CPS says copyright violations 'civil, not criminal'

It came a little late in the process, but the Crown Prosecution Service have dropped a case against two men accused of running a film 'piracy' website in Bristol. The Telegraph says:

The Crown Prosecution Service told Bristol Crown Court today it would not proceed with the trial following legal advice that the alleged copyright infringements were a civil rather than a criminal matter, a spokeswoman for Avon and Somerset Police said. Not guilty verdicts were recorded.

It appears the CPS had not really bothered to do much research into the case, relying instead on "facts" given to them by FACT, the Federation Against Copyright "Theft"; when they eventually looked closely they realised that criminal action was "neither necessary nor appropriate."

No word yet on how much public money has been wasted on a case designed to protect a few private interests; hopefully, though, this will be the last case of its sort.

However awful Jan Moir might be, she's not criminal

The Channel 4 Newsroom Twitterfeed has just published this:

Jan Moir's Daily Mail newspaper column about Stephen #Gately's death offended some readers but did not break the law - CPS ruling.

Which seems to be a fair ruling, and does make you wonder why public funds were spent considering the bleeding obvious. She's a homophobic affront to public decency, but if that was a crime... well, actually, the idea of Moir being shut in a cell refusing to watch the television and spitting in her own food to try and stop herself from feeling like she was in a holiday camp is an appealing one. But only a fantasy.

Alan Ellis: Oink man not guilty

The not guilty verdict in the case of Alan Ellis, found not guilty of conspiracy to defraud in charges relating from his Oink website, isn't entirely comforting news for the music industry.

The Crown Prosecution Service and the Police are also trying to put a brave face on things:

Chief Superintendent Mark Braithwaite, head of crime operations for Cleveland Police, said: "This has been a fair investigation.

"The jury has been presented with all the evidence and we abide by their decision."

The Crown Prosecution Service defended the decision to prosecute Mr Ellis.

"We believe we were wholly right to bring the prosecution against Mr Ellis and that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that evidence was put before the jury," a spokesman said.

Perhaps someone should be asking why the public purse was funding this case, and not the copyright industry. This seems to be the sort of thing that civil courts are set up for. If EMI and Warners want to piss away their own money trying to shore up an outdated business model, that's their choice. At a time when public spending is facing a big squeeze, I don't see that the State should be joining in the cash-pissing.

Non-pornographic image "still not porn" - official

The Crown Prosecution Service have sighed a deep sigh and explained, patiently, that - since Elton John's Nan Goldin wasn't indecent in 2001, it wouldn't be indecent in 2007, either.

Kerrie Bell, head of the CPS Northumbria South Unit, said:

"Even if the photograph was now considered to be indecent, a defendant would be able to raise a legitimate defence, given that the photograph was distributed for the purposes of display in a contemporary art gallery after having been deemed not to be indecent by the earlier investigation.

"Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to justify proceedings for offences of possession or distribution of an indecent photograph."

It is, of course, cheering to discover there's so little real crime in Nothumbria that the police have time to go round raiding art galleries displaying pictures that have previously been declared fine by the CPS.