PDA

View Full Version : llegal Torrent Site OiNK Busted by Police



Pages : [1] 2

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
10-23-2007, 07:12 AM
Bad news for people who like illegal free music has come this morning, as the popular torrent-sharing network OiNK has been shut down by British and Dutch police, according to a BBC report. The home of a 24-year-old IT worker from Middlesbrough, England, was raided, as was his place of employment ("a large multi-national company") and his father's home. OiNK's servers, located in Amsterdam, were also seized. The IT worker, allegedly the mastermind of the operation, "is being questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and infringement of copyright law," the BBC says.

OiNK was an invitation-only service in which membership was maintained by the consistent sharing of new music torrents. The more tunes you uploaded, the better your standing. Monetary donations were also encouraged.
According The Northern Echo, OiNK boasted up to 180,000 members. The BBC reports that the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) claims that OiNK was responsible for leaking "60 major pre-release albums this year alone."
Posted by Amy Phillips in legal on Tue: 10-23-07: 08:56 AM CDT | Digg this article | Add to del.icio.us | Permalink

Tylerdurden31
10-23-2007, 07:29 AM
good...they were douchebags

orbit
10-23-2007, 08:01 AM
I liked them.

arbouler
10-23-2007, 08:02 AM
are you fuckin serious? arrrghhh!

bug on your lip
10-23-2007, 08:07 AM
http://cellar.org/pictures/hungpig.jpg

suprefan
10-23-2007, 09:33 AM
good...they were douchebags

You get banned for ratio reasons? Awww poor baby.



I am not stressing that much. There will be another site that will pop up and take its place.

goatparade
10-23-2007, 10:47 AM
I was just starting to get real used to the convienence of oink. well...whatcha gonna do

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 10:57 AM
Hahahaha. YES!!!! Fuck you thiefs and harlots. What they need to do is turn over the database names and information to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and voila! Five [5] year federal pen stints for EVERYONE who used Oink in the United States of America. 250,000$ fines all around to.

I wouldn't visit Supre, but I'd maybe stop by to drop him off Coachella 08 pictures as well as some astroglide for his anus.

E

disgustipated
10-23-2007, 11:01 AM
I wouldn't visit Supre, but I'd maybe stop by to drop him off Coachella 08 pictures as well as some astroglide for his anus.

E


He doesn't need the lube...from what I gather, he is well primed and ready to go.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 11:04 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/DeltaSigChi4/Not%20Smilie/hairraise.gif

E

BROKENDOLL
10-23-2007, 11:35 AM
Delta~ You really are an asshole, aren't you?

superfiction
10-23-2007, 11:50 AM
Hahahaha. YES!!!! Fuck you thiefs and harlots. What they need to do is turn over the database names and information to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and voila! Five [5] year federal pen stints for EVERYONE who used Oink in the United States of America. 250,000$ fines all around to.

I wouldn't visit Supre, but I'd maybe stop by to drop him off Coachella 08 pictures as well as some astroglide for his anus.

E

this is what they should do to scalpers

BROKENDOLL
10-23-2007, 11:55 AM
Agreed!

suprefan
10-23-2007, 11:56 AM
Like I said, Im not worried. RIAA has no control over this since its international.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 11:57 AM
Alright counselor.

E

Wheres the beef?
10-23-2007, 12:00 PM
I dont know what it takes for big content to figure this out. Once pandora's box has been opened you can't close it. Look how well Comcast is doing with their traffic shaping. There is already significant discussion and people working on ways to beat it. Same thing with P2P, DVD encryption, and on and on. As soon as someone puts up a gate, someone else will find a key.

If anything the shutdown of these sites just makes the -AA's job harder since all these Oink users are now fragmented across other sites and services. All they do is just fragment and drive these activities into places its harder and harder for them to keep track of.

Plus I only deal in roio's anyways.

Ill_Eagle
10-23-2007, 12:17 PM
I was never a member...but it still sucks lol.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 12:18 PM
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4324/oinkcdwarninglg2.jpg

If you EVER registered on Oink, you may be getting raped in prison soon. lol.

E

jackstraw94086
10-23-2007, 12:32 PM
Delta hasn't a fucking clue what he's talking about as usual.
Oink was used to share more than illegal copyrighted material. A list of users doesn't mean shit. It's just a scare tactic.

However anyone who did use it to download major releases is pretty fucking stupid.

This whole stupid raid bullshit is just a gesture to appease american media companies.

rage patton
10-23-2007, 12:33 PM
I bet this has something to do with Radiohead

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 12:37 PM
Yes, people who boasted RIGHT ON THIS FORA about illegally downloading records before their proper release from Oink are pretty stupid.

With that being said, if you think they are just going to throw all the data from this soon to be brutally ass raped guy's servers away, you're grossly mistaken. You can go ahead and imagine yourself perfectly safe, never in danger of prosecution, while you listen to your Gym Class Heroes mp3 files, but when your pussy ass is getting raped in prison, I will be lol'ing.

E

TomAz
10-23-2007, 12:39 PM
delta has a fixation with forced gay anal sex.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 12:44 PM
More like an admitted desire to see drug users freed from prisons and put into rehab, while white collar thieves and intraweb criminals put away with rapists and other violent criminals.

E

TomAz
10-23-2007, 12:48 PM
denial is one of the first signs.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm dogsitting a little chihuahua that is smarter than you.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 12:57 PM
Bella (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/DeltaSigChi4/Picture286.jpg) > TomAz

E

Trick Loves The Kids
10-23-2007, 01:03 PM
More like an admitted desire to see drug users freed from prisons and put into rehab, while white collar thieves and intraweb criminals put away with rapists and other violent criminals.

E

not only are you delusional but you're a horrible horrible poster

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 01:15 PM
Be very afraid of the FBI getting their mitts on the database records. Be very afraid, Tricky.

E

anti-square
10-23-2007, 01:18 PM
dog sitting = desire for forced gay anal sex

miseducation
10-23-2007, 01:32 PM
I've never been a fan of the whole centralized site idea.

BitTorrent is better fractioned off into more than one site, organized together by a search engine.

Every BitTorrent user should upload to more than one site to protect themselves. If OiNK wasn't so self-serving then we wouldn't have lost so much now.

Not to mention, this site wasn't exactly a joy to use. Seeding after downloading was practically useless - the chances of someone downloading more than 50k from you were slim to none.

Bigger, less exclusive and egotistical sites like Demonoid have a much healthier and easier system. You download, seed for a day and you'll almost certainly have made up the ratio.

OiNK wasn't valuable - it's users were. As long as those users are smart enough to keep on going and upload to the rest of the web - we'll all be better off.

orbit
10-23-2007, 01:42 PM
At least I got many out-of-print records

But, according to Delta, we will go to prison. It might be good idea start a Coachella cell block when we get inside :D

instinct
10-23-2007, 02:08 PM
I'm major saddles.

malcolmjamalawesome
10-23-2007, 02:08 PM
not only are you delusional but you're a horrible horrible poster

BREAKING NEWS: In the ongoing Trick Loves The Kids vs. DeltaSigChi drama ... after much speculation ... MalcolmJamalAwesome declares his allegiance to Trick Loves The Kids. In related news, so does Dave Wang.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 02:11 PM
Dave Wang is a pussy.

E

superfiction
10-23-2007, 02:11 PM
THATS WHAT YOU ALL GET FOR NOT INVITING ME

crazzz2007
10-23-2007, 02:12 PM
Like I said, Im not worried. RIAA has no control over this since its international.

dumbass....once you download to your computer it's no longer international.

orbit
10-23-2007, 02:20 PM
http://aynrandwich.googlepages.com/pigarrest.jpg

wmgaretjax
10-23-2007, 02:23 PM
some points to worried parties...

This has happened before for private trackers, there have been no arrests or attempts so far for Oink or any previous shutdowns.

Oink only retained weekly snatches. Your last week is all you can be in trouble for, assuming you stop pinging the fucking server with your downed torrents (unless you uploaded a torrent on your own).

Alchemy
10-23-2007, 03:01 PM
It's too bad about Oink, although I was never a member of it. I believe that songs are the stories of storytellers. They should be shared. Musicians can get plenty of money for their work by touring and selling merchandise and cutting deals. When you turn music into a business endeavor and start doing things like pressing lawsuits against your fans, well, something has happened to the concept of art. Delta is rolling in laughter because he is a scalper, which is the perfect example of turning art into means of personal profit. Touring is the way that artists should be making money, and people are using that to make money for themselves. How a scalper can criticize "thieves" is beyond me. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have the right idea. The purchasing of music should be encouraged, but sharing music shouldn't be such an offense that one can be jailed or faced with the penalty of thousands of dollars.

Whatev's. Welcome to Capitalism.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 03:16 PM
there have been no arrests or attempts so far for Oink or any previous shutdowns.


That's funny. Maybe this is all made-up like the lunar landing. :rolleyes:

and arrested a 24-year-old man. /Reuters

Video:

QuwwMZKYxag



Delta is rolling in laughter because he is a scalper, which is the perfect example of turning art into means of personal profit. Touring is the way that artists should be making money, and people are using that to make money for themselves. How a scalper can criticize "thieves" is beyond me.

I always PAY for tickets to shows, douchebag. How you can compare someone re-selling a purchased item to stealing and never paying a single cent for a copyrighted materials is beyond me. The law clearly states that I can do whatever the fuck I want with my tickets, to include burning or wiping my ass with them. The law clearly states that it is illegal for you to acquire files of copyrighted material from pirates. You are scum, and hopefully will fall to one of these stings. Enjoy your five years of getting buttraped.

E

luckyface
10-23-2007, 03:18 PM
I always PAY for tickets to shows, douchebag. How you can compare someone re-selling a purchased item to stealing and never paying a single cent for a copyrighted materials is beyond me. The law clearly states that I can do whatever the fuck I want with my tickets, to include burning or wiping my ass with them. The law clearly states that it is illegal for you to acquire files of copyrighted material from pirates. You are scum, and hopefully will fall to one of these stings. Enjoy your five years of getting buttraped.

E

In many states, scalping IS against the law.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 03:19 PM
I don't care. Does it look like I care? Because I don't care.

I do business in states where it isn't against the law.

Imbecile.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 03:19 PM
AND BUSINESS IS GOOD!

E

Alchemy
10-23-2007, 03:20 PM
That's funny. Maybe this is all made-up like the lunar landing. :rolleyes:

and arrested a 24-year-old man. /Reuters

Video:

QuwwMZKYxag




I always PAY for tickets to shows, douchebag. How you can compare someone re-selling a purchased item to stealing and never paying a single cent for a copyrighted materials is beyond me. The law clearly states that I can do whatever the fuck I want with my tickets, to include burning or wiping my ass with them. The law clearly states that it is illegal for you to acquire files of copyrighted material from pirates. You are scum, and hopefully will fall to one of these stings. Enjoy your five years of getting buttraped.

E

You are paying for tickets with the intent of reselling them to make yourself a profit. It's funny that you of all people are saying what is okay to do by law. I would expect you to think of morals and ethics before what is legally right and wrong. People are sharing music. We aren't buying the music, burning them onto discs and selling them back to other people. People are passing it along free of charge. We are not making profit on another person's creativity, which is what you are doing. I may have a better chance than you on getting buttraped in jail. You, however, or more appropriately labeled as scum than I.

J~$$$
10-23-2007, 03:21 PM
I don't care. Does it look like I care? Because I don't care.

I do business in states where it isn't against the law.

Imbecile.

E

so you sell rockies tickets at face value?

luckyface
10-23-2007, 03:22 PM
so you sell rockies tickets at face value?

Why else would he buy tickets to a game he won't attend?

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 03:24 PM
Yeah, the owners of these torrent servers aren't making money. The donations just go into a black hole. Into hyperspace. Idiot fuck.

And yeah, I'm sure that no one makes a profit out of putting four rounds into a random kid walking to junior high, but it is still against the law.

When you STEAL music from a proper copyright holder, you really believe that you're not breaking the law right? That you are a do-gooder. That the touts are the scum. Nay, that the musicians are the scum for asking to be paid for their art.

Interesting to step into the mind of modern scum. When found guilty of being the worst of the worse, just accuse others ... others who have nothing to do with ILLEGAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Works like a charm.

E

Alchemy
10-23-2007, 03:32 PM
Yeah, the owners of these torrent servers aren't making money. The donations just go into a black hole. Into hyperspace. Idiot fuck.

And yeah, I'm sure that no one makes a profit out of putting four rounds into a random kid walking to junior high, but it is still against the law.

When you STEAL music from a proper copyright holder, you really believe that you're not breaking the law right? That you are a do-gooder. That the touts are the scum. Nay, that the musicians are the scum for asking to be paid for their art.

Interesting to step into the mind of modern scum. When found guilty of being the worst of the worse, just accuse others ... others who have nothing to do with ILLEGAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Works like a charm.

E

This going miles over you, Delta. Musicians should encourage people to pay for the music. They should get money from touring and merchandise. It's also fine to expect their music to be bought at the store. However, I wouldn't want my fans to go to jail because they are downloading my music for free. Sure, essentially, stealing my music. If they are charged a dollar per song, than okay. You know that isn't the case though.

And so you think it's more of a scum thing for someone to share music? Yeah, the people at the top of these sharing servers might make money that they don't deserve, but they are not the only people facing penalty. They are also not the only people you are wishing penalty on. However, you are missing the point of who is the scum. People are sharing music so that in the end they could listen to it. They aren't putting rounds into anyone at their high school. Music is communication that should be shared. That is its intention, or at least should be. It is a message to be sent. YOU, however, are making profit by buying tickets so that you can sell them back at higher prices to people who are desperately wanting them. If I were a musician, who would I think is scum more? The person giving my music to all his friends for free, or the person who is buying tickets to my show so that he can make them more expensive to other fans? One of them is trying to spread my music, and the other is trying to make money off of my work. Well... Call me what you like and wish upon me what you like.

suprefan
10-23-2007, 03:35 PM
dumbass....once you download to your computer it's no longer international.

But the supposed ''crime'' happend in another country. Therefore, I am still immune. Doesnt matter anyway, if I go to jail 90% of this board would too if their hard drives were checked for anything that was downloaded online. And to think I just bought a external hard drive yesterday, what are the odds.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 03:39 PM
I've never taken a cent away from musicians, while YOU, who steal their music day in and day out are. That's the difference. When a show sells out because of over speculation [SEE Police tour], the musicians greatly benefit, because if it wasn't for those re-sellers, they would never sell out Dodger field or Wrigley Field or etc. The fact of the matter is, that you're NOT ALLOWED to steal music, not allowed to share mp3 files. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. What part of that don't you comprehend? I can do whatever the fuck I want to do with items I purchase, to include, but not limited to: a) reselling at a higher price; b) wiping my ass after defecation; c) burning/other destruction; d) giving away for FREE; and ....

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 03:40 PM
What are you going to do, Supre? Bury your external out in your yard? You're such a fucking douchebag.

E

Alchemy
10-23-2007, 04:19 PM
I've never taken a cent away from musicians, while YOU, who steal their music day in and day out are. That's the difference. When a show sells out because of over speculation [SEE Police tour], the musicians greatly benefit, because if it wasn't for those re-sellers, they would never sell out Dodger field or Wrigley Field or etc. The fact of the matter is, that you're NOT ALLOWED to steal music, not allowed to share mp3 files. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. What part of that don't you comprehend? I can do whatever the fuck I want to do with items I purchase, to include, but not limited to: a) reselling at a higher price; b) wiping my ass after defecation; c) burning/other destruction; d) giving away for FREE; and ....

E

Again Delta, the point I am making is not getting into your head. Direct me to where I say that sharing music is not against the law. Direct me to where I say that sharing music is not as legally punishable as scalping, if scalping is punishable at all depending on where you are doing it. WHAT I AM SAYING IS, IS THAT SCALPERS ARE MORE OF A BREED OF SCUM THAN PEOPLE SHARING MUSIC. I am not saying that sharing music is legal. All I am saying is that songs should be shared as messages of communication. Not turned into a business. The shows, merchandise and whatnot should be, but not the message of the song itself. Especially since technology has made it more easily done. I'm not saying that we have a legal right to do that. The fact of the matter is, is that most people sharing music are doing it to listen to the music. You are scalping tickets to make a personal profit. It doesn't matter if you help sell out a show. Those people would have tried buying your scalped tickets off the venue anyways, so I don't understand how a scalper helps do this. The point is that you are making tickets less accessible and more expensive to the fans of the music, whereas music-sharers are doing the exact opposite. In a sense, you are restricting, while we are liberating. I'm not talking about the law. What you are doing might be legal, but you are just a law-abiding scum working wonderfully with loopholes.

And you know, I think it is fine if an artist wishes to sell his/her music. I don't think they would agree with the actions done by the RIAA and labels though.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds.html

But, whatever. If you are going to make a legal argument about this, than you are correct, Delta. Scalping is perfectly fine in the correct setting, while what I do is always illegal. I was never arguing with you about what was legal or not though. I was talking to you about what is scum, and what is not.

wmgaretjax
10-23-2007, 04:21 PM
That's funny. Maybe this is all made-up like the lunar landing. :rolleyes:


dipshit. i'm talking about users. fucking think.

comiddle
10-23-2007, 04:46 PM
I love media levies.

Robototron
10-23-2007, 05:02 PM
You're such a fucking douchebag.

Haha, I laughed really hard at this, given that suprefan isn't the one making a gigantic asshole out of himself in this thread.

Boourns
10-23-2007, 05:08 PM
File sharing is the only way for bands like Arcade Fire to become big.

gaypalmsprings
10-23-2007, 05:21 PM
File sharing is the only way for bands like Arcade Fire to become big.
That & all those EMO fans.

woogie846
10-23-2007, 05:21 PM
The paparazzi are legal, and that doesn't make it ok to do what they do.

Wheres the beef?
10-23-2007, 05:22 PM
The bottom line here is that since the RIAA started the campaign to destroy music there has been one lawsuit that has gone to trial. Just one. ONE lawsuit. Not one person has ever, EVER,EVER faced jailtime. Even the worst of the worst. The one lawsuit that did go to trial, the RIAA had a contentious "victory" in a very narrow sort of way. The evidence brought to trial was circumstantial at best. And if you have read the mediadefender leaked files you know what kinds of things they look for.

From the news articles I have read today it seems that Oink was targeted for two specific reasons:
1. The site was allegedly a prime spot for pre-released music. Pre-released music is allegedly hurts the music industry the most.
2. Oink allegedly arranged for users to pay their way onto the site or allegedly encouraged payment to the site administrator.

These two reasons make Oink different and more high profile than other trackers out there.

Boourns
10-23-2007, 05:29 PM
That & all those EMO fans.

Well most of said EMO fans would not have bothered to see what all the hype was about if they had to pay money in order to find out whether or not they'd like the band.

Wheres the beef?
10-23-2007, 05:35 PM
http://torrentfreak.com/oink-admin-released-from-custody-071023/


K1cK23D8UWo

Trick Loves The Kids
10-23-2007, 06:18 PM
The law clearly states that African Americans ride at the back of the bus

E

that's racist you fucking pig

brando4n82
10-23-2007, 06:23 PM
The paparazzi are legal, and that doesn't make it ok to do what they do.

i honeslty dont understand how it is. i would go insane if i had to deal with that shit. i would snap and eventually break a camera and punch someone in the face. but i would end up being the one punished. nasty world

malcolmjamalawesome
10-23-2007, 07:57 PM
I EXIST

R3d Snapper
10-23-2007, 08:08 PM
Life sucks again. RIP Oink.

vinylmartyr
10-23-2007, 08:49 PM
meh

lowfront
10-23-2007, 10:57 PM
This is some depressing news.

Hopefully we might see a back up of oink pop up soon. They must have a backup right?

And as far as this heated debate on the ethics of downloading no one gives a shit.

RIP oink, my baby



now where am I going to get the pre release of the new daft punk album????

hammerandasickle
10-23-2007, 11:15 PM
the holiday season is going to be so dreadful without that unlimited download capability. this is a dreadful outcome to a great community

crazzz2007
10-23-2007, 11:20 PM
That's funny. Maybe this is all made-up like the lunar landing. :rolleyes:

and arrested a 24-year-old man. /Reuters

E

you fucking idiot. that 24-year-old man happened to be the person running the whole operation.

imbecile.

wmgaretjax
10-23-2007, 11:22 PM
the holiday season is going to be so dreadful without that unlimited download capability. this is a dreadful outcome to a great community

true. granted, there are already a few replacement projects in the works. i'm in contact with a fella that I met on Oink that I actually knew back from when I populated some IRC channels that helped them build some of the code that is planning to launch a replacement in sweden.

fingers crossed.

crazzz2007
10-23-2007, 11:24 PM
But the supposed ''crime'' happend in another country. Therefore, I am still immune. Doesnt matter anyway, if I go to jail 90% of this board would too if their hard drives were checked for anything that was downloaded online. And to think I just bought a external hard drive yesterday, what are the odds.

no, you are not immune.

do you really think that if you downloaded child porn from a foreign server, you would be immune? please think.

DeltaSigChi4
10-23-2007, 11:28 PM
Quick, someone post a picture of the swirling .gif of that man recently captured who was accused of child molestations many countries away. Funny, Supre says he's immune.

E

Amneeziac
10-23-2007, 11:30 PM
The music industry was like a bunch of ants that didn't know there was a bigger world out there. Then a kitty named Napster gave them a rude awakening. Now shitty music is ever so slowly dying away. Yay.

Sites like OiNK are like flies. The police get one and must say to themselves "one down, six million to go." And ending OiNK is pretty stupid, because I guarantee you that at least a couple hundred OiNK members will create sites just like it, or at least promote torrent-sharing of HQ music. Every time they shut down a site like OiNK, a hundred more sprout up. This is just so stupid, it's almost fun to watch.

Boourns
10-23-2007, 11:40 PM
The bad thing though is I predict several spinoff sites, with none of them having the vast selection and heavy seeding as the original.

Demonoid isn't nearly as good for music, and I've seen 96kbps mp3's. Sometimes they are packed in with higher bitrate mp3's in discographies. I downloaded the Bjork discography back in February and it was a disaster.

instinct
10-23-2007, 11:51 PM
About the whole scalping vs. downloading discussion.

You guys hate on scalpers too much... should have got your tickets in time. Also, the scalpers don't set the price, the people do. If everyone refused to buy tickets at such a high price, it wouldn't be that high. Scalpers also take risk and sometimes end up losing money on shows too.


Delta.. Are you member at Event Experts?


I've downloaded tons of music illegally and have made tons of cash scalping too. I don't hold much pride for doing either one, but one is stealing and one is selling tickets for a higher price than you bought them for.

Really though.. let's say for instance you bought Bjork (or whoever the fuck) concert tickets, and then found out you couldn't go (for whatever reason).. and people offered you four times as much for the ticket than you paid it, would you sell at face value? If you would, good for you.. but I got bills to pay and other concerts to attend.

instinct
10-23-2007, 11:54 PM
Oh and BTW: A lot of scalpers are scum bags.

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 12:06 AM
The discussions going on at torrentfreak are hilarious. Look at what this guy posteds:

http://torrentfreak.com/why_are_the_ifpi_and_bpi_allowed_071024/#comment-194136

Amneeziac
10-24-2007, 12:19 AM
The only way record companies are going to stop file-sharing is by destroying the internet.

And scalping sounds great, how do I get involved? Like, how much of a douche do I have to become before sinking that low?

orbit
10-24-2007, 12:42 AM
The bad thing though is I predict several spinoff sites, with none of them having the vast selection and heavy seeding as the original.



Yeah, but I'm pretty sure something better will come up.

gmoneyak
10-24-2007, 12:51 AM
http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/31JH9EAZR5L.jpg

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:23 AM
Delta.. Are you member at Event Experts?



No, I'm not. Is it worth it?

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:25 AM
Here is a view from another perspective:

I dont even think file sharing is a big deal when you give back to the artists, but i just worked with a band on their album release, helped with their website, ads, ecard, etc and the album got leaked a week and a half early. It really took the wind out of everyones sails. I like the hype that gets generated around a release, its like fucking christmas, you wait a year or two for the next 12 songs from your favorite artist and you buy the full presentation, artwork and all. getting an idea of what that was like for the band really bummed me out on torrent sites like that.

Artist's perspective. I enjoy this community a lot, even though they hate on me at Coachellafora-esque levels as well. Their discussion of this same subject is much richer in artists' views.

Click (http://www.gigposters.com/forums/anything-goes/59584-lolz-oink-ghets-pizzownd.html)

E

Neutral Milk Hotel
10-24-2007, 06:04 AM
Okay, fine, I'm sure they were pretty bummed out that the album leaked, but do you think they'd prefer it if the people who took a chance on them by listening to the leak and not paying just didn't take a chance on them at all because they didn't want to pay for a CD? If I were an artist, I would definitely prefer millions listening to the music for free to thousands listening to it by paying. And on a related note, if the wind really got taken out of their sails by a fucking album leak, they need to get a reality check, leaks are a part of the music industry now. David Sitek aside, from most of the accounts I've read the artists themselves don't seem to mind that much anymore about albums leaking, they accept it as a part of life. The Decemberists even made a subforum on the message board of their website for fans to discuss the Crane Wife leak.

RotationSlimWang
10-24-2007, 06:20 AM
I never got an invite code, so fuck 'em and fuck all you. Also, I don't get what the big problem is. www.isohunt.com www.mininova.com

Robototron
10-24-2007, 10:35 AM
Here is a view from another perspective:

More than anything else this year, music & software file-sharing site Oink changed the way I thought about the music industry & BitTorrent technology. I’d heard rumors of Oink for years but hadn’t seen the members-only site until early ‘07. Oink was anal, Oink was comprehensive. The site administrators were fierce about quality — only high-quality files from original CD/vinyl rips could be posted. Many releases were even posted as FLAC (lossless) files. Oink allowed only entire releases, with complete tracklist information (uploading an incomplete album or a poorly labeled MP3 could get you kicked off). No bootlegs or concert recordings or unfinished pre-release mixes were permitted.

In many cases, I believe that downloading an album from Oink would be both faster (more on this in a bit) and give you more information about the CD than sites like iTunes.

Think about that… a free website, which gives fast downloads of music at equivalent or higher quality than the paid music sites. And this free site has an incredibly deep collection of both new and old releases, usually in a variety of file formats and bit-rates. It’s overwhelming! First thought: wow, Oink is an amazing library. Second thought: wow, I really need to start selling DJ Rupture t-shirts, CD sales will only continue to drop & I gotta make money somehow!

My library metaphor for Oink makes more sense than economic analogies: for digital music & data, there’s lots of demand but no scarcity at all, which either requires that we rebuild an economic model not based on supply & demand, or start embracing commons analogies. I like living from my music but I also like libraries, the ideas behind libraries…

For fans, consideration of the music comes before questions of money and ownership - this is how it should be. Any system that doesn’t take that into account as a central fact is going to generate a lot of friction. When I say ’system’, I mean everything from Sony to iTunes to white-label 12″s that cost 8-pounds ($16.38!) in London shops and only have 2 songs on them. (I bought a bunch of these last week, and it hurt).

Oink didn’t offer solutions; it highlighted the problems of over-priced, over-controlled music elsewhere. Oink was an online paradise for music fans. The only people who could truly be mad at it were the ones directly profiting from the sale of digital or physical music. (Like myself! F%5k!)

Oink had everything by certain artists. Literally, everything. I searched for ‘DJ Rupture’ and found every release I’d ever done, from an obscure 7″ on a Swedish label to 320kpbs rips of my first 12″, self-released back in 1999. It was shocking. And reassuring. The big labels want music to equal money, but as much as anything else, music is memory, as priceless and worthless as memory…

About a week after I shipped out orders of the first live CD-r Andy Moor & I did, it appeared on Oink. Someone who had purchased it directly from me turned around and posted it online, for free. I wasn’t mad, I was just more stunned by the reach… and usefulness of the site.

If sharing copywritten music without paying for it were legal, than Oink was the best music website in the world.

Like many BitTorrent sites, Oink enforced share ratios. In a nutshell, share ratios mean that each user must upload a certain amount of data in relation to what they download. This feature encourages sharing. For example, a minimum share ratio of 0.20 (was that Oink’s? can’t remember) means that if you download 5 albums, then you must upload around 1 album’s worth of music, data equaling one-fifth the amount you nabbed from Oink users. If you only take (selfish leech) and do not give, or if you share, but not enough, then you eventually get kicked off.

With BitTorrent, most folks downloading the same files also upload the bits they grab, so everybody gets fast DL speeds (compare with popular files hosted on one server — incredibly slow speeds, or even server crash). Thus, a popular album (or legal linux distribution) can be grabbed in minutes with a decent internet connection. (uTorrent is a good BitTorrent client for Windows)

Watching Oink work helped me to understand the structural intelligence of BitTorrent architecture. Oink, like BitTorrent itself, became stronger & faster the more people used it - scalability writ large. Folks wanted to share - to maintain high share ratios. New releases were highly valued. But users kept older releases available as well (you never know when someone will want your Norwegian proto-deathmetal collection, so you keep your bandwidth open). Whether you call it distributed tape-sharing (to use an 80s term) or distributed piracy (to use a 90s industry term), Oink’s use of BitTorrent & careful quality control did it elegantly.

Aside: If Radiohead (the British rock band who achieved worldwide success via a long-term mutually-beneficial relationship with a major record label) were truly radical, they would have posted their new album as a BitTorrent file with a PayPal & bank account link for the fans who felt like paying. Not hosting it on some weird website with an awkward interface & requiring credit card info…

Aside: One thing I don’t understand is how Oink got taken down while Soulseek continues as it has for years… Slsk has always struck me as the least moral of the p2p systems. If you pay Soulseek $5 a month, you get ‘privileged download access‘ to files stored on Slsk users hard drives. Soulseek earns money by controlling access to the files stored on its users’ drives, users who never see any of this money. And if they don’t like the fact that paying people get special access to their data, there’s nothing they can do about it. Correction: with Slsk you have lots of control over who can access your shared files.

Oink was not “extremely lucrative” as the BBC boldfacedly claims. If I remember correctly, a one-time donation of 5 pounds would do something-or-other, but it was a far cry from Soulseek’s monthly privilege fees. Nor, for the record, did Oink “lead to early mixes and unfinished versions of artists’ recordings circulating on the internet months ahead of the release.” - this is strangely ironic, since Oink would strip user privileges if they were caught circulating unfinished or unofficial album versions. This was a site run by audiophiles and music obsessives!

But Pandora’s Box has been opened. Remember when Napster croaked? Piracy file-sharing is so much easier now. The anal-retentive British site admins kept Oink organized. Bittorent architecture kept Oink efficient. Oink’s alleged 180,000 users won’t forget how useful it was. The next Oink will be sturdier & more multiple. The overall movement is towards more ways to share music & ideas with like-minded individuals on the internet.

The way I see it, this can only be a good thing for music fans. And what musician is not first a music fan?

Artist's perspective.

Click (http://www.negrophonic.com/2007/defending-the-pig-oink-croaks)


FYP

Robototron
10-24-2007, 10:35 AM
I never got an invite code, so fuck 'em and fuck all you. Also, I don't get what the big problem is. www.isohunt.com www.mininova.com

You can't really compare OiNK to public trackers. Like, not even close. Demonoid maybe, since it practically is one, but OiNK was on a whole other level.

matsuolost
10-24-2007, 11:45 AM
yeah oink was incredible
i remember when i had an act there 2 years a go and my ratio sucked so they kicked me out :(

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 11:48 AM
Same community, different angry artist:

theres no fancy talking your way out of the fact that unlicensed downloads are theft.

end of story.

if a band WANTS to give it away-no problem have fun. But there are COPYRIGHT and USAGE LAWS IN PLACE that say if the band or WHOEVER owns those rights wants to get paid they are suppossed to.

Another post by the same person:

the solution is PAY FOR YOUR FUCKING ENTERTAINMENT.

And:

Ok spend a few million as a small label in the hopes of getting 1 release that sells more than 500 units and then rethink your argument.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 11:52 AM
If the Decemberists or another shitty band wants to give away their music for free, then take it. Who gives a fuck. But NOT ALL BANDS WANTS TO GIVE AWAY THEIR MUSIC AWAY FOR FREE. And everyone who illegally downloads wants to justify their theft by proclaiming that bands have learned to deal with it and blah blah blah.

I'm fairly certain that supermarkets have learned to deal with shoplifting as well. Maybe I should go down the street and stuff several loafs of bread down my pants.

E

luckyface
10-24-2007, 12:09 PM
While I hate to agree with Delta, I kind of agree. However you justify it, what was going down on Oink was copyright theft.

Personally, I don't care if other people do it and I always like when bands say they don't mind that their music is being grabbed online. I believe there is definitely benefits to giving people access to music for free. But to those who pass this community off as noble or something is kind of absurd to me.

Robototron
10-24-2007, 12:21 PM
If the Decemberists or another shitty band wants to give away their music for free, then take it. Who gives a fuck. But NOT ALL BANDS WANTS TO GIVE AWAY THEIR MUSIC AWAY FOR FREE. And everyone who illegally downloads wants to justify their theft by proclaiming that bands have learned to deal with it and blah blah blah.

I'm fairly certain that supermarkets have learned to deal with shoplifting as well. Maybe I should go down the street and stuff several loafs of bread down my pants.

E

When was the last time you heard someone claim that a loaf of bread was a work of art? If a band really cared about music and not money, they wouldn't have a problem with people hearing their music by any means necessary.

As DJ/Rupture put it in the post above that you ignored, "For fans, consideration of the music comes before questions of money and ownership - this is how it should be."

TickleMeElmo
10-24-2007, 12:25 PM
Kinda wonder if Oink will be able to make it out of this like The Pirate Bay did.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 12:35 PM
DJ Shithead has never invested a single dollar/pound in an independent label before. DJ Shithead himself most likely steals others' art and claims it is sampling -- even though he never gave a cent in compensation to the copyright holders.

How about this. A fucking loaf of bread costs money to make. Music costs money to make, you stupid son of a whore. Better comparison for the shitskulls like Robo who think "OMG!! ART SHOULD BE FREE!!!", maybe I should walk into the Louvre and steal a da Vinci, Rembrandts, and several anonymous. Maybe I should just stroll into Borders and STEAL every book/publication that I felt like stealing. Maybe I should barge into the closest theatre, and take the film that is about to be played at one. You know, because "consideration of the painting/books/film comes before questions of money and ownership - this is how it should be". Fucking imbecile.

E

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 12:35 PM
If the Decemberists or another shitty band wants to give away their music for free, then take it. Who gives a fuck. But NOT ALL BANDS WANTS TO GIVE AWAY THEIR MUSIC AWAY FOR FREE. And everyone who illegally downloads wants to justify their theft by proclaiming that bands have learned to deal with it and blah blah blah.

I'm fairly certain that supermarkets have learned to deal with shoplifting as well. Maybe I should go down the street and stuff several loafs of bread down my pants.

E

Build that straw man! Knock him down! You go girl!

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 12:36 PM
Maybe I should just sneak into Coachella this year. Maybe everyone should sneak into Coachella, and we'll see how many Coachellas there will be in years to come. Stupid idiot fuck.

E

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 12:42 PM
Will Butler approves of file sharing.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 12:44 PM
yeah, no one REALLY cares if you steal music...except for the artists, labels, writers, producers, engineers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, liscensing companies and, apparently, john law.
but, yeah, it was meant to be free, right?

E

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 01:11 PM
Better comparison for the shitskulls like Robo who think "OMG!! ART SHOULD BE FREE!!!", maybe I should walk into the Louvre and steal a da Vinci, Rembrandts, and several anonymous. Maybe I should just stroll into Borders and STEAL every book/publication that I felt like stealing. Maybe I should barge into the closest theatre, and take the film that is about to be played at one. You know, because "consideration of the painting/books/film comes before questions of money and ownership - this is how it should be". Fucking imbecile.

E


Maybe I should just sneak into Coachella this year. Maybe everyone should sneak into Coachella, and we'll see how many Coachellas there will be in years to come. Stupid idiot fuck.

E

what the fuck? did delta just make some valid arguments? i can't believe this. he makes sense for once.

wmgaretjax
10-24-2007, 01:33 PM
i've said this before. i don't BUY any music. Period. I don't want to spend money that mostly ends up in the hands of people I don't care about. i also don't buy movies (except by distributors I trust and respect). What I do do is send money directly to artists I enjoy.

The exception is rare (special editions or music distributed by the band, and Criterion films).

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 01:36 PM
I'm glad you care about the ultra rich oil companies. Oh wait, you steal the petro you put into your shitty car as well? Fuck off dude. No one forces you to listen to anything you're not intending on paying for. Know that I am greatly in favour of enormous resources being expended on putting pieces of shit like you in the federal pens. Just for the sake of cleaning up the world a little bit of leeching pieces of shit that are THE CAUSE of others having to pay more.

E

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 01:41 PM
i've said this before. i don't BUY any music. Period. I don't want to spend money that mostly ends up in the hands of people I don't care about. i also don't buy movies (except by distributors I trust and respect). What I do do is send money directly to artists I enjoy.

The exception is rare (special editions or music distributed by the band, and Criterion films).

Im with you on this one. Oh you can make e-85 out of deep fryer oil from the local chinese resturant but I guess that would be stealing too.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 01:43 PM
Do you make e-85 out of deep fryer oil though, douchebag? Or do you fucking spend money that mostly ends up in the hands of people I don't care about? I mean if you care about oil company revenue, then by all means, line their pockets. It seems fairly outrageous for that stupid fucker to make such an assinine statement though. Fucking clownshoes.

E

wmgaretjax
10-24-2007, 01:47 PM
I'm glad you care about the ultra rich oil companies. Oh wait, you steal the petro you put into your shitty car as well? Fuck off dude. No one forces you to listen to anything you're not intending on paying for. Know that I am greatly in favour of enormous resources being expended on putting pieces of shit like you in the federal pens. Just for the sake of cleaning up the world a little bit of leeching pieces of shit that are THE CAUSE of others having to pay more.


I don't drive. You are a fucking moron.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 01:47 PM
I drive the biggest suv I can find I have a whole fleet of them. I take them on the subway with me. I let that fucker idle in my driveway overnight. 4 miles to the gallon. hells yeah.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 01:49 PM
Congratulations. It doesn't diminish the fact that no one forces you to steal copyrighted materiel, douchebag. May the U.S. govt get serious heat from record companies and have the FBI go after you thiefs hardcore. And may you get raped for years to come in pound-you-in-the-ass prison.

E

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 01:51 PM
I hope you make art someday so I can steal it and shit on it.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 01:53 PM
You can always buy one of my art prints, illegally reproduce it, hang it on your shitty wall, and return it for a refund.

E

wmgaretjax
10-24-2007, 01:54 PM
nope, I'm not forced. I choose to. I don't give a shit about copyright laws.

I hope you go to hell for killing babies in Iraq.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 01:58 PM
I never broke any laws in Irak. Not real laws, at least.

I also never sought the destruction of an art medium.

You people's time will come. No doubt.

E

wmgaretjax
10-24-2007, 02:02 PM
For example, I downloaded 80 albums this week. I'm staring at them right now. 75 of them are out of print, unavailable from the copyright holders. The other 5 are copyrighted and available for purchase. I deleted two, and sent 5 bucks to the other 3 artists.

The diference between you and I is that I choose to think before spending my money. While you buy the Silversun Pickups album...

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 02:02 PM
I never broke any laws in Irak. Not real laws, at least.

I also never sought the destruction of an art medium.

You people's time will come. No doubt.

E

OOOOoooooooooo.....

wmgaretjax
10-24-2007, 02:05 PM
I also never sought the destruction of an art medium.


More than anything... You are a fucking tool.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 02:16 PM
I don't drive. You are a fucking moron.

you are badly losing this argument.

wmgaretjax
10-24-2007, 02:18 PM
I'm not trying to "win" an argument, and if that's not clear from some of my inane comments than you need to think a little more.

I simply decided to add to the discussion by providing my personal solution to artistry and buying music. I pay in a way that I believe benefits the people that we should be concerned about protecting. If that throws me in a pen with 12 year olds downloading every top 40 hit, so be it.

amyzzz
10-24-2007, 02:18 PM
How exactly do you send money to the artists? You have their addresses?

Ill_Eagle
10-24-2007, 02:21 PM
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3742/zbs071450vy6.jpg

wmgaretjax
10-24-2007, 02:26 PM
How exactly do you send money to the artists? You have their addresses?

many of the independent or low-level artists I listen to have paypal accounts via their website. Often I simply email their online-store or webmaster to get either mailing or paypal info. I did it this week with the Liars for an old EP of theirs I downloaded.

I got the idea (not novel or anything) last year when I downloaded David Thomas Broughton's CD from his website for free, and the liner notes included a paypal account you could donate to.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:28 PM
Yep. No way to get records or cds from the secondary market. Secondary market doesn't exist. Once something is out of print = time to steal. Oh wait, but the fucktard admits to stealing records that are readily available as well. Hmmmm. Why even bother checking, when you can steal. Oh, but he "send five bucks to three artists". LOL!!! What a fucking clown.

E

MarkO
10-24-2007, 02:33 PM
Delta, were you this mentally ill before you went to Iraq ??

Seriously. For you to seperate your scalping activities from that of d/l'ing off a torrent site indicates to me that you have some issues with identifying similarities in behaviors.

Ill_Eagle
10-24-2007, 02:34 PM
Delta, were you this mentally ill before you went to Iraq ??

Seriously. For you to seperate your scalping activities from that of d/l'ing off a torrent site indicates to me that you have some issues with identifying similarities in behaviors.

Technically he is buying the tickets before scalping them....

MarkO
10-24-2007, 02:36 PM
Technically he is buying the tickets before scalping them....


So if I upload the new Neil Young album to 1,000 people that's ok because I bought my copy ?

wmgaretjax
10-24-2007, 02:37 PM
Yep. No way to get records or cds from the secondary market. Secondary market doesn't exist. Once something is out of print = time to steal. Oh wait, but the fucktard admits to stealing records that are readily available as well. Hmmmm. Why even bother checking, when you can steal. Oh, but he "send five bucks to three artists". LOL!!! What a fucking clown.


So you aren't concerned about the artist. You are concerned about the system?

5 bucks is more than an artist gets for a sold CD through traditional means (by the way, the physical CD goes for 6 bucks on their website, so I'm saving them money because it's not a physical product).

Of course I don't care about secondary markets. I'm not buying a physical product. Jesus, are you really this stupid?

Ill_Eagle
10-24-2007, 02:37 PM
Neil Young...ew. Yeah, that'd be fine with me. :D

superfiction
10-24-2007, 02:38 PM
Yep. No way to get records or cds from the secondary market. Secondary market doesn't exist. Once something is out of print = time to steal. Oh wait, but the fucktard admits to stealing records that are readily available as well. Hmmmm. Why even bother checking, when you can steal. Oh, but he "send five bucks to three artists". LOL!!! What a fucking clown.

E


YOURE A SCALPER. THE ARCADE FIRE HATES YOU.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:38 PM
So if I upload the new Neil Young album to 1,000 people that's ok because I bought my copy ?

I don't sell one ticket to one thousand different people, idiot.

E

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 02:41 PM
.....Just for the sake of cleaning up the world a little bit of leeching pieces of shit that are THE CAUSE of others having to pay more.

E


THE CAUSE of others having to pay more.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This coming from the guy who profits off of others having to pay more? This coming from the guy who profits directly from the artists and causes the most direct harm to artists? What a FUCKING JOKE!

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:41 PM
So you aren't concerned about the artist. You are concerned about the system?

5 bucks is more than an artist gets for a sold CD through traditional means (by the way, the physical CD goes for 6 bucks on their website, so I'm saving them money because it's not a physical product).

Of course I don't care about secondary markets. I'm not buying a physical product. Jesus, are you really this stupid?

math:

for a typical low budget barebones release:

Recording budget 10,000.00
Mastering: 1000.00
Package layout:1000.00
2 weeks payroll 4 employees: 3000.00
CD booklet printing: 700.00 (say you press 3500 units)
cd manu cost: 3500.00
shipping to distributor 1 pallet: 400.00
Promo mailout costs ( 200 promo copies plus postage) 750.00
2 ads 1/4 page: 1500.00
promo poster printing (1000 posters) 800.00
prom poster mailout ( 2000.00)

Original post from someone who appears as though they would cut your balls off and feed them to you if they ever found you (http://www.gigposters.com/forums/1384599-post113.html).

E

Ill_Eagle
10-24-2007, 02:42 PM
Man...you guys are fucked up. You know if you had a spare ticket and someone offered $400+ for it, you would sell it in a heartbeat.

I sold a water bottle to this kid for like 10 bucks at coach hhahahhaha IM A SCALPER

MarkO
10-24-2007, 02:43 PM
Neil Young...ew. Yeah, that'd be fine with me. :D

Answer the question focker.

So if I upload the new ________ album to 1,000 people that's ok because I bought my copy ?

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:44 PM
THE CAUSE of others having to pay more.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This coming from the guy who profits off of others having to pay more? This coming from the guy who profits directly from the artists and causes the most direct harm to artists? What a FUCKING JOKE!

Hey, fuckstick. I don't force you to pay anything. You can get your fucking tickets/passes on time, or you can deal with the secondary market, you stupid worthless son of a whore. IF you don't get your tickets on time, that is YOUR problem. And guess what. I don't fucking have tickets to every fucking show in the fucking world, you pansy. While you leeching stealing cunt motherfuckers DO steal and illegally download everything made by everyone. That is what Oink was about. It is what all these shit torrents are about. And that forces prices to stay inflated for us who buy art, because they still have to pay the bills, you stupid cunt. I DON'T FORCE YOU TO BUY TICKETS FROM ME. IN FACT, IF YOU EVER DID WIN AN AUCTION, I WOULD KEEP THE MONEY AND SEND YOU A VILE OF MY MAN JUICE. How 'bout those apples?

E

MarkO
10-24-2007, 02:45 PM
I don't sell one ticket to one thousand different people, idiot.

E

Ah, so we're talking about degrees of illegal activity then. What if I upload to one person ?? Is that different than what you do ??

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:46 PM
What I do is legal and hurts ZERO artists. Suck my balls. Both of em.

E

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 02:46 PM
Fair use doctrine Edouchewand. Quit talking out your ass. No one is going to federal prison. Keep believing what fox news tells you.

See, e.g. Elektra v. Barker[4] and Warner v. Cassin[5], two pending cases in which the legal viability of that accusation is being tested, for an examination of the legal issues. So far only one case against an alleged infringer is known to have gone to trial[6], and no other fully contested cases are known to have been determined by a trial, summary judgment motion, or otherwise. The trial which did go forward took place in October, 2007, and resulted in a verdict of $222,000 for "making available" 24 song files having a total retail value of $23.76, or less. The defendant is moving to set aside the verdict, and if that does not succeed will be filing an appeal. So the question of whether 'making files available' over a peer to peer network is actionable, is an open question in the United States.

The fundamental question, "what use can a p2p filesharing network's customers make of the software and of copyrighted materials without violating copyright law", has no answer at this time, as there have been no trials, and almost no dispositive decisionmaking on the subject.

This issue has received virtually no appellate attention, the sole exception being BMG v. Gonzalez[7], a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held that where a defendant has admitted downloading and copying song files from other users in the p2p network without permission of the copyright holders, she cannot claim that such copying is a "fair use". Since Gonzalez involves a defendant who had admitted to actual copying and downloading of songs from other unauthorized users, it is of limited applicability in contested cases, in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right, and does not deal with defenses other than "fair use".

A case which has broad implications, not only for the subject of p2p file sharing but for the internet at large, is Elektra v. Barker,[8] an RIAA case against Tenise Barker, a Bronx nursing student. Ms. Barker moved to dismiss the complaint, contending, among other things, that the RIAA's allegation of "making available" did not state any known claim under the Copyright Act.[9][10]. The RIAA countered with the argument that even without any copying, and without any other violation of the record companies' distribution rights, the mere act of "making available" is a copyright infringement, even though the language does not appear in the Copyright Act, as a violation of the "distribution" right described in 17 USC 106(3).[11] Thereafter, several amicus curiae were permitted to file briefs in the case, including the MPAA, which agreed[12] with the RIAA's argument, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA), and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which agreed with Ms. Barker.[13][14] The US Department of Justice submitted a brief refuting one of the arguments made by EFF,[15] but did not take any position on the RIAA's "making available" argument, noting that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available".[16]. The Elektra v. Barker case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on January 26, 2007[17], and as of this writing is awaiting decision.

There is at least one indication that the RIAA may be abandoning its "making available" theory. In a San Diego, California, case, Interscope v. Rodriguez, where the Judge dimissed the RIAA's complaint as "conclusory", "boilerplate", "speculation", the RIAA filed an amended complaint which contained no reference at all to "making available". [18] In subsequent cases, the RIAA's complaint abandoned altogether the "making available" theory, following the model of the Interscope v. Rodriguez amended complaint.

Meanwhile, in its first jury trial, the RIAA prevailed upon the trial judge to give the jurors an instruction which followed its "making available" theory[19], over the protestations of the defendant's lawyer.

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 02:49 PM
Hey, fuckstick. I don't force you to pay anything. You can get your fucking tickets/passes on time, or you can deal with the secondary market, you stupid worthless son of a whore. IF you don't get your tickets on time, that is YOUR problem. And guess what. I don't fucking have tickets to every fucking show in the fucking world, you pansy. While you leeching stealing cunt motherfuckers DO steal and illegally download everything made by everyone. That is what Oink was about. It is what all these shit torrents are about. And that forces prices to stay inflated for us who buy art, because they still have to pay the bills, you stupid cunt. I DON'T FORCE YOU TO BUY TICKETS FROM ME. IN FACT, IF YOU EVER DID WIN AN AUCTION, I WOULD KEEP THE MONEY AND SEND YOU A VILE OF MY MAN JUICE. How 'bout those apples?

E

Somebody get this guy his fucking ba-ba for fucks sake. hahahahaha:lool

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:50 PM
Yeah, fair use, which has to do with using a small clip of Faux noise on The Today Show or Late Night with Conan O'Brian, really has to do with stealing billions of dollars worth of copyrighted music. Yep. Fair use.

*walks into Louvre*

*steal Mona Lisa*

Fair use doctrine.

E

Ill_Eagle
10-24-2007, 02:50 PM
How 'bout those apples?

E

How about them apples.

plz



Answer the question focker.

So if I upload the new ________ album to 1,000 people that's ok because I bought my copy ?

I'm a pretty chill guy...so yeah I'd let it slide.

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 02:51 PM
Obviously delta has no fucking clue about copyright history, the betamax decision or even fucking cassette tapes. He thinks people trading music suddenly occured in 1995 like it had never happened before. There are plenty of legal precedents that say trading music is completely legal. HAHAHAHAHA

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:51 PM
I won't apologise for NOT being from a shithole like Boston.

It's going to be real nice to see the Rocks sweep their pussy asses.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:52 PM
Yes, illegal downloading from non-copyright holders is just called illegal downloading for the hell of it. It's all a jewish conspiracy in fact.

E

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 02:53 PM
Yeah, fair use, which has to do with using a small clip of Faux noise on The Today Show or Late Night with Conan O'Brian, really has to do with stealing billions of dollars worth of copyrighted music. Yep. Fair use.

*walks into Louvre*

*steal Mona Lisa*

Fair use doctrine.

E


You are right because im walking into the studio and stealing the master recordings. DUN-DUN-DUNNNnnnnnn!

MarkO
10-24-2007, 02:54 PM
Yeah, fair use, which has to do with using a small clip of Faux noise on The Today Show or Late Night with Conan O'Brian, really has to do with stealing billions of dollars worth of copyrighted music. Yep. Fair use.

*walks into Louvre*

*steal Mona Lisa*

Fair use doctrine.

E

The Mona Lisa is available to everyone & anyone to view at (almost) any time. If you upload an album, you're really not preventing anyone else from listening to it, are you.

Your argument is somewhat confusing as it doesn't back up your pov.

How/why did you leave the military ? and when ??

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 02:56 PM
I dont illegally download anything Im taking part in fair use in which the artists and P2P networks are "making available".

bmack86
10-24-2007, 02:56 PM
This has devolved into the new stupidest thread on the board.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 02:57 PM
You are right because im walking into the studio and stealing the master recordings. DUN-DUN-DUNNNnnnnnn!

You might as well be. Copyrights, ever heard of them. Google.

E

MarkO
10-24-2007, 02:59 PM
You might as well be. .........

Objection your Honor. Conjecture.

This whole thread would be funny only for the fact we are dealing with someone who really does appear to have health issues.

Tylerdurden31
10-24-2007, 03:06 PM
http://www.wegart.sk/images/pics/godspeed_map.jpg

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:06 PM
So if I upload the new Neil Young album to 1,000 people that's ok because I bought my copy ?

the point is, scalping is not illegal in many states. uploading music to the public, even an album you have purchased, is illegal.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:08 PM
THE CAUSE of others having to pay more.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This coming from the guy who profits off of others having to pay more? This coming from the guy who profits directly from the artists and causes the most direct harm to artists? What a FUCKING JOKE!

scalping does not harm the artist in any way, shape or form. i'm not defending scalping, but the only people scalping harms are the fans. the artist is not harmed.

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 03:09 PM
the point is, scalping is not illegal in many states. uploading music to the public, even an album you have purchased, is illegal.

No, its not actually.

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 03:09 PM
scalping does not harm the artist in any way, shape or form. i'm not defending scalping, but the only people scalping harms are the fans. the artist is not harmed.

Do I have to draw you a fucking diagram?

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:11 PM
Ah, so we're talking about degrees of illegal activity then. What if I upload to one person ?? Is that different than what you do ??

you're an idiot

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:11 PM
the point is, scalping is not illegal in many states. uploading music to the public, even an album you have purchased, is illegal.

Its not quite illegal yet.

The trial which did go forward took place in October, 2007, and resulted in a verdict of $222,000 for "making available" 24 song files having a total retail value of $23.76, or less. The defendant is moving to set aside the verdict, and if that does not succeed will be filing an appeal. So the question of whether 'making files available' over a peer to peer network is actionable, is an open question in the United States.

Keep believing what you are force feed.

MarkO
10-24-2007, 03:12 PM
scalping does not harm the artist in any way, shape or form. i'm not defending scalping, but the only people scalping harms are the fans. the artist is not harmed.

So it's all about the artist when we're talking about filesharing but when conversation moves to scalping, it's who gives a fuck ??

I see how it is.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:12 PM
Fair use doctrine Edouchewand. Quit talking out your ass. No one is going to federal prison. Keep believing what fox news tells you.

See, e.g. Elektra v. Barker[4] and Warner v. Cