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."
Rape. (Score:5, Interesting)
Texas (Score:4, Interesting)
I motion before the assembled citizens that Texas have it's state status revoked with immediate effect. Lately it seems like every legal ruling and precident that comes out of that state is a violation of one human right or another, or at least criminally stupid. We beat them once, I'm sure we can do it again! :(
No bling for the sing bitches. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not really the point (Score:2, Interesting)
But it could certainly be profitable. If said companies can succeed in extorting 750K per track (assuming the defendant has any capacity to pay), that might constitute a valid business model from a shareholder's point of view. Fuck, I suppose I'm in the wrong business.
But then, I'm a musician too, and I'd rather my music was heard than exploited in this way.
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, the labels needs to start with this:
"We have evidence that you downloaded X songs (attach a list) for which we own the copyrights. We would like to settle this matter quietly and without legal action. To that end, we would accept a settlement of X * 1.5 dollars in order to resolve this matter. In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc) If you decline this offer, we suggest you retain a lawyer and have them contact our legal department."
It's simple, reasonable, and only mildly threatening. It carries a modest 50% penalty over the cost per song.
They should be going after distributors with the big penalties, not the downloaders.
Re:Rape. (Score:5, Interesting)
He who controls the language in use controls the debate. In recognition of that I used to feel as you do. If others are going to try and conduct discourse with loaded terms like "piracy" when the mean copyright infringement; than we should do the same and brand the fascists and the like.
I have not given up the above tactic just yet but more and more I am thinking the strategy does not work. Look at DC the debate just gets ever more shrill; on all subjects. Its getting to the point were we wont be able to discuss the issues at all because those with opposing viewpoints can't even understand what the are saying to each other.
I am starting to to think a better answer would just be to call them out on the language. Just state plainly you used a bunch of loaded terms that connote unrelated but emotionally charged subjects to distract form the matter at hand and I am not going to consider your arguments or ideas as valid if you are unwilling to state them in a way that at least attempts to use neutral language.
Re:No bling for the sing bitches. (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA is the best argument in the world not to buy music.
The RIAA is the best argument in the world why you SHOULD be buying music -- NON-RIAA MUSIC (see RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com]).
hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't read it like that; the Court seems to be saying the trial judge's ruling, that the copyright notice alone wouldn't bar an innocent infringer defense, is incorrect as a matter of law. Since she did not contest she had access, her understanding (or lack of it) does not support an innocent infringer defense under the statute. If she had argued access, she might have had a shot.
What exactly are the ethics of the RIAA? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not really the point (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, by my reading of the Audio Home Recording Act [wikipedia.org] is that, while uploading is illegal, downloading is completely legal as long as you burn it to an audio CD (a CD with royalties paid as part of its sale price). So an affirmative defense would be simply to produce such a piece of plastic and tell the RIAA lawyers to get bent.
Re:Not really the point (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, I'd bet they hope to increase it. Then they can bring more cases against more 'infringers'.
They only have to win a handful of the cases they make in order for their efforts to be worthwhile.
NewYorkLaywer gives another dishonest summary (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Re:Rape. (Score:5, Interesting)
When will it finally be seen that the effect civil law has when applied to criminal cases is really rape?
Right about the time we start treating it like rape. The belief that enhanced understanding of a problem will stir a people to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions. You must be the change you wish to see in the world, not count on others to "see the light".
Since you mention rape specifically, let me share a personal anecdote. Of the people I know who have been raped (and I am counted amongst that number), the community response is usually not to go to the police (who are useless and will do nothing anyway) -- it's to get the person to a hospital and checked out, and while that's happening we assemble a bunch of people, find the fucker, and beat him to within an inch of his life. And there's usually a couple of us after that keep an eye on him wherever he runs to, and makes sure wherever he moves, that scarlet letter follows him around. Little birdies, you know. At least that's how we do it in the projects and lower-income parts of town. I don't know how rich people do it. I mean, if you're 19, blonde, white and got C cups or better you've got a chance at getting a conviction... The rest of us, well... Our justice springs from a darker place. And our sufferance is a quieter kind. Very few of us ever see the inside of a courtroom.
In this, you and I are alike in our common desire for change -- we wish for justice, pray for it, ask those in power to bring it to us, but we get form letters back, with xeroxed signatures on official letterhead. They don't care about you, or me. They care about money. So if you want justice, you either need money, a lot of people who will stand with you... or a gun. I wish it weren't that way, I really do. But when a government ceases to listen to its people, who shout in the night "Please help us!" ... Such actions are inevitable.
