Court Finally Declares Oink Admin Not Guilty of Fraud
OiNk Founder Set Free by UK Court
Back in 2008 we brought to your attention the fall of the file sharing site OiNK and the arrest of its founder, 24-year old (at that time) Middlesbrough-based IT worker Alan Ellis.
The case was back in the news this week as Allan Ellis was recently acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to defraud following the unanimous verdict of a jury at Teeside Crown Court. The surprising decision led to a wave of discontent among U.K. officials involved in clearing piracy in the music industry.
The software engineer from Middlesbrough was brought to court after illegally using copyrighted musical material to obtain profit via the P2P site he owned. With over 21 million downloads reportedly promoted by the site he operated, Ellis was accused of making profits of $18,000 a month following donations from the 200,000 users registered in the database.
Allan Ellis had been operating the BitTorrent tracker in his own home for three years, when a police raid discovered him and shut down his P2P site back in 2007. Further police investigation also revealed the existence of almost $300,000 in his bank accounts. Ellis explained that he intended to use the money for rental of a server and eventually to invest in one of his own. No longer able to run the P2P site on his home computer, the defendant decided to move on to a commercial server in Amsterdam, later that year. This step would also guarantee him a substantial amount of traffic.
When brought to trial, Ellis, who worked as a full-time software engineer, denied any intention to defraud copyright holders and described the Oink project as simply a hobby. The defendant added that by operating the BitTorrent tracker, which he set up while he was a student at Teeside University, he only intended to perfect his programming skills.
Ellis’s arguments were seemingly enough to convince the court of his innocence. On January 15, the jury unanimously absolved him of the single charge of conspiracy to defraud after only one week of trial.
U.K. anti-piracy officials expressed their disappointment on the verdict, arguing that the court did not treat the case with the importance it deserved, pointing out that the defendant earned nearly £200,000 by illegally exploiting other people’s work. Spokespersons for the U.K. trade body also appeared concerned that artists and music companies currently do not receive the level of protection required.
