OiNK BitTorrent admin faces fraud prosecution

Cleveland police have charged Alan Ellis, the former administrator of the defunct BitTorrent tracker site OiNK.cd, with conspiracy to defraud the record industry. Ellis, a 25-year-old IT worker, will face magistrates at a committal hearing on 24 September, a police spokeswoman said today. Five individuals who were arrested in June for uploading music torrents to OiNK will also appear to answer charges of criminal copyright infringement.

All the alleged offences could carry prison sentences. The charges follow a lengthy investigation code-named "Operation Ark Royal". Ellis was arrested in October 2007 in a raid on his Middlesbrough home. Coordinated raids by Dutch authorities seized the servers that hosted OiNK.

View: The full story @ The Reg

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

E-Mail Addiction: Five Signs You Need Help

Next Story

HP first to raise PC prices

35 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The RIAA is supposed to protect the rights of it's members, I.E. the record labels, and therefore, the artists themselves.
However, even after all the fines and prosecutions the RIAA has recently taken part in, it has still NOT PAID A SINGLE PENNY TO IT'S "MEMBERS".
So, by the argument of everyone on here who is anti-free, does that mean that the RIAA itself has stolen money from the record industry it is apprantly protecting?
Afterall, your argument seems to imply that by copying a file, you are stealing it as it creates "virtual lost income" or something along those lines.
Well, the RIAA has created a way of earning itself money off the back of these copyright infringements...
hmmm....
sure sounds A HECK of a lot like the same thing don't it?
Only worse... cos the RIAA is actually making money from this... and not just enjoying a good piece of music...

So ask yourselves... who is the most evil minded here?

(Compist said @ #6)
The RIAA is supposed to protect the rights of it's members, I.E. the record labels, and therefore, the artists themselves.
However, even after all the fines and prosecutions the RIAA has recently taken part in, it has still NOT PAID A SINGLE PENNY TO IT'S "MEMBERS".
So, by the argument of everyone on here who is anti-free, does that mean that the RIAA itself has stolen money from the record industry it is apprantly protecting?[...]

No. Normal people care about the law, not right or wrong. Right and wrong fluctuate too much for a regular person to keep up, so they decide the lawmakers know what they're doing and if somebody is in trouble they damn well deserve it.

I'm glad you did some research.

"If the law supposes that, the law is an ass. [sic] and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience; by my experience." - CHARLES DICKENS; Oliver Twist

(Eis said @ #6.1)
(Compist said @ #6)
The RIAA is supposed to protect the rights of it's members, I.E. the record labels, and therefore, the artists themselves.
However, even after all the fines and prosecutions the RIAA has recently taken part in, it has still NOT PAID A SINGLE PENNY TO IT'S "MEMBERS".
So, by the argument of everyone on here who is anti-free, does that mean that the RIAA itself has stolen money from the record industry it is apprantly protecting?[...]

No. Normal people care about the law, not right or wrong. Right and wrong fluctuate too much for a regular person to keep up, so they decide the lawmakers know what they're doing and if somebody is in trouble they damn well deserve it.

I'm glad you did some research.

Thank you. I like to make sure that I look into matters before I comment on them.
However, people here seem to be confusing the RIAA and law...
The RIAA is a COMMERCIAL organisation. It is merely a "middle man" between the record companies and the legal system.
Not that I have major confidence in the legal system of the USA, but that's another irrelavant point...
My point here is why should the RIAA be allowed to profit from this?
Let's be honest, the record companies are trying to "wage a virtual war against piracy". So how come the RIAA is on virtual charges for profitiering?
Before people comment about this, I am being metaphoric...
But hopefully you can see my point.
I would far more confident with the RIAA if it wasn't, clearly, nothing but a greedy company out to make a quick buck from a growing problem.
Yes, from the point of the law, these individuals need to be stopped from sending out free music and software... etc etc... blah blah blah... but then the only fair, and to mind, legal way of doing this, is to make sure that the copyright holders THEMSELVES are rewarded with the money gained from the trial?
Just a thought.
Perhaps someone with more legal expertise than me could look into whether the RIAA itself is actually breaking the law by failing to uphold it's contract with the record companies in someway?

