CPS drops piracy case against 'scapegoat' teen

gallery

Prosecutors have dropped their case against a teenager accused of piracy, saying it wasn't in the public interest to continue.

Matthew Wyatt was 17 when he was charged in 2007 for sharing three albums and one single over BitTorrent site OiNK - that site was itself in court over the past two years, with 26-year-old founder Alan Ellis acquitted this January.

David Cook, of Wyatt's solicitors Burrows Bussin, said the teen's home was raided on 10 September 2007 by six people, but not all were police.

The group included employees from Trading Standards as well as members of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - the latter of which raised a ruckus by contributing an entire amendment to the Digital Economy Bill.

Cook said Wyatt was charged with no warning from the local Cleveland Police. Under the Digital Economy Bill's three strike rules, he would have been given warnings first.

Wyatt was charged with distributing copyrighted material to such an extend as to prejudicially affect the copyright holder, Cook said. That could have lead to a 10 year sentence, had the prosecution not dropped the case.

The CPS said that it made "the decision to discontinue on public interest grounds following further conferences with counsel and the police," saying the likely penalty would not have been "substantial."

Cook argued a civil case would have been a better fit. “Case law definitively states that copyright offences arising out of BitTorrent should be put before a civil judge. In this case, there appeared a simple reason behind the decision to charge with a criminal act – the IFPI wanted to make an example of Matthew Wyatt.”

Wyatt is naturally happy the case is over. “I am delighted that the CPS has finally decided to end this misguided and disproportionate prosecution. The last two and a half years have been stressful and disruptive for my family and for me."

Proving copyright

Cook claimed that the material was never even proven to be under copyright.

"In a world where kudos can be gained through early leaks, and fake tracks consisting of live versions, white noise and loops are rife, we believed that this was a dangerous gap in the evidence," he said. "We also found it extraordinary that the copyright holder was never asked to identify the tracks as being theirs."

Cook said the prosecution's computer experts said there was a digital watermark on the tracks, but it was never traced. He claimed the songs were likely leaked from a music critic, band insider or record company employee, and not ripped from a disc.

"But rather than alienate themselves from these useful allies, the IFPI, which represents the interests of the four major record companies, chose instead to make a scapegoat of a 17-year-old boy,” Cook claimed.

Manipulation

Cook accused the music industry groups of manipulating the police to make an example of Wyatt.

“It was clear throughout this case that Matthew Wyatt was the victim of a cynical attempt by the record industry to legitimise its heavy-handed tactics and dubious methods by using police resources and the public purse," he claimed.

“The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry and British Phonographic Industry used their influence to gain entry to Matthew Wyatt’s family home, gather evidence and dictate the direction of inquiries," he continued.

"Government ministers have categorically stated they do not want to see teenagers arrested in their bedrooms for file-sharing. This case makes clear such assurances are hollow.”

The BPI disagreed, saying the case was thoroughly investigated by the prosecution.

“We are disappointed with this decision by the CPS," a spokesperson said in a statement. "It comes after a thorough investigation by Cleveland Police and follows a complaint by the industry concerning illegal distribution of pre-release music."

"However, this decision does not undermine the strong case for tackling the serious damage done by pre-release piracy,” the statement added.

When asked for comment, the IFPI directed us to the BPI's statement.

Email to a friend

Print this page