OiNK Raided and Owner Arrested.

[CanadaRAM]

And if you go to myspace, last.fm, or a bunch of other sites and search, you'll see that many new artists post their music online to freely download. And these artists are hardly major labels.

The fracking point is that it is the artist's (the copyright holders') right to post previews, free tracks, or streaming audio, and their right alone to make that decision as to what how and where their property gets posted or copied.

To argue that stealing someone's work -- downloading it without the copyright holder's consent -- is legitimate because you then spent some money on a show or on a CD, is just a lame excuse for wanting something for nothing.

Something for nothing - that IS the bottom line. The whole bunch of you who make all of those convoluted rationalizations just so you can enjoy listing to someone's music without paying for it - you make me ill.

 

[...]

... 10/23 OiNK Never Forget, send your condolences to OiNK Memorial ...

 

[zioxide]

So I guess the artists that I heard this from, directly out of their mouthes, dont know what they are talking about??

Yes.
I would guess (with all due respect) that they are newer, less well established artists that are better at being musicians than they are at being aware of how the business side of the music industry works.

Please. You're trying to tell me that guys like Trent Reznor, Radiohead, etc. are new and don't know how the music industry works?

 

[tveric]

you sure about that?

Leopard GM is on usenet in its entirety right now, smart guy.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Leopard GM is on usenet in its entirety right now, smart guy.

I find different sizes of what looks like the same thing... Usenet vs. different torrents.

 

[jaydub]

Please. You're trying to tell me that guys like Trent Reznor, Radiohead, etc. are new and don't know how the music industry works?

I think they got in when they didn't know, became frustrated over the years with the way they were being told to make music, and rejoiced when their contracts were up.

Same thing happened recently with Jamiroquai. They released a Greatest Hits CD with two filler tracks just to fulfill their contract.

 

[tveric]

I find different sizes of what looks like the same thing... Usenet vs. different torrents.

And that surprises you why?

 

[MacsRgr8]

And that surprises you why?

Because it looked like all linked to the same source... look at the name.
Doesn't matter, but usually same sources mean same files, thus same size.

 

[tveric]

I don't know what torrents you're referring to since I only see it on usenet. The two places on usenet show identical info. Maybe the torrents are packaged versions of what showed up on usenet and that would account for file size differences.

Either way this is an insane conversation; what does it matter?

The genie's out. You can't stuff it back in. Regrettably, however, whatever replaces oink will be nowhere near as good as far as quality control and community. Not for a while, at least.

Maybe someday record companies will pull their heads out of their asses and figure out they should just BUY sites like oink instead of playing whack-a-mole with them. I never gave a dime a oink (no one had to, contrary to those asinine articles) but I would've GLADLY paid for the service if required to. Its setup was second to none. If the record co's brought back oink NOW and made me pay a reasonable price I would certainly sign up to pay it.

 

[Luap]

Where is this mythical undiscovered talent being held back by the music industry?

You answered your own question.

 

[Mike Teezie]

Quality is a potential reason why 200,000+ people turned to Oink, Allofmp3, and other sites that the RIAA doesn't endorse.

The 'infrastructure' is broken and a relic of the 70's and 80's when technology for music wasn't mass-produced. Open your eyes - look at modern times. An artist doesnt need to go to an expensive studio to record an album. They don't need to burn thousands of copies of their cd to get a hit. All they need is a $250 computer, a microphone, and an internet connection. The paradigm for music isn't the same as it was when you were growing up (I'm assuming you're not a teenager, pardon me if I'm guessing wrong)

If you claim to be an audiophile, with a half decent stereo system, you would know that you can't record an audiophile quality album in anything less the best studios. Hell, my $3k Mac with a $10k ProTools system won't even get me close to producing an amazing sounding album. You need a great room, great mics, talented engineers, and a great sound to begin with.

Garegeband is great for what it is, but a studio it's not.

How is it wrong to download a cd that you already own? You're not prohibited from watching a movie on TV if you own the DVD (Or VHS or Betamax or Laserdisc) of it, are you?

I don't think anyone is suggesting it is. Your analogy is shaky, but the end result of downloading/ripping if you own the CD is nada.

As for the Walmart/Best Buy thing? I know a dozen bands where I'd love to buy their cd's. But i dont have the money to spend $40+ (As listed on amazon) per cd (Excluding shipping and tax) to import it from Europe.

Then why should you get to listen to the music? It's not free to make. Justify it all you want, but you are taking profits from the band. If you are cool with that, there you go. But to say you are doing the band a favor by downloading their album for free instead of paying for it is quite a stretch, not matter how you feel about the label they signed a deal with.

If my clients buy one print from me, but still download and print 4x6s off of my blog, I am losing profits. Even if they buy a larger, more expensive print that equals the value of what they stole off of the blog, they are still taking profit I would have otherwise received.

People say, "oh, I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so they aren't losing anything." But you still took the product. So you are using it, without paying for it. I would be pretty screwed if everyone applied that principle to my business.

 

[MacsRgr8]

I don't know what torrents you're referring to since I only see it on usenet. The two places on usenet show identical info. Maybe the torrents are packaged versions of what showed up on usenet and that would account for file size differences.

Either way this is an insane conversation; what does it matter?
.

Like i said, it doesn't matter... not if they all are the real deal.

A couple of days ago it also looked like the cat was out of the bag (), but those torrents were fake.

 

[Luap]

Please. You're trying to tell me that guys like Trent Reznor, Radiohead, etc. are new and don't know how the music industry works?

I cant comment on Trent Reznor, as I dont know the story there. But RadioHead I know a little about. And they are doing what they are doing for entirely different reasons to what I commented on earlier. I think their contract was up for starters? So they had an opportunity to try something new right there.
And I admire them for going it alone, embracing the internet and using it to their advantage in a way no record company would ever dare to. In fact just the distribution idea alone was enough to get them a lot of publicity. And publicity is always good when you want to shift a few copies of a new album.

 

[technicolor]

Oink himself as been released from questioning.


After a turbulent day the admin of the raided OiNK.cd was released from custody. At this point it is still unclear what the legal consequences will be, but it is good to see that OiNK is back home.

As for the OiNK users, it is highly doubtful that the IFPI or BPI will go after them all, or even one of them. They do know how to scare people with messages like: “A criminal investigation continues into the identities and activities of the site’s users”, but there is no evidence that they actually will.

More interesting perhaps, how did they gain access to the OiNK domain, and why are they allowed to spread this propaganda? They are not a law-enforcement agency.

NFOrce, the ISP of OiNK, said today in an interview that they were not aware of any illegal activities surrounding the site. They thought OiNK was hosting a streaming video site or a weblog. Yeah, right.
http://torrentfreak.com/oink-admin-released-from-custody-071023/


http://enjoys.it/2007/10/23/some-facts-and-some-rumors-about-the-oink-takedown/

 

[NoOneButMe]

Watch who you're calling a fool.

And listen, you're talking like every artist is like some little outfit with a couple of guitars and a van that doesn't need to travel more than 100 miles. Do you think the Berlin Philharmonic, the Polyphonic Spree, Kraftwerk, The Cinematic Orchestra... and virtually any mid-weight act or band doesn't need these things? Then you're the one who is sounding foolish...

Since someone mentioned the Arctic Monkeys, here's the above the line credits for their last album. This ignores the other people that go up to making a studio work and all those involved in transport, marketing, distribution, promotion etc

George Marino — Mastering
Alan Moulder — Mixing
Juno — Art Direction, Photography, Illustrations, Design
Matthew Cooper — Layout Design
Mike Crossey — Producer, Mixing
James Ford — Guitar, Producer, Mixing
Joseph Bramhall — Illustrations
Al Heighton — Illustrations
Miles Kane — Guitar
Ian McAndrew — Management
Drew Millward — Illustrations
Anne Marie Moore — Illustrations
Geoff Barradale — Management

That's 13 people plus band members plus roadies, drivers, a whole host of people setting up equipment... this is an indie and 'small' band. All of you who say they support an artist by seeing their shows, you'd see sweet eff all without a small army of support staff. And all of them need to be paid...

How did artists ever make a cd without 5 people drawing stuff, 3 people mixing, and management? It's like the bands never started out in garages / basements and jumped to studio right after deciding on a name?!

If we saw as much boo-hooing about hundreds of decent music retailers closing down as much as the moaning about a site that actively supports copyright infringement and breaking the law, then I'd have some empathy with your argument, such as it is.

