I’m all for alleged OiNK founder Alan Ellis’ freedom from prosecution and cult hero status, but someone needs to help this dude out with his analogies.
Ellis told The Telegraph he shouldn’t be in trouble because his site doesn’t sell music to people, he just directs them to it. Here’s some specious reasoning:
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.
Yeah, and the companies that sell assault weapons and chemical components to terrorists aren’t doing anything illegal either, because they’re not weapons until they’re used by the terrorists. I’m tired of tawdry excuses and incessant rationalization — if Ellis is gearing up for a court battle that will “set a huge precedent” and “change the Internet as we know it,” then he should know that proposed defense holds no water and it’ll be punched with more holes than the walls in GOB Bluth’s office, post-pool table. See, Alan, that analogy sucked, too.
2 Responses
Well said. Their defense is an ethical sinkhole. And the ‘tv sitcom sites’ actually ask for donations… please. Found this:
http://www.cdfeed.com/oink-death.jpg
probably won’t be Dugg by any of the sheeple over there.
if the prosecution have such an easy job of ‘poking holes’ in the defense, then why do they keep taking extensions out. do your realize how long they have extended it.
if you think downloading music has a close relation to terrorism.. you should see a psychiatrist for that nervous disorder.
Maybe, when your iPod tells you to jump into traffic consider it ,it is the reason the Darwin award was created.
Ps, I’m pretty sure your picture of Alan Ellis is incorrect