AfterDawn: Tech news

Former OiNK admin made over $300,000 in donations

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 07 Jan 2010 23:09 User comments (23)

Former OiNK admin made over $300,000 in donations Former private torrent tracker OiNK administrator Alan Ellis is under trial, with jury selection occurring earlier this week. Today, the jury was told that Ellis had received over $300,000 USD over the years through donations.
Additionally, Judge Briggs has told the jury to not research OiNK at all, as so far most reports on the matter are inaccurate or biased.

"It would be most unfortunate if any of you did any private research on the internet relating to this matter. Please don't," added Briggs. "It's only likely to cause difficulties and could in theory abort the trial. So, ladies and gentlemen, no independent research."

The case itself is pretty straightforward and Ellis is only charged with one case of conspiracy to defraud. "Put very simply it is suggested he was involved in a website that was used to distribute sound recordings and things of that nature in breach of copyright," Briggs noted.

Getting back to numbers, the prosecution said the OiNK tracker had led to 21 million downloads and that Ellis accepted about $300,000 in donations, although the prosecution did not mention that most, if not all, of the money went to paying for servers and hosting.

The case is ongoing.

Previous Next  

23 user comments

18.1.2010 1:34

I can only see this as instructions the RIAA gave to the judge to read. The judge says "Don't look up information on the internet, it's biased."

Why wouldn't the RIAA want jury members to do research? Oh because of this:

Quote:
Getting back to numbers, the prosecution said the OiNK tracker had led to 21 million downloads and that Ellis accepted about $300,000 in donations, although the prosecution did not mention that most, if not all, of the money went to paying for servers and hosting.
Simply put, the RIAA doesn't want to admit the guy more than likely operated the site at a loss or was barely breaking even at best. It takes a lot of money to operate a site with that big of bandwidth needs.

28.1.2010 3:36

I think the Judge was trying to help Mr Ellis...all he needs for a misstrial is for someone on the jury to say, "That is a blatent lie; I looked it up online"

38.1.2010 3:57

DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO TRACKERS!

Approximate cost to run a high-volume tracker for 1 month:
- Domain name (less than $1)
- Hosting with a 500 GB limit (can be had for less than $10, even unlimited; a commitment to a year or more is ALWAYS required)

NOBODY running a tracker actually needs your help financially and this is why they are perfectly happy to give you an extra 500 GB if you 'donate', in essence 'buying warez' (in this case so-called 'MP3Z')just like in the old days on many sites during the 90's.

I perfectly see fit that this guy made his money off a tracker. And I do NOT approve.

48.1.2010 5:01

tatsh, you don't know what you're talking about. No way you can get a 500GB transfer TORRENT host for $10. Transfer is more or less free at about any hosting, but CPU and RAM is expensive. Even small trackers are usually not allowed on shared hostings. actually, they're not allowed on lots of VPS either.
BTW "a year commitment" isn't always required.

58.1.2010 9:56

Originally posted by tatsh:

NOBODY running a tracker actually needs your help financially and this is why they are perfectly happy to give you an extra 500 GB if you 'donate', in essence 'buying warez' (in this case so-called 'MP3Z')just like in the old days on many sites during the 90's.

I perfectly see fit that this guy made his money off a tracker. And I do NOT approve.
spoken like a n00b who knows little to nothing about web hosting. shared hosting is inexpensive because they do not allow trackers or persistent processes. most shared hosts will advertise 500GB+ (or unlimited) storage and bandwidth because 99% of their user base would not get anywhere near that with the limitations on how that space can be used. you would not be able to use any of that space for storage purposes to share files of any type (even torrents without having a tracker itself). you would have to have a dedicated server to run a tracker or go with co-location to have that kind of control over what you are doing. for stability you would probably need more than one server and multiple hard drives. you could be talking about 200-400 per month minimum easily on a high traffic sharing site depending on how much space, bandwidth, CPU speed and amount of RAM.

68.1.2010 10:08

This is why I think donations are the same as buying and thus part of the problem.

If you want to make shearing free and legal you are going to have to separate it by what makes money and what dose not, if it dose not take any money out of the market environment then it can do no harm.

