Illegal download site shut down in police raid

[KevinG]

One of the world's biggest websites for pre-release illegal downloads, OiNK, has been shut down by police, and its alleged owner has been arrested.

OiNK was a subscription-based website with over 180,000 members, and made money through users paying voluntary donations.

Cleveland police worked with Interpol in the raid, which culminated in the arrest of a 24-year-old man from Middlesbrough - the alleged organiser of OiNK - and the seizure of the website's servers in Amsterdam.

OiNK provided major release albums before their scheduled release dates, which relied on users sharing music with each other using peer-to-peer program BitTorrent.

Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive of the British Phonographic Industry, said he hoped the authorities would keep applying pressure on illegal downloaders.

Source:
http://web.nme.com/news/tabloid-hell/31992

Eh, I don't really have an opinion on this. I know a lot of people that do illegal downloads. I do not, but I don't want to piss off all my friends by siding with the opponents of illegal downloading.

I did burn a copy of my friend's store bought CD once though.

I also tried pot once, but I didn't inhale.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by KevinG

Source:
http://web.nme.com/news/tabloid-hell/31992

Eh, I don't really have an opinion on this. I know a lot of people that do illegal downloads. I do not, but I don't want to piss off all my friends by siding with the opponents of illegal downloading.

I did burn a copy of my friend's store bought CD once though.

I also tried pot once, but I didn't inhale.

Content theft is content theft.
Weve all done it but its no fun when its your shit being stolen.

Reminds me of when Rusty & Edies BBS was shut down. They had a T1 going into the house selling pics years ago. What got them in trouble was the pirated software section on the board.

They were already on the radar and just stepped over the line.
They were huge back in that day too!

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Content theft is content theft.
Weve all done it but its no fun when its your shit being stolen.

Yes, it is.
But I can't tell you how many times I've purchased RUSH 2112 in various formats.
Now, shouldn't I have a license to one copy at a time of that album in any format? (Whatever the revlevant format of the day is)
And while it doesn't apply to that album, as ALL the music on that is excellent, I even understand the practice of making you buy the album to get the "other" songs on that album. But once I buy the album, I think I should have a license to listen to one copy of that music at a time in any format.
I don't mind paying the artists for their work, and I won't argue about the price of what's "fair." It is a free market economy after all. But dammit, if I buy it, I own it. The first sale doctrine has clearly stated that you own the rights to that copy to use, resell, rent, etc.

I gots one license, and I wants to use it, precious.

[RawAlex]

EJ, the problem is that you misunderstood your license. You didn't buy the rights to the music period, but rather the rights to the music in the format your bought it in. Your responsiblity is to maintain and protect your investment.

It is no different from buying a car, driving it 250,000 miles, and then going back and asking for a new one for free because you already a car. It's just doesn't work out.

This particular file sharing place provided high end recordings, often stolen content from studio sessions and other unreleased material, and had the balls not only to share it, but to charge for the right to access it.

Copyright violation, resale of stolen goods, often working to obtain those stolen goods be convincing studio techs and such to sneak copies out of the studios and pressing plants before stuff was released... this fucker needs to enjoy some federal butt slammin' prison time (or whatever the UK version is).

[EmporerEJ]

Oh, I agree this ass clown was a criminal.

But back to my license for 2112.
I don't think that's an accurate statement for my 8 track version, album version, or cassette version of 2112. (All of which I owned.)

And the first sale doctrine clearly defines that I have the right to rent or resell that physical intellectual property.
Why could I repair a broken cassette door on the tape, but not the tape itself?
Does that mean I can't splice the tape if it rips? How far does that go?

I know many hear are too young to remember the "good 'ole days" but as a video store owner, I paid $72.50 for an $89.98 retail Hollywood video back in the 80's. If I didn't rent that 45 times minimum, I had a bad ROI. Some idiot with a "new VCR just last Christmas, and he didn't damage it" destroys my investment, you mean my license is gone?

Let's just say I interpreted it differently. Especially after Hollywood got into bed with rentrack (National video) and eventually blockbuster. They instituted a revenue sharing system similar to the movie theaters in an attempt, (which pretty much succeeded) to put independent stores out of business.

Let's just say this issue (not the specific case above) isn't as Black and White as it may seem on the surface.

[RawAlex]

You can do anything you want for your own personal benefit with the product you have purchased, in the format you have chosen. Further, because of the limited rights that do exist to create a backup or to store it in another medium for your personal use (disk to tape, or to MP3, or whatever), you have a pretty open field.

However, there is a point where your license expires. If you lose all your backups and the original fails, the original purchase didn't entitle you to free replacements for life. You bought the music in a particular format and in doing so you accepted both the benefits and limitations of that format.

Let's say you buy an album online in MP3 format. Three years from now, you have an HD crash and you lose the album. Is the MP3 site obligated to give you another copy for free?

You could always go online to a torrent site and download a new copy. There is only one problem: The person distributing it to you doesn't have the rights to do so, so in reality you are receiving stolen property, even if you have previously purchased the album. I doubt anyone will get up set, but IN THEORY, you don't have the rights to that copy.

I could go on...

As for your video issue, the problem in that model was twofold: First, your purchase price was for one copy in the format purchased. There may or may not be a manufacture guarantee on the product, but in reality you purchased something at a risk. The second issue was more of the cost of product versus what the market was willing to spent to rent it. When you are paying $75 for something and renting it out for $2, yeah, you have to rent it often just to break even.

Seperate example: I run a car rental company. I buy a car and rent it to a customer, who has an accident and totally destroys the car. Should the manufacture replace the car?

You didn't buy "rights", you bought an end product.