Innocent Infringer Case Refused To Be Heard AgainAdded: Monday, December 6th, 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 court declined the appeal by Whitney Harper asking to determine whether or not she can claim “innocent infringement” exemption. She explained that she had both no knowledge and understanding of file-sharing and copyright violation. She particularly pointed out that no P2P programs told her that material available on their networks was illegal.
However, the Supreme Court recently refused to hear the case of Whitney Harper against Maverick Recording Company. She was accused of unauthorized downloading of 37 copyrighted tracks while she was 14-16 years old. At her first hearing she was granted an “innocent infringer’s” exemption with the ruling to pay $200 per each case of violation instead claimed $750.
Whitney Harper claimed that she was an “innocent infringer”, insisting that she had no way to learn the information of the illegality of her actions before the ongoing lawsuit. However, even though the fist judge agreed, in part, the case was revoked earlier in 2010 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided that copyright notifications stuck to CDs were sufficient notifications.
Now Justice Samuel Alito, said that “innocent infringer” defense claimed under the existence of these notifications “can’t apply”, because the provision was adopted 22 years ago, well before online digital files. He especially singled out for criticism that the court even didn’t take into account the Harper’s youth – age of 16, as well as obvious absence of “legal sophistication” when believing that Whitney should have had “reason to believe” that what she did was illegal. He states that although the term “reason to believe” is just an objective standard, it’ still clear that specific objective characteristics of the infringer in question, for example, age, may not be taken into considerataion.
However, if a 16-year-old girl, clearly demonstrating no knowledge and understanding that she was violating the others copyrights, is refused to claim an “innocent infringer” defense, then the question is who can then? While it’s incontestable that Harper did commit a crime, the amount of damages to be awarded can still be reviewed, but the court declines to agree.
December 6th, 2010Posted by:
Monday, December 6th, 2010
|posted by (2010-12-06 19:26:44)|
|hi you all well when the judges are all old men with there old ideas laws that are from the olden days and are not up with the www and the world at this time then what do you expect' old 18th centuary laws that have been corupted with the people with the money in 21st centuary|
|Interesting that the "Justice" stated: Now Justice Samuel Alito, said that “innocent infringer” defense claimed under the existence of these notifications “can’t apply”, because the provision was adopted 22 years ago..........|
Interesting since many of the laws except the DCMA that are being used against "infringers" are as old or older than 22 years.
You notice all the laws used by the RIAA and MPAA and others don't use the DCMA?
The "justice" even goes as far as state AGE HAS NO BEARING ON AN INFRINGEMENT... I can not wait to see them the MPAA drag a five year old into a copyright law suit for download TeleTUBBIES...
Most Popular Stories