-

O, and in repsonse to the comment about right and wrong not being valid in this argument in someway (or at least that's what it implied), check the hands that you typed that comment with. Look in a mirror. Listen to the thoughts in your head. You're HUMAN, certainly? No human ignores the call of right and wrong for simply following the law blindly. It's simply something our thought process won't do. We can act to obey the law, but we can't ignore our own thoughts and opinions forming on a subject.
And besides, last time I checked, the law was created as a safe way to ensure that morally correct values of right and wrong were adhered to. In fact, the whole point of a legal system, is to make sure everything is in someway, fair, as everyone is judged by the same system, correct? Now, fair, last time I checked, has a lot in common with what's right.

When piracy sites offer better quality digital music, faster speeds and better choice you really have to ask yourself how much of the blame lies on the music industry itself.

I think digital music being free has now been engrained into an entire generation and there is no coming back.

(Munkyman said @ #4)
When piracy sites offer better quality digital music, faster speeds and better choice you really have to ask yourself how much of the blame lies on the music industry itself.

I think digital music being free has now been engrained into an entire generation and there is no coming back.

Don't forget that OINK didn't hose any of the music either. It wasn't just music on there either. Where is the information about the rest of the material?

Should the RIAA sue the internet for being anti-competitive with their business plan? It sounds like a logical move for them.

If you pirate some music you could get a lengthy sentence.

If you find a weakness in the security of an American security and defense website you get extradited and could get the chair.

You steal a car, whilst high on crack, which you had left over from dealing, then mow down a single mother on a zebra crossing killing her and her child, then cause copious amounts of damage on the highway, before being caught.

You will probably be let off with 100 hours community service.

Of course you will want 600 other offenses to be take into consideration.


So why is the council tax payers money being used to prop up a music industry which charges far too much for it's products as it is?

The council tax payers money should be used to remove criminals and criminal gangs for good from society.

(leesmithg said @ #3)
If you pirate some music you could get a lengthy sentence.

If you find a weakness in the security of an American security and defense website you get extradited and could get the chair.

You steal a car, whilst high on crack, which you had left over from dealing, then mow down a single mother on a zebra crossing killing her and her child, then cause copious amounts of damage on the highway, before being caught.

You will probably be let off with 100 hours community service.

Of course you will want 600 other offenses to be take into consideration.


So why is the council tax payers money being used to prop up a music industry which charges far too much for it's products as it is?

The council tax payers money should be used to remove criminals and criminal gangs for good from society.


QFT
+1

"Cleveland police have charged Alan Ellis, the former administrator of the defunct BitTorrent tracker site OiNK.cd, with conspiracy to defraud the record industry."

Good. I was pretty sure the legal system was set up in such a way that if you are caught committing a crime then you are subject to the consequences. Let's see if that's really true.

Was a sad day when we lost OiNK. :'(

Nothing has managed to fill the gap if you ask me, even the two main attempts.

(DARKFiB3R said @ #1)
Was a sad day when we lost OiNK. :'(

Nothing has managed to fill the gap if you ask me, even the two main attempts.

depends what you want. the syrupy version is now better than OiNK for electronica IMHO. The other site have created gazelle, which is simply awesome. For me both sites have now surpassed OiNK in terms of content. I guess it depends on your needs.

The fact that Alan could go to prison for this simply absurd. This case will either accellerate the demise of the archaic music industry business model or pump more life into it. We can only hope its not the latter!

(ZombieFly said @ #1.1)
...
This case will either accellerate the demise of the archaic music industry business model or pump more life into it. We can only hope its not the latter!
And the model you prefer is...? Take whatever you want for free?

Infringing on music copyright is no different than software copyright. If one is trafficking in copies of MS Office and Windows, I would expect prosecution and enforcement of laws. If you are in the whole "it should all be free" thing, might I suggest BSD or Linux? ;)

Like it or not, copyrights need to be respected.

(markjensen said @ #1.2)
And the model you prefer is...? Take whatever you want for free?

Infringing on music copyright is no different than software copyright. If one is trafficking in copies of MS Office and Windows, I would expect prosecution and enforcement of laws. If you are in the whole "it should all be free" thing, might I suggest BSD or Linux? ;)

Like it or not, copyrights need to be respected.

some people used oink to find other music to listen to and to actually "try out" before buying, are you happy in paying £10/$20 for 10/15 tracks to later find out the 2 or 3 that made you buy the album are the only ones you like? things like that are what stopped me buying any more cds/movies/games. There is no legal way of sampling the cd/movie/game to see if you'll properly like it and think its worth the investment. Look at games like GTA4, sells by the bucket load because people know it'll be worth the cost, most of the music/movies/games coming out now isn't and people are not wasting their money anymore.

and do note, just because i don't buy music/movies/games doesnt mean i download them either!

"actually "try out" before buying" in other words, steal temporarily.

"There is no legal way of sampling the cd/movie/game" For music: Go to amazon.com and click on any track for a 30 sec. preview. Many other stores offer this. For movies, go to www.imdb.com and watch the trailer. If you still don't know, rent it first. For games, download a demo or rent it first.

But no, stealing (temporarily) is the ONLY WAY. Darn it we have no choice but to be criminals!!!

(Eis said @ #1.5)

Yes. Questions?

Go "try out" some product at your local grocery store and see if that flies.. not the people handing out samples, but open a carton of milk, drink half while dunking some oreos, then put the unused portions back on the shelf.

When grabbed for STEALING, just say you wanted to "sample" the product, and because 3 of the 15 oreos that you tried just didn't taste right, you decided not to purchase it. Or even better.. you thought they charged too much for it and decided against making the purchase.

Same thing with software and media. Either buy it, or suffer the consequenses.

Why are some people so obtuse when it comes to piracy?

(markjensen said @ #1.2)
And the model you prefer is...? Take whatever you want for free?

YAWN!.
ok, here goes again.
I've always purchased music, first it was vinyl, then cd, now electronic download or cd. Now, demand for cd's is falling, as people now have electronic devices that can be loaded with files. the cd is now a defunct medium for most people as if they buy one, they rip the music and store the cd away somewhere. The customer base now requires a modification to the distribution medium to allow them to purchase their music and put it direct onto their device of choice, therefore the music industry business model needs to move with the times. The userbase is already moving without them on sharing sites, so if they were smart they'd use this to their advantage and come up with a modern day solution that would benefit both the artist AND the consumer.

Personally, i try music. If it's something i want to buy then i buy it. I spend more now on music than i ever did. Nothing has changed in that respect.

Basically the users of file sharing sites can be split into 3 groups:

1. people who love music, appreciate what it takes to make the music and will happily pay for their music.
2. people who listen to music because it's there. If it isnt there, they'll either listen to the radio or borrow a cd from a friend and copy it. These people generally only receive music during Christmas or as a gift for a birthday etc, they rarely purchase.
3. People who are into music and purchase when they can, but also swap physical cd's and copy between their peers.

now, group 1 will continue to pay for music no matter where it comes from, typically their purchasing will stay the same or increase while using file sharing.

group 2 basically doesn't care. they may now download 2000 tracks a week illegally "because they can" however take the sites away and they will continue to borrow and copy.

group 3 may now continue to buy when they can or maybe they've become leeches. they download illegally and may/may not continue to buy.

the way I see it, the claims that there are millions of sales being lost due to file sharing is absurd. the majority of the public fit into group 2. if the sites disappear, they will stop downloading, they won't suddenly go out and start purchasing. So no lost sale there then. The majority of group 1 still purchase music, however they can now listen to it before they buy it and even pick individual tracks in some cases, so no lost sales there either. Then there's group 3. Yes, some people may now have stopped buying and just download for free, but some wont, so, some lost sales here but this figure will be nowhere near the lunacy that record labels are quoting.

your arguments are poor. This is more than just about respecting copyright. This has come about because the industry REFUSES to move with the times. If people see cottage industry labels selling music cheap on the net and splitting profit directly with the artist, why would they not expect the major labels to do this too? Copyright is owned in most cases by fat cat companies and NOT the musician. If more musicians allow purchase direct over the web and break free of their contracts, i see no reason why these illegal sites can't shift towards legality by allowing artists to release direct through their sites, with an option for people to donate should they feel it necessary. This is already happening, Benn Jordan @ what.cd for example.....

so there, that's the model i prefer. Now please go away and think about the situation, all other retail mechanisms have modified for the internet, why shouldn't the music industry follow suit? ..... because they've been extorting money from us for decades and they've become so reliant on their fat cat salaries that they just can't accept that they need to stop robbing both the public and worse, the artists. Everyone should STOP buying cd's from major labels and start buying product that rewards the artist directly, either buy official merchandise or go see them live, JUST STOP POURING MONEY INTO THE POCKETS OF MAJOR LABELS.

(Somnus said @ #1.7)

Go "try out" some product at your local grocery store and see if that flies.. not the people handing out samples, but open a carton of milk, drink half while dunking some oreos, then put the unused portions back on the shelf.

When grabbed for STEALING, just say you wanted to "sample" the product, and because 3 of the 15 oreos that you tried just didn't taste right, you decided not to purchase it. Or even better.. you thought they charged too much for it and decided against making the purchase.

Same thing with software and media. Either buy it, or suffer the consequenses.

Why are some people so obtuse when it comes to piracy?

Wouldn't work unless you went into the store and copied the oreos. Not a correct analogy at all not even close.

(Somnus said @ #1.7)
...
Go "try out" some product at your local grocery store and see if that flies.. not the people handing out samples, but open a carton of milk, drink half while dunking some oreos, then put the unused portions back on the shelf.
...
That is "theft", not "copyright infringement". Not the same. Even covered under different sets of laws: civil vs. criminal.

(ZombieFly said @ #1.8)
YAWN!.
ok, here goes again.
...
your arguments are poor. This is more than just about respecting copyright. This has come about because the industry REFUSES to move with the times.
...
Your argument for piracy amounts you "these people wouldn't buy it anyway"? And you think that this makes it right?

Then you state that my "arguments are poor". Did you even read my post? I presented that copyrights on music are equivalent to copyrights on programs. That is 100% accurate, not flawed in any way.

You say it is more than respecting copyright, and claim a moral fight against a corrupt music industry. You aren't in it for morals. You just want free music.

(markjensen said @ #1.10)
That is "theft", not "copyright infringement". Not the same. Even covered under different sets of laws: civil vs. criminal.

Both are theft. If you take something you never intended to purchase in the first place, whether music from a website or milk from a grocery store, it is theft. Both are criminal.

The basis of this story is that someone was _arrested_ criminal copyright infringement, not a civil matter. Civil matters are completely different. One doesn't get arrested in a civil lawsuit, even once a judgment is rendered. If that was the case, OJ Simpson would still be in jail until the judgment against him was fully paid.

(Somnus said @ #1.11)

Both are theft. If you take something you never intended to purchase in the first place, whether music from a website or milk from a grocery store, it is theft. Both are criminal.

The basis of this story is that someone was _arrested_ criminal copyright infringement, not a civil matter. Civil matters are completely different. One doesn't get arrested in a civil lawsuit, even once a judgment is rendered. If that was the case, OJ Simpson would still be in jail until the judgment against him was fully paid.

downloading copyrighted material is a civil case, downloading copyrighted material and then selling for money is a criminal case, so the oink case is a civil case

(Somnus said @ #1.11)

Both are theft. If you take something you never intended to purchase in the first place, whether music from a website or milk from a grocery store, it is theft. Both are criminal.

Let me be very direct here: WRONG

Theft involves taking of goods or items. It removes it from the ability of others to use. It is property.

Copyright infringement is ripping copies of CDs/DVDs. Making copies of a professional photographer's photos. There is no loss of property. No criminal act.

Please, please, read up on this and learn a bit more. Repeating a wrong statement doesn't suddenly make it truthful and right.


EDIT: I have heeded my own advice and found that there are, indeed, provisions for criminal prosecution under law, for cases of large-scale infringement that generally (but not necessarily) results in financial gain, and/or dealing with commercial products that are used by companies that depend on legal sales for personal gain.

I can admit I was wrong in saying that it is never a criminal matter, if you can meet me half-way and admit that you were wrong saying infringement is theft. Consider an olive branch to be extended.

(markjensen said @ #1.13)
Let me be very direct here: WRONG

Theft involves taking of goods or items. It removes it from the ability of others to use. It is property.

Copyright infringement is ripping copies of CDs/DVDs. Making copies of a professional photographer's photos. There is no loss of property. No criminal act.

Please, please, read up on this and learn a bit more. Repeating a wrong statement doesn't suddenly make it truthful and right.

I suggest you read up a little more as copyright infringement is the taking of someone's intellectual property.

Why are you confusing physical property with intellectual property? They are the same. You steal _something_ whether physical or technically immaterial (ie. digital mediums).

Taking _either_ is theft. Perhaps a little reading from the SIIA would help clear your thinking, because right now you are just as obtuse as those that think they are doing nothing wrong because they never intended to pay for the software/music in the first place.

It is theft. You are taking something you have no legal right to, or have purchased the right to own. There is a loss to someone, somewhere every time something is pirated.

(Somnus said @ #1.14)
Why are you confusing physical property with intellectual property? They are the same.
Because there is no "intellectual property" law.

The term "intellectual property" is a marketing term that generally refers to a vague, unspecified combination of copyrights, trademarks and patents. And separate laws deal with each.

Physical property is tangible. "intellectual property" is intangible. And you can't "take" an intellectual property item. Only infringe upon it. Mostly it is civil, but sometimes (as I clarified in my previous post) it can be classified as criminal.

But it is never theft.

EVER.

(Somnus said @ #1.14)
It is theft. You are taking something you have no legal right to, or have purchased the right to own. There is a loss to someone, somewhere every time something is pirated.

not true, there thousands of school/college people downloading photoshop who cannot afford it and have no intention of paying for it. Adobe do *not* lose money from those people!

There was a case near where i live where a person was operating a dvd rental shop/business using downloaded movies and renting them out. That is a criminal case because the person is using copyrighted material for monetary gain. That is a worse 'crime' than what the Oink case is about, what did the person recieve? A 4-digit fine (i believe it was around £5,000), his shop closed down and 'stock' confiscated

(Mike said @ #1.16)
not true, there thousands of school/college people downloading photoshop who cannot afford it and have no intention of paying for it. Adobe do *not* lose money from those people!

Of course Adobe is losing money from those people. That would be a sale, and by them just downloading it, they are in fact stealing it.

So because I can't afford a new car, I can legally go steal one even if I never had the intention of purchasing it? Of course not.. that is the _worst_ damn excuse I have ever heard. Even worse they are in effect using it to further a career path that in the end will make them money. They are using it for monetary gain. So at the very least it is fraudulent... Criminally fraudulent.

It is the same thing as the DVD shop, just a different time course for the end gains.

Thank you for making my point... next time think about it before posting such useless trash.

EPIC FAIL!!!

(Somnus said @ #1.17)

Of course Adobe is losing money from those people. That would be a sale, and by them just downloading it, they are in fact stealing it.

So because I can't afford a new car, I can legally go steal one even if I never had the intention of purchasing it? Of course not.. that is the _worst_ damn excuse I have ever heard. Even worse they are in effect using it to further a career path that in the end will make them money. They are using it for monetary gain. So at the very least it is fraudulent... Criminally fraudulent.

It is the same thing as the DVD shop, just a different time course for the end gains.

Thank you for making my point... next time think about it before posting such useless trash.

EPIC FAIL!!!

no, stealing a car means someone else cant purchase that car, downloading a *copy* of photoshop doesnt remove 1 item from adobe's stock level.

(Somnus said @ #1.14)
There is a loss to someone, somewhere every time something is pirated.


Really? That's awesome. I'm gonna go buy some stacks of CD-Rs and drive the record industry bankrupt by making thousands of copies of the same disc! Muhahaha!

:rolleyes:

(Mike said @ #1.18)

no, stealing a car means someone else cant purchase that car, downloading a *copy* of photoshop doesnt remove 1 item from adobe's stock level.

That copy is still a tangible product that could be sold.

When I go to my local software store, I see Adobe Photo Shop in the isle. So it _can_ and _should_ be purchased. The loss comes in the form of projected sales and revenue that is rightfully Adobe's if you use the product.

No matter how you dance around the issue, it is still theft. Just because you deem it too expensive or you don't want to pay for it, does not give you the right to steal it. Good lord are you so daft that you can't understand this?

The students are downloading the product because they can't afford it, but are using it for the end means of graduating and gaining employment which will garner them monies. They also got student loans based on course requirements, being they required a $700CDN product to complete the course, so they again have defrauded someone just to save a buck.

Theft and fraud.. the perfect way to start a career...

(markjensen said @ #1.15)
Because there is no "intellectual property" law.

The term "intellectual property" is a marketing term that generally refers to a vague, unspecified combination of copyrights, trademarks and patents. And separate laws deal with each.

Physical property is tangible. "intellectual property" is intangible. And you can't "take" an intellectual property item. Only infringe upon it. Mostly it is civil, but sometimes (as I clarified in my previous post) it can be classified as criminal.

But it is never theft.

EVER.

Of course there is intellectual property law. There is also patent law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Intangible property makes up close to 70% of our economy.

Music, film and software _are_ tangible products. I can physically hold them if I go to a Best Buy location to purchase something.

Natural gas is a tangible product, but can you hold it? So is oxygen..

Nike's check mark logo and an intangible product, but can someone be held accountable criminally for using it? Of course.. there are patent laws to protect items such as these.

While I will agree most reply on civil action to gain any type of resolution, there are many types of instances where criminal law can step in and stomp the hell out of the individual.

(Somnus said @ #1.20)
The students are downloading the product because they can't afford it, but are using it for the end means of graduating and gaining employment which will garner them monies. They also got student loans based on course requirements, being they required a $700CDN product to complete the course, so they again have defrauded someone just to save a buck.

Theft and fraud.. the perfect way to start a career...

no course requires photoshop to be bought, if it did, their would be suitable campus-wide licenses for the students to use. If someone has no intention of buying it, they wont be in the forecasted sales so there would be no forecast sale lost!

A course at uni i did required a PDF of a document we made, i used open office instead of adobe's pdf creator, should that mean i committed a crime by not paying adobe?

If i made a product and sold it for ~$500 i wouldnt care if 14year olds downloaded it for free, they cant afford it so i've lost nothing by them downloading it. Hell, by them downloading it may inspire them to a career that uses it. The business they end up working for would have legal licenses and would continue to be in business because of people pirating it as a kid!

Of course copyright infringement isn't theft; it's infringement on the author's automatically granted exclusive rights. The rights can be infringed until the work enters the public domain. Afterwards these rights are no longer in effect. So why "theft" is a poor analogy should be quite obvious for more than one reason.

(Mike said @ #1.22)
no course requires photoshop to be bought, if it did, their would be suitable campus-wide licenses for the students to use. If someone has no intention of buying it, they wont be in the forecasted sales so there would be no forecast sale lost!

I have had this exact discussion with someone from Adobe recently, and students are part of their forecast model for sales. In fact a large part.

If someone has no intention of purchasing a product, then they shouldn't use it. Or use the trial version until it expires, but to pirate the program only proves that theft is the end result of the equation.

(Mike said @ #1.22)
A course at uni i did required a PDF of a document we made, i used open office instead of adobe's pdf creator, should that mean i committed a crime by not paying adobe?

Of course not. You, unlike the students we are discussing chose a free alternative for your requirements. In my mind, you took the correct course of action and the legal one. The same I would have chosen.

(Mike said @ #1.22)
If i made a product and sold it for ~$500 i wouldnt care if 14year olds downloaded it for free, they cant afford it so i've lost nothing by them downloading it. Hell, by them downloading it may inspire them to a career that uses it. The business they end up working for would have legal licenses and would continue to be in business because of people pirating it as a kid!

Just because someone can not afford something does not give them the right to steal it. There are many options that you could choose for those that can't afford your based full retail product. A student version, home user version, or even a light version.

If you base your sales or projected sales to exclude pirating, then ultimately you devalue your product to potential investors. You hurt yourself by not caring or wanting fair compensation for your work.

Since you don't care whether you get paid or not, I have a few positions open in my company that I can't afford to employ currently if you are interested. Of course you won't get paid because I can't afford the man power, and I just decided that I wouldn't have paid you anyway.

Want to start Monday?

(Somnus said @ #1.20)

That copy is still a tangible product that could be sold.

When I go to my local software store, I see Adobe Photo Shop in the isle. So it _can_ and _should_ be purchased. The loss comes in the form of projected sales and revenue that is rightfully Adobe's if you use the product.

No matter how you dance around the issue, it is still theft. Just because you deem it too expensive or you don't want to pay for it, does not give you the right to steal it. Good lord are you so daft that you can't understand this?

The students are downloading the product because they can't afford it, but are using it for the end means of graduating and gaining employment which will garner them monies. They also got student loans based on course requirements, being they required a $700CDN product to complete the course, so they again have defrauded someone just to save a buck.

Theft and fraud.. the perfect way to start a career...

You don't get it. It is not a lost sale if the person who downloaded it would never ever buy it in the first place. I can remember years ago, downloading AutoCAD. God knows how many thousands of pounds that cost at the time. I can tell you right now, that was not a lost sale. I had no use for the program, not a bloody clue how to use it, and couldn't have sold it if I tried. I just wanted to have a look, so I did. I can't begin to tell you how much **** music I've downloaded over the years. I never ever would have bought any of it. I Listened to it, realised it was total crap (to me at least) and deleted it. Nobody got hurt, nobody lost any money. It is NOT a "tangible product that could be sold" it is a digital representation of one, that in this case got thrown in the bin.

I did no harm. Lock me up.