irc.p2p-network.net #oinkI miss the IRC channel
And p2p-network is a chat network, the network rules dont allow file-sharing to take place on the network. Just to get that out there before any misunderstanding occurs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OiNK Raided and Owner Arrested.
- Thread starter Markleshark
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
And p2p-network is a chat network, the network rules dont allow file-sharing to take place on the network. Just to get that out there before any misunderstanding occurs.
I miss OiNK, not because I stole music through torrents on that site, but because of the others who were also there. Guess what though? Since the OiNK takedown, there's been an explosion of activity on many sites with music. So I guess I won't really be missing OiNK that much longer, given I can do the same thing again..how long did that take again?
This world is not black and white. I didn't change my music acquiring habits, they're still the same. And I'd love to hear even indie 103.1 playing some of the music I want to listen to. Or for the random employee at Amoeba knowing what the heck I'm talking about. Or wasting immense amounts of time on last.fm to do the same thing oink did in less time.
Sooo...now that sites are stepping up to fill the void left by oink's demise, what was that again?
Yes, because the entire issue of piracy is all about your needs and wants, isn't it?
This is the issue in a nutshell; that people don't care about the people they may be hurting through this process, or the industries that will go to the wall just so they can have what they want right now, for free, without contributing a damned thing... it's such a short-term, unthinking, selfish stance.
What? The artists don't get paid that much from cd sales. Downloading a cd does not hurt them. The industry is killing itself by refusing to have a viable online strategy. You mention short term unthinking selfish stances? How about companies trying to force Apple to change it's pricing policy to make more popular songs more expensive? How about the companies suing thousands of fans for essentially listening to music? How's that for selfish and unthinking?
I was never a member of oink, but I totally respect what it was about, if what I'm reading here is accurate. When Napster first went down, I really missed it, as that was my main source of hearing new music. If it wasn't for Napster, I wouldn't have heard of half the bands I now pay attention to. (and by following them, being introduced to other bands, attending concerts, etc.)
Sure, I can listen to the radio, some of the streaming sites, and hear a bunch of crap*. I just did what a bunch of other people did. Found other file sharing sites to sample from.
I do mean sample too. I've gotten burned a couple times with those 30 second clips, thinking "yeah, these guys got a good sound", only to find that I hate the album. So, that's what I used these things for.
I pay for the stuff I like. I trash the stuff that I don't. I would estimate that 85-90% of my iTunes library is ripped from cds that I've purchased. The rest is either legally free stuff**, or cds that can't be purchased anywhere. It IS just that simple. My conscience is clear.
It's too bad that some people used it as a storehouse to grab stuff to keep that they never had any intention of ever paying for. That hurts us all. But at least in my case, the bands have another dollar or two in their pockets that they would not have otherwise had if I hadn't downloaded.
* one person's crap is another person's gold. whatever...
** hey, in one case, I emailed an artist for permission to use one of his songs in a project I was working on, and he sent me an updated version of it for free. cool stuff!
Sure, I can listen to the radio, some of the streaming sites, and hear a bunch of crap*. I just did what a bunch of other people did. Found other file sharing sites to sample from.
I do mean sample too. I've gotten burned a couple times with those 30 second clips, thinking "yeah, these guys got a good sound", only to find that I hate the album. So, that's what I used these things for.
I pay for the stuff I like. I trash the stuff that I don't. I would estimate that 85-90% of my iTunes library is ripped from cds that I've purchased. The rest is either legally free stuff**, or cds that can't be purchased anywhere. It IS just that simple. My conscience is clear.
It's too bad that some people used it as a storehouse to grab stuff to keep that they never had any intention of ever paying for. That hurts us all. But at least in my case, the bands have another dollar or two in their pockets that they would not have otherwise had if I hadn't downloaded.
* one person's crap is another person's gold. whatever...
** hey, in one case, I emailed an artist for permission to use one of his songs in a project I was working on, and he sent me an updated version of it for free. cool stuff!
A good article about oink...
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007/10/oink
would be nice of MR had more of a "community" feel like oink, rather than everything being a battle...
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007/10/oink
would be nice of MR had more of a "community" feel like oink, rather than everything being a battle...
You are simplifying the issue to meet your standards of debate. Stop.
Janey has made good arguments for using OiNK and for downloading. She has also said that she does buy albums. Almost all of us buy albums. Combined, me and my girlfriend have a very very large collection of CDs, and a good size collection of LPs.
We're not all greedy selfish people who are the scum of the earth, so stop framing the debate that way.
I have never called anyone 'scum of the earth'.
Funny how people don't want to be thought of poorly by pirating copyrighted material. It doesn't matter that you buy albums; the ones that you pirate are taken without due regard to the copyright holder which is against the law. I can't help it if your actions label you as a criminal.
It really is that simple, and there's absolutely no reason why I should stand by and not voice my disapproval that the moral centre has shifted on this issue while the legal one hasn't, just because millions of people want a free lunch. And I've seen colleagues lose their jobs in the industry and associated industries because people who pirate stuff are holing the industry below the waterline, for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny.
By "Dont get much" i mean they dont get anything unless the cd sells 500k+ copies.
You've all but called someone scum. You've said you wont pity them. You refuse to see any point of view beyond your own. You keep saying it's illegal - even if the bands have said they want their material spread out, regardless of how it's done.
The only time anything is black and white is when you dont look at the other side of the issue.
"millions of people want a free lunch" - There were less then 200,000 people on oink. I dont know what you're thinking, but keep everything straight. 200,000 people on oink. Not everyone that downloads gets music either. Maybe they wanted an ebook or an app.
Is downloading killing the industry? Depends what industry you're talking about. Music/movies? They're overreacting greatly. The companies in the MPAA have all posted highly profitable quarters as of late. And the RIAA isn't losing 'billions' when they're in the profit margin as well.
Maybe the person lost their job because they weren't good at it? Or for some other reason. Piracy isnt the catch-all to blame for everything.
Recording Industry Association of America? A big collaborative group of companies that work together to set prices of CD's and combat what they perceive as piracy by using grey methods of gathering data and sending out subpoena's?
Still waiting for your thoughts on the Artic Monkeys quote
Make up your mind.
Either they get something or they get nothing.
It also totally depends on the contract the artist has with the label.
Your comments seem to imply a generic "blanket" deal all artists have, which just isn't true.
If oink was legit why was is shut down?
They get something if the cd sells a large number of copies. I thought it was pretty clear.
While major artists might have their own contract, the artists first signed (i.e. their first few cd's) seem to get a generic contract. https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4378713/ has the details incase you forgot.
And oink's still up if you haven't noticed. Just serving waffles instead
No, they're a trade body representing the interests of their members... if the RIAA had their way, CDs would be about $30 dollars.
http://www.riaa.com/whatwedo.php
They are not responsible for setting the price of CDs... and they have a lot of members, large labels to very small. And why not? Plenty of industries have their own trade associations to protect their interests.
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members
Anyway, this is all besides the point which is that copyright infringement is nothing to be proud of at all... and it genuinely and undeniably hurts other people.
Given that all these artists and companies for the most part have to cater to people like me so we buy their music and they make some tiny percentage of it if at all, I'd say it has more to do about my (and other consumers) needs and wants more than anyone else's involved. Most people are not irrational folks who steal all the music they listen to. Who do you know who's NEVER purchased any music at all? I'm sure that even MORE people will purchase music than ever if there was a better selection at higher quality DRM free at a reasonable price (i.e. $1/song, $10/album). I honestly think Apple isn't going in the wrong direction with the iTMS, but it's the record companies that are sucking in every way here.
In a nutshell, you're the unthinking one portraying this in a stark black and white manner when it's most clearly not.
Thank you for backing up a point I'm trying to make that BV apparently just doesn't get.
Criminal or not, OiNK had plenty of things record labels and artists could stand to learn and benefit from.
I'm not saying this is what's going to happen with the current piracy issue, but there have been plenty of times moral and legal stances on issues have shifted dramatically in opposing ways, often times to the point that the legal stance will be changed as a result.
And by the way, you're not the only one who knows people. I live in freaking Los Angeles. Half my friends and their family or acquaintances of mine work in the entertainment industries. And as much as some of them love to gripe about how they don't get paid enough, they don't think it's necessarily as a result of piracy.
It's a gray area. No actual illegal material on the servers, although it's bittorrent files, and well.. The police have accidentally done all sorts of **** like that before only to make a fool of themselves. See piratebay's last takedown as a great example.
That being said, it's sort of back up again, and there's also plenty of sites with plenty of music too even if OiNK doesn't come back. Waffles indeed.
As of now, the RIAA is getting their way with digital music. They're moving away from iTunes / walmart, closing down their own stores.
And when CD's are $12-15 per cd, they're not exactly not getting their way. Not to mention they are $30+ if i wanted to import something.
If they're not responsible for setting prices, why are the CD's alway sold for $12-$15 at stores? And it does sound like they're a group of companies that work together to produce/sell/profit from cd's. You just worded it slightly differently.
And again: stop assuming that i pirate music. I never said that i did. You assume so.
Janey, please explain to me how evading copyright laws is helping anyone else except yourself? I don't care how many CDs you buy; the ones you don't and download instead are taken without the owner's permission...
That's how simple the issue is and you don't seem to get that at all. There is no 'grey area' except in your own mind.
Oh, how bizarre... something that has to be freighted across air and sea and incur import duties costs more?
It is a good read and much of what it says is true but this sentence has to be noted:
I buy a lot of music from smaller labels and from acts that are not household names at all.
And I agree completely that the industry as a whole has dragged its heels, has been slow to change, and I, like many others are waiting for huge, properly catalogued, DRM-free lossless libraries out there to download legally... but I'm simply not prepared to deprive others of their artistic dues in the process so I can fill my hard-drives for free.
I haven't even bothered with the latest Radiohead release, even though I could snag it legally for free, because it's not the product I want.
Maybe i wanted to import something from Canada or Mexico or Puerto Rico? For all you know, i love salsa music. Not all imports come from Europe you know.
Though on the flip side, I could download the Artic Monkeys easily without a problem. And have the bands blessing to do so
BV, what makes you think I used OiNK primarily for music? Maybe that's why it was taken down, but that's not how I used the site the most.
That being said, evading copyright laws doesn't help anyone except myself, up until the point I decide to do one of those things I also said I did, you know, along the lines of purchasing the album, going to a concert and buying other merchandise. But like I said before, there's more to the whole situation than just that. Maybe to you all you can comprehend is that people were trading songs on OiNK so it's automatically evil and you have to go on a crusade to condescendingly reply to everyone who says otherwise.
But no, apparently I'm a sniveling little stealing bitch who doesn't give a **** about anyone involved, who steals all the music I want to listen to, even if the only two albums I downloaded this month (and one being a really early scene release) were albums I also purchased because I liked them so much. (omfg a pirater who PURCHASED music?!?!? blasphemy!!!)
When it comes straight down to copyright infringement vs. no copyright infringement, maybe it's that simple because it's a straight yes or no question for every incident. Guess what though, the whole picture isn't that simple. That's what we're all trying to say. This isn't ONLY a matter of whether or not copyright infringement occurred. I mean maybe that's how you understood it to be, but that's not what I'm talking about.
And frankly, if you're willing to go this far about OiNK, I can't wait to see what you'd do if you came across scene releases. Heart attack, maybe? To see SO much stolen music straight from people who work in these industries, cause how else are they released so in advance of the retail dates? OiNK is pretty much nothing compared to some groups and places out there. OiNK just happened to have the community as well. And frankly, it was a pretty damn tiny community. I bet that less than 1/4 of the 200k members were active in the week before OiNK was taken down, and even out of all of those, less were actually active on music torrents. Top 10 non-daily/weekly torrents were never music.
- Status