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.
Hide this

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


  1. identicon
    NOBODY, 13 May 2004 @ 10:02am

    Re: Kiwi

    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?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.