Second Person Fined For Sharing, Press Still Confused
from the hmmm... dept
A week ago, we wrote about how a Connecticut woman who was among those charged by the RIAA was fined by a judge for failing to appear in court. We pointed out that the press got the story wrong. No one has been sued for downloading – but rather for sharing music. It appears that the press is still confused. In an almost identical situation, the same judge has fined a Connecticut man $4,000 – again for failing to respond to the lawsuit. Once again, the article says it was for downloading songs. Actually, they claim it’s because he downloaded a grand total of five songs. Considering the RIAA says they were only going after those with hundreds (if not thousands) of songs, this doesn’t sound right. Of course, since the AP reporter couldn’t even be bothered to understand what the case was about, I guess it’s too much to expect to get any of the relevant details.
Comments on “Second Person Fined For Sharing, Press Still Confused”
No such thing as a trully anonymous p2p client. Remember, that’s what grubster claimed, and it only took a month for the RIAA to break their encryption…. hey… that’s interesting… can Grubster sue the RIAA for cracking their encryption under the DCMA? Or is this one of those instances where it’s okay to break encryption?
No Subject Given
OK, Mike, WHO IS THE AP REPORTER? and how do we contact this person?