The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear the first Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case to cross its desk, in a case that tested the so-called “innocent infringer” defense to copyright infringement.

The case, which one justice voted to hear (.pdf), leaves undisturbed a federal appeals court’s decision in February ordering a university student to pay the Recording Industry Association of America $27,750 for file-sharing 37 songs when she was a high school cheerleader.

The appeals court decision reversed a Texas federal judge who, after concluding the youngster was an innocent infringer, ordered defendant Whitney Harper to pay just $7,400, or $200 per song. That’s an amount well below the standard $750 fine required under the Copyright Act for each violation.

Harper is among the estimated 20,000 individuals the RIAA has sued for file-sharing music. The RIAA had decried Harper as “vexatious,” because of her relentless legal jockeying.

In September, the justices showed some interest in the case, asking the RIAA to respond to Harper's appeal. But in the end, Monday's action by the high court means, for the moment, the Supreme Court will not review any aspect of the RIAA's five-year litigation campaign targeting individual music fire sharers.

Harper’s challenge weighed whether the innocent-infringer defense to the Copyright Act’s minimum $750-per-music-track fine may apply to online file sharing.

Generally, an innocent infringer is someone who does not know she or he is committing copyright infringement.

Attorneys for Harper told the justices (.pdf) that she should get the benefit of the $200 innocent-infringer fine, because the digital files in question contained no copyright notice.

A Texas federal judge had granted Harper the innocent-infringer exemption to the Copyright Act’s minimum fine, because the teen claimed she did not know she was violating copyrights. She said she thought file sharing was akin to internet radio streaming.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, said she was not eligible for such a defense, even though she was between 14 and 16 years old when the infringing activity occurred on LimeWire. The reason, the appeals court concluded, is that the Copyright Act precludes such a defense if the legitimate CDs of the music in question carry copyright notices.

In a lone dissent to hear the case, Justice Samuel Alito said the justices should clarify whether that appellate ruling reflects the digital age.

See Also: