Supreme Court decides 16 year olds understand copyright law

Fbone · 11-30-2010, 04:10 AM

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a then 16yo who was trying to use the "innocent infringement" defense in order to have her fine lowered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...726717900.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/7316603.html

astrangerhere · 11-30-2010, 08:21 AM

I am unsurprised by this given that a 16 year old can be tried as an adult in criminal court. They didnt set a new precedent that teens can understand enough to know they are breaking the law. They just upheld one that has been around for a while.

6charlong · 11-30-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbone

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a then 16yo who was trying to use the "innocent infringement" defense in order to have her fine lowered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...726717900.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/7316603.html

Oh that's what's wrong! I've been trying for years to make sense out of the copyright laws. I just need to find a 16 year old to explain it to me.

Musette · 12-02-2010, 12:07 PM

I've read a couple of cases like this over the past few years, but I'm still missing something crucial... are they seriously prosecuting individuals for illegal downloading?

HarryT · 12-02-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musette

I've read a couple of cases like this over the past few years, but I'm still missing something crucial... are they seriously prosecuting individuals for illegal downloading?

If an individual has broken the law, why should he or she not be prosecuted? A 16 year old can reasonably be considered to know the difference between right and wrong.

happy_terd · 12-02-2010, 12:19 PM

Then why must we house them until they are 18?

----------

Sure they understand the law. They also know not to do countless other stupid things that they still do because they are kids.

How many times have we done things that we knew we shouldnt do when we were teenagers?

I am not saying there shouldnt be a punishment of some kind but there is a difference between the ages and that should matter.

No one thinks twice about a 16 year old getting caught shoplifting but a 40 year old doing it raises eyebrows. One we consider a stupid kid and the other we consider a thief.

Musette · 12-02-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

If an individual has broken the law, why should he or she not be prosecuted? A 16 year old can reasonably be considered to know the difference between right and wrong.

I'm not saying they shouldn't. It just seems to me like they're only finding out about one downloader at a time, but that can't be the case, is it? I'm going to do some more research on this.

HarryT · 12-02-2010, 12:50 PM

I understand that the record companies are no longer going after individuals; but this is a 6 year old lawsuit. It does seem a little strange that it's gone this far - does anyone know if the girl involved was offered an out-of-court settlement and refused it? That seems to be what generally happens in these cases.

taming · 12-02-2010, 12:54 PM

The Supreme Court doesn't look at a particular plaintiff, but rather looks at, and in some cases interprets, the merits of the case given the laws that govern the situation. It's part of that pesky three tier division of powers between the courts, the executive, and legislative branches of government. The solution (which won't help this person) is to change the law.

What struck me is how mean spirited the media companies are in cases like this. They could have accepted the lower court's ruling to decrease the fine to $200, rather than appeal. The issue the Supreme Court looked at was actually whether the appellate court's decision to grant the appeal was lawful.

(I may live in Canada now, but I spent 48 years in the US)

pdurrant · 12-02-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musette

I've read a couple of cases like this over the past few years, but I'm still missing something crucial... are they seriously prosecuting individuals for illegal downloading?

No. They downloaded them with torrent software, which also automatically made the downloaded material available to others. They're being prosecuted for distributing the songs to others. Well, for "making available" — I don't think they even have to prove that the songs were actually distributed to anyone.

pdurrant · 12-02-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taming

What struck me is how mean spirited the media companies are in cases like this. They could have accepted the lower court's ruling to decrease the fine to $200, rather than appeal. The issue the Supreme Court looked at was actually whether the appellate court's decision to grant the appeal was lawful.

I thought that in this case the defendant appealed the judgement, not the record companies?

And it's not a $200 fine. It's $200 per song. 37 IIRC, making the original judgement for $7400, and the new judgement ($750/song) $27,750.

It's certainly disproportionate.

taming · 12-02-2010, 01:28 PM

I was aware that it was per song. I should have been more clear. My understanding is that the first court reduced the fine to $200 per. The media companies appealed to the fifth circuit court of appeals, which sided with them and the fine was restored to $750. The attorneys for the young woman then asked the Supremes to consider the case--and they declined it, thus letting the decision by the appellate court stand.

11-30-2010, 04:10 AM	#1
Fbone Is that a sandwich? Posts: 8,189 Karma: 100500000 Join Date: Jun 2010 Device: Nook Glowlight Plus	Supreme Court decides 16 year olds understand copyright law The Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a then 16yo who was trying to use the "innocent infringement" defense in order to have her fine lowered. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...726717900.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/7316603.html Last edited by Fbone; 11-30-2010 at 04:12 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Canadian Copyright Law	Greg Anos	Upload Help	4	10-05-2012 04:59 PM
HELP - 30 minute presentation to 16 year olds on ebooks	AndiR	Lounge	22	04-24-2009 03:37 PM
US Supreme Court mentions Kindle	Madam Broshkina	Amazon Kindle	9	03-26-2009 10:30 AM
getting around copyright law	sic	Workshop	2	12-08-2006 03:56 PM
Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster	Bob Russell	Lounge	2	06-28-2005 01:16 AM

11-30-2010, 08:21 AM	#2
astrangerhere Professor of Law Posts: 3,638 Karma: 65526796 Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Chapel Hill, NC Device: Kobo Elipsa, Kobo Libra H20, Kobo Aura One, KoboMini	I am unsurprised by this given that a 16 year old can be tried as an adult in criminal court. They didnt set a new precedent that teens can understand enough to know they are breaking the law. They just upheld one that has been around for a while.

12-02-2010, 12:07 PM	#4
Musette Enthusiast Posts: 25 Karma: 15000 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Midwest USA Device: Kobo Libra 2	I've read a couple of cases like this over the past few years, but I'm still missing something crucial... are they seriously prosecuting individuals for illegal downloading?

12-02-2010, 12:19 PM	#6
happy_terd Banned Posts: 13,045 Karma: 10105011 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Finally made it to Walmart. Device: PRS 420	Then why must we house them until they are 18? ---------- Sure they understand the law. They also know not to do countless other stupid things that they still do because they are kids. How many times have we done things that we knew we shouldnt do when we were teenagers? I am not saying there shouldnt be a punishment of some kind but there is a difference between the ages and that should matter. No one thinks twice about a 16 year old getting caught shoplifting but a 40 year old doing it raises eyebrows. One we consider a stupid kid and the other we consider a thief.

12-02-2010, 12:50 PM	#8
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I understand that the record companies are no longer going after individuals; but this is a 6 year old lawsuit. It does seem a little strange that it's gone this far - does anyone know if the girl involved was offered an out-of-court settlement and refused it? That seems to be what generally happens in these cases.

12-02-2010, 12:54 PM	#9
taming Trying for calm & polite Posts: 4,012 Karma: 9455193 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Mostly in Canada Device: kobo original, WiFI, Touch, Glo, and Aura	The Supreme Court doesn't look at a particular plaintiff, but rather looks at, and in some cases interprets, the merits of the case given the laws that govern the situation. It's part of that pesky three tier division of powers between the courts, the executive, and legislative branches of government. The solution (which won't help this person) is to change the law. What struck me is how mean spirited the media companies are in cases like this. They could have accepted the lower court's ruling to decrease the fine to $200, rather than appeal. The issue the Supreme Court looked at was actually whether the appellate court's decision to grant the appeal was lawful. (I may live in Canada now, but I spent 48 years in the US)

12-02-2010, 01:28 PM	#12
taming Trying for calm & polite Posts: 4,012 Karma: 9455193 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Mostly in Canada Device: kobo original, WiFI, Touch, Glo, and Aura	I was aware that it was per song. I should have been more clear. My understanding is that the first court reduced the fine to $200 per. The media companies appealed to the fifth circuit court of appeals, which sided with them and the fine was restored to $750. The attorneys for the young woman then asked the Supremes to consider the case--and they declined it, thus letting the decision by the appellate court stand.