Supreme Court Refuses P2P 'Innocent Sharing' Case 351
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."
Gentleman, start your shoplifting (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is how I see it (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
This place really needs a "-1: Telling mods what to do".
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not treble damages? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
A whole new can of worms... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.