Here's a unique defense to a Recording Industry Association of America file sharing lawsuit: Admit liability and challenge the law under which you're being sued.That's what a Bronx woman did Monday in New York federal court. Denise Barker is accused of file sharing eight songs on the Kazaa network in 2004. If found liable, she faces fines under the Copyright Act of $750 to $150,000 per song.
Barker's attorney, Ray Beckerman, admitted the woman file shared and challenged the constitutionality of the Copyright Act, the law under which the RIAA sued Barker and thousands of others. The fines the act authorizes for each download is unconstitutionally excessive and against U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Beckerman said.
if i was in charge, i'd ban them. easy.
Glassed Silver:mac
The SC has to decide whether a law is constitutional, nothing else, always.
If yes -> the RIAA vs. NY woman suit is based on constitutional law and therefore can be picked up again.
If no -> lawsuit must be dropped because it does not base on commiting a crime.
According to Human Rights and I guess the Bill of Right one cannot be sued without an according law.
If that law with its specification about being punishable for every single song is pulled, then she might even get away with it all together.
That law would practically never have existed and a revised law - hence theoretically a totally new one cannot apply to commitments that happened in the time before its enacting.
Now I don't know whether "all" whats needed to sue her is written in that single act or sub-part, because if not, she is again sueable... just not for every single download. (If found unconstitional that is, of cause)
Well one could argue that the SC judges are "supported" by the RIAA, then again i'd say:
maybe not, but they might be frightened for sure to make a decision that would make such drastic changes, even though it might be rightful.
Glassed Silver:mac
NewYorkCountryLawyer
It's just nice to know that people in the tech community are getting the chance to educate people in the judicial system!
I've been waiting for the day the RIAA gets served some of their own medicine.
You do know that artists aren't signing deals with labels just because they like to share their income?
Do you have any idea what it costs to produce your own stuff? We wouldn't see any newcomers coming anymore, or if, just the ones with rich daddies. Cheers.
Glassed Silver:mac
I wish her luck, not just for her own sake, but for everyone's as if this continues, I can see the RIAA taking it further and trying to sue people for things like ripping CD's.
Oh wait, they already did!
Then don't break the law. What an unbearably stupid woman. If you don't want to face the consequences of illegal file sharing don't do it. How hard is that to understand? Maybe they will drop the lawsuit based on the fact that the defendant is too MORONIC to realize how to work a computer in the first place and therefore can't be held accountable for anything.
Then don't break the law. What an unbearably stupid woman. If you don't want to face the consequences of illegal file sharing don't do it. How hard is that to understand? Maybe they will drop the lawsuit based on the fact that the defendant is too MORONIC to realize how to work a computer in the first place and therefore can't be held accountable for anything.
The key word there is 'unconstitutionally'. The United States has a Constitution and laws cannot be made that violate it. Beckerman, the lawyer, believes the fines to be unconstitutional, and so his client is suing to have the law re-examined so that it may be overturned.
C_Guy to the rescue once again.
For the record, she obviously knows how to use a computer enough to download a song, so she can't be that 'MORONIC', n'est-ce pas?
What I've been saying for years. A friend of mine got caught stealing a CD from a retail shop and ended up with a $300 fine and a ban from the store for a year. That was pretty much it. That $300 is nowhere near $150,000.
C_Guy to the rescue once again.
[...]
Good point, because:
-A big label isn't nearly as screwed when they lose potential profit (if they actually got that profit to begin with, but that's another topic) like a store that actually BOUGHT the CD and now not only has no profit of it, it's also got practical realistic LOST money. Small store = affacted more
-Copying is not stealing
-Damn I had more points, but I forgot them.
Glassed Silver:mac
+1
+1
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.