[Axel]

Holy ***

British and Dutch police today shut down the world’s biggest source of illegal pre-release chart albums and arrested a 24-year old man in an operation coordinated between Middlesbrough and Amsterdam.

The raids, which were coordinated by Interpol, follow a two-year investigation by the international and UK music industry bodies IFPI and BPI into the members-only online pirate pre-release club known as OiNK.

OiNK specialised in distributing albums leaked on to the internet, often weeks ahead of their official release date. More than 60 major album releases have been leaked on OiNK so far this year, making it the primary source worldwide for illegal pre-release music.

The site, with an estimated membership of 180,000, has been used by many hardcore file-sharers to violate the rights of artists and producers by obtaining copyrighted recordings and making them available on the internet.

It is alleged that the site was operated by a 24-year-old man in the Middlesbrough area, who was arrested today. The site’s servers, based in Amsterdam, were seized in a series of raids last week. OiNK’s operator allegedly made money by setting up a donations account on the site facilitated by PayPal.

Cleveland Police and the FIOD-ECD SCHIPOL branch of the Dutch police undertook the raids, supported by Interpol, as part of a carefully-planned international investigation with anti-piracy investigators from IFPI and BPI.

OiNK used peer-to-peer technology called BitTorrent to distribute music. Torrent sites such as OiNK act as a library for torrent files. BitTorrent is the most popular software for internet file sharing and OiNK was the best-known for pre-release piracy.

Press Release

[Kevin]

Never heard of it.

[MacosNerd]

I've only heard of it here, when someone asks for a membership and then that post gets locked in the course of time

[starman]

Still want those invites?

[Kevin]

[Mastrap]

Stealing music is stupid.

[wallinbl]

Cue the people saying "it's not stealing".

[FireWire]

Who is more to blame? I think the employee who leaked the material is by far more guilty than the people redistributing it afterward. And it's not technically stealing if it's not for sale yet Personally I have nothing against hardcore fans who pirate movie or records before the release. The industry is asking for it by delaying the launch purposely or by releasing it for a particular market before another. They should release everything world-wide as soon as it is ready.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

The industry is asking for it by delaying the launch purposely or by releasing it for a particular market before another. They should release everything world-wide as soon as it is ready.

It's like girls, wearing short skirts. They're asking to be groped, aren't they?

There are a lot of idiots in the music industry and it's fair to say that the customer is the least of their concerns and yes, we've been ripped off time after time. But stealing music isn't the answer. IMO.

[Mithras]

Not to mention the more obviously crappy stuff that services like OiNK provide, like stolen software. Or "copyright infringed" software, or whatever the cool kids are calling it these days.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Who is more to blame? I think the employee who leaked the material is by far more guilty than the people redistributing it afterward.

It's not a contest - they're both guilty.

And it's not technically stealing if it's not for sale yet

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. It's still not stealing after it's released. Regardless, it's both illegal and wrong.

Personally I have nothing against hardcore fans who pirate movie or records before the release. The industry is asking for it by delaying the launch purposely or by releasing it for a particular market before another. They should release everything world-wide as soon as it is ready.

Funny.

[shifuimam]

That so, so, so sucks.

There were three Quarashi albums on there that were never released in the US, and I didn't get a chance to get them before they shutdown the site. Bummer.

[paul w]

So why hasn't demonoid been busted?

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

It's like girls, wearing short skirts. They're asking to be groped, aren't they?

Ah come on...

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Originally Posted by FireWire

Personally I have nothing against hardcore fans who pirate movie or records before the release. The industry is asking for it by delaying the launch purposely or by releasing it for a particular market before another. They should release everything world-wide as soon as it is ready.

Funny.

What's so funny? If I'm a big fan of Smashing Pumpkins, for example, and I heard that they are releasing a new album next month, I will be excited. If I heard that the said album is in fact ready and I can get it now, before its release, I will probably take the opportunity. Nothing say that I will not purchase the album when the marketing team decides to give its OK. Maybe I just want to listen to it NOW. Nobody loses (beside the corporate ego).

The same goes for people that download crappy bootleg movie filmed in theatre because it is not available yet where they live. They will probably go see it when it gets there but meanwhile, while not have a sneak preview? It's illegal but not immoral. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't see it as wrong if I happened to try Leopard before its release, from a torrent site. As long as you buy the "real stuff" when it is released.. And in this country, the presumption of innocence should prevail.

[Edit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam

That so, so, so sucks.

There were three Quarashi albums on there that were never released in the US, and I didn't get a chance to get them before they shutdown the site. Bummer.

See! That's what I'm talking about.

[shifuimam]

Oink was specifically targeted at sharing pre-release and limited-release music (e.g. one of the Quarashi albums had a limited production of like 200,000 copies - it's impossible to find anywhere now), so I guess they're trying to first bring down sites that they claim are "more damaging" to the already overpriced music industry.

I'm guessing that Demonoid will be next, although it does depend on where it's being hosted...

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Ah come on...

What's so funny? If I'm a big fan of Smashing Pumpkins, for example, and I heard that they are releasing a new album next month, I will be excited. If I heard that the said album is in fact ready and I can get it now, before its release, I will probably take the opportunity. Nothing say that I will not purchase the album when the marketing team decides to give its OK. Maybe I just want to listen to it NOW. Nobody loses (beside the corporate ego).

The same goes for people that download crappy bootleg movie filmed in theatre because it is not available yet where they live. They will probably go see it when it gets there but meanwhile, while not have a sneak preview? It's illegal but not immoral. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't see it as wrong if I happened to try Leopard before its release, from a torrent site. As long as you buy the "real stuff" when it is released.. And in this country, the presumption of innocence should prevail.

[Edit] See! That's what I'm talking about.

It's the copyright holder's choice to make it available early, not your choice to force it to happen. Radiohead decided to make it available prior to the CD release, for free if you wanted. That's their choice. Others have declined this option. They own the copyright and it's their choice to do so. If they choose not to, you have no moral right to just take it on your own. It is actually immoral as you are acting against the rights of others.

If you were to have purchased Leopard and then decided it was not worth the money, Apple still would have made a sale. If you download it and don't like it, Apple have not made a sale. It may be poor customer management to sell something your customer ends up not liking and declining to accept a return, but it is the right of the copyright holder to do so. It is immoral to sidestep these rights for your own personal gain.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Who is more to blame? I think the employee who leaked the material is by far more guilty than the people redistributing it afterward.

They are both equally to blame. They OBVIOUSLY have the morals of OJ.

Originally Posted by FireWire 

And it's not technically stealing if it's not for sale yet

So, If I take your car from in front of your house it wouldn't be stealing either since it wasn't for sale yet?

Originally Posted by FireWire 

The industry is asking for it by delaying the launch purposely or by releasing it for a particular market before another. They should release everything world-wide as soon as it is ready.

So, your inability to WAIT for it to come out justifies stealing? Sounds more like immaturity or selfishness.

[Sijmen]

Cleveland Police and the FIOD-ECD SCHIPOL branch of the Dutch police....

it's Schiphol you ******

Edit: ooh, and the FIOD is, I think, an agency much like the IRS. It searches for fraudulent people and companies.

[ort888]

So does anyone have any extra OiNK invites they can give me?

[turtle777]

The pig got slaughtered. I could care less.

-t

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That so, so, so sucks.

There were three Quarashi albums on there that were never released in the US, and I didn't get a chance to get them before they shutdown the site. Bummer.

[Edit] See! That's what I'm talking about.

Other than the limited release one, you go to a website for a music store in the country it was released, and purchase it that way.

I do that all the time, ordering Greek music from Greek stores in Greece.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. It's still not stealing after it's released. Regardless, it's both illegal and wrong.Funny.

If you take something that costs money, and you didn't pay for it. You have stolen it. It is theft. No matter what you want to call it.

[Cipher13]

Meh. I'll continue to "steal" music.

If it's good, I buy the album. If not, I delete it.

Though I have to say, I'd rather send the artists cash than buy a CD... but then their "sales" numbers would suffer.

The number of bands I have enough faith in to buy an album from, unheard, I could count on one hand.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Meh. I'll continue to "steal" music.

If it's good, I buy the album. If not, I delete it.

I really don't consider that any different than listening to teh record before buying it. So while I myself have no moral problem with this, you'll still have to deal with the RIAA themselves. I've bought MORE CDs since I've been able to do this than not. I've always had buyers remorse when buying CDs. 3 out of 10 I used to buy I'd like. (I like to take risks to find some really decent stuff)

The way you do it is the way I do. And this way I don't get burned. Of course the RIAA loses all that money they would have garnered from people that bought CDs they ended up disliking. And they don't like the fact they can no longer sell a CD for only ONE song now. People will just grab the song. They have the habit of really getting that one hit wonder out, and then forcing the rest of teh CD which is CRAP out the door.

Not that any bands I listen to follow under this. But a lot of CDs do.

Though I have to say, I'd rather send the artists cash than buy a CD... but then their "sales" numbers would suffer.

True.

The number of bands I have enough faith in to buy an album from, unheard, I could count on one hand.

Same here.

It would be cool if record companies let you download the WHOLE CD and lets you listen to it twice before you decide to buy. I'd never download another illegal mp3 again if they did this. (Well except for bootlegs you can't get legally...)

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

If you were to have purchased Leopard and then decided it was not worth the money, Apple still would have made a sale. If you download it and don't like it, Apple have not made a sale.

And that's where things are different in the real world vs. the digital world. Now, if you buy an OS or a CD or an application and decide it's not worth the money, you're screwed. You're out however much money for something you won't use.

If you buy a book, read a couple pages, and realize it's a piece of crap, you can return it as long as it's in good condition. If you buy a pair of shoes, take them home, wear them around the house, and realize they're bound to give you bunions, you put them back in the box and return them. If you buy a set of dishes to match an existing set, and realize you picked the wrong ones, you simply return them.

But if you buy a CD or DVD and take off the cellophane around the case, you've voided the ability to return the item, so even if the music or the movie is the biggest piece of crap ever, you're stuck.

The quality of music churned out by the music industry keeps getting worse, and they've made it impossible to get your money back on a shitty, poorly-made product.

So it's not really the same.

I still buy music from independent labels. I just found a digital music download site in Iceland, and I should be able to get every track Quarashi ever recorded for a total of $56. Since this money is going for something I very much want, and it's not going to support the RIAA, I am fully willing to pay the price. I won't, however, buy albums released under RIAA control. All that succeeds in doing is supporting an organization that is more or less out to terrorize its customers into bending to its will.

Having DRM-free downloads is one step in the direction of not defaulting to treating your customers like criminals. Once they stop claiming that sharing a handful of songs is seriously resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in unseen "damages", we'll really be on the right path.

Music is no longer about music. If it were, artists wouldn't be concerned with pre-release leaks or lost money on CD sales. They would WANT to share their talents and their art and their creation with their listeners and fans. Music used to be about creating something beautiful and interesting and genuine. Now it's just about squeezing as much money as possible out of the customers, and I'm just not into that.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm just not into that.

Then quit obtaining the product. The problem is, everyone keeps sending the message that they still want the product while complaining that the product sucks. If the product sucks so much, then why does everyone need to resort to illegal means to obtain it? Quit consuming it at all if you want someone to hear your message.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Music is no longer about music. If it were, artists wouldn't be concerned with pre-release leaks or lost money on CD sales. They would WANT to share their talents and their art and their creation with their listeners and fans. Music used to be about creating something beautiful and interesting and genuine. Now it's just about squeezing as much money as possible out of the customers, and I'm just not into that.

Why is it a given that all artists would want to share their art and creation without any compensation? It is obviously important for people to like an artist's work, but it is also a big plus to an artist when he/she can use CD profits to help recoup costs of producing the album (which, as we've discussed, is easily tens of thousands of dollars).

These are not decisions that you or anybody is entitled to make, but the artist him/herself. If they want you to pay for their work, we are morally obligated to honor these wishes. Otherwise, we are taking something that isn't ours.

[Grrr]

The naughty Mac users will be bummed. A guy on Oink was just about to put Leopard there last night.

[besson3c]

There is always Usenet, which is generally safer and faster anyway.

[Grrr]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is always Usenet, which is generally safer and faster anyway.

A newsgroup? I have to say I never sussed those things out, so i dont know the 1st thing about them.
As for Leopard, it doesn't matter to me personally, as I ordered it anyway. But i did hope to get my hands on it early, granted

Back to Oink.. As has often been the case with these torrents sites, the host of the site holds none of the copyrighted material the police and authorities are concerned with, so it may not be over yet. Even if it meant springing back to life under another name. Possible? A similar thing happened with the pirate bay I believe. Although Swedens laws are something else altogether.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Meh. I'll continue to "steal" music.

If it's good, I buy the album. If not, I delete it.

Though I have to say, I'd rather send the artists cash than buy a CD... but then their "sales" numbers would suffer.

The number of bands I have enough faith in to buy an album from, unheard, I could count on one hand.

My thoughts exactly

Now that OiNK is down some other site takes its place. BOiNK or somesuch. 2 year investigation by authorities, internationally heh. All that results is one 24 year old gets arrested and perhaps a handful of users. Although that's doubtful.

What a waste of taxpayer's money. How about using that international investigative muscle to catch some terrorists or something?

Idiots.

V

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Grrr 

A newsgroup? I have to say I never sussed those things out, so i dont know the 1st thing about them.

Yeah, I get all sorts of stuff there at downloads of 150k/sec on my residential cable. Plus, my risk is pretty much gone since I'm not uploading anything this way.

[Peter]

Bites.

[starman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it a given that all artists would want to share their art and creation without any compensation?

Who said anything about NO compensation? It's about producing something _AND_ getting paid for it, not producing crap for money which is what everything's about nowadays.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If you take something that costs money, and you didn't pay for it. You have stolen it. It is theft. No matter what you want to call it.

But still, downloading some album (that you wouldn't buy anyway), is not morally equal to go into a store and shoplift it. It's not really right to use the word steal when services like this really aren't more than next generation MTVs/radio stations.

Everyone I know that downloads lots of music, i.e. the ones with a passion for music, are also the ones that spend the most money on it. Computers and the Internet are probably the best things that have happened to music since they democratize the record companies' main tasks; recording, PR & distribution. I bet that in five years or so, most bands will do like Radiohead and cut the middle man.

Piracy kills music labels, not music. There's tons of ways to make a living as a musician even in the digital age. People pay crazy money for bottled water, why wouldn't they pay for music that they like? Make it super easy to pay for it, and people will.

I'm pretty sure history will judge copy protection, DRM & Lawsuits as completely misguided and inefficient approaches to save the "industry".

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I really don't consider that any different than listening to teh record before buying it. So while I myself have no moral problem with this, you'll still have to deal with the RIAA themselves.

I'm not so worried about the RIAA. I'm an overly paranoid person, and I'd love to see them slave over breaking disk-wide encryption on my external drive which contains my mp3s and movies. Totally unnecessary but it doesn't inconvenience me whatsoever. The thing that scares me about them is what they can do to *other* people, what they stand for, and their methods. Extortion is supposed to be illegal.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I've bought MORE CDs since I've been able to do this than not. I've always had buyers remorse when buying CDs. 3 out of 10 I used to buy I'd like. (I like to take risks to find some really decent stuff)

Yeah, same here. Consider the fact that I'm 23 right now - before I discovered Hotline, I'd never, *ever* bought a CD. Not a single one. I simply wasn't into music, really (and was all of 11 years old or so). After I found I was able to download music, I found stuff I really liked (that I would never have heard of otherwise. When was the last time you heard prog rock or power metal on the radio?), so I bought it. File sharing has directly earned record companies and artists thousands of dollars through myself alone. If it wasn't for Hotline/Napster/LimeWire/BitTorrent/etc, I doubt they'd have earned nearly that much from me.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The way you do it is the way I do. And this way I don't get burned. Of course the RIAA loses all that money they would have garnered from people that bought CDs they ended up disliking. And they don't like the fact they can no longer sell a CD for only ONE song now. People will just grab the song. They have the habit of really getting that one hit wonder out, and then forcing the rest of teh CD which is CRAP out the door.

Not that any bands I listen to follow under this. But a lot of CDs do.

I guess that's the crux of the problem (for us), and the heart of their business model. Charge for a full record, with one potentially desirable song, and load the rest with crap to justify the cost by the running time of the record. It's also a reason the iTunes Store business model works - you aren't forced to take expensive sides of boring salad with your tender aged steak.

And yeah... none of the bands I listen to know how to record a bad song, remarkably. I'm not being over-evangelical about them, they're just really good at what they do.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

It would be cool if record companies let you download the WHOLE CD and lets you listen to it twice before you decide to buy. I'd never download another illegal mp3 again if they did this. (Well except for bootlegs you can't get legally...)

No kidding. The sole reason I download songs via LimeWire and whatnot is so I can sample them (and for instant gratification sometimes). If they were made available to sample (in their entirety) I'd have no need for that.

I have to say, the whole file-sharing thing has raised the bar as far as quality of music goes, as far as I'm concerned. Because I can so easily discriminate between the **** and the good stuff, naturally I'll tend towards the better music. This is bad for the industry because the majority of music out there is crap. While they may see this as being bad for their business model, tough **** - it should reform music into something better. Sort out the garbage from real, worthy music.

Amazingly some bands (such as, as far as my tastes dictate, Symphony X and Blind Guardian) simply continue to come through, and they're the ones that deserve, and will receive, my money. Those being pirated and forgotten because they rely on short-lived one-hitters that only become popular *because* they're played on the radio (where it should be the other way around... being played on the radio as a reward [I know this would never work, with the radio being the medium that it is]) should aspire to the level of the aforementioned bands (or their equivalents in whatever genre you prefer).

I hope this makes sense, beer makes me ramble.

EDIT: Bad use of the word sample. Nevermind, you know what I mean.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Busemann 

But still, downloading some album (that you wouldn't buy anyway), is not morally equal to go into a store and shoplift it. It's not really right to use the word steal when services like this really aren't more than next generation MTVs/radio stations.

Everyone I know that downloads lots of music, i.e. the ones with a passion for music, are also the ones that spend the most money on it. Computers and the Internet are probably the best things that have happened to music since they democratize the record companies' main tasks; recording, PR & distribution. I bet that in five years or so, most bands will do like Radiohead and cut the middle man.

Piracy kills music labels, not music. There's tons of ways to make a living as a musician even in the digital age. People pay crazy money for bottled water, why wouldn't they pay for music that they like? Make it super easy to pay for it, and people will.

I'm pretty sure history will judge copy protection, DRM & Lawsuits as completely misguided and inefficient approaches to save the "industry".

I agree; pirating music is not stealing, because it doesn't deprive a previous owner of the goods in question once they have been pirated.

It is quite literally no different to recording a TV show to a VHS tape back in the day, or a song to a casette on the radio. It's modern law[yers] and desperate, archaic corporations that are defining this problem. If it wasn't for their inane protests, which some people seem to have assumed are legitimate, there wouldn't be an issue.

I do acknowledge that piracy negates the necessity of purchasing a product to enjoy it, but that fact in and of itself does not negate the aforementioned fact that no deprivation of property has taken place. Therefore they're two very different things, and should not be considered synonymous.

Again, you're correct; piracy is killing the labels, because they're unwilling to adapt. Music is stronger than ever.

[Kevin]

I have to say, the whole file-sharing thing has raised the bar as far as quality of music goes, as far as I'm concerned. Because I can so easily discriminate between the **** and the good stuff, naturally I'll tend towards the better music. This is bad for the industry because the majority of music out there is crap. While they may see this as being bad for their business model, tough **** - it should reform music into something better. Sort out the garbage from real, worthy music.

There are some music that simply isn't marketable. Are is no longer that popular. Only in niche groups. I always hear these people complain how they can't make any money doing their thing. Just because you are into your thing, doesn't mean anyone else is.

[besson3c]

The problem with the whole "I buy more music when I can sample it by downloading it, therefore the RIAA should lay off file sharing" arguments is that while this may be entirely true for you and I don't doubt that, our system is not looking for a solution that looks at each case on a case by case basis. We are looking for a basic one-size-fits-all solution we can establish law from - with no exceptions. The obvious problem with removing file sharing laws based on your rationale is that there are most certainly a very significant population of people that do not end up buying the stuff they like, they just continue to download and obtain stuff for free. Many may not even attend any concerts.

These people perhaps don't understand that good music does have some value, and what they are doing is stifling the creation and success of future music they may end up liking.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

It's like girls, wearing short skirts. They're asking to be groped, aren't they?

No.

[SpaceMonkey]

Can't we just link to the previous thread on Radiohead's new album that went over all of this stuff? [/too lazy to search]

Side note: British police shut down TVLinks a few days ago, as well (sorry if there's already a thread on this). Sweet!

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem with the whole "I buy more music when I can sample it by downloading it, therefore the RIAA should lay off file sharing" arguments is that while this may be entirely true for you and I don't doubt that, our system is not looking for a solution that looks at each case on a case by case basis. We are looking for a basic one-size-fits-all solution we can establish law from - with no exceptions. The obvious problem with removing file sharing laws based on your rationale is that there are most certainly a very significant population of people that do not end up buying the stuff they like, they just continue to download and obtain stuff for free. Many may not even attend any concerts.

These people perhaps don't understand that good music does have some value, and what they are doing is stifling the creation and success of future music they may end up liking.

Yes... and those are the people that will always take the free route. DRM will never stop that. The rationale that allowing DRM'd downloads is foolish because people will strip the DRM is ridiculous - they'll simply get a DRM-free copy of the same file elsewhere, anyway.

Attempting to appeal to them is pointless.

[voodoo]

On this issue, posted on teh intarweb tubes:

Written by enigmax on October 23, 2007
OiNK, one of the world’s most popular trackers has been shutdown. Now, in the hours immediately following the closure, the site is responding but displaying an ominous message indicating an investigation into the site’s users has begun.

The message currently on the OiNK page is as follows:



Many of OiNK’s users have been enquiring if their details are safe on the site. The message: “A criminal investigation continues into the identities and activities of the site’s users” will not exactly fill them with confidence.

However, everyone in the BitTorrent world will be familiar with the propaganda put out by anti-piracy organizations and many will be familiar with a similar situation a few years ago when the LokiTorrent tracker was closed and seemingly none of the users were tracked down. Fear, uncertainty and doubt - it’s all part of the anti-p2p strategy but it’s hugely doubtful that 180,000 users will be pursued, it’s just not cost effective and most are scattered around the globe.

According to whois.sc, the visitors to the site are split: United States 50.7%, United Kingdom 7%, Canada 6%, Sweden 3.2%, Germany 2.7% and Netherlands at just 1.9%. Although of questionable accuracy, these figures should give at least an idea of the trend on the site.

Clearly the statement on the homepage is designed to scare all the ex-OiNK members back into the record shops and not let them think it’s safe to join another tracker. That strategy has been tried before (You Can Click But You Can’t Hide) and it doesn’t work. Additionally, more and more people are choosing to protect their privacy with VPN services such as VPNTunnel and Relakks, finding that a small investment is worth the peace of mind in the long run.

So who are the players in this OiNK takedown?

Most people know about the IFPI - The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. This organization says it represents the worldwide interests of the recording industry with the backing of nearly 1,500 record businesses in 75 countries. Its main aim is to fight piracy.

The BPI - British Phonographic Industry is similar to the RIAA in the US. It’s made up of hundreds of music businesses and fronted by the ‘big four’ - EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner. Created in 1973, its stated main aim is to combat piracy.

The FIOD-ECD - Fiscal Investigation Unit of the Dutch Police is a worrying inclusion to the list of people involved in the closure of OiNK. FIOD-ECD is a Dutch government agency dedicated to chasing down people alleged to be involved in fiscal, financial and economic fraud - usually major criminals. With these people involved, getting access to records from hosts wouldn’t have proven too difficult - FIOD-ECD are not just another BREIN, they have some serious powers.

People familiar with the ShareConnector and Releases4u cases in the Netherlands will remember the involvement of FIOD-ECD. The case took over 2 years to come to court and the result was a complete failure for them. The admin of ShareConnector got off completely and a couple of small fines (around $350) were handed out to the admins of Releases4U for uploading copyright material. Additionally, FIOD-ECD failed to provide enough evidence to prove ShareConnector was involved in copyright infringement nor enough to prove that either organization was criminal in nature.

Many people will be keeping their fingers crossed that the progress against OiNK mirrors this.

Following a 2 year investigation (or 3 month investigation, depending on the source) which involved Interpol, Police are insisting that OiNK was a pay site. Members were given the option to donate but this insistence that OiNK was some sort of criminal network where people paid to be a member is clearly untrue but it’s likely that this is the reason the real police (as opposed to the ‘copyright police’) and FIOD-ECD are involved.

Jeremy Banks of the IFPI said: “This was not a case of friends sharing music for pleasure.”

Yes it was Jeremy.

V

OiNK Investigation Seeks Identities and Activities of Users | TorrentFreak

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Yes... and those are the people that will always take the free route. DRM will never stop that. The rationale that allowing DRM'd downloads is foolish because people will strip the DRM is ridiculous - they'll simply get a DRM-free copy of the same file elsewhere, anyway.

Attempting to appeal to them is pointless.

I don't think anyone is denying that the cat isn't out of the bag, so to speak. The question is whether you want to retroactively legitimize it through some sort of sweeping overhaul of copyright law. I don't think we should yet. I have yet to read anyone outline a reasonable alternative to conventional copyright law that would actually leave in place some incentive for the artist to create anything in the first place.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by starman 

Who said anything about NO compensation? It's about producing something _AND_ getting paid for it, not producing crap for money which is what everything's about nowadays.

FREE MARKET. Then DON'T buy it OR download it. DUH! Especially if "Everything" is crap.


Morals of OJ.

[Mithras]

It does sound like OiNK kept very detailed records on what IP address you connected from, how much (and what?) you uploaded and downloaded, etc. Doing that seems like a recipe for getting your users nailed if your servers get seized.

On the other hand, I think that's fine, since those users knew exactly what they were doing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by paul w 

So why hasn't demonoid been busted?

Good question.

I think it's because they're in a country that doesn't recognize the same copyright laws.


Edit: FWIW, I've bought much more music since I started "illegally" grabbing songs online, probably 3-4x more. It's really opened my eyes to new bands and styles that I've never listened to before.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So does anyone have any extra OiNK invites they can give me?

[starman]

^^ That's scary. I'm glad I didn't deal with that crap.

[nonhuman]

Interesting how the notice is in English only...