IFPI decide to continue pursuing Oink

Having seen a massive pile of public cash be burned through investigating Oink, only for the case to end in no convictions, the IFPI has now decided to spend its own money instead.

John Kennedy is insisting the fight "will go on", although given that so far, "the fight" has been a publicly-funded legal process, what he means is that the fight will now start.

Kennedy said that the IFPI would consider civil proceedings against Ellis in order to recover the costs.

If they do win any money back, perhaps they might like consider passing it to the police to cover the money they wasted pursuing the case in the first place.

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 If EMI and Warners want to piss away their own money trying to shore up an outdated business model, that's their choice.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.

Cops are music thieves

The Cleveland Police were the boys in blue who went in to arrest those allegedly responsible for the Oink file sharing website. Now, though, it turns out the same force (in common with most of the UK's squads) have been been enjoying public performance of music without a PRS licence.

The cops aren't, of course, admitting they've been banged to rights:

Cleveland Police Deputy Chief Constable Derek Bonnard said: “We continue to assess the position and are seeking advice to determine if we are required by law to spend a significant amount of public money, which we consider is better committed to crime fighting, in this way.”

Yes, public money might be better spent on fighting actual crimes rather than propping up private entertainment companies. Although the same could be said about burning through large piles of public money pursuing people swapping music online, don't you think, Mr. Bonnard?

Reznor: We are the pigs

Amongst the evil, evil music-hating users of the OInK filesharing network - and, indeed, outing himself as a user - is one Trent Reznor:

I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great.

It's a fair point: who isn't tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up? Perhaps Steve Jobs should be looking at inviting people to create an iTunes store front that feels more like, say, a Fopp than a Zavvi. At the very least.

[Thanks to Michael M for the link]

Sniffing around OiNK: what now?

There's a curious attempt to sound reassuring in OiNK arrestee Alan Ellis' interview with ZeroPaid:

the logs we store aren't enough to incriminate users

This, of course, is the same Ellis who told the Telegraph that he didn't believe OiNK did anything illegal in the first place.

Now, obviously providing the means with which people can commit a crime is distinct from being involved in the crime, but it's still perhaps unwise to suggest that your users were behaving criminally.

Elsewhere, the Idolator has spoken to copyright lawyers, who shake their heads and warn that - had you been using OiNK, you should be very worried indeed:

As far as money goes, remember that "commercial advantage or private financial gain" can include the benefits of barter and the like. So the fact that, in your [description of OiNK's ratio rules], "they had to assist in infringement in order to keep infringing" might be enough.

The Idolator's brief then speculates that, should there be any action in the US, it'll take the form of RIAA moving through civil courts rather than criminal prosecutions of OiNK users; of course, the RIAA might well be happy enough with the cyber-freaking being bred in the vacuum of knowledge about what happens next to actually bother throwing money after brining real actions.

If they've learned anything from their filesharing prosecution adventures, the RIAA should know that they're more effective when people don't know what the labels might do, rather than when they show their hand and demonstrate how short their arms actually are.

Oink man squeals

Alan Ellis, the IT expert arrested at the behest of the record labels, has turned up - somewhat surprisingly - in the Daily Telegraph defending his OiNK operation:

“I haven’t done anything wrong. I don’t believe my website breaks the law. They don’t understand how it works.

"The website is very different from how the police are making it out to be. There is no music sold on the site - I am doing nothing wrong.

"When I set up the site I didn’t think I was doing anything illegal and I still don’t. There are 180,000 users and there has been an outcry about what has happened to me.

"People who download music also buy CDs as well. A lot of people download music on the internet to get a taste of it and then later buy the CD.

"But I don’t sell music to people, I just direct them to it. If somebody wants to illegally download music they are going to do it whether my site is there or not.

"If this goes to court it is going to set a huge precedent. It will change the internet as we know it.

"As far as I am aware no-one in Britain has ever been taken to court for running a website like mine. My site is no different to something like Google.

"If Google directed someone to a site they can illegally download music they are doing the same as what I have been accused of. I am not making any Oink users break the law. People don’t pay to use the site.”

Of course, while all this may be true - subject to court opinion - the key question is if Ellis was making cash off the site; on this question, he chose to keep quiet. I suspect he might need to start building a more robust defence of his activities than claiming to be a bit "like Google" if he was making money as an introduction service, especially if reports that membership of the service was predicated on sharing music files with other users are accurate.

Oink drops its bacon sandwich

In what the IFPI-RIAA is claiming as a major victory, and what others are saying "they've shut the what?", the operator of alleged file-sharing site OiNK has been arrested:

A Cleveland Police spokesman said: "This extremely lucrative and creative scheme consisted of a private file-sharing website being set up. Membership was by invitation only.

"The site allowed the uploading and downloading of pre-release music and media to thousands of members.

"Members paid 'donations' via debit or credit cards, ensuring their continued access to the site."

The arrests took place in Teesside, following a raid on the servers in the Netherlands. IFPI spokespeople claim the site was responsible for "the leaking" of 60 pre-release albums this year:

They were encouraged to distribute recordings in the torrent file format with other OiNK members, and have to keep posting such music to the site to maintain their membership.

"Once an album had been posted on the OiNK website, the users that download that music then passed the content to other websites, forums and blogs, where multiple copies were made.

"Within a few hours of a popular pre-release track being posted on the OiNK site, hundreds of copies can be found further down the illegal online supply chain."

Although, really, it doesn't offer any evidence that OiNK was the point where these albums entered the internet; it seems likely it was just a clearing house that attracted more savvy users who reshared releases found elsewhere.