working on it...) is that why the damages have been up held since they are clearly punitive and break the Phillip Morris and Exxon precedents capping punitive damages.
An appeals court is not allowed to reach an issue that was not argued in the court below. The defendant failed to raise that argument in the district court. The 5th Circuit specifically noted that the issue of excessiveness of damages under due process standards was simply not before them, since it had not been preserved for appeal.
Re:This is a threat? (Score:2, Informative)
This spirit is sewn into the very fabric of the state.
Yes, but the land is worth nothing. It is the people that make the land great, or not. Maybe if they'd listened to the people that were there first, instead of just taking what they had and killing any who protested, they'd have a more educated approach on the matter.
Texas was a republic before it was a state,
No, Texas was a bunch of settlements that repeatedly failed until the mid-1700s, when Spain setup several successful settlements there, notably San Antonio, and called it New Spain. Present-day Texas was considered to be mostly owned by the native peoples at that time, and Spain claiming a small portion of it for its settlements. In 1803, the US wanted to annex Texas. Spain said no. They drew some lines in the sand and called it a day. In 1821, The Mexicans won a war and claimed the territory formerly claimed by Spain. It then fell under Mexican law and became the state of Coahuila y Tejas. It wasn't until 1835 that the people of Texas beat Mexico and declared themselves independent.
At this point, we can safely say Texas was an independent state. Now here's the crucial fact: You may recall from your social studies class that the United States was founded in 1788, 47 years beforehand. But I understand that the Texas public education system has been having some issues regarding factual presentation lately, so I'll forgive you for not knowing that. It's not your fault, afterall.
Moving on -- Just as quickly, the new government collapsed -- in 1836. From 1837 to 1842, Mexico fought with the so-called republic (and I say so-called because it was relative anarchy during that time by historical account) winning some battles and losing others, while the government of Texas negotiated with the United States for statehood (and protection). It was this inability of the Republic of Texas to hold on to its territories that was a decisive factor in it's repeated requests for annexation to the United States. In 1845, Texas was annexed to the United States. The United States then came in, beat the snot out of Mexico, and in 1848 Mexico called it quits and ceded most of what is now modern Texas to the United States. Of course, once we got their nuts out of the fire, in 1861 they ceded from the Union along with the rest of the south, and the civil war happened. I won't bore you with the details of those fine years of our country's history, I'm sure you've read about it.
Conclusion
So I must wonder, after a careful review of the historical facts, where of all places this notion of Texas being "independently minded" comes from. It would sound to me like it's a state incapable of forming its own governance nor maintaining suitable arms to protect its borders and interests, and I would assert very little's changed since: They're still not capable of defending their borders from illegal immigration and they can't figure out how to govern themselves well enough not to be an embarassment to the Union.
Threatening to throw them out of the union would quite literally only encourage Texans.
We can only hope.
Re:Not really the point (Score:3, Informative)
Part of the point of declaring bankruptcy is to stop wage garnishments.
---linuxrocks123
Re:Not really the point (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah? Like what exactlly?
Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Alanis Morissette, Barenaked Ladies, Tom Cochrane, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Men Without Hats, Paul Anka, Loverboy, Anne Murray, Bachman-Turner Overdrive, Triumph, Bryan Adams, April Wine, Pat Travers, And of course, Rush. And hundreds more.
A lot of other music that people think are "American" are actually Canadian. Wikipedia has an article on it. [wikipedia.org] Feel free to acquaint yourself with it. Considering that Canada is 1/10th the size of the US in population, they have done just fine in contributing to our (somewhat) common culture.