backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 27 at 1:28 PM


This is all that remains of OiNK.cd, one of the most prominent music sharing sites on the web.  (Source: DailyTech)
Second UK-based piracy closure in less than a week

OiNK.cd, one of the largest BitTorrent destinations for music online, was shut down today in a joint investigation between Interpol, the IFPI, BPI and local authorities in the United Kingdom and Netherlands. Authorities arrested an unnamed 24-year-old man suspected to be the site’s owner, as well as raided his UK residence, the office of his employer, his father’s house, as well as numerous facilities in the Netherlands where the site was hosted.

Much like many of the fallen sites before it, OiNK.cd’s front page was changed to a single message written by an unidentified party: “This site has been closed as a result of a criminal investigation by IFPI, BPI, Cleveland Police and the Fiscal Investigation Unit of the Dutch Police (FIOD ECD) into suspected illegal music distribution.”

Immediately following it is an ominous warning, informing visitors that “a criminal investigation continues into the identities and activities of the site's users.”

According to the IFPI, OiNK was responsible for leaking 60 major pre-release albums in 2007, with an unspecified numbers of albums in years past. OiNK’s estimated 180,000 users financed the site via “donations” paid by credit or debit card, and in return the site continued to host a staggering number amount of music, much of it in high-quality FLAC format.

“This was not a case of friends sharing music for pleasure. This was a worldwide network that got hold of music they did not own the rights to and posted it online,” said IFPI spokesman Jeremy Banks. “Within a few hours of a popular pre-release track being posted on the OiNK site, hundreds of copies can be found further down the illegal online supply chain.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

About time
By helios220 on 10/23/2007 6:03:38 PM , Rating: 5
After the world wide drug use epidemic was crushed a few years back, oh and after all of the murderers and pedophiles in the world were caught, oh and after we eliminated domestic terror cells, oh and after... where was I again?

Anyway now that we took care of all of those problems I'm just glad that we can finally spend all of this money, time and resources on a worthy cause, eliminating the illegal distribution of music that is responsible for wrecking my car, sleeping with my wife, kicking my dog and my impotency.




RE: About time
By Christopher1 on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: About time
By Adonlude on 10/23/2007 6:19:35 PM , Rating: 5
There is no such word as pedosexual just as there is no such place where you are considered socially acceptable or welcome.


RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 6:22:55 PM , Rating: 4
Actually from what i just briefly read up on, there is a term called Pedosexual.

Pedophile is someone who is attracted to childrens.
Pedosexual is someone who is attracted to minors.

Either way, you are correct. That guy is a sick bastard, and there is no place in society for him - whether he was joking or being serious.


RE: About time
By Adonlude on 10/23/2007 6:42:22 PM , Rating: 5
Yes but the term Pedosexual is a word that these sickos are trying to coin as a legitimate sexual orientation. If you want to help legitimize something so deplorable by recognizing some twisted attempt at a politically correct term for them then... well, less power to you.


RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 6:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree with you, and dont think i was trying to legitimize a term. I only looked it up online because i had never heard the word before.

It appears that they think what they do is ok because their new term is supposed to show that they like "older children" instead of "younger children".

These people are absolutely sick. It honestly makes me nausious to think this person is under the impression that its ok to have thoughts about young kids like this.


RE: About time
By Trippytiger on 10/23/2007 11:53:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It honestly makes me nausious to think this person is under the impression that its ok to have thoughts about young kids like this.


I agree. All crimethink should be reported to the Thinkpol.


RE: About time
By mindless1 on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 7:45:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Umm, did it ever occur to you that even you were probably attracted to minors, when you were a minor?


Yes it did, and anyone who calls themselves a pedosexual is not a minor.

quote:
Until you have checked his ID to know his age, it's pretty silly to attack someone on the internet assuming you know their age.


According to some admins on this site, its not the first time he has made these comments.

Go ahead and defend the pedo's if you want, but I dont think you will be receiving very much backing on that.