If i was old enough to know what was going on in the 90's, i'd have been right up there making the same fuss i am now. Pardon me for being 7 or 8 when bestbuy/walmart was getting big.

The industry that has bought millions of fantastic albums to the world over the past century and into this one? Where is this mythical undiscovered talent being held back by the music industry?

I never said they're being held back by the industry. Just that they're not getting paid enough or that the labels are taking advantage of them. And that as someone in the US, i rarely hear reviews of EU bands so i'm forced to download it if i want to hear new kinds of music without paying $40+ per cd that i dont know if i like or not.

The fracking point is that it is the artist's (the copyright holders') right to post previews, free tracks, or streaming audio, and their right alone to make that decision as to what how and where their property gets posted or copied.

To argue that stealing someone's work -- downloading it without the copyright holder's consent -- is legitimate because you then spent some money on a show or on a CD, is just a lame excuse for wanting something for nothing.

Something for nothing - that IS the bottom line. The whole bunch of you who make all of those convoluted rationalizations just so you can enjoy listing to someone's music without paying for it - you make me ill.

Erm.. If an artist ever came out and said "Dont download my music," then i wouldnt. I dont download metallica - mostly because they're a crappy band - but also because they dont want their music downloaded.

If i download something, how's it different then streaming it and recording with Audacity? I can do it just as easily. Or recording it off the radio. And if you like a cd, buy it. No one ever said "pirate only!!11" except for the people that are against piracy.

The bottom line is that there are people out there who refuse to pay for anything - let alone music. And then there are people who cant afford to buy every damn cd that comes out just to see if they like it or not and instead download and buy the ones they know they like. And we cant forget the people that dotn seem to understand this and instead blindly believe the media when they say "Billions in sales lost!!!!!!!!!!"

If you claim to be an audiophile, with a half decent stereo system, you would know that you can't record an audiophile quality album in anything less the best studios. Hell, my $3k Mac with a $10k ProTools system won't even get me close to producing an amazing sounding album. You need a great room, great mics, talented engineers, and a great sound to begin with.

Garegeband is great for what it is, but a studio it's not.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it is. Your analogy is shaky, but the end result of downloading/ripping if you own the CD is nada.

Then why should you get to listen to the music? It's not free to make. Justify it all you want, but you are taking profits from the band. If you are cool with that, there you go. But to say you are doing the band a favor by downloading their album for free instead of paying for it is quite a stretch, not matter how you feel about the label they signed a deal with.

If my clients buy one print from me, but still download and print 4x6s off of my blog, I am losing profits. Even if they buy a larger, more expensive print that equals the value of what they stole off of the blog, they are still taking profit I would have otherwise received.

People say, "oh, I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so they aren't losing anything." But you still took the product. So you are using it, without paying for it. I would be pretty screwed if everyone applied that principle to my business.

I dont mean Garageband. If you read my post, you'd see that i meant a Computer with Line-In + Microphone to record instruments directly and then clean the music up in Audacity or some other program. There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from doing just that to produce a record and sell it online. How do you think they make concert cd's if they dont record music live somehow and then clean it up? I never said to use Garageband. Dont twist things around.

How's it different if i download a cd i dont like and delete it vs buying a cd and returning it? If i download it and i like it, i buy it. I know many others that do the same - including people that were on oink.

To me the biggest problem concerning downloading is that there's so much media crap out there that legit uses of it get lost in all of it and people assume "Downloading = bad. Downloaders = scum."

 

[artalliance]

Because when something costs $15+ (excluding tax), I want to make sure it's worth spending my money on it before i do so. And $15 is assuming it's a modern pop cd. If i want to import something from Europe (Where its much less likely i'd hear about a band through a review / another artist), it's even more expensive.

So you never spend money on what turns out to be a mediocre movie? Movie tickets go for up to 16 dollars, at least here in LA.

This entire "I am entitled to sample/use before buying" mentality is insane.

 

[Blue Velvet]

How did artists ever make a cd without 5 people drawing stuff, 3 people mixing, and management?

They do, they're called demos. And are not usually for release... if you can name one major release; written, performed, produced, engineered, mixed and mastered, packaged, promoted, contractually watertight, pressed and distributed by one band or artist by themselves... well, it doesn't exist. Talent is paid to do what talent does best; that's why they hire other people to do the things they can't or shouldn't do.

