<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;oink&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Exceptionally Troubling Ruling In The UK: Owners Of Links Site Guilty Of 'Conspiracy To Defraud'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/16430219517/exceptionally-troubling-ruling-uk-owners-links-site-guilty-conspiracy-to-defraud.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/16430219517/exceptionally-troubling-ruling-uk-owners-links-site-guilty-conspiracy-to-defraud.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written about the entertainment industry's overly aggressive legal campaign against the owners of SurfTheChannel -- a linking site -- before.  Almost exactly three years ago, we wrote about how the <i>private</i> UK anti piracy group, FACT, had helped set up the raid on the offices of Scopelight, a startup creating search technologies.  This wasn't a typical police raid: FACT (again, a private organization representing private companies) was allowed to come along for the raid.  Scopelight built SurfTheChannel as a search engine that could find video.  Some of that video was authorized, some of it was not.  However, the two founders, a husband and wife team, Anton Benjamin Vickerman and Kelly-Anne Vickerman, were arrested after this raid and charged with "conspiracy to defraud."  Note that they were <b>not</b> charged with copyright infringement.  If "conspiracy to defraud" sounds familiar, it's the same vague law that was used <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080601/1756051285.shtml">against</a> the owner of OiNK (<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100115/1051307772.shtml">unsuccessfully</a>), <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1549298157.shtml">against</a> the owner of tv-links.co.uk (also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1549298157.shtml">unsuccessfully</a>), and also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/14332311396/details-in-mulve-arrest-highlight-how-weak-the-case-is.shtml">against</a> the creators of Mulve (don't know what happened to that case).  Considering how this has failed in two key cases before, and it didn't look like SurfTheChannel was any different, it seemed unlikely to work here either.  And, in fact, there were other serious problems with the case, including the issue that FACT itself (again: private organization) was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/1713445461.shtml">given</a> the Vickermans' computers.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, however, the court has <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/surfthechannel-owner-found-guilty-of-conspiracy-to-defraud-120627/" target="_blank">found Anton guilty of "conspiracy to defraud"</a> for which he faces 10 years in jail.  10 Years.  His wife was found not guilty.  Of course, FACT and other entertainment industry interests are cheering this on as a huge victory, and promising to use this to stifle all kinds of useful innovation... er, go after any other site they consider to be "pirate" sites, even if those sites have perfectly legitimate and non-infringing uses.  The broadness of the law, and the vague and contradictory standards with which it has been applied in the UK should be exceptionally worrying to people -- especially those in the UK.  It is no longer safe to try to create a useful service to help people find entertainment content, because you may get raided, private companies may get your computers and you may end up in jail.  London has been building itself up as a tech/startup hub of Europe, but with rulings like these, don't be surprised to see entrepreneurs move elsewhere.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/16430219517/exceptionally-troubling-ruling-uk-owners-links-site-guilty-conspiracy-to-defraud.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/16430219517/exceptionally-troubling-ruling-uk-owners-links-site-guilty-conspiracy-to-defraud.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/16430219517/exceptionally-troubling-ruling-uk-owners-links-site-guilty-conspiracy-to-defraud.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-so?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120627/16430219517</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>International Game Of File Sharing Whack-A-Mole Continues</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/132158.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/132158.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In what we're sure will be declared yet another <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060915/005658.shtml">"significant blow"</a> against "piracy," the IFPI helped <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/7057812.stm">shut down a private bittorrent tracker site</a> that was used by many people.  Following the arrest of the service's creator and the taking down of the site, the IFPI has put up one of its typical <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/oink-investigation-seeks-identities-and-activities-of-users-071023/">scary warning notices</a> about how it's now trying to track down the users of the site -- though most people view that as an empty threat.  There is little doubt that this particular service was mainly used for unauthorized file sharing.  However, you do still have to wonder what the IFPI and others think they're accomplishing here.  It becomes increasingly laughable to have anyone think that bringing these sites down does anything positive for the industry.  It's clearly not in the best interests of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071012/024132.shtml">musicians</a> who are quickly moving as far away from organizations like the IFPI and the RIAA as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071008/154529.shtml">possible</a>.  At the same time, musicians are recognizing that playing this giant game of whack-a-mole is both counter-productive and stupid.  It doesn't do anything to damper file sharing at all.  Once a copy is out there it's out there, and shutting down one player in the space doesn't make any difference at all.  The users just scatter and show up again elsewhere, further underground.  In the meantime, many more are realizing that rather than worrying about these services, it's time to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071021/002050.shtml">embrace them</a>, recognizing that they're incredibly efficient distribution and promotion mechanisms that can be used to help a musician become much more successful.  About the only people who it's hurting are those who think they're in the business of selling little plastic discs -- and we've already described why <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071004/163314.shtml">felony interference of a business model</a> isn't a crime.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/132158.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/132158.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/132158.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-what-good-does-that-do?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071023/132158</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>