Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Conspiracy Theory

   

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

   
   

   "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?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Next

   

   The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 11:51am

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Next

   

   Matthew Cruse (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 11:54am

   
   

   Except that the recording industry said that they were not going to file anymoere individual suits, and they wouldn't lie would they? /sarcasm/

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Jake, Jan 15th, 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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   IOERROR, Jan 15th, 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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re:

   

   mike42 (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

   
   

   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

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

   
   

   "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).

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 12:47pm

   
   

   So when is Oink going back up?
   
   Oh.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re:

   

   Skout (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 12:55pm

   
   

   LMAO Don't we wish.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re:

    

    Joe (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 1:16pm

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Matt (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 1:49pm

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Jake, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 2:33pm

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Re:

    

    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 3:01pm

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 15th, 2010 @ 3:52pm

    
    

    Same thing happened to Steve Jackson Games.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    

    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jan 15th, 2010 @ 6:42pm

    
    

    They had a product called HACKERS! THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT!!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 17th, 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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    An outrageous decison!

    

    Vivek.M, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 8:35am

    
    

    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!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 1:25pm

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 3:37pm

    
    

    "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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    Re: An outrageous decison!

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 3:51pm

    
    

    Copyright infringement is not theft.
    
    Obvious troll is obvious.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    Re: An outrageous decison!

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 5:50pm

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    Babe escaped!

    

    :), Jan 17th, 2010 @ 5:50pm

    
    

    Pigs are flying free around the RIAA oink! oink! LoL
    
    Sorry I could resist making a pork joke oops! there I go again.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    Next News.

    

    :), Jan 17th, 2010 @ 5:59pm

    
    

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

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Ryan, Jan 18th, 2010 @ 5:58am

    
    

    "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

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment