Supreme Court Apparently Interested In 'Innocent Infringer' RIAA Case
from the this-could-get-interesting dept
We've been covering the Whitney Harper "innocent infringement" case for a while now. Harper, as a teenager, was sued in one of the tens of thousands of RIAA lawsuits, for sharing some music via Limewire. US copyright law has a provision for "innocent infringement," where it lets you lower the statutory award amounts from a minimum of $750 down to $200. Harper made the case that she was unaware that sharing music via Limewire was unauthorized, as it seemed just like an online radio to her. While the district court sided with Harper in saying that it was innocent infringement, the record labels appealed and the appeals court reversed, claiming that because the CD cases of the music in question had proper copyright notices, Harper was properly notified... even though she never saw those cases.Harper appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this year. At the time, I noted that while this is an important issue, I doubted the Supreme Court would hear the case. However, indicating a fair bit of interest, the Court has asked the RIAA to respond to Harper's appeal -- which generally indicates serious interest in potentially taking the case. According to Wired, the court normally agrees to hear less than 1% of appeals, but if it requests more info on a petition, then it tends to take 34% of those cases. Still long odds, but a lot more likely...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, innocent infringement, supreme court, whitney harper
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
CD cases of the music in question had proper copyright notices
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CD cases of the music in question had proper copyright notices
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why Harper appealed the District Court decision I'll never understand. The District Court put her on the hook for $200 per track, and on appeal the Fifth Circuit bumped it up to $750 per track. What did she think she was going to get on appeal?
Now she's going to the Supreme Court, or at least she's trying to go there. Is she trying to ruin it for everyone else? Seems like it to me.
Here's something else I don't get. Harper's attorney is wunderkind Kiwi Camara. His theory on why the Court should take the case is because he claims there is a split among the circuit courts.
He claims that this case in the Fifth Circuit and another one in the Seventh Circuit are at odds with a case in the Second Circuit which he cites in his petition as D.C. Comics Inc. v. Mini Gift Shop, 913 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1990). Well, his cite is wrong and it's really 912 F.2d 29, but that's not the problem.
He states: "On the other hand, the Second Circuit in D.C. Comics held that, where “there were no copyright notices on the infringing good and * * * a layman would not be able to distinguish between licensed and unlicensed goods,” a “defendants’ infringement was innocent.”
But in that case, the defendants had their hands on a physical copy of the work. That's not the case here. Here, the work being copied is a digital work on a file-sharing network. I don't think the two are comparable, and Camara's claim that there's a circuit split is just wrong.
Camara is the guy who got Thomas-Rasset on the hook for 1.92 million dollars in her retrial. It wouldn't surprise me if he botched this one as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Harper made the case that she was unaware that sharing music via Limewire was unauthorized, as it seemed just like an online radio to her. While the district court sided with Harper in saying that it was innocent infringement, the record labels appealed and the appeals court reversed, "
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What if the AA's win the war? Do they really loose?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
You sir, are saying that we should just accept lesser fines from the RIAA, rather than continue to fight them?
It wont be long now, after hundreds and hundreds of appealed cases and innocent verdicts, the judicial system will realize that these laws are innefficient and not compatible with the modern world.
I just hope that that is this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If she can show that she couldn't possibly know what was infringement or not she got a good chance.
To this day, some people don't know that listening to music online from certain places is infringement, they trust the source.
A license for a CD is different from a license for radio or even to digital stores they all have different types of rules, this is one case where the vagueness of the market can actually help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's hard to take away something that people never had.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If the Court takes the case and affirms, then there's no more innocent infringer defense for anyone. On the other hand, maybe they will reverse. Stranger things have happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
1) the total amount being more than 10x the amount of all of the songs
2) RIAA settlement based
3) nothing to do with actual harm in the market place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Here's what happened: Plaintiffs offered to settle for $4,000. Harper refused. On summary judgment, the District Court awarded plaintiffs $7,400 ($200 per infringement). Unhappy with that, Harper appealed, and then the plaintiffs cross-appealed. The Fifth Circuit awarded plaintiffs $27,750 ($750 per infringement).
Harper just kept making things worse for herself.
I agree with you that the numbers are crazy, but as a matter of law, I don't think Harper should have qualified for the innocent infringer defense in the first place. She should have considered herself lucky that the District Court judge bought it and not appealed. Heck, she should have just settled for four grand and called it a day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Since the plaintiff (a record label, and not the RIAA) was willing to accept the $200 minimum even without innocent infringement having been established, why the defendant chose to file an appeal with the Fifth Circuit makes not a whit of sense.
If the Supreme Court grants cert and the case is set for argument, all this would do is return the case to the Fifth Circuit, which would likely then return it to the district court. Now being able to assert a defense of innocent infringement, if the defendant is successful in doing so her payment for damages would be reduced to not less than $200 per infringement...precisely where she was when the district court originally decided her case.
My guess what is happening? Defendant's counsel came into the lawsuit late in the game, the opportunity to argue against the constitutionality of statutory damages was long past, the appeal was taken in the hope that the Fifth Circuit would reverse the district court, the case would eventually be remanded to the district court, and then the attorney would leave no stone unturned trying to get the district court to agree that the constitutionality of statutory damages should be ruled upon.
This case is most certainly not about the defendant. It is about a group of attorneys using the case as a pretext for arguing the constitutionality of statutory damages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If this ever gets back to the Fifth Circuit and there's oral arguments, I'll take a drive downtown and get a good seat. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What we have here is the same tactic in a legal context. It won't win the case, it will probably harm the defendant in the short term, but it will make the plaintiffs look bad to everyone who doesn't look too closely (that's almost everyone). In the long term it will change public sympathy and force a change in the law.
Camara & Co. will then be one of the heroes of the revolution!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they can go all the way to settle this mess is better to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with the Fifth Circuit that the innocent infringer defense is foreclosed as a matter of law in Harper's case. I think the statute is perfectly clear about that.
Perhaps the Court will say otherwise. We'll just have to wait and see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look for yourself: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-51194-CV0.wpd.pdf
Harper is listed as the appellant/cross-appellee. Appellant means she appealed first.
Are you an idiot? Apparently so.
Right there on page one, the court says: "Harper appealed and Plaintiffs cross-appealed."
What part don't you understand? Idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes because they are trying to make the law look bad. Taking away that defence would be a public relations disaster for copyright law.
The more the RIAA win in the courts the more they lose with the public.
Even they seem to recognise this - as they have tried to back away from the bigger judgements in their favour.
What they are trying to do is to scare people enough to stop them sharing music but not so much that they. Turn around and react against them - either by forcing a change in the law or by stopping. It's a difficult balancing act - and one which I don't believe is possible.
You need to take off your legal blinkers and see the bigger picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What they are trying to do is to scare people enough to stop them sharing music but not so much that they turn around and react against them - either by forcing a change in the law or by stopping buying RIAA music. It's a difficult balancing act - and one which I don't believe is possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It explains what the plaintiff agreed to do concerning the innocent infringer defense and the $200/infringement award, the plaintiff's reservation to cross-appeal (and why) in the even the defendant decided to appeal the innocent infringer defense, the plaintiff's attempt to insert an constitutionality claim at the DC level and why it was rejected by the 5th Circuit, the cursory nature of the defendant;s cert petition, and, with a bit of digging using Google to search "whitney harper supreme court amicus" to find a brief in support of the defendant's petition filed by Mr. Nesson, various law professors, and Ray Beckerman that reads almost in its entirety as an irrelevant trip down history lane dating back centuries.
Importantly, a DC opinion carries no precedential weight, whereas an appellate court opinion does serve as precedent within the Fifth Circuit.
If the appellant, the cert petitioner, was able by some stroke of incredible "luck" able to have cert granted, the limited nature of the issue that is the subject of the cert petition would at the very best, in the event that the Fifth Circuit was overturned, result in the case being returned to the Fifth Circuit for either another crack at its decision or for remand back to the DC.
In any event, if the case was remanded and the defendant able to successfully assert and prove the defense, the very best that could happen is that the court would issue an order that would be exactly the same as the original DC decision.
Perhaps defendant's counsel is working some unknown angle, but as noted earlier it seems almost certain that counsel is scrambling to try and have the case returned to the DC so that the alleged unconstitutionality of statutory damages can be pressed forward one more time in the hope that it would be entertained by the court, have an opinion rendered thereon, and then reappealed to the Firth Circuit with the hope that it would either be granted, in which case the label would appeal, or denied, in which case the defendant would appeal via cert in both instances to the Supreme Court.
