Tribunal jobs, police charge file-sharer
Fancy a new (part-time) job?
The Judicial Appointments Commission has announced that it will be starting selection exercises in October for a Fee Paid Deputy Chair for the Copyright Tribunal and an Appointed Person for the Trade Marks 'Tribunal'.
File-sharing supremo charged
The Guardian reports that Alan Ellis, the founder and administrator of the 'Oink' file-sharing network has been charged with conspiracy to defraud by Cleveland (in the UK, not Ohio)
Police. Four people who uploaded on to the site have been charged with copyright infringement. The site did not actually make the music available, but was instead a 'torrent tracker', which told users (who numbered 200,000) which other users had what material to download. The site was free, with revenue only coming from occasional donations.
The IPKat is intrigued by the nature of the charge against Mr Ellis. Is this a tacit admission that secondary infringement wouldn't work here, or is there some difference in possible sentence that the IPKat isn't aware of? And who is the conspiracy between - the users of the site and Mr Ellis, or is it a bit more intimate?
The Judicial Appointments Commission has announced that it will be starting selection exercises in October for a Fee Paid Deputy Chair for the Copyright Tribunal and an Appointed Person for the Trade Marks 'Tribunal'.
File-sharing supremo charged
The Guardian reports that Alan Ellis, the founder and administrator of the 'Oink' file-sharing network has been charged with conspiracy to defraud by Cleveland (in the UK, not Ohio)
Police. Four people who uploaded on to the site have been charged with copyright infringement. The site did not actually make the music available, but was instead a 'torrent tracker', which told users (who numbered 200,000) which other users had what material to download. The site was free, with revenue only coming from occasional donations.Use Oink? Me? Never!
The IPKat is intrigued by the nature of the charge against Mr Ellis. Is this a tacit admission that secondary infringement wouldn't work here, or is there some difference in possible sentence that the IPKat isn't aware of? And who is the conspiracy between - the users of the site and Mr Ellis, or is it a bit more intimate?