tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post166774717069981236..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Supreme Court denies cert. in Harper 'innocent infringer' caseBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-91912745749894114932010-11-30T07:20:13.932-08:002010-11-30T07:20:13.932-08:00@Randy:
The Fifth Circuit ruled that Harper canno...@Randy:<br /><br />The Fifth Circuit ruled that Harper cannot claim the "innocent infringer" defense because the record label plaintiffs had affixed proper notices on physical CDs embodying the works at issue. See 17 U.S.C. § 402(d) ("If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504."). The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case leaves the Fifth Circuit's decision in place.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-36535971557400465872010-11-30T05:47:58.514-08:002010-11-30T05:47:58.514-08:00Hello Ben,
Could you please do me a favor and exp...Hello Ben,<br /><br />Could you please do me a favor and explain this in layman's terms. I thought I understood, but then I read Matthew's comment which to me says the opposite.<br /><br />Can Harper still claim to be an innocent infringer?<br /><br />RandyRandyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02041892308592857971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-85682963678146434522010-11-29T21:38:54.233-08:002010-11-29T21:38:54.233-08:00Cert having been denied, I expect that defendant&#...Cert having been denied, I expect that defendant's counsel is none too happy that the 5th Circuit's decision stands and the case will not be remanded back to the district court. Is there seriously any doubt that the "innocent infringer" gambit was little more than a means to an end; namely, the opportunity to once more urge the district court to take up the question of statutory damages and their alleged unconstitutionality under the rationale successfully asserted in Gore with respect to punitive damages?<br /><br />It looks like the statutory damages question will now move over to another case (e.g., Tenenbaum, JRT) where the question has been preserved for appeal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-85797918547763510792010-11-29T08:41:39.005-08:002010-11-29T08:41:39.005-08:00Big surprise the Supreme Court chooses not to hear...Big surprise the Supreme Court chooses not to hear this case. They'd be condemning & creating criminals out of the majority of the public, since they've already demonstrated how they'd most likely rule from past cases of similar nature.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719755568777588909noreply@blogger.com