BT Rep: +15
In other words he indeed is a thief earning money from running a bittorrent website. And please don't talk crap that he needed it all for servers.During the trial, which lasted seven days, it was heard that Mr Ellis received $18,000 (£11,000) a month in donations from people using his website.
Thief same as Feeling and many others who you blind people respect so much and donate their mafia sites.
Poster
If he had been pocketing money from the site the trial would have taken a very different turn.Originally Posted by ashford
Poster
BT Rep: +1
It's quite simple. No one forces you to donate. If you're worried about where your money will end up, don't.
Anyway it's great that this worked out for him in the end. Would have been a sad day to see him prosecuted, though that's sort of what I expected to happen.
There's one thing that eludes me - why was he tried in the UK provided his operation (server infrastructure) has been located in the Netherlands? Makes much more sense to me if charges were brought against him under Dutch jurisdiction?!
BT Rep: +2
great news
.
https://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-gen...-guilty-387891
But I guess this is the version that can be linked to from FST's portal.
Good news indeed.
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
Poster
BT Rep: +30
great news
http://oink.cd/
RASPBERRY RIPPLE
BT Rep: +19
/me raises hook and fires cannon in celebration of our victory! Now off to drink me rum...
BT Rep: +7
While this is good news for him, I think it is hardly a victory for the bittorrent community.
The charge of conspiracy to defraud is a difficult one to succeed on for a variety of reasons. Applying it to running a tracker is a real stretch. The conspiracy part alone is difficult, but the fundamental element of fraud is intent. Proving that he actually intended and purposely caused economic loss to the copyright holders is difficult. These are charges that are easier to defend in other contexts (financial and drug related matters) so in this case, I'm not surprised to see the not guilty verdict.
Why did they charge him with that instead of copyright claims? I'm not sure, but I have a feeling they were trying to impose a harsher punishment than would be otherwise available. Also, indirect or secondary copyright claims (facilitating copyright infringement by offering a website is different than actually hosting them) are a bit harder to prove and does not carry a real heavy penalty. Fraud generally offers trebled (tripled) financial damages and of course jail time.
The jurisdictional issue when it comes to the internet is an interesting matter. Hypothetically, you could be subject to jurisdiction anywhere that the website is accessible. But usually it requires more interaction with the citizens of that jurisdiction (maybe just a specific transaction with one of them).
In the case of Oink, the Dutch would have jurisdiction over the servers, so shutting them down or removing them from the datacenter or whatever would have to be done in compliance with Dutch law. But operating the site from the UK would still make you liable despite where the servers are hosted. People worry about where sites are hosted because they are concerned about the servers being seized. The actions taken remotely to control the servers are still going to be an issue.
In fact, with copyright claims from various countries, this guy could have been charged in the US or Spain or Sweden or wherever the copyright holders are. The problem is serving him and getting jurisdiction over his person, which basically has to be done when he steps into the jurisdiction. But that's easy to do while he is at home in the UK.
Last edited by TrollinThunder; 01-15-2010 at 07:17 PM.
.ıllılı.ıl.lı.
BT Rep: +25
18k $ per month on 2007 , it would be 30k$ in 2009
so running a site and get all that money lol and brandon ask for 50$ (oh its a charity action lol) , c'mon guy's
Vectoral FTW!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks