A San Antonio court has ruled that Whitney Harper, a now college-age woman sued by the RIAA for using Kazaa to download music when she was 16, was indeed an "innocent infringer," dropping her penalty to $200 per infringement instead of the RIAA's desired $750, asked for in a request for summary judgment.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not introduced any facts to the court that proved Harper knew her infringements were illegal, though they did try to connect the dots between her ownership of CDs with copyright notice stickers on them and a basic understanding of the law. Harper's defense responded by explaining that her understanding of peer-to-peer file sharing was limited, and that she had no idea things were being downloaded or shared beyond her desktop. Her defense also argued that she had no understanding of what the legal ramifications of copyright infringement were at that time, and that she believed using programs like Kazaa was akin to "listening to the radio online."

In the end, the RIAA was able to seek damages, but not as much as they wanted to, and they were forced to admit that a person's experience of looking at a CD with a copyright notice sticker on it isn't necessarily the same thing as the experience of knowing what those laws mean and how they relate to your choices online. In this way, the Texas court has suggested that the innocent infringer status is a legitimate defense where the defendant can demonstrate a limited understanding of how software operates on their computer, the use of software or programs that don't explain the legality of the service they offer. Similarly, the court's ruling establishes that the plaintiffs must, in a case of innocent infringers, prove that the defendant understood the copyright violation laws and how they relate to computer programs like Kazaa.

More information, including the court's ruling: Ray Beckerman, "Innocent infringement defense may reduce damages to $200 per song file in Maverick v. Harper"