Tenise Barker v RIAA ’settled’
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- Elektra v Barker, the case centering on Tenise Barker, the young New York social worker who disputed the RIAA’s ‘file sharing by default’ theory, has been settled.
Unlike most Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG cases, “the actual settlement agreement (PDF) is on file with the Court, and a matter of public record,” says Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman, who defended Barker.
She said she used Sharman Network’s Kazaa, “but if she infringed anything at all, she did so in innocence,” p2pnet posted last March.
She once told p2pnet »»»
I love music. I grew up in a house where music was played all the time. We had milk crates filled with albums…. So to be sued for having music files on my computer is an insult. It’s a slap in the face.
This experience has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I wanted to swear off music.
Now her attack on the constitutionality of the RIAA’s damages theory, as well as her other defenses —- including unclean hands based on MediaSentry’s illegal behavior, the RIAA’s inability to sue for statutory damages, and innocent infringement —- won’t be be adjudicated, says Beckerman.
“Ms Barker was a pioneer in leading the fight against the RIAA’s unwarranted ‘making available’ theory, and by challenging it – and winning on that point – she performed an important public service, by helping to preserve the intent of the Legislature in the US Copyright Act,” Beckerman told p2pnet, adding:
“And although Ms. Barker did admit in her answer that she had used Kazaa file sharing software, I believe that she had important affirmative defenses which would have been successful.
“Now that Ms Barker has laid down her sword and shield, I hope other defendants will pick them up and carry them into battle.”
Ms Barker’s answer provides a detailed blueprint
Beckerman said after three years of having the case hanging over her head, the time had come to move into Phase II of the litigation, in which she’d again have been leading the fight, this time by asserting key affirmative defenses.
“In fact, Ms Barker’s answer provides a detailed blueprint to those defendants who have in fact engaged in file sharing as to some of the defenses that are available to them,” he continues.
“None of these defenses have been litigated before, so it would have taken a lot of work, and a lot of time.
“What’s more, once the defenses had been adjudicated, there might have been appeals which would have raised certain key errors in Judge Karas’s March 31st decision repudiating the RIAA’s ‘making available’ theory, but creating an ‘offering to distribute for purposes of redistribution’ theory which likewise was without a basis in the Copyright Act.
“Rather than going down that road, Ms Barker decided to put this stressful litigation behind her.”
She’ll have to find $110 a month until the RIAA extortion of $6,050 has been paid off.
The RIAA spelled her name incorrectly from Day One, persistently calling her Denise instead of Tenise.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
.
.Stumble It!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:12 am
“The RIAA spelled her name incorrectly from Day One, persistently calling her Denise instead of Tenise.”
sue them for $6051 for mistaken identity?