We have continued to follow the outrageous expansion of copyright and trademark litigation (here and here and here), particularly the recording industry which is seeking crippling penalties for downloading song. Now, the industry has succeeded in nailing Whitney Harper who was between 14-16 years old when she downloaded 37 songs. The Court of Appeals increased the penalties against her — amounting to as much as $40,000.
While the parties agreed that she would be liable for $200 a song (under the “innocent” downloading figure), the industry said it would seek $750 if she challenged them on appeal.
Harper is now about to graduate from Texas Tech with a degree in business communications and the ruling may cause her to declare bankruptcy.
After intense lobbying from the industry, Congress has refused to do anything about these draconian penalties.
For the full story, click here.
Byron,
Did you read Danny’s article where he addresses your points?
Can you refute what he says with more than statements of your opinion. From a libertarian point of view I would think you would see some common ground. Particularly when it comes to internet privacy concerns.
Danny Colligan:
So a musician or a writer has no rights? They must labor for what? If their intellectual work has a price in the market of $10 by transmitting that work you are taking $10 from their pocket as surely as if you had been a pick pocket.
How long does a piece of music or a book take to write? A day, a year? Why do you have a right to that persons life? You don’t, they do.
The basic premise of your article is that rights don’t matter, if I want something I should be allowed to have it, that it took someone time and effort to create it is of no consequence. Their life doesn’t matter only me, what I want, now.
By your logic every inventor, scientist, producer, writer, poet, painter, architect should just share with humanity their life’s work. You say you are talking about only copyright, you are not you are talking about work someone has done. Work takes time and this time is part of someones life. Why should a person work for free? I would call that slavery.
If a poem is good or a song is good and people want to read or listen to them, why shouldn’t the author/composer receive money from each person who values the works enough to pay for them? Madison didn’t want people to have exclusive rights in perpetuity because he figured someone would create it eventually anyway, although that is a rather specious claim.
Basically what you are promoting is the enslavement of an entire class of people, the ones who create. Is that fair to them? If they want to give the song to the world then that is their choice, it is theirs. It is not my choice and it certainly is not your choice.
If you take your line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion you are promoting the elimination of all property rights. And why? Because all property no matter what kind has it’s roots in the creative and productive energy of a persons life. To make any product of a persons life not his own is to deny all of a persons productive energy. You enslave them pure and simple.
Are you a slave master?
Danny Colligan,
Thank you for posting the link to your article. Not only was it excellently written, enormously informative, but it also was extremely persuasive as to the deleterious effects of the copyright concept/regulations. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject and I’ve added the site to my bookmarks.
I have to agree with Mike S. This is just a ridiculous example of corporatism gone wild.
Hello Turley blog folks,
I wrote an article on this issue, and I’d be very interested in your opinions:
http://questioncopyright.org/what_we_lose_when_we_embrace_copyright
I’m with Blouise. I blame it on industrial greed and stupidity on the part of the record industry. Times they are a changing and they are acting like someone not ready to drown unless they can take somebody with them to the bottom.
I’m gonna blame it on the moon.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mdc6jZRZxU&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Blame me I’m use to it.
AY,
I did not post as Dr. Freud. Wouldn’t it be easier to just ask?
I did read that the father had originally been named, but I was surprised that he was dropped. Can the daughter assume liability (in the case) ex post facto? I could see an agreement between the father and daughter to assume liability, but I just don’t see how she can assume legal liability for something she did as a minor.
As far as MediaSentry goes, there is no privacy violation there. What they do is download what is being offered by the host, and then report the origin and metadata. It’s kind of like accepting free cookies, analyzing them, finding poison, and then prosecuting. It’s not like they broke into the family computer. The installed software (Kazaa) was saying “Here. Want some? They’re free”.
Duh,
Dr. Freud, if you had read the main article it would have stated that the father was initially named in the law suit. I am unsure what happened to him but from the case it states
“To ensure that each of the 544 audio files was a downloadable file, MediaSentry initiated a download of the entire group. The company captured screen shots showing all of the files that Harper was sharing. It also captured the metadata associated with each file, which included the name of the artist and song. This information allowed Plaintiffs to identify those sound recordings on which they held a copyright. MediaSentry fully downloaded six of the audio files from Harper’s “shared folder.” Subsequent discovery indicated that Harper had downloaded all of the files from the Internet to the computer without paying for them, and that she had not copied, or “ripped,” any of the songs from compact discs that she had bought legally.”
Don’t we have some privacy violations in the case? Other peoples expectation of privacy? It was after all a “Home Computer”
http://morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-51194&s=TX&d=42980
mespo,
Or any other person legally trained. Why did not they bring up the Statute of Frauds, unenforceable against a minor, if it was enforceable it must be in writing if over 500 per the UCC or the antiquated one the Statute of Anne or the current adaptation of the same.
I don’t understand how the activity of a minor can be held as a violation when she got old enough to become a valid defendant. If the activity in violation was committed when she was 14, wouldn’t her parents have had the legal liability?
Even with an award of $40K, I doubt this did anything but help pay for the corporate counsel. This was all about making a point. The intent of the recording industry had to be to shock the public.
For years and years the recording industry, and the lawyers associated with them, failed to grasp the impact of the internet on their business. Having lost the opportunity to make billions of dollars over those lost years for themselves and their clients, they now try to play “tough guys” hoping to collect a few retroactive thousand … anserine businessmen!
Newspapers find themselves in exactly the same spot.
Mike S.,
If they are attenuated to an educational function then I think that they are free forum downloads. However, to attempt to make a profit then I think that this runs the risk of violations.
Neil Young as great as he is has taken off of a number of site the ability to listen to his music for free. He does have a web site that you can listen to it for free as well as bing.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvmo_neil-young-sugar-mountain-live_music
By the way seeing it on the RCC thread reminded me. The Grateful Dead and others have allowed free downloads for years and yet they still make money. Perhaps that is the difference between greed and artistry.
Thank you George Bush and the conservative movement for your court appointments. These are not only incompetent judges, but also faulty human beings. I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept of intellectual property rights, but we have seen in recent years the corporate rush to claim and enforce them even on natural genetic material. If this trend of corporate exceptional-ism continues, we will live in a world controlled in toto by corporations and run by a corporate oligarchy.
When I was in law school, however briefly, I learned of something called equity. It was a common-law doctrine that could be applied to reverse the effects of a literal reading of the law that provided too harsh an outcome. These judges were so swept up in affirming the rights of their corporate masters that they lost sight of the fact that they were dealing with an actual human being.
Why take the bankruptcy? As a student she is likely judgment proof. I would let it ride unless I found employment at which time I would make them an offer of $200.00 per song — take it or leave it. They’ve made their point.
In the UK things are even worse. One of my neighbors owns a small garage business and last year the “copyright police” walked into his garage and threatened to fine him £1200 for having the radio on. They then did the same to the hairdresser over the road.
The excuse given was that customers and visitors could hear the music, which therefore counted as a public performance, which over here requires a license costing several hundred pounds.
He really should have a large dog for these occasions.
“After intense lobbying from the industry, Congress has refused to do anything about these draconian penalties.”
Congress dosen’t do anything about anything.
Under the Statute of Frauds or Anne could she have disaffirmed this implied contract as not a necessity? Would not the Statute of Limitations kicked in one year after he 18th Birth Date?