RE: About time
By mindless1 on 10/23/2007 7:54:44 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree that anyone who calls themself a pedosexual is not a minor, necessarily.

Regardless, that does not make one a minor either, and since I have not been monitoring what he wrote I agree you could be right as this is not the kind of thing one would continually mention unless an unhealthy fixation rather than a natural attraction to peers one's own age.


RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 8:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between someone who is, say for example, 16 yrs old liking a 15yr old - as that would be considered "normal".

Someone who is 25, 35, 45, 55, etc having those thoughts about someone who is 8, 10, 15, etc - is not considered normal. Its wrong, in every way, shape, and form.

And as a previous user stated on this topic, "Pedosexual" is a term that these sickos have created to try and coin a legitimate sexual orientation so that they dont have to fall under the "Pedophile" bracket. I had not ever heard that term before. Bottom line is that this person has openly admitted to be a pedophile (which as the term defines: they are of adult age, and targeting people not of adult age), and that is not accepted in this society, or any society, and should not be.


RE: About time
By themadmilkman on 10/23/2007 10:13:46 PM , Rating: 1
I don't condone this idea of "pedosexualism."

That said, you make the same argument against them that people make (or have made) against homosexuals.


RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 10:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
My argument has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

Pedophiles commit crimes (or think about committing crimes) against children.

Homesexuals just want to "be with" someone of the same sex. Sure, some say that homosexual males like "little boys", but in a sense, that is not technically true. But lets not eliminate the fact that there are people who are both homosexual and pedophiles at the same time.

No one in society, except for the pedophiles, condone their activity, and in fact, everyone besides the pedophiles want to rid them of our society because its wrong and its a crime.

Not everyone is against homosexuality, including those who are not homosexual. The ones that are against it believe so because of religion, or because they deem it not to be morally accepted by them.

Homosexuality is something that some people accept, and some people do not accept. Pedophilia is something that is wrong on all accounts by all societies, and leads to crimes against children.


RE: About time
By themadmilkman on 10/24/2007 2:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My argument has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.


No, but it echoes the same argument used by anti-homosexual groups.

quote:
Pedophiles commit crimes (or think about committing crimes) against children.


At one point homosexuality was illegal, or at least the activities involved with homosexuality (sodomy, etc.)

quote:
No one in society, except for the pedophiles, condone their activity, and in fact, everyone besides the pedophiles want to rid them of our society because its wrong and its a crime.


Laws can be rewritten, and very often are. And not every pedophile actively searches out sexual activity with minors. Do they think about illegal activities? Sure. But last I checked (and I'm fairly up to date on criminal codes) it's not illegal to personally contemplate a crime. To plan it with others? Yes. But if personally thinking about something was a crime, I'd be guilty of dozens of murders, thefts, embezzlements, and many other crimes.

So what's my point? I agree with you whole-heartedly that pedophilia is wrong. But your manner of arguing it is poor at best.


RE: About time
By gramboh on 10/24/2007 3:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
Very good post. First I'll state I'm obviously against pedophelia. However, I am not against people having the right to think whatever they want. It scares me how this topic always drags up morons throwing out blanket statements (usually about castration or murdering pedophiles, because it is 'illegal' -- pretty hypocritical thinking). Also it is scary to see people incapable of thinking about laws in a moral sense. E.g. people that refuse to budge on the issue of decriminalization of marijuana even when the benefits are proven (for some reason, this irrational view is widely held in the U.S. so I guess the government's marketing works).

Bleh, off-topic rant.


RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/24/2007 7:19:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But your manner of arguing it is poor at best.

I think many would say that my manner of arguing this off topic pedophilia is dead on.

quote:
No, but it echoes the same argument used by anti-homosexual groups.

No one before you mentioned homosexuality, and no offense, its probably because you are homosexual and have had arguments made against you. However, I am not one who did that.

quote:
At one point homosexuality was illegal, or at least the activities involved with homosexuality (sodomy, etc.)

And many people dont care about homosexuality one way or the other , they just dont want to allow homosexuals to get married and/or raise kids.

quote:
And not every pedophile actively searches out sexual activity with minors.

Point being that are they mentally unhealthy for even having those thoughts. If they are unhealthy enough to have the thoughts, who says they will not act on them. Just because they have not acted yet, doesn't mean they wont.

quote:
Do they think about illegal activities? Sure. But last I checked (and I'm fairly up to date on criminal codes) it's not illegal to personally contemplate a crime. To plan it with others? Yes. But if personally thinking about something was a crime, I'd be guilty of dozens of murders, thefts, embezzlements, and many other crimes.

Big difference between theft and child rape. If you sit around and honestly ponder your murder thoughts as well, then you are sick too.


RE: About time
By themadmilkman on 10/24/2007 11:14:26 AM , Rating: 1
Do you not see how you're arguing? Here's the basic outline. It goes something like this:

1. I think something is wrong.
2. Because I think something is wrong, everyone agrees that it is wrong.

Honestly, do you have any backing to your arguments besides your own thoughts and what you've seen on Dateline? To what degree do people find "pedosexualism" wrong? If a 21 year old is dating a 17 year old who graduated high school early and has already left school, is that wrong? What if she hasn't graduated yet? What if he's 22? This is a very hard topic to draw a hard line as to what is right and what is wrong, and is entirely dependant on a person's own ethics and morals. While you try to say that people are adamantly against pedosexualism, I'm not sure the actual boundaries are that well defined.

And as to calling me a homosexual: I'm married (to a woman, thank you) and have two kids. I'm making these statements because I abhor the poorly made arguments that permeate the internet.


RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/24/2007 11:32:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While you try to say that people are adamantly against pedosexualism, I'm not sure the actual boundaries are that well defined.


Yes they are clearly defined. Do some research because there is a difference between Pedophilia and Statutory Rape.

Pedophilia is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to prepubescent youths. The APA goes to define it as such:
The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":[24]

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

quote:
To what degree do people find "pedosexualism" wrong? If a 21 year old is dating a 17 year old who graduated high school early and has already left school, is that wrong? What if she hasn't graduated yet? What if he's 22? This is a very hard topic to draw a hard line as to what is right and what is wrong, and is entirely dependant on a person's own ethics and morals. While you try to say that people are adamantly against pedosexualism, I'm not sure the actual boundaries are that well defined.


The scenario you are bringing up is called Statutory Rape, which is defined as the crime of sex with a minor under the age of consent (AOC), the age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent to sexual conduct. Statutory rape laws are based on the concept that a young person may desire sexual intercourse but may lack the experience possessed by legal adults to make a mature decision as to whether or not to have sexual contact with a particular person.

quote:
To what degree do people find "pedosexualism" wrong?


If you even have to ask this question, then clearly there is something wrong with you. Also, lets refer to it as Pedophilia, there is no such thing as pedosexualism and will not give the liberals the ability to coin a new term for social acceptance.

quote:
And as to calling me a homosexual: I'm married (to a woman, thank you) and have two kids. I'm making these statements because I abhor the poorly made arguments that permeate the internet.


I was not meaning to say you are homosexual, I was just drawing inference that maybe you were homosexual because you brought that arugment into the discussion which had no relevance.


RE: About time
By Treckin on 10/24/2007 1:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
This is a valid point... figures that it would be downrated on DT...


RE: About time
By Adonlude on 10/24/2007 4:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you think a point made by comparing the oppression of homosexuals to the oppression pedophiles is valid then society has no room for you either.


RE: About time
By FITCamaro on 10/23/2007 10:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with you, the sad thing is that some of society has started to accept teenage girls(15-17) dating 28 year old guys. Any guy past his junior year in college(or age 21) still dating a chick in high school just needs to have his balls removed because they are obviously so desperate for p***y that they have to reach back into high school since they can't get a chick in college.


RE: About time
By mindless1 on 10/27/2007 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Who are you to judge, really?

