OINK

gutted

oh and ne invites to tipple is it, or anything similar, pm me :) !

everyon;s shitting themselve. sort of state terror without the bombs.

shit man i hope the guy's not facing prison. fair dos i mean if he was doing it gratis [i don't know] he's a fuckin hero in my book.

This looks pretty serious, and there's been loads of misinformation/shit journalism already.

Shit, when did tv-links go down? Was that linked to the oink raid or something?

Always preferred Joy Division.

I'll get my jacket.

Ah now be fair, sometimes they phone up the police for a comment as well.

basically for there to be a crime under the law the cops are quoting, he either has to have run the site for personal gain or with intent to cause others loss. The latter would be awkward, because research has shown the most prolific users of p2p also tend to be the most prolific gig-goers (which supports artists way more than royalties), and the spurious argument that if you download 100 albums you've cost them 100 albums sales would probably fall apart in court (iirc they've used this to caluculate compensation when suing random children's parents).

hence the cops have to spread lies that OiNK was a lucrative subscription-only site etc. And the guy who ran it looke a lot like Hussain Osman and his jacket had wires coming out of it (which probably contained pirated music!!!).

They obviously know that this is bullshit because they're now taliking about criminalising file sharing per se to get around the 'personal gain/intent to cause loss' requirement (i.e. they don't want to prove there's a victim, since juries might not lock people up for allegedly hurting the profits of multinationals - since many jurors might well use p2p, themselves, or watch premiership highlights on youtube or whatever).

that would seem to make sense yeah. could even say any surplus would be given away (to a defense fund perhaps?).

the way the law works they could still try the 'intent to cause loss to another' one. there's something called oblique intent, like say you try and assasinate someone with a sniper rifle, and they step behind a window. you intend to kill them, but don't give a shit about the window, the law would still say you intended (obliquely) to break the window (if they wanted to charge you with criminal damages as well as murder like). but like i say it's a potential minefield because they'd actually have to first establish and quantify the supposed loss , then convince a jury it's a bad thing - not a given since everyone hates profiteers. thus they paint the priate as the profiteer, and the music industry as benevolents looking out for their artists welfare.

bit of a tangent: radiohead released their new album as a download recently on a 'name your price' basis (£0-£whatever), falsifying the homo economicus thesis, suggesting the obsolescence of much of the music industry and probably making more per unit than royalties anyway. not one of their best records though.

is it legal to sack someone for being arrested? (innocent until proven guilty and that...)

of course if he used work time/resources to run the site they'd probably have him on gross misconduct. police raided his work although possibly just to fuck him up (with animal rights people apparently they've phoned up employers and said 'so-and-so's an eco-terrorist').

yeah ok. it is disrepute i guess, a pirate working for a media corp... has anyone seen any support stuff yet? i'd bung him a tenner

yeah makes sense. and he's already loaded from that lucrative subscription-only scam he's been running right?

yeah i'd bung that cunt a tenner as well

hey bung a link on here if it goes up.

Are there legal defence funds for this kind of thing? It's pretty terrifying and EVERYONE is potentially affected by it. Could be the basis for a popular challenge to capital in our age.