If the legal system offers no remedy for you, and there is no way for peaceful assembly and protest to have any influence upon the institutions which are responsible for the redress of your greviance then our founding fathers made it clear what a citizen's last recourse is: Take up arms. They've broken the most basic of social contracts between a citizen and its government, which is this: In exchange for protection of my person, of my personal interests, and peaceful redress of my greviances, I will in return offer you compensation in the form of taxation, military service (in some countries, but not ours) and will do my best to uphold the lawful principles and standards of my community. When this contract is broken and cannot be mended, the government has sewn the seeds of its own destruction. The justice system is the cornerstone of this negotiation of that contract. If it fails, everything else falls.
Fight hard to mend it. Write letters to everyone you know. Write to the judges. You don't have to be a lawyer. Just be a person, a citizen, and state as clearly as you can why this must be changed. They are human beings too, just like you. They will listen, even if they do not answer you in kind. Beg them if you must. Do everything you can, and fight until you can't. And when you've done everything you can, when you've put your full force of will behind your actions, you may find that the universe assists in mysterious ways. Believe it or not, human beings aren't fundamentally evil -- just often misled. And most problems have a solution that is peaceful, if only you can maintain the patience and self-respect for your own morality to do so.
Of course, as I said in my example above, you might have gathered I don't have that kind of resolve. But you might.
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Bankruptcy isn't the most wonderful solution if the debtor has anything of value. The Chapter 7 trustee gets to sell all the debtor's non-exempt assets.
On the other hand, if you have nothing, bankruptcy is a good way to make a fresh start.
I'd be willing to bet that people who don't own much of anything are big advocates of unrestrained piracy and people with property are much less eager to advocate piracy.
Downloading is not about saving money (Score:3, Interesting)
The costs of tracking and suing a teenager vastly exceed any amount she is able to pay. They will lose money on the overall deal.
That's assuming a music downloader would be willing to pay what a CD costs.
People don't download to save money. You don't save anything when you get for free something that you wouldn't buy at any price higher than zero dollars. People download because it's there and who knows when something interesting might come up.
If I had a significant risk of having to pay $0.05 for every song or $0.25 for every film I download I would never download anything at all, that's how much that shit is worth to me. I haven't even listened to most of the tracks I have downloaded. Downloading is like this: I hear a song that I like, I download the full discography of that artist, I scan over it to see if there's some other song I like.
If the media industry made an effort to understand how and why downloading works I'm sure they could find a way to get a profit from it. But calling me a thief and threatening to sue me will get them nowhere.
Re:Not really the point (Score:1, Interesting)
"people with property are much less eager to advocate piracy."
THIS is why the government is willing to utterly destroy the economy in their efforts to promote "home ownership" to every American (and in other countries like Canada). Not only does it net them a mint in tax revenue, but it acts as a choke chain on the public. Get out of line? You've got a lot to lose and we can take it.
Re:Not really the point (Score:4, Interesting)
There has not been a similar ruling in the U.S. regarding audio CD blanks. There could be in the future; you and I seem to agree with the Canadian court's logic. But as of yet I don't know of a U.S. court ruling on the matter.
Re:Not really the point (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US I believe you are allowed to rip DVDs or CDs for personal use (i.e. to transfer them to your portable media player or whatever) under fair use laws.
Well, in the US, it is unlawful to circumvent DRM on a copyrighted work regardless of the purpose, with only a few exceptions, none of which would apply here. Setting that aside, however, ripping copies to a computer is also unlawful unless there is an applicable exception, such as fair use. But fair use is tricky. There are no types of uses which are always fair or unfair; rather, each case has to be decided on its own merits. So just saying 'personal use' doesn't work. That specific personal use has to be a fair one, and there is no guarantee that it will be merely because some other personal use was a fair use.
Re:Not really the point (Score:4, Interesting)
Individuals that knowingly violate that law have no right to turn around and complain that the law is unfair.
Yes they have. For example, when the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was in effect, anyone who aided a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to criminal penalties. However, breaking that law was absolutely the correct thing to do, and so was speaking out against it. Why should righteous law-breakers have to choose between one form of opposition or the other? What right did wicked supporters of the law have to insist upon such a choice?
This is an extreme example, but it counters your position.