OiNK Admin: Not Guilty

from the and-there-we-go dept

Fri, Jan 15th 2010 11:25am — Mike Masnick

We were just explaining why it appeared that Alan Ellis, the admin for OiNK had not actually violated any UK laws, and it looks like the jury agreed. Ellis has been found not guilty. I have to admit that I'm really surprised by this, but it is certainly a good thing. You shouldn't be found guilty of actions done by others, and if people were using OiNK to violate copyright law (as, certainly, some were) that shouldn't fall on Ellis. Separately, as has been noted previously, OiNK really highlighted where the recording industry itself failed to fill the demand that was there.

Of course, it will be interesting to see what comes next. My guess is that the entertainment industry will use this to support Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill as necessary, or to push for even more draconian copyright laws, such as adding in "contributory" copyright infringement into the law in some manner. This was a good ruling, but it may be used to push through bad laws in response.

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

Filed Under: alan ellis, copyright, infringement, oink, uk

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:37am

Conspiracy Theory
"My guess is that the entertainment industry will use this to support Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill as necessary, or to push for even more draconian copyright laws, such as adding in "contributory" copyright infringement into the law in some manner."

Any chance of collusion between the industry and court to get this ruling specifically for the reasons you stated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:51am

Next
Of course, it will be interesting to see what comes next.

On the stand he admitted to downloading music himself as a way to discover new artists. Everyone here knows what the next course of action will be.

Civil suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Cruse (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: Next
  Except that the recording industry said that they were not going to file anymoere individual suits, and they wouldn't lie would they? /sarcasm/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:18pm

I must admit that I have slightly mixed feelings about this. You cannot tell me that Ellis did not know from the very beginning that OiNK was going to make it very easy to break copyright law as it currently stands, even if copyright law as it currently stands ignores the fairly fundamental precedent of letting someone else borrow your tape and make a copy, which the recording industry weathered perfectly well.
On the other hand, I don't see how Ellis could actually have prevented the service being used that way without a massive investment of man-hours and money, things he probably didn't have in abundance. I dunno.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike42 (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re:
  You're right, Jake. And, it should be obvious that if someone borrows your car, it would be very easy for them to get in an accident or run down a pedestrian. Therefore, you should be held responsible should such an event happen. The same is true of people selling knives, guns, and toenail clippers. If you made it available, you are culpable for any and all legal infractions.
  
  /sarcasm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  "You cannot tell me that Ellis did not know from the very beginning that OiNK was going to make it very easy to break copyright law"
  
  I have a hard time believing that should matter. Auto makers know that their vehicles will make it easier to make bank robbery getaways. Gun makers know that their guns will make it easier for others to unlawfully kill others. There are measures to try and prevent that, but we all know it's about as effective copyright filters (which is to say, not at all).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jake, 15 Jan 2010 @ 2:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    A closer analogy would be a car-rental concession manager handing over the keys to a paying customer despite said customer who appeared to be intoxicated; maybe the guy shouldn't be open to a lawsuit if his customer did turn out to be drunk and ended up killing someone, but he sure as hell ought to feel guilty for taking the guy's money even when he knew there was a risk.
    
    Of course that analogy isn't great either, because copyright infringement never got anyone killed or crippled for life. That's why I can't say I'm sorry Ellis didn't go to jail, even if I don't think much of a shrug and a "not my problem" as a defence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re:
  You know what makes it very easy to break laws? Shoes. Sure, it's theoretically possible to break laws without wearing shoes, but you cannot tell me that shoemakers did not know from the beginning that shoes were going to make it much easier to break laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
IOERROR, 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:32pm

@Jake it doesn't matter if he thought it was going to be used to break the law. He didn't support or help that happen.

Gun dealers have to know that at one point there gun will be used to break the law but the courts don't convict them for legally selling that person a gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:47pm

So when is Oink going back up?

Oh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Skout (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  LMAO Don't we wish.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re:
  I'm more curious if his servers will be returned now that he's been found not guilty and they had no infringing information on them. From what I understand, they confiscated a lot of equipment.
  
  I wasn't a member (never heard about it until it got raided, kind of a Napster story I guess), but the site's full return would be cool too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 1:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    On an unrelated note, I once helped a company that had records, computers, and other equipment seized in a raid by law enforcement. The company was never actually charged with anything. A few years later, after the statute of limitations on any potential charge had run, they asked for the return of everything that had been taken. They were told to pound sand, which led to ugly (and expensive) proceedings.
    
    This was in the US, but I would have no confidence that everything will be promptly returned.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 3:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Same thing happened to Steve Jackson Games.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 6:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They had a product called HACKERS! THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 17 Jan 2010 @ 5:10am

At the end of the day, there may have been no law to find him guilty by. However, that is something that won't hang out there for very long.

It is clear that he made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of charging for access to content he didn't have the rights for. It is hard to make a modern crime match up to pre-digital laws. It is also very clear that this sort of thing cannot continue without in the long term causing a major disruption in the music world, and not the type of disruption that benefits anyone. The users are paying, the artists are making nothing, and some guy in the middle is walking away with the cash.

If you cannot see what is wrong with that, then your moral compass is probably stuck and needs fixing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2010 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re:
  All that money went into servers. It's not like he was living in a penthouse and married a hooker with a cocaine problem.
  
  If only the recording industry could offer up the same. Oh right, they never will.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ryan, 18 Jan 2010 @ 5:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    "The users are paying, the artists are making nothing, and some guy in the middle is walking away with the cash."
    
    Just modifying your text with just one word (in caps) :
    
    The users are paying, the artists are making ALMOST nothing, and some guy in the middle is walking away with the cash.
    
    Describes the "music industry" perfectly.
    
    Where was your moral compass lost for the last few decades?
    
    /Ryan
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2010 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re:
  "It is clear that he made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of charging for access to content he didn't have the rights for."
  
  The only thing that is clear is that you can't read.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vivek.M, 17 Jan 2010 @ 8:35am

An outrageous decison!
They should have put away those scumbags for good! What's happening to the world, when theft is justified because a large population indulges in it! Their argument that they only facilitate theft is ridiculous. If I sold information to bank robbers, that enabled them to thieve and kill people, I'd be carted away for murder or robbery just the same. In another 5 years with a recession in full boom, I wonder if the people who tolerate this rubbish will still find this ruling to be right and funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2010 @ 3:51pm
  
  Re: An outrageous decison!
  Copyright infringement is not theft.
  
  Obvious troll is obvious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2010 @ 5:50pm
  
  Re: An outrageous decison!
  Be careful you don't sell your car; someone may use to speed!
  Be careful not to sell any knives, guns, sharp objects, or toxic cleaning supplies; someone may use them to hurt someone!
  Be careful not to speak, your stupidity may be used to make our brains hurt.
  
  And then you would be arrested and thrown in jail. Enjoy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 17 Jan 2010 @ 5:50pm

Babe escaped!
Pigs are flying free around the RIAA oink! oink! LoL

Sorry I could resist making a pork joke oops! there I go again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 17 Jan 2010 @ 5:59pm

Next News.
Oink reopens after being transformed to a LLC company with representatives in New Mexico where the law is extremely liniment in respect to liability.

:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]