Innocent Infringer Case Will be Reviewed by Supreme CourtAdded: Friday, October 1st, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
The Supreme Court has asked for a response to the petition for writ of certiorari to be filed in by Whitney Harper over her case against Maverick Recording Company. That is a case of the fourteen-year-old girl who was found guilty of copyright violation earlier in 2010, though she didn’t even know that file-sharing was unauthorized.
The case of Whitney Harper may finally reach the Supreme Court, and that would be a very important decision, as file-sharing cases reach the courtroom of the highest court in the country very rarely.
Whitney’s attorney received a letter where the Supreme Court asks her to file a response to the petition for a writ of cert in her case. This petition is actually a paper that is filed by a losing party, where it asks the Supreme Court to review the ruling of a lower court. The petition contains the legal questions, a statement of the facts, a list of the parties, and, of course, arguments for the Court (reason why it should grant the writ).
If this data is submitted in a formal and concise way, the chances rise that the Supreme Court will decide to finally review Whitney’s case. Harper has already won one of the trials, when two years ago the US District Judge granted the girl an “innocent infringer’s” exemption, which allowed her to pay only $200 per each case of violation ($7400 in total) instead of the $750 per case of infringement stipulated in the Copyright Act. Unfortunately, this initial ruling was revoked in 2010 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered her to pay the $27,750 in damages ($750 p/infringement).
Whitney Harper has argued all this time that she was an “innocent infringer”, as she had no idea of illegal file-sharing, while peer-to-peer applications failed to tell her that files available on their networks were illegal. The matter is that the “innocent infringer” exemption can be granted only if the defendant couldn’t see a proper notification of copyright that the rights holders should put on the physical CDs. While the copyright owners did placed the warning on the original of the CDs, the girl couldn’t see them as there were no physical copies in the network, only digital.
The irony is that Whitney remains liable of copyright infringement anyway, but it matters to her how much she is ruled to pay in damages, because $27,750 would entail a huge economic burden to pay in her college years.
October 1st , 2010Posted by:
Friday, October 1st, 2010
|Imagine that....taking a 14 year old girl to court!|
|like theres nothing els for them to do |
i would like to see the PCs of all the ppl that run the court and the lawers and the PCs of there kids
|lol....what ever next.....thats really low.....theres another way of putting the people and countries in debt.....in my opinion we should not go to any movies theatres or concerts and see what happen then.....over paid people still greedy for more....countrys are starving and you to profit from record or movies sales.....you pay all the artists and actors to much money...and they are left smiling while their supposed fans are left skint...|
you should be ashamed of yourselves...i dont give a monkeys... i would rather go to jail than pay...lets see what happens then..people in jail for not paying for a song...your all a bunch of comedians...and i wish downfalls on all you greedy twats.
|What I'd like to know is how can they legally file a court action against someone who is not of legal age?|
|@amcincali- Good question!|
|I am in no way on the RIAA side; but they offered to settle for $7500 and she turned it down.|
Now unless her lawyer is doing this case pro-bono the legal costs have been way more than this settlement offer she rejected.
It has been proven she did download the music; she had the music in her possession.
Now if you get caught with your hand in the "cookie jar"; then your caught.
For even at 14-16 years old when this happened; she is now 20 and in college to claim - I did not know it was copyrighted is like denying your standing in the middle of the highway and get hit; then claim I didn't know there were cars...
What will be used against her is what is called in "lawyer" rational man theory - what a "normal" reasonable person does..
The only way her defense can work is if she had lived all her life like in the Amazon Jungle as a native; then was taken to the city and used a computer to down load music.. Then maybe; but she would be asked how do you know how to use a computer then?
Sounds stupid; but well...
Also she will have to prove she has NO KNOWLEDGE OF ITEMS BEING COPYRIGHTED PERIOD.. Can she prove that? No...
When you use a torrent client a user either agrees with the use terms or doesn't agree and included in that use term is a statement the torrent client won't be used to download copyrighted files - yea right..
When you speed and you look in your rear view mirror and see blue lights ; your caught.. Pay the fine and move on..
How can they RIAA sue a minor? It's a civil case and age doesn't come into it. I am also wondering how she was able to continue this case when she was a minor? What abut her parents? Parents are held legally responsible for what their "kids" do.. Her parents were the one's at the time to make the legal choice to pay or fight?
Now before I get flamed by some idiots I AM IN NO WAY WITH WHAT THE RIAA IS DOING...
I do believe and it is common sense and justice is if your are caught you should pay what the market price of the song(s) are.. Like around a dollar each or the going rate for a movie ticket price; but then that would not make any money for the greedy bastards that really benefit from all of this mayhem? PUKE LAWYERS...
These copyright laws were really made for people who really "pirate" items; churning them out in some secret factory - yea right China.. Making hundreds of thousands of copies for "SALE"; that is the key SALE for commercial profit...THAT IS REALLY WHAT COPYRIGHT LAWS WERE INTENDED FOR....
Now what is really needed is the RIAA and MPAA and other to have hard evidence gotten LEGALLY and held to the same level of legal evidence requirements as you and I meaning show the REAL FILES claimed in the law suit; SHOW THEY WERE OBTAINED FROM THE DEFENDANTS VIA TORRENT DOWNLOAD; SHOW TRUE DOCUMENTED PROOF OF FINANCIAL LOSS BY THE DEFENDANT(S.
This type of proof is required of you and I when we file a law suite why not the RIAA and MPAA be held to the same standards? NOT I.P.' addresses and alledged names as the only possible proof in their RIAA and MPAA law suites.
IF THEY CAN NOT AND LIKE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU AN I - CASE DISMISSED BY THE JUDGE WITH PREJUDICE.
|posted by (2010-10-05 08:24:24)|
|We have to pay very close attention to what is taking place. This is a good way for those who control the U.S. government to make money and lots of it. The recording industry stands to make billions off of innocent everyday people if we do not fight this at every angle and from every aspect. Please do not forget that they will pay their cronies in the senate and congress to see that it gets done. Seriously, they will. Almost everyone I know shares on line, but here's the kicker - none of them have enough money to pay attorney fees if they are sued. That means that we all would have to pay those companies and corporations or be fined thousands more so what would you do? You would pay what that record company wants. Why go after the big guy and make a few thousand when you can milk the little guy and make hundreds of millions? This is the same tactic the IRS uses. They go after those who cannot afford to defend themselves. That is why we have to stop them before they can even get started. I hope that I've made my point.||
Most Popular Stories