Remember The MATRIX? Former Drug Smuggler In Charge Of It Is Building More Databases...

Recording Industry May Go After OiNK Admin Again

from the not-getting-the-message dept

Thu, Jan 21st 2010 7:10pm — Mike Masnick

We were as surprised as anyone that a UK court correctly realized that OiNK itself didn't violate copyright law, and thus admin Alan Ellis hadn't done anything illegal. But rather than understand the difference between infringing copyrights and hosting a tracker, the recording industry is now flipping out and insisting that Ellis must be punished somehow, and it may file a civil suit against him because apparently punishing people is more important than actually coming up with business models that work.

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: contributory infringement, copyright, oink, uk

20 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 7:29pm

"But now it seems that as one battle ends, another begins. IFPI says it is considering civil action, and is committed to reclaiming the money donated to the site in order to give it back to the artists."

Can I sue the IFPI for the time I just wasted laughing and laughing and laughing and laughing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:), 21 Jan 2010 @ 8:15pm

:)
Those lads from the IFPI are good for a laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dementia (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 8:19pm

Wouldn't the fact the he was acquitted be useful as a defense in said civil trial?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Noel Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 8:38pm

Re: IFPI Laughter
Careful, laughter could be construed as entertainment.
And .... if the IFPI have provided said entertainment,
well you could be charged for it!

Well, fairs fair, even those circus clowns should get paid.
Right?

Here have a banana then, careful not to slip on the proceeds.

All this legal monkey business is a bunch of shite me thinks. Since when is being vindictive deemed justice?

Oink Oink! Indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 8:43pm

Re:
OJ would beg to differ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Al, 21 Jan 2010 @ 9:00pm

Re:
Yes it would. Also, under laws in the UK, if IFPI continue trying to 'get' him, he can file a counter-suit for harassment which could also carry heavy (and we could be talking 7 figures plus) damages awarded against IFPI.
Could be interesting to see them try...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 9:00pm

Market Efficiencies ...
Definitions :

mar·ket - A public gathering held for buying and selling merchandise.

ef·fi·cien·cy - The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system.

What we are seeing here is the corporations attempting to prevent Market Efficiencies. Read the definitions. Markets sell merchandise, information is not merchandise. Being Efficient requires increasing your output while decreasing your costs.

The internet does a wonderful thing with information. It reduces the cost to almost nothing. IFPI, RIAA, MPAA, etc are all inefficiencies and road blocks in the system. They represent other inefficienct groups but do not produce anything. In the end they will go away as new systems come into existance that replace them making the system more efficient.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 21 Jan 2010 @ 9:48pm

Re:
Well, he was acquitted of running a site that infringed copyright, but he DID confess, on the stand and under oath, that he had downloaded music personally. THAT could be used in the civil suit, as Mike pointed out in the previous story. I still think it's a bunch of crap, but he DID openly admin to it, so it's kind of his own fault. Proving exactly WHAT was downloaded and the appropriate penalty might be tough though. At the very least, they won't be seeing all of the donated cash, and Alan won't be seeing any jail time. Hopefully, the case will be tossed, but the have a leg to stand on on the civil case; the criminal case, not so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brendy, 21 Jan 2010 @ 11:16pm

Re: Re:
Just because you admit to doing something illegal, doesn't mean you can get charged for it. Unless there's a specific case open that you are admitting guilt to, there isn't much they can do because there is no evidence and no case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 11:46pm

no surprise
The record companies have a differant mindset to to rest of the human race in fact i often ask what planet they are on, they dont understand the web
they think that all P2P is illegal. Until they discover one that pays them. Like Mike said in a radio interveiw I had with him they are after their own bottom line.
that is all cant sell enough dispite single tracks in the UK sold more than EVER BEFORE last year through legal downloads (Itunes Amazon) more to sell to get in the chart. etc etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 6:30am

True, but...
... if he said it under oath, then denying it later would mean he committed a crime (perjury, assuming the UK has a similar law). Then again sticking with what he said is admitting to a crime... and I think that was Joes' point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ethorad (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 6:57am

Re: True, but...
We do have perjury laws in the UK - just ask Jeffrey Archer

Presumably though he could stay silent in a subsequent trial on whether he infringed copyright and require the prosecution to prove that he did. I know that confessions aren't definitive, although I admin they're not normally made under oath ... IANAL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Al, 22 Jan 2010 @ 7:00am

Re: True, but...
However, downloading is not a crime (yet). Uploading/sharing is and he has not admitted to that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jjmsan (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 7:18am

Double Jeopardy
I don't know about english law, but the reason you can sue someone in civil court after they have been found innocent in Criminal court is that the standard of proof is lower (preponderance of evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt). Courts view civil trials as an entirely new liability and so do not view them as being tried twice for the same crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 9:25am

Re: Double Jeopardy
They aren't trying him for the same thing twice: The criminal case was "Conspiracy to Defraud" (criminal) and they're probably just going for copyright infringement. (civil)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
isaac Kotlicky (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 9:34am

Re: Re: Double Jeopardy
But this isn't an issue of double jeopardy - there is no question as to the "standard of evidence" - it's an application of law: is providing a tracker service illegal or not? the law was interpereted as saying NO.

Ergo, "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs preponderance isn't an issue - what he did was deemed LEGAL. you would need it overturned on an appeal.
Since it's legal, it isn't infringement, and you wouldn't be able to get him whether civil or criminal.

They would have to attack him for a different charge entirely in order to mount a successful offensive, and I don't quite see how they could do that in such a way as to take down the site itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawKiller, 22 Jan 2010 @ 11:29am

@Joe
ok does occasionally mean one song in 6 months for a period of two years
maybe i occasionaly grab a song too but that the total was two songs

YUP hard to say what you owe and ya know at least had balls to say it

and i think we need to start killing the courts with this and NOT PAY
thats right fucktard judges we aint paying
go ahead wreck everyone's lives and one day when we get called terrorists cause we start killing off the fucking lawyers and judges you will know why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 4:17pm

"apparently punishing people is more important than actually coming up with business models that work."

That's because they have no intention of coming up with a new business model. Funny thing is they actually believe that they can win a war of attrition with the internet and end up getting their own way. Unfortunately for them, I don't think that they can hold out forever sooooooo.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 23 Jan 2010 @ 5:32am

Re: Market Efficiencies ...
There is no market if the people aren't paying. There is no valid market if the seller doesn't pay for the source product.

The internet only reduces the costs because it fails to pay for the source materials. The market efficiency you point to is artificial. It isn't any different from the street hawkers here in Thailand selling photoshop for a few dollars. The cheap price is artificial, not at all considering anything other than the marginal costs to slap the material onto a CD. That isn't efficiency, that is fallacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Market Efficiencies ...
And then art will die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]