Recording Industry May Go After OiNK Admin Again

from the not-getting-the-message dept

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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 21st, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Noel Coward, Jan 21st, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Jan 21st, 2010 @ 8:15pm

    :)

    Those lads from the IFPI are good for a laugh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dementia (profile), Jan 21st, 2010 @ 8:19pm

    Wouldn't the fact the he was acquitted be useful as a defense in said civil trial?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 21st, 2010 @ 8:43pm

      Re:

      OJ would beg to differ.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Big Al, Jan 21st, 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...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Joe, Jan 21st, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Brendy, Jan 21st, 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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 22nd, 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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            ethorad (profile), Jan 22nd, 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

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Big Al, Jan 22nd, 2010 @ 7:00am

            Re: True, but...

            However, downloading is not a crime (yet). Uploading/sharing is and he has not admitted to that.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jan 21st, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 23rd, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Jan 21st, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    jjmsan (profile), Jan 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 22nd, 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)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        isaac Kotlicky (profile), Jan 22nd, 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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    lawKiller, Jan 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 22nd, 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.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This