In summary, this is not about the defendant being an innocent infringer. It is yet another avenue trying to fling the constitutionality of statutory damages against a wall in the hope that it may stick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
37 songs x $1 per song = 37$
Filesharing the songs inflates the price to $7400 when the price on the songs, in the market place, is much less. So the law needs to be changed considerably.
Maybe you have $4000 lying around, but I sure as hell would try to get this knocked down to something reasonable such as $50 bucks and the RIAA pays their own fees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this gets remanded back to the District Court, what's left for the judge to do? It seems like the only issue on the table is whether it's going to remain $200 per track, or it's going to get bumped up to $750 per track.
Can Camara bring up the constitutionality issue at this point? I would think that he'd be barred from raising it so late in the game. I don't really know though.
I read through Nesson's amicus brief a while back. I remember thinking it was entertaining but not compelling. When I've got some spare time I'll read through all the docs again. Spare time is something I don't have much of lately...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither Nesson nor Camara and Co.have shown throughout the cases with which they have been associated that they believe the Rules of Civil Procedure are particularly important or relevant. Thus, this is why I mentioned earlier I have not the slightest doubt that Camara and Co. will leave no stone unturned trying to get the issue before the district court if the case is ultimately remanded to it. That is the "Ark of the Covenant" they are seeking, and one who may believe otherwise should really take a look at the proceedings in the Tennenbaum and JRT cases in NY and MN, respectively. This is the issue common to all the cases.
Frankly, I am still somewhat in the dark trying to figure out what is the economic motivation that underlies Camara and Co.'s involvement in these cases. They are not a public interest group. They are a firm devoted to class action lawsuits, and I harbor suspicions that they may be working towards a class action suit at some time in the future against the rights holders (the labels, and perhaps even the industry associations). Of course, for this to even occur they need to somehow get the constitutionality issue injected into one or more of the cases, and to ultimately secure a ruling favorable to their position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset are a crazy couple of cases! What the heck were Nesson and Camara thinking? I'm actually really psyched about the judge in Tenenbaum finding that the statutory damages were unconstitutional. I gotta give Nesson props on that one. I'm anxious to see that one on appeal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hence, I believe it is fair to say that what she held was that the clause was perhaps unconstitutional as written, but that she saved it from the fate of unconstitutionality by rewriting it.
Note to Judge Gertner: If you want to engage in legislating, resign from the bench and run for Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Curiously, part of her thought process was based upon some of the current means by which Tennenbaum could legally obtain songs. Unfortunately, this bears no relationship to the timeframe applicable to Tennenbaum's infringing activities. Moreover, it seems as if she limited her holding to just damages associated with "copying", and gave no consideration to damages associated with "distributing".
All in all, a strange decision that can only be interpreted to mean that she "punted" the issue to the Court of Appeals, figuring it was best to let it sort things out. It will be interesting, to say the least, how the court will address her notion of "due process" versus that of the plaintiffs and the DOJ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" Moreover, it seems as if she limited her holding to just damages associated with "copying", and gave no consideration to damages associated with "distributing"."
It seems that the RIAA has had a rather difficult time in actually proving damages from distribution with 10 years of filesharing and record profits.
I believe the key here is the very fact that Tenenbaum, during the trial, at least proved that his own filesharing wasn't hurting them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, Tennenbaum "proved" nothing. Once he admitted at deposition that he had infringed, the issue from that point forward was limited to how much in the way of damages was the rights holder owed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright law resembles apartheid law
Hi,
I read today that the US supreme court will not give a hearing to the case.
I feel that the laws governing music piracy are breaking some basic principles of justice.
Making a person pay $750 for each track is outrageous.
If I steal a burger at MacD, will I be charged the cost of dinner plate at a expensive Manhattan restaurant?
Lets say MacD, Starbucks and some expensive restaurants have a association against food theft. Will they arrive at a average cost of theft or loss. They can't.
If I steal a Burger that costs $1, I can be made to pay $1+fine for trouble (to owner and society, not association of restaurants).
If I download 1 song that cost$1 at apple online music store, I can be made to pay $1+fine for trouble.
How can it come to $750, because the congress is in the pocket of corporates.
This amount reminds me of days when a Black man would be put in jail for sitting on a bench for Whites. US copyright law is same as apartheid laws and must be repealed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]