p2pnet.net News:- An outraged father says he’ll take on the Big Music cartel.
If he does, it’ll be the first time one of the RIAA’s 10,306 subpoenas has resulted in an actual court appearance. And if the father can convince a judge he’s not responsible for mp3s the cartel’s RIAA says his daughter downloaded two years ago, it’ll spell major problems for the industry.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), owned by EMI, Sony BMG, UMG and Warner, says Dave Binks must either pay $3,650 to make it go away, or risk a court appearance which could ultimately cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.
When she was only 13 Samantha Binks used Kazaa to download more than 600 songs, says the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, going on:
“She thought downloading the songs was free and legal, but her father, Dave Bink, is now getting sued for his daughter’s actions.”
Until last week, “Kazaa advertised itself as ‘100 percent legal’,” says the story. “That she might have been breaking the law never crossed her mind.”
But Samantha’s father argues he shouldn’t be sued for something his daughter did, says the Journal Sentinel.
“As he sees it, Samantha was duped by Kazaa’s advertising. ‘I’m going to take it to court, even though I can’t afford a lawyer, Bink said. I’ll probably get chewed up and spit out. But I just don’t think it’s fair’.”
An ‘innocent infringer’
Cecilia Gonzalez was one of the 261 people pilloried by the RIAA when it started launching subpoenas in 2003.
“Gonzalez’s defense has relied on the doctrine of “fair use” – enshrined in the U.S. Copyright Act – and the claim that she was an ‘innocent infringer’ upon the record companies’ copyrights,” says The Meter.
However, as per a summary judgment demanded by the labels, at the moment, she owes $22,500 for downloading 30 songs.
The court, “rejected the defendant’s assertion that her downloading, which she contended was done for the purpose of sampling music before buying, was a fair use,” says the Stanford Law Center. “The court also refused to mitigate defendant’s liability for statutory damages on the ground that she was an innocent infringer, finding that inclusion of copyright notice on published copies of the downloaded recordings was sufficient to put her on notice of their copyrighted status.”
But, “The chances of them ever getting a monetary reward out of Cecilia are slim to none,” said Gonzalez’s lawyer, Geoff Baker, quoted in The Meter. “She’s somebody who purchased their products religiously, she’s got five kids to feed, and she doesn’t have a job now. Why they chose to go after her, I don’t know. It still doesn’t make sense to me why this case goes on.”
Baker was appealing the decison and the case, “will likely drag on for months or even years,” said the post, adding:
” At this point we haven’t seen any notice of appeal,’ says RIAA VP Pierre-Louis. Right now, we have a summary judgment motion that we’re delighted with and I think we’ll just see what happens next.”
