(This one's guilty!)
Posted on 03/04/2010 7:59:16 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Of all the songs Whitney Harper of San Antonio downloaded from online file-sharing networks, the one that could best sum up the college student's situation now is Hanson's “Save Me.”
A federal appeals court that covers Texas has ruled the 22-year-old must pay a total of $27,750 to five music companies for 37 copyrighted songs she accessed through Kazaa and similar sites when she was a teenager.
Last week's opinion by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower ruling that awarded the five recording companies $200 for each of the songs. The appeals court said Harper instead must pay $750 for each song.
Harper was unavailable for comment. Her lawyer, Donald Scott Mackenzie of Dallas, said the total with interest could well exceed $40,000 and force Harper to file for bankruptcy.
Mackenzie said other lawyers have shown interest in the case, and it could head up the appellate ladder, even to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He said Harper is about to graduate from Texas Tech with a degree in business communications, and the case has left a cloud over her.
“She's already been denied jobs because of this federal case,” Mackenzie said. “This has already impacted her.”
Harper, who was on the cheerleading squad at Alamo Heights High, is one of the few to challenge the recording industry, which sues people who download copyrighted music.
Many of the defendants are college students or teens who end up settling or lose by default because they have no money to challenge the recording industry's deep pockets, according to lawyers familiar with the issue.
The Recording Industry Association of America, the music industry's lobby, said it and its members had no comment.
Mackenzie said this case should make parents aware of what their kids are looking at on the Internet because it could end up costing them.
The companies initially sued Harper's father but amended the suit after learning she downloaded the music on a family computer.
“The record industry taught her a lesson,” Mackenzie said sarcastically. “They made an example of her.
“Her family and her are adamant that this is a ridiculous outrage.”
Harper was 16 years old, or possibly even 14, when she accessed the songs, Mackenzie said.
At the time, Harper said in a court affidavit, she'd never received computer training, and her skills were limited to e-mail and Web browsing. Harper said she was directed by friends or online advertising to sites such as Kazaa.
“I visited those sites and from viewing the Web pages of those sites, I understood Kazaa and similar products to be legitimate music sites that allowed a person to listen to music on their computer,” Harper's affidavit said. “Many of these sites advertised that this was 100 percent free and 100 percent legal which I had no reason to doubt.”
In 2008, U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez found Harper infringed, but said it was up to a jury to decide whether the act was “innocent” — whether she was truly aware that her acts constituted copyright infringement. If the infringement is found to be innocent, that can reduce the amount per song from $750 to $200.
Rather than put the matter to a jury, the plaintiffs — Maverick Recording Co.; UMG Recordings Inc.; Arista Records LLC; Warner Bros. Records Inc.; and Sony BMG Music Entertainment — opted to accept a ruling stating they could collect $200 for each of the 37 songs.
But, if she appealed, they reserved the right to ask for the full $750 per song, records show.
Harper appealed, and the companies sought the full $750. Harper argued on appeal, among other things, that she was too young and naïve to know that what she was doing was illegal.
The appeals panel dismissed her arguments, including the “innocent infringement” defense, saying, in part, that copyright infringement warnings existed when the music was first recorded, such as onto CD.
HMMM? Did someone miss something in this suit? Most of those who have been charged it wasn’t for downloading but for uploading and sharing?
NOT GUILTY! and NOT GUILTY!
No, I don’t think anything was missed. See post 39 and 41.
Ah, but I would make sure to be a member of the MIAA!
OK that is what I thought. Most who have downloaded once or twice will probably never hear a thing about this, it is those who uploaded that the record companies go after.She should’ve accepted the lower amount and just paid it. Copyright violations can go up to more than that for each violation!
Hope they don’t get me for all the highspeed dubbing I did when I was a teenager.
Yes, I'm sure that when the now-existing Copyright Act was passed in 1976, the record labels were salivating at the opportunity to nail people who didn't pay 99 cents to download .mp3s.
That's just not true. The statutory damages in any copyright infringement claim are between $750 and $30,000, unless the infringement was willful or innocent. The record industry doesn't have some special law. They follow the same rules as everyone else.
$750.00 is unconscienable, especailly when we are dealing with a minor, IMO.
How? The law is there for everyone to see. These people made a decision to steal the work of others, now they are paying. In this case, the girl shouldn't have filed an appeal; she would have walked away with a much smaller fine. Not only was she an infringer, she was stupid.
Because it's not a crime, it's a civil suit. There is no rule allowing minors to avoid civil liability.
Less than $1000 fine per theft? Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Comparing a $750 fine to chopping off hands is interesting, though.
Indirectly, the starving recording artists and executives!
Your argument isn't with the courts, it's with Congress, which wrote into the copyright law a provision for automatic damges for copyright infringement-- $200 per work infringed if done innocently, otherwise $750 per work. Those are minimums. It's not up to the courts.
(This one's guilty!)
Did your kids ever tape songs off the radio? The RIAA wants to KNOW!
Anyone who ever photocopied a page out of a book or article for anything other than “educational purposes” committed a copyright theft.
8 years ago the companies didn’t want to sell the songs they held for 0.99 cents a song.
We’ve now seen the 10 billionth download from itunes (Johnny Cash “I Guess Things Happen That Way” to a 13 year old).
Is that the kid who got the $10,000 gift card to itunes? (Ok, maybe that’s an internet myth.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.