tauta
05-17-2004, 01:56 PM
I found this news first at www.heise.de:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/47412
It is referring to:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/apress_051304_ctdownloading.html
Now does this actually mean that in the end here is a first case of DOWNLOADING being prosecuted? Or is it again an example of neglectful journalism?
Hope, this hasn't been posted yet.
Here's the article from
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/apress_051304_ctdownloading.html
##
Connecticut Man Fined for Downloading Five Songs Illegally
(Bridgeport, Conn-AP, May 13, 2004) —
A federal judge has ordered a Bristol man to pay more than $4,000 for downloading five songs from the Internet.
U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall Wednesday directed William Martinez to pay the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song for infringing a copyright as well as $289 for the costs of bringing the lawsuit.
The judge ruled because Martinez failed to answer a civil complaint brought against him or appear in court for the hearing.
Martinez was the second Connecticut resident caught up in the lawsuits filed by the recording industry ordered to pay for illegally downloading music.
Jennifer Brothers of Andover was recently found in default when she also failed to answer the complaint or appear in court. Brothers has been ordered to pay $6,000.
The suits against Martinez and Brothers are among 2,500 filed nationally within the past year.
(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
##
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/47412
It is referring to:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/apress_051304_ctdownloading.html
Now does this actually mean that in the end here is a first case of DOWNLOADING being prosecuted? Or is it again an example of neglectful journalism?
Hope, this hasn't been posted yet.
Here's the article from
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/apress_051304_ctdownloading.html
##
Connecticut Man Fined for Downloading Five Songs Illegally
(Bridgeport, Conn-AP, May 13, 2004) —
A federal judge has ordered a Bristol man to pay more than $4,000 for downloading five songs from the Internet.
U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall Wednesday directed William Martinez to pay the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song for infringing a copyright as well as $289 for the costs of bringing the lawsuit.
The judge ruled because Martinez failed to answer a civil complaint brought against him or appear in court for the hearing.
Martinez was the second Connecticut resident caught up in the lawsuits filed by the recording industry ordered to pay for illegally downloading music.
Jennifer Brothers of Andover was recently found in default when she also failed to answer the complaint or appear in court. Brothers has been ordered to pay $6,000.
The suits against Martinez and Brothers are among 2,500 filed nationally within the past year.
(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
##