[H]ardOCP:

Remember the first lady to take the RIAA all the way to trial (she got hit with a $222,000 fine)? Well, the judge in the case says he may have made a mistake when he told the jury that making sound recordings available without permission violates record company copyrights "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."



A Minnesota woman ordered to pay $222,000 in the nation’s first music download trial may get another chance with a jury. The issue is whether record companies have to prove anyone else actually downloaded their copyrighted songs, or whether it’s enough to argue that a defendant made copyrighted music available for copying.



Comments