Woman Fined Over Music Sharing, Press Still Can't Get Details Right
from the let's-try-this-again dept
Well, it appears we have the first fine handed out by a court in one of the cases the RIAA has filed against people for sharing music online. A woman in Connecticut was fined $6,000 for sharing music online, but there's a lot more to this story. While many people have paid the industry money settlements, this appears to be the first that ended up with a court imposed fine. However, the reason the woman lost the case is she claims she was never notified of the lawsuit being filed against her, and thus, never responded or showed up in court. Beyond the fine, the judge also "barred Brothers from downloading, uploading or distributing copyrighted songs over the Internet." What if whoever owns the copyright to the song wants people to upload, download or share it freely? The judge assumes that all music online (which has an automatic copyright) is unauthorized, and that's simply not true. Also, as always, the press gets confused and claims the woman was fined for downloading music. It's incredible that this has to be pointed out every time, but all of these lawsuits are for sharing music (outbound) not for downloading music (inbound).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
I think they got confused because she was actually barred from downloading any future music. She had better be careful about her web surfing. The way it's worded, if she so much as hits a midi on somebody's web page, she would be breaking the terms of the ruling. She really should appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Isn't this true for just about everything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did she, or didn't she......
The question hinges on what the court said about her receipt of service. It would appear that the process server was able to prove to the Judge's satisifaction that he/she completed service on Brothers in a lawful manner. From that, the court opined that Brothers essentially refused to participate in her own defense.
If Brothers is going to appeal, then she'll have to overcome the testimony of the process server, otherwise, she's toast.
Fnu[ link to this | view in chronology ]