100 or more years ago, there were not these taboos. Does having modern appliances and conveniences make it more of a problem, or less of a problem to date someone of significantly different age?

I am not suggesting it's ok to attempt a relationship with a minor, under 18 is too young. ON the other hand, the idea that an age difference is an excuse to cut someone's balls off is just stupidity. Yes we have laws to protect minors and they should be inforced, but physical mutilation because of a few dates or even (gasp!) sex? You are a prime example of someone who should be locked in a prison cell and left there forever.

The key is that your thoughts don't matter, to the extent of imposing punishment on others. You are not god and won't ever be. If two adults consent to something, you're just an idiot to pass judgement and suggest a cruel punishment. This is in reference to an age difference, not to dating/more a minor. Minors should be left alone to decide their own course in life without predators interfering.

On the other hand, once one is physically mature, has spend enough time past puberty, they should be entitled to make adult decisions regardless of an arbitrary age limit.

DO you realize that your ancestors almost certain include women who chose to be girlfriends/mothers/wifes/etc before age 18? Today youth mature at an even faster pace, are more emotionally and sexually mature than your ancestors were at age 18. The moment you try to play "you know better", your god complex is impeding on the very rights that founded all free society.

There are two important factors:

1) Parents do not psychologically stunt their child's developement. The child should be left to mature and make life decisions appropriate to their age.

2) Soemone who is sexually mature has all the rights you do to make decisions regarding mates. If they were oppressed or abused and it stunts their emotional ability, the answer is to retrain the parent, as it is the cause and the solution until the child is of legal consent age. Once that child is of legal consent age, it's not up to anyone except that individual who they date, marry, etc.

I pity you for your random idea someone should be limited to marrying only among a small group of those having similar age. It is not a matter of feeling you are superior to be conservative, it makes you a puppet instead. At the same time, finding the right mate who is similar in age could be considered an ideal, but if that ideal isn't realized, your artificial limits are just foolish, and criminal if acted out in the manner you suggested.

So you advocate criminal activity. What a good example you are of someone who should never be allowed to date, marry or propigate if we're going to play god about it.

Look yourself in the mirror and realize how low you have sunk. Even if you were kidding about castration, a measure of a man is not what he really means, it is what he really DOES, his works and communication. Thinking good thoughts means nothing, it's your outward impact that matters. Chew on that for awhile.


RE: About time
By Trippytiger on 10/23/2007 11:55:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Someone who is 25, 35, 45, 55, etc having those thoughts about someone who is 8, 10, 15, etc - is not considered normal. Its wrong, in every way, shape, and form.


Indeed. These crimethinkers should be reported to the Thinkpol.


RE: About time
By Adonlude on 10/23/2007 8:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Umm, did it ever occur to you that even you were probably attracted to minors, when you were a minor?

Until you have checked his ID to know his age, it's pretty silly to attack someone on the internet assuming you know their age.


Are you seriously attempting to apply the term pedophilia to similar aged sexual relationships between minors? Your screen name suddenly makes more sense.


RE: About time
By mindless1 on 10/27/2007 1:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, you are the one who brought up that term. Different terms exist for a reason.


RE: About time
By ZoZo on 10/23/2007 6:47:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
While I don't agree with the thing about pedosexuals (being one myself)


That's disturbing...


RE: About time
By FITCamaro on 10/23/2007 7:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
If you were trying to be funny. You failed miserably.

If you were serious, I hope Bubba makes you his bitch in prison. Then makes you have an "accident".

(and I mean all of it)


RE: About time
By mindless1 on 10/27/2007 1:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
"and I mean all of it"

This is exactly why you belong in prison.

Don't you GET it? NObody gives a damn what your beliefs are. You have no evidence of wrongdoing yet suggest abuse. That's clear-cut, you belong in a cage.


RE: About time
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 8:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I don't agree with the thing about pedosexuals (being one myself)

It's telling that you equate pedophiles == pedosexuals. Changing the word doesn't make it any less of a crime (acting on it), nor does it make it any less reprehensible and disgusting to most everyone in every society around the globe.

I also find it very disturbing that you have children under your care. I prey for their present and future safety and mental health.

I also urge you to get professional psychological help for your problem. Despite your own warped views, it is not normal to think of children in a sexual way. You seriously need help.


RE: About time
By redbone75 on 10/23/2007 11:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
It would seem that there is an automatic vote down when that "p" word is used. It really is sick any way you put it.


RE: About time
By T4RTER S4UCE on 10/23/2007 8:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
1.Only marijuana should be restrictively legalized.
2.You being a "pedosexual" is kind of creepy.
3.Separation of Church and State goes both ways
(to many people forget that)
4.If some pedosexual druggy atheist comes after a kid with bad intentions, the kid should have the right to at least scare the guy away with a gun.


RE: About time
By neocommunist on 10/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/24/2007 8:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
Oh my. That is so wrong and distasteful on so many levels. This guy is definately a freak of nature with many mental issues. I can only hope he decides to get psychological help, and much of it.


RE: About time
By FITCamaro on 10/24/2007 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
Bullets to the back of the head work wonders for ones mental state.


RE: About time
By ZoZo on 10/23/2007 6:59:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
After the world wide drug use epidemic was crushed a few years back, oh and after all of the murderers and pedophiles in the world were caught, oh and after we eliminated domestic terror cells, oh and after... where was I again?


You're right. Until all pedophiles and murderers are cought, everyone is free to do any less severe crime.


RE: About time
By Tsuwamono on 10/23/2007 7:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well now that we are in agreement, im going to go sleep with your wife then steal your car..


RE: About time
By T4RTER S4UCE on 10/23/2007 8:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
He's just saying its rediculous that police should spend time and money following the demands of record industries instead of trying to save lives and make the world a better place.


RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 8:51:07 PM , Rating: 3
That would be a correct interpretation.

And as much as I am not for the RIAA/MPAA, etc....we all must still realize that as we citizens pay taxes that fund the police/govt for our protection, the people (recording artists, etc) & businesses also pay taxes to the police/govt for their protection.

So as distasteful as it may sound to some of the "pro-piracy" backers, the facts are facts, and the police/govt has a responsibility not only to individual citizens, but also the businesses that operate here as well.


RE: About time
By helios220 on 10/23/2007 10:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
It would appear that this thread took quite a tangent. Regardless, I still agree with mdogs. My original statement was obviously rife with sarcasm and not meant to represent my whole and complete opinion on the topic of piracy, it's obviously a much more complex issue.

Regardless of whether or not like it, the law is the law and in the very name lawn enforcement there is a not so subtle hint at the responsibilities of the police. However, where do you draw the line between how much time, money and manpower should be spent curbing piracy when there are more serious issues to deal with? Experience has shown that when people with lots of money have problems, they tend to be addressed more quickly than those faced by the average person.

Money is power. Personally I think that blows since I don't have much of either, but that's just the way the world turns.


RE: About time
By helios220 on 10/23/2007 10:23:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...lawn enforcement...


You will be arrested and sentenced to death if you don't use Scotts® Turf Builder® WinterGuard™ With PLUS 2® Weed Control.


RE: About time
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 10:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
As men, we dont cut grass....we mow lawn.

lol


RE: About time
By johnsonx on 10/24/2007 2:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
Attempting to arrest real criminals can be dangerous.


Long live Piracy
By daftrok on 10/23/2007 6:44:28 PM , Rating: 3
You can't stop it, no matter how many you shut down. Another will take its place, and another, and another. Either sell songs at 320Kbps mp3 for $0.01 to $0.10 DRM free for consumers or music downloads will never stop.




RE: Long live Piracy
By ImSpartacus on 10/23/2007 8:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, I wouldn't mind a DRM-less penny song, regardless if its audiophile quality or not.

I don't like how all this money is being spent. Do these organizations get funding from all the lawsuits? Is it even legal for private companies to enforce federal and international law? At least in the states that sounds like a job for the US Gov't. But then again, what do those guys get done...


RE: Long live Piracy
By FITCamaro on 10/23/2007 10:53:18 PM , Rating: 3
I think 75-99 cents is a perfectly reasonable amount of money to charge for a song. You're obviously someone who doesn't like a company making a profit. Me I have no problem with artists making money. The problem it isn't the artists making the money. And thats the only problem.

1-10 cents for a song though is a ridiculously low amount to charge. Thats saying that an artists work that took them possibly months to come up with is worth less than a small pack of chewing gum.


RE: Long live Piracy
By redbone75 on 10/23/2007 11:55:12 PM , Rating: 4
I certainly am not playing the devil's advocate here, so don't hate me for it. Here goes:

We ALL (well, 99.9999% of us) hate the RIAA/MPAA, but they are legal entities looking after their members' collective interests, in very much the same way other big businesses like oil, automobile, and electronics do. They have lobbyists to grab the ears of politicians, and they use their money to campaign for themselves (anti-piracy adds). We hate their tactics, but what would Shell Oil do if millions of John/Jane Does were siphoning off their oil without paying for it? They would sue, and they would want restitution for the product that was stolen.

We know that artists of member labels of the RIAA don't make squat off the cd's sold in stores, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the record labels themselves to the artists. They provide a means of public recognition of the artists, and that is provided in the deals the artists make when signed to the big labels. Things like radio airplay, ads, commercials and the like-- startup artists can't afford those things on their own. The record companies are a vehicle for the artists' success while touring and concerts provide the true bulk of an artist's money. Who do you think fronts the money for tour busses and travel expenses? Alanis Morissette said as much when she testified on behalf of Napster in its case against Metallica and the RIAA in that tiny little case years ago. Artists make money off of touring.

Artists have the option of not signing to the major labels and going through the struggles on their own to try to make it big. (That's how Cash Money Records got started. I'm from Louisiana, and I personally remember those guys selling music out of the trunks of their cars.) Most, though, want to make it big in a fast way, and sign their souls away on the dotted line. I know many local artists of Louisiana, Mississippi Georgia, that have big followings in the south, and they have no desire to sign to major labels. They, though, don't represent the majority of those artists that ply their trade. Most want to have the extravagant lifestyle they see on MTV Cribs, and that's what success on a major label provides, and that's what the RIAA is trying to protect. That, and the security of their labels' CEO's and higher ups to continue wiping their arses with with money rolls while sitting on golden crappers while flying in one amongst a fleet of private jets.


RE: Long live Piracy
By gramboh on 10/24/2007 3:32:04 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is 128/160kbit sounds like utter trash compared to CD. I'm not buying any music unless it's at least 224/320 VBR/CBR and preferably offered in FLAC. Bandwidth is cheap now, there is no excuse for 128/160kbit other than most people don't realize the difference (although 99% of people can tell the difference even on a $200 stereo if you play a song back to back 128kbit mp3 and CD).


RE: Long live Piracy
By gramboh on 10/24/2007 12:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you rate that comment down? Unless you are using $5 earbud phones, you should be able to tell how bad and limited range 128kbit MP3/AAC sounds compared to CD.


responsible
By omnicronx on 10/23/2007 8:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OiNK was responsible for leaking 60 major pre-release albums in 2007
They personally released songs? Or they hosted songs released by a group, theres a big difference. Personally although its a grey line, I do not see how technically a torrent site is illegal. As they do not physically host the files, or even physically link you to the files themselves.

I still don't understand why these groups go after these sites, they are not the ones that actually release the material. Go after the release groups that put them up in the first place...




RE: responsible
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 8:55:11 PM , Rating: 3
Even if they didnt host the torrents themselves, you could look at it from a different perspective:

Aiding & Abetting : A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abet...

So the argument could come to that, because the bittorrent sites do have knowledge of the crime before, or after the fact, and are assisting in the "crime".


RE: responsible
By FoxFour on 10/23/2007 9:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect that it's a matter of effect.

You take down one release group, it doesn't really slow things down much. Even if you take down 5 of them, you're only starting to put a temporary dent in the pre-release scene.

Take down OiNK, though, and you instantly halt ALL of the file-sharing (scene, older music, apps, books) that was going on between those 180000 users, until they regroup elsewhere. Many of them, like myself, WON'T return until a replacement with the same level of quality as OiNK shows up. The current alternatives that I have access to are pathetic in comparison, and I won't bother to use them.

What they (the recording instry, etc) DON'T understand is that I also WON'T be buying any CD's or software in the interim. I wasn't paying for it before, and I'm not going to pay for it now. They're not going to increase revenues from folks like me by shutting down the BT sites. Hell, the last 4 CD's I bought at retail were albums I had already downloaded in FLAC from OiNK. I got the albums there, had listened for a week or two, and then decided to buy. That's going to be revenue LOST.


RE: responsible
By omnicronx on 10/23/2007 10:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Take down OiNK, though, and you instantly halt ALL of the file-sharing
No you don't, you just divert traffic elsewhere, just as with the release groups. Both ways are pretty inaffective.


RE: responsible
By piroroadkill on 10/24/2007 4:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree to a certain extent - OiNK had a unique appeal I find rarely replicated elsewhere - a quality community with a dedication to high fidelity music. This is instantly torn away from the users of the site, with no clear alternative


Pretty cocky...
By kileil on 10/23/2007 6:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Interpol is getting pretty cocky for a relatively new band composed of floppy-haired indie rock guys.




RE: Pretty cocky...
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 6:15:00 PM , Rating: 1
Im guessing that you are being sarcastic with the Interpol comment....

but just in case you are not, Interpol is the International Police, not just the name of a rock band.


RE: Pretty cocky...
By kileil on 10/23/2007 7:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm just joking about. I've been following the recent string of RIAA/Torrent lawsuits closely as its interesting watching everyone hash (pun) out the lines of infingement between hosting trackers vs. hosting actual media content.

Although this is the first time I've heard of OiNK. I gather from other sites though its a bit of a "darknet" due to the DNS problems it was experiencing before the bust, so that's not too surprising.


RE: Pretty cocky...
By ryedizzel on 10/23/2007 7:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHAHA, i don't know what was funnier, the original post or mdogs444's response. Good stuff. :)


RE: Pretty cocky...
By sscilli on 10/24/2007 2:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty big hit for music on bittorent. I know I used oink a lot, and despite downloading a lot of music I actually did find some CD's I really liked and went out and bought. The way I see it I want to know I like something before I buy it. I don't want to listen to a 20 second clip of a couple tracks. It was inevitable that Oink got shut down, I'm not trying to defend it. But I really don't like the way the media is portraying it as a site were users payed for illegal music. It was a site that ran on donations, but the vast majority of users were not donators and there was a very large and active community that really did just love sharing music. The day I can preview a album at CD quality for a reasonable amount of time, and than decide to buy it without any annoying DRM I won't need a site like Oink.


Creative Pricing may be key
By nukunukoo on 10/24/2007 2:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
The way I figure it is this: Sell DRM-protected 320Kbps MP3s at $0.99 a song or an album where each song is $0.65 (discounted) and non-DRM songs for $1.85 each and $1.15 per song if you buy the album. I believe the pricing is sane and as far as I am concerned will encourage me to buy more songs legitimately. It just amazes me how the RIAA is forcing its obsolete pricing and distribution methods.




RE: Creative Pricing may be key
By KHysiek on 10/24/2007 3:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's the law that lets them do it. People create popularity of music and still thay have to pay for it more and more, cause producers hold all rights to this music. I think producers should be put under laws of monopoly, cause they hold monopoly over these things.


RE: Creative Pricing may be key
By piroroadkill on 10/24/2007 4:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think can DRM protect standard MP3s.

Also, I don't think having dual downloads available is a good idea - one single DRM free V0 MP3 choice is all I would want


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki