11-30-2010, 04:10 AM | #1 |
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. |
11-30-2010, 08:21 AM | #2 |
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.
|
11-30-2010, 07:03 PM | #3 | |
friendly lurker
Posts: 896
Karma: 2436026
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: US
Device: Kindle, nook, Apple and Kobo
|
Supreme Court decides 16 year olds understand copyright law
Quote:
|
|
12-02-2010, 12:07 PM | #4 |
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, 12:11 PM | #5 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
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.
|
12-02-2010, 12:19 PM | #6 |
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, 12:42 PM | #7 | |
Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Karma: 15000
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Midwest USA
Device: Kobo Libra 2
|
Quote:
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. |
|
12-02-2010, 12:50 PM | #8 |
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 |
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, 01:10 PM | #10 |
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
Posts: 71,491
Karma: 306214458
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Voyage
|
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.
|
12-02-2010, 01:13 PM | #11 | |
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
Posts: 71,491
Karma: 306214458
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Voyage
|
Quote:
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. |
|
12-02-2010, 01:28 PM | #12 |
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.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
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 |