Innocent infringement defense may reduce damages to $200 per song file

[RayBeckerman]

Story : http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/08/innocent-infringement-defe

In Maverick v. Harper, a San Antonio, Texas, case of which we were unaware until yesterday, the RIAA has been pursuing a college age defendant who admitted to having committed copyright infringement using the Kazaa program when she was 16 years old.

Although admitting copyright infringement, she asserted an innocent infringement defense under 17 USC 504(c)(2), which could reduce the statutory damages to $200 per infringement.

The RIAA argued that defendant could not qualify for 'innocent infringer' status, since CD's of the songs sold in stores have copyright notices.

The Court disagreed, and denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment unless the RIAA agrees to accept $200 per infringement.

This could have a major impact, as even defendants who may have infringed copyright, but who were not aware that they were committing copyright infringement, can interpose this defense.

[fjones]

I don't see where (if) it mentions how many songs she was being sued for, but...

The RIAA argued that defendant could not qualify for 'innocent infringer' status, since CD's of the songs sold in stores have copyright notices.

Their argument is that out the person's door, X miles down the street, inside a store, there are CDs of the songs and upon careful examination we can find labels on them with a copyright notice. Hence, the person all the way out of the store, X miles away, inside the house at their computer should be able to psychicly read them?

[RayBeckerman]

Their argument is that out the person's door, X miles down the street, inside a store, there are CDs of the songs and upon careful examination we can find labels on them with a copyright notice. Hence, the person all the way out of the store, X miles away, inside the house at their computer should be able to psychicly read them?

Yep.

[craftycorner]

Am I reading this wrong or are Judges beginning to smell a clue?

[multivariable]

Forgive me for being a party pooper, but I know I can't be the only one who suspects that those claims:

1: "she believed using KaZaA and similar products to be akin to listening to radio over the internet and did not know that the Recordings were being either downloaded or distributed"

2: "she did not have any understanding of copyright infringement"

are a load of bullshit.

Hope she gets away with it, though.

[TorrentMama]

seems a bit far fetched to think that she's not understand the simple upload/download sharing nature of K.

another thing... is there a statute of limitations? They investigated the sharing in 2004 but didn't sue until 2007, huh? that's just silly.

So here is who she downloaded: Michelle Branch, Ja Rule, Avril Lavigne, Counting Crows, Faith Hill, Indigo Girls, Counting Crows, Vanessa Carlton, Faith Hill, Madonna, Good Charlotte, Counting Crows, Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Lopez... kill me!
seems to me like she should be fined for poor taste, if anything.

and what about this 200/per song deal? has anyone argued actual damages? 200 is still excessive.

[multivariable]

So here is who she downloaded: Michelle Branch, Ja Rule, Avril Lavigne, Counting Crows, Faith Hill, Indigo Girls, Counting Crows, Vanessa Carlton, Faith Hill, Madonna, Good Charlotte, Counting Crows, Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Lopez...

Lock her up, throw away the key...

[Golgo1]

how freaking old is this case???

I can reasonably believe she was unaware she was uploading music and thought it was like a radio, for the simple reason she was using Kazaa. This leads to possible conclusions

A: This was way back when Kazaa was popular and most people had even less a clue how file sharing worked or any legalities behind it

B: This was somewhat recent and she is clueless about filesharing because she was using Kazaa instead of ANYTHING more useful

C: It sounds like she was using the full Kazaa, not even Lite (or even shareaza) Therefore she must love spyware, therefore she is an idiot.

D: Maybe all of the above

[craftycorner]

The clueless are out there, still, even in this day and age. I bump across people who ask me what a virus is. I patiently explain and mentally ask them "What the blue peeping hell are you doing on the web!"

[Paladwyn]

The clueless are out there, still, even in this day and age. I bump across people who ask me what a virus is. I patiently explain and mentally ask them "What the blue peeping hell are you doing on the web!"

This is the reason here why they should get rid of all this copyright crap on music, and make it all available...clueless people don't know the difference, it confuses them and makes them targets. They are the ones getting hit by this, and it's all becuase they don't know anything about the way it works. THey just wanna listen to music, and not deal with all the hassles.

[craftycorner]