And that as someone in the US, i rarely hear reviews of EU bands so i'm forced to download it if i want to hear new kinds of music without paying $40+ per cd that i dont know if i like or not.

You're not forced to do anything. Don't confuse your wants with needs. Free music isn't a right... besides, I hear plenty of new stuff and new artists from all around the world by streaming radio. But that's not downloading it to effectively steal, is it?

To me the biggest problem concerning downloading is that there's so much media crap out there that legit uses of it get lost in all of it and people assume "Downloading = bad. Downloaders = scum."

There's no such thing as the legit use of downloading copyrighted material.

And your example of using a mic with line-in on a computer and cleaning it up with Audacity shows how little you know about producing an album...

 

[gauchogolfer]

So you never spend money on what turns out to be a mediocre movie? Movie tickets go for up to 16 dollars, at least here in LA.

This entire "I am entitled to sample/use before buying" mentality is insane.

Thank you for this.

I imagine some of these people would like to open a bottle of wine at a restaurant, drink a bit, then decide at the end of the meal if they want to buy it. You can't exactly carry on like that indefinitely.

 

[Airforce]

I imagine some of these people would like to open a bottle of wine at a restaurant, drink a bit, then decide at the end of the meal if they want to buy it. You can't exactly carry on like that indefinitely.

Hell, I did at Olive Garden

 

[zioxide]

So you never spend money on what turns out to be a mediocre movie? Movie tickets go for up to 16 dollars, at least here in LA.

This entire "I am entitled to sample/use before buying" mentality is insane.

You can test drive a car before you buy it. You can go into a store and look at a TV to see the picture quality before you buy it. You can borrow a movie from a library and watch it before buying it.

 

[gauchogolfer]

You can test drive a car before you buy it. You can go into a store and look at a TV to see the picture quality before you buy it. You can borrow a movie from a library and watch it before buying it.

Sure, but you can also listen to a streaming version of the song, or a 30 second clip. When you test drive the car, you probably don't get to take it home, throw all the kids' stuff in, take them to the beach with the dog, etc. In other words, things you would do if you actually owned the car. You're only borrowing it for a very specific purpose, and a limited amount of time.

 

[Blue Velvet]

You can test drive a car before you buy it. You can go into a store and look at a TV to see the picture quality before you buy it. You can borrow a movie from a library and watch it before buying it.

Out of those examples, only the movie has the principle of copyright attached to it, and libraries pay dues to make those movies available for hire... you watch a movie on TV, those fees are supported by advertising or subscription.

 

[weckart]

Thank you for this.

I imagine some of these people would like to open a bottle of wine at a restaurant, drink a bit, then decide at the end of the meal if they want to buy it. You can't exactly carry on like that indefinitely.

I dunno. Back in the day, you went to your local market and you sampled the produce before you bought. You were very much encouraged to do so. That still works in more civilised parts of the world. Of course, al that was before the onslaught of supermarkets with everything prepackaged and the "you broke it you pay for it" mentality.

 

[artalliance]

You can test drive a car before you buy it. You can go into a store and look at a TV to see the picture quality before you buy it. You can borrow a movie from a library and watch it before buying it.

A) no, you can't borrow a theatrical movie before it gets released on DVD. That's what I was referring to. You will have to spend your 15 bucks and suck it up when it was a turd.

B) For all your other sampling examples:
30 sec. samples on itunes
Music streams...
Free samples on artist's websites.

As Blue Velvet pointed out before, let's not confuse WANT with NEED.

 

[gauchogolfer]

I dunno. Back in the day, you went to your local market and you sampled the produce before you bought. You were very much encouraged to do so. That still works in more civilised parts of the world. Of course, al that was before the onslaught of supermarkets with everything prepackaged and the "you broke it you pay for it" mentality.

Sure, and I do this every weekend at my local farmer's market to see if the produce is properly ripened. But, the farmer themselves have set up a tasting area, of their own volition. If I just want to walk up and slice off a hunk of cantaloupe and walk away, you can bet they'll be upset. Rightfully so. If the artists want to distribute their music on myspace or whatever, more power to them. If it's not with their permission, then it's just stealing cantaloupes.