RSS
Twitter
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).
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
You're totally right.
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
The article says "According to court documents, Brothers never accepted a copy of the suit and never filed a response with the court." This sounds different from never being notified. It sounds like she was served but just chose to ignore the notification. You lose by default in any lawsuit that way.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
> Press Still Can't Get Details Right< br>
Isn't this true for just about everything?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment