After the demonstration of Ithaca the defendant Mufasa had to answer the questions of the judge. Mufasa however had (as he said) not really much to do with copyright infringement, he was just taking care of the financial part of the website R4U. He was paying the bills and took care of the sponsored money which was used to pay hosting Releases4U. According to the defendant the income mostly was not enough to play even, so the crew was paying the shortcomings from there own pocket. Mufasa was no more then about one hour a day busy with the finances and had not much time to spend on the website. He admitted that he had shared some files himself but it was no more than a few films. Sharing is a violation of the Dutch anti piracy laws because it means downloading as well as uploading, and it is the uploading part that is unlawful. Also Mufasa had to answer some relevant questions but not much new compared to the rest of the defendants.
Next and last the hosting provider (Mindlab) had to take the stand. Mindlab was a small one mans business who hosted Releases4U and ShareConnector at the time they got busted. It seemed that Mindlab also had an Administrator account on Releases4U which in my opinion was not a wise thing to do. The judge asked why he had an Administrator account if he was just hosting the websites. The Mindlab representative answered it was just used to help the R4U crew if there were problems related to the website, and if that was the case he had an Admin account to solve problems if the R4U crew was not able to solve them themselves. The judge was not really convinced about Mindlabs innocence in this matter, it felt to me as if the judge did not believe in Mindlabs explanation. Now i had personally spoken to the man during the coffee and lunch brakes, and am convinced he really has nothing to do with Releases4U as a crew member, but it was not me to decide.
At the end of this first trial day (it was 16:00 hour local time) after a recess of one hour the word was to the DOJ public prosecutor Mrs. A. Drogt. Because it was kind of late (i had to travel in rush hour) i decided to leave the court and hear the prosecutors sentence requirements in the news later that day. About an hour later when i got home, the sentence was already in the press. The prosecutor had claimed a 5000 euro fine and 6 months conditional in jail to all defendants. She considered proved all charges, meaning professional copyright infringement, membership of an criminal organization, and violation of article 31a and 31b of the Dutch copyright law from 1912. But a sentence requirement was not yet a sentence. The case was dismissed and continued the next day, that was the day the lawyers could hold there defense requisitory. Unfortunately i was not able to be present that day, but i knew the outcome could only be positive considering the poor and amateurish proof in this case, that was based of lies and deceive by BREIN who got the DOJ to do there dirty job for them. A big money saver because now the DOJ should pay for all costs on behalf of the Dutch tax payer.
What prove do you have when a hash link name says it is the latest Disney film? The way to find out is to download it and play the movie to make sure it is that film the ED2K file name implied. If BREIN claims they know for sure, they had to have downloaded the file and on p2p that means “no downloading without uploading” (as BREIN themselves claim), which is a crime as the Dutch law says. BREIN itself must have been spreading the film to, to prove it was the film as the file name implied. Would that not make BREIN guilty of copyright infringement themselves? And what if the entertainment mafia is spreading hundred thousands of bogus files like they still do on the KaaZaa network? Would spreading these files with real existing film file names be infringement? And so there’s more to say about the way BREIN lies and deceives the DOJ to get what they want. Only this time Mr. Tim Kuik found ShareConnector, Liquidtorrent and Releases4U on its way, three fighters who do not let BREIN go on whit there lies, deceive and intimidation of the common (file sharing) people. Just let it be clear to everyone; indexing hash links is no crime according to the Dutch law and that’s the only thing that was done on the websites. Nothing but a bunch of hash links where found on the servers, links that could just as easily be coming from Google.
July 24 2007, the date of the verdict.
To be continued …..