78.1.2010 10:17
scum101
Inactive

Absolutely correct. I was offered the noid last year and turned it down after seeing the financial costs breakdown.. we are talking close to 200 a month just for the hosts.. never mind the bandwidth fees.. 2400 a year or thereabouts for the hosting.. and the bandwith costs vary and are extortionate (look up savvis bandwidth charges per Gb)

Even running a small private tracker at home isn't free.. internet connection.. minimum 20 a month (and watch out for your isp coming down like a ton of bricks and cutting you off).. power for server 10-20 a month.. it adds up. Even at a minimal level a few files for a select group of friends we are talking 360 a year.. now scale that up as well as the need to find hosts in countries where the riaa/mpaa and other a44holes can't get at you, plus a safe secure and unlisted way to buy and pay for the domain so you don't get busted for "facilitation" or "encouraging".. oh yes it adds up alright!


88.1.2010 10:50

Originally posted by scum101:
Absolutely correct. I was offered the noid last year and turned it down after seeing the financial costs breakdown.. we are talking close to 200 a month just for the hosts.. never mind the bandwidth fees.. 2400 a year or thereabouts for the hosting.. and the bandwith costs vary and are extortionate (look up savvis bandwidth charges per Gb)

Even running a small private tracker at home isn't free.. internet connection.. minimum 20 a month (and watch out for your isp coming down like a ton of bricks and cutting you off).. power for server 10-20 a month.. it adds up. Even at a minimal level a few files for a select group of friends we are talking 360 a year.. now scale that up as well as the need to find hosts in countries where the riaa/mpaa and other a44holes can't get at you, plus a safe secure and unlisted way to buy and pay for the domain so you don't get busted for "facilitation" or "encouraging".. oh yes it adds up alright!

Its a business pure and simple and should be treated as unlicensed sale....

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

98.1.2010 11:08
scum101
Inactive

No.. it's not quite like that.. it's the same as running any other website. It is perfectly legal and allowed to ask for donations towards site running costs, most linux distros do this and lots of users donate because they find the "service" useful.
A tracker is no different.. hell.. even afterdawn wouldn't object of every user chipped in a $ from time to time.

There is no "sale" implied from a voluntary donation.. Legally speaking a donation is a gift.. and the definition of a gift is "something given without coercion and free for the recipient to use/sell/exchange/trade in any manner they see fit with no conditions being applied, implied or expected/assumed by the person making the gift"

The owner of oink didn't "make $xxxxxx" from running the site.. they were given it freely to do whatever they wanted to by people .. no contract or supply of gods or services any kind has been "bought" by those making the donations.

A compulsory membership with subscription site is a different matter.. they ARE selling goods or services or information.. so the owners of such a site will have "made $xxxx" from the subscription charges.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gift

the judge can and should throw this case out immediately.. the owner may have profited from peoples generosity, but that is in no way their fault.. no "blame" can be attached to them for people deciding to send them money.

Don't play legalese with me.. I only didn't take my law degree because I didn't have the funds.. I passed the coursework part.


108.1.2010 11:30

Originally posted by scum101:
No.. it's not quite like that.. it's the same as running any other website. It is perfectly legal and allowed to ask for donations towards site running costs, most linux distros do this and lots of users donate because they find the "service" useful.
A tracker is no different.. hell.. even afterdawn wouldn't object of every user chipped in a $ from time to time.

There is no "sale" implied from a voluntary donation.. Legally speaking a donation is a gift.. and the definition of a gift is "something given without coercion and free for the recipient to use/sell/exchange/trade in any manner they see fit with no conditions being applied, implied or expected/assumed by the person making the gift"

The owner of oink didn't "make $xxxxxx" from running the site.. they were given it freely to do whatever they wanted to by people .. no contract or supply of gods or services any kind has been "bought" by those making the donations.

A compulsory membership with subscription site is a different matter.. they ARE selling goods or services or information.. so the owners of such a site will have "made $xxxx" from the subscription charges.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gift

the judge can and should throw this case out immediately.. the owner may have profited from peoples generosity, but that is in no way their fault.. no "blame" can be attached to them for people deciding to send them money.

Don't play legalese with me.. I only didn't take my law degree because I didn't have the funds.. I passed the coursework part.
Not really as you have become a distribution point that has to run on out side funds which makes you a business and places you in direct competition with licensed media. Thus making you a target for infringement.

Of coarse that's under how I see and wish copy right would work, currently copy right works on the vague notion of distribution you may not distribute in any forum without proper approval from the copy right holder. And that frankly goes against everything in the modern age. IMO the act of distribution is not enough to call out the dogs of hell IE lawyers but profit is as drawing ANY money openly from the public (donations,ads,ect) turns you into a business and thus you are held to the standards of business and not a person(or group whos funding it all with their own money).

This is the line I see that benefits everyone not just one side.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

118.1.2010 11:44
scum101
Inactive

Infringement (as precisely stated under the law) can only happen if the actual files are hosted on the owners servers or rented server space. This did not happen (as far as anybody has so far proven).. so this comes down purely to the definition of accepting gifts of money from person or persons unknown.

The only really legal crime that may have been committed is avoiding some form of gift tax... As far as I am aware runnning a site hosting noting but information files generated by the uploaders is not any form of crime.. the site itself held no infringing content. As this is all going on in the UK courts I want to know why there are reporting restrictions in place.
Was the accused a minor at the time the so called "crimes" were committed? .. if not then there are no possible legal grounds for any media restrictions on reporting.. This seems like a case where the public interest would be best served if *all* the details of the case were reported on by the press.

Yet again something stinks.


128.1.2010 11:59

Originally posted by scum101:
Infringement (as precisely stated under the law) can only happen if the actual files are hosted on the owners servers or rented server space. This did not happen (as far as anybody has so far proven).. so this comes down purely to the definition of accepting gifts of money from person or persons unknown.

The only really legal crime that may have been committed is avoiding some form of gift tax... As far as I am aware runnning a site hosting noting but information files generated by the uploaders is not any form of crime.. the site itself held no infringing content. As this is all going on in the UK courts I want to know why there are reporting restrictions in place.
Was the accused a minor at the time the so called "crimes" were committed? .. if not then there are no possible legal grounds for any media restrictions on reporting.. This seems like a case where the public interest would be best served if *all* the details of the case were reported on by the press.

Yet again something stinks.
Well looking at the coarse of things distribution will win out (it dose not matter if you host the file or not the file you host leads to the licensed work thus making you in contempt), so another path has to be laid out and injected into the conversion, I am sorry but if you can't fangirl with friends out of pocket then you have no right to distribute licensed works.

IMO the system should ignore free shearing on both cavil and legal grounds when it draws in money for any reason its beholdant to the CP owners wishes and whats left of fair use in copy right law.

Oh BTW I think CP creators should never be allowed to give up their rights, that they get 30% of all profit before distribution and advertisement costs are paid and 60% thereafter. The contact runs in 5 and 10 year cycles and no more than that due to monopolization, stagnation and the middle man getting more than artist.Commissioned works are unchanged.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

138.1.2010 12:05

Originally posted by scum101:
Infringement (as precisely stated under the law) can only happen if the actual files are hosted on the owners servers or rented server space. This did not happen (as far as anybody has so far proven).. so this comes down purely to the definition of accepting gifts of money from person or persons unknown.
Exactly, OiNK, just like all trackers, are just "indexes" and do not in fact host any of the files. As for "aiding" or "facilitating" in infringement, the studios may have a case with that, but even that has been hard to prove.

148.1.2010 12:11
scum101
Inactive

Please everybody interested download and read this before making further comments about specifics..

http://www.sjberwin.com/publicationDetai...&adv=1&cid=2204

Apparently the media restrictions are to "protect" the other person accused... but for there to be a conspiracy there needs to be 3 people.. initial case flawed.

Then there is a little matter of this being a private prosecution.. which means the state and the cps and very probably a magistrate didn't think it was justified or in the public interest.

I don't think in thais case a judge will get away with inventing a crime on the spur of the moment as happened in Sweeden.. or get away with telling the jury the verdicts they are allowed to return as in the case of a murdered Brazillian.

UK courts.. we are watching you very closely.. we have things called rights as well!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Jan 2010 @ 12:15

158.1.2010 12:18

Quote:
Originally posted by scum101:
Infringement (as precisely stated under the law) can only happen if the actual files are hosted on the owners servers or rented server space. This did not happen (as far as anybody has so far proven).. so this comes down purely to the definition of accepting gifts of money from person or persons unknown.
Exactly, OiNK, just like all trackers, are just "indexes" and do not in fact host any of the files. As for "aiding" or "facilitating" in infringement, the studios may have a case with that, but even that has been hard to prove.
Logic and reason dictate that a file that links to a file is pretty much the same as the file in question. As copy right law moves forward they will take modern forms of distribution into account and tighten rules and laws. So we must look to a better way for all to share in the wealth of information.....

168.1.2010 12:39
scum101
Inactive

No it isn't.. it's nothing like it at all!! ,, a .torrent file is a text file with some numbers in it and a tracker url.. nothing illegal there.

just so you know.. THIS is a REAL LIVE torrent file..

d8:announce41:http://inferno.demonoid.com:3390/announce10:created by13:uTorrent/185013:creation datei1262830653e8:encoding5:UTF-84:infod5:filesld6:lengthi224344570e4:pathl31:Valkyria_Chronicles_26-xvid.avieed6:lengthi194432984e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.06.SDTV.[9D9444AC].avieed6:lengthi185380554e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.01.SDTV.[E71C8072].avieed6:lengthi184366158e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.04.SDTV.[6871677C].avieed6:lengthi184355900e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.13.SDTV.[380456BB].avieed6:lengthi184354836e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.21.SDTV.[600AF79E].avieed6:lengthi184351854e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.25.SDTV.[9BCEA030].avieed6:lengthi184349400e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.20.SDTV.[814475BE].avieed6:lengthi184347900e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.09.SDTV.[DC3E4471].avieed6:lengthi184347086e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.07.SDTV.[3B632BB2].avieed6:lengthi184340480e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.11.SDTV.[0A7034B1].avieed6:lengthi184339690e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.16.SDTV.[B07259E3].avieed6:lengthi184338528e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.15.SDTV.[8125AA29].avieed6:lengthi184335700e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.12.SDTV.[7FC3069A].avieed6:lengthi184331572e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.05.SDTV.[F8B47B8B].avieed6:lengthi184331480e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.14.SDTV.[3D3C3836].avieed6:lengthi184330230e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.08.SDTV.[D20B2D0D].avieed6:lengthi184329620e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.22.SDTV.[BB95F8D5].avieed6:lengthi184326866e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.17.SDTV.[8DE15158].avieed6:lengthi184324468e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.10.SDTV.[A9B1881F].avieed6:lengthi184323478e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.19.SDTV.[53EA5715].avieed6:lengthi184323388e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.18.SDTV.[F6C6C5E9].avieed6:lengthi184309688e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.23.SDTV.[8D4C30AB].avieed6:lengthi183882532e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.24.SDTV.[64027CB7].avieed6:lengthi183295602e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.03.SDTV.[F1ED4BF6].avieed6:lengthi183275772e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.02.SDTV.[687184E2].avieed6:lengthi47e4:pathl4:Torrent_downloaded_from_Demonoid.com.txteee4:name24:Valkyria Chronicles 1-2612:piece lengthi4194304e6:pieces23100:?G6@r!ĸ;FLAEFnOPb?/PR68M=Hr

now I don't see ANY illegal content there whatsoever.. do you?

(anybody with a bit of nous could use that to get at the torrent.. so I took a couple of characters out along the line so it won't work)

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Jan 2010 @ 12:41

178.1.2010 12:42

Originally posted by scum101:
No it isn't.. it's nothing like it at all!! ,, a .torrent file is a text file with some numbers in it and a tracker url.. nothing illegal there.

just so you know.. THIS is a REAL LIVE torrent file..

d8:announce41:http://inferno.demonoid.com:3390/announce10:created by13:uTorrent/185013:creation datei1262830653e8:encoding5:UTF-84:infod5:filesld6:lengthi224344570e4:pathl31:Valkyria_Chronicles_26-xvid.avieed6:lengthi194432984e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.06.SDTV.[9D9444AC].avieed6:lengthi185380554e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.01.SDTV.[E71C8072].avieed6:lengthi184366158e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.04.SDTV.[6871677C].avieed6:lengthi184355900e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.13.SDTV.[380456BB].avieed6:lengthi184354836e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.21.SDTV.[600AF79E].avieed6:lengthi184351854e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.25.SDTV.[9BCEA030].avieed6:lengthi184349400e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.20.SDTV.[814475BE].avieed6:lengthi184347900e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.09.SDTV.[DC3E4471].avieed6:lengthi184347086e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.07.SDTV.[3B632BB2].avieed6:lengthi184340480e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.11.SDTV.[0A7034B1].avieed6:lengthi184339690e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.16.SDTV.[B07259E3].avieed6:lengthi184338528e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.15.SDTV.[8125AA29].avieed6:lengthi184335700e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.12.SDTV.[7FC3069A].avieed6:lengthi184331572e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.05.SDTV.[F8B47B8B].avieed6:lengthi184331480e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.14.SDTV.[3D3C3836].avieed6:lengthi184330230e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.08.SDTV.[D20B2D0D].avieed6:lengthi184329620e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.22.SDTV.[BB95F8D5].avieed6:lengthi184326866e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.17.SDTV.[8DE15158].avieed6:lengthi184324468e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.10.SDTV.[A9B1881F].avieed6:lengthi184323478e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.19.SDTV.[53EA5715].avieed6:lengthi184323388e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.18.SDTV.[F6C6C5E9].avieed6:lengthi184309688e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.23.SDTV.[8D4C30AB].avieed6:lengthi183882532e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.24.SDTV.[64027CB7].avieed6:lengthi183295602e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.03.SDTV.[F1ED4BF6].avieed6:lengthi183275772e4:pathl57:[twrev-Doremi].Valkyria.Chronicles.02.SDTV.[687184E2].avieed6:lengthi47e4:pathl40:Torrent_downloaded_from_Demonoid.com.txteee4:name24:Valkyria Chronicles 1-2612:piece lengthi4194304e6:pieces23100:?G6@r!ĸ;FLAEFnOPb?/PR68M=Hr

now I don't see ANY illegal content there whatsoever.. do you?
So rape is not rape because I say so,*sigh* what ever...snaking the system only makes more snake oil.....

The probly you and most miss is the file gets you the unlicensed media and because of that its distribution and needs to fall under rules and regs of copy right...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Jan 2010 @ 12:43

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

188.1.2010 12:50
scum101
Inactive

The only people (to use your words) snaking the system.. are the mpaa and the bpi and the other scum bringing a prosecution at public expense against somebody when the police and other state bodies didn't think there was anything illegal to answer.

I give you $10 to buy beer and you spend it on crack.. that may piss me off slightly but it's your choice.. If you senty it on beer I might decide to give you $10 another time.. but as you didn't I won't give you any more... that's the way a "gift" works.. whatever amount of money this guy may or may not have had in his bank is totally immaterial.

NO copyright "infringement" has taken place under the definition of UK law.. that's why they are going after "conspiracy to defraud" .. but fraud by it's very nature means to illegally and with malicious intent deprive somebody of something they own. In this case there are 2 defendants and as I remember that is only a plot or a plan, not a conspiracy which needs minimum of 3 separate individuals.

The last point.. the crown prosecution service and the police did not think there was any criminal charges to answer.. or like the dvd burners in Bolton they would have been arrested and taken to trial by the state.. No.. this is about greed from the cartel again who win or lose will get all their costs paid for by the tax payers... It's a frivolous and malicious prosecution of a person who has broken no law.

As for that crap about "the torrent file gets you the film so it's copyright infringement" .. errrr.. NO .. the file in itself infringes nothing at all.. it is the property of the person who generated the file and exists as a piece of ip in it's own right. It does not even belong to the owner of the site it is hosted on.. it remains the property of whoever generated and uploaded it.

As has been proved again and again.. even in TPB trial.. no files were directly hosted.. so no copyright infringement (what they were originally charged with) could have possibly taken place.. that;'s why they have moved the goalposts and are now trying to make out that some theft from an imaginary sales figure (not proven.. and can't be proven) has occurred or was planned.

There has been no theft.. there has been no direct profit from the material itself .. nobody has been deprived of anything tangible.. do you have a point Zip?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Jan 2010 @ 13:00

198.1.2010 13:45

Originally posted by scum101:
The only people (to use your words) snaking the system.. are the mpaa and the bpi and the other scum bringing a prosecution at public expense against somebody when the police and other state bodies didn't think there was anything illegal to answer.

I give you $10 to buy beer and you spend it on crack.. that may piss me off slightly but it's your choice.. If you senty it on beer I might decide to give you $10 another time.. but as you didn't I won't give you any more... that's the way a "gift" works.. whatever amount of money this guy may or may not have had in his bank is totally immaterial.

NO copyright "infringement" has taken place under the definition of UK law.. that's why they are going after "conspiracy to defraud" .. but fraud by it's very nature means to illegally and with malicious intent deprive somebody of something they own. In this case there are 2 defendants and as I remember that is only a plot or a plan, not a conspiracy which needs minimum of 3 separate individuals.

The last point.. the crown prosecution service and the police did not think there was any criminal charges to answer.. or like the dvd burners in Bolton they would have been arrested and taken to trial by the state.. No.. this is about greed from the cartel again who win or lose will get all their costs paid for by the tax payers... It's a frivolous and malicious prosecution of a person who has broken no law.

As for that crap about "the torrent file gets you the film so it's copyright infringement" .. errrr.. NO .. the file in itself infringes nothing at all.. it is the property of the person who generated the file and exists as a piece of ip in it's own right. It does not even belong to the owner of the site it is hosted on.. it remains the property of whoever generated and uploaded it.

As has been proved again and again.. even in TPB trial.. no files were directly hosted.. so no copyright infringement (what they were originally charged with) could have possibly taken place.. that;'s why they have moved the goalposts and are now trying to make out that some theft from an imaginary sales figure (not proven.. and can't be proven) has occurred or was planned.

There has been no theft.. there has been no direct profit from the material itself .. nobody has been deprived of anything tangible.. do you have a point Zip?
Yes my point is by drawing money out of the market via the trade of unlicensed media is bad for all.

Loopholes dears its why politicians and corporations are are hated, you are simply skating on semantics that if copy right was properly handled and updated would have taken into account 20 years ago.

Yes its a monopoly but as a single business industry it has a right to be but not at the cost of trading and lending that dose no harm, that is my point while yours is "I like my illogical and unreasonable loophole and don't want share" all the while the industry is tightening up and the middle of the argument is vanishing because both sides are to greedy to care..

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

208.1.2010 23:59

Quote:
Yes my point is by drawing money out of the market via the trade of unlicensed media is bad for all.

Loopholes dears its why politicians and corporations are are hated, you are simply skating on semantics that if copy right was properly handled and updated would have taken into account 20 years ago.

Yes its a monopoly but as a single business industry it has a right to be but not at the cost of trading and lending that dose no harm, that is my point while yours is "I like my illogical and unreasonable loophole and don't want share" all the while the industry is tightening up and the middle of the argument is vanishing because both sides are to greedy to care..
You are assuming that there was a profit made. There are companies like Akamai that do almost nothing but host other people's software, updates, documents, etc... No one seems to care that these people make money by hosting and indexing files. The only difference is that Akamai also hosts pirated code for companies like Microsoft.

219.1.2010 1:26

Quote:
Quote:
Yes my point is by drawing money out of the market via the trade of unlicensed media is bad for all.

Loopholes dears its why politicians and corporations are are hated, you are simply skating on semantics that if copy right was properly handled and updated would have taken into account 20 years ago.

Yes its a monopoly but as a single business industry it has a right to be but not at the cost of trading and lending that dose no harm, that is my point while yours is "I like my illogical and unreasonable loophole and don't want share" all the while the industry is tightening up and the middle of the argument is vanishing because both sides are to greedy to care..
You are assuming that there was a profit made. There are companies like Akamai that do almost nothing but host other people's software, updates, documents, etc... No one seems to care that these people make money by hosting and indexing files. The only difference is that Akamai also hosts pirated code for companies like Microsoft.
Profit is a rather vague trem(especially when used in these cases), and I should use it less. Sorry but drawing money out of the market environment in order to trade files is the same as selling them. And they are doing it without a license thus are in contempt. There is no hiding from that without the items in question there would be no need to spend money because the sites would not generate interest. Everything is hinged upon licensed goods and the only way to be fully untouched IMO by it is to pay for it out of pocket that or to a lesser degree with approval of the CP owners.

Copy right should care what is made from CP'd items, if its not using outside funding then its not making money,IMO if its not making money(or trying to make money) then it can never infringe.

This is the line I have drawn with logic and reason, some think CP owners have the right to do ANYTHING with the CP and to that I disagree, a law that prevents copy protection circumvention and archiving or backing up is unreasonable is not illogical as many will scoff at it and do what they need to that under less ...er... "controlled" times they would do with a second thought from anyone but the white line chasing members of the industry. Tho when it comes to changing data on severs that is hacking and thus something that needs to be dealt with harshly. Even so top box hacking is unproblematic to me the technology itself will weed out the problem you can't just ban blank devices under vague and unreasonable trems same for mod chips. THo you can scurry after the sites that distribute licensed code for all the good it will do you.

I will go even further and say current methods of licensing are woefully inadequate for the times, the CP owners should be saleing CP'd items to anyone willing to sale them and take 60% of the sale price off the top, ensure messing around with the cut will garner them fines and put them put of business but with the wealth of the net and electronic banking this is truly a no brainier, you don;t need copy protection and stagnate burdensome monopolies when half of your consumer base is trying to sale your wares in order to make themselves money legally..... but I guess its what humans do lowest common denominator, the easy path is through the loops.... impatient and intolerable children them all.....*sigh*

229.1.2010 16:05

so basically their stating that they have made no money and the money that has been made was used for the upkeep and maintenance.

239.1.2010 17:26

Originally posted by borhan9:
so basically their stating that they have made no money and the money that has been made was used for the upkeep and maintenance.
Pretty much but there is a slow and unmovable theme being set that all that matters is you distributed stuff and they have the money to destroy you...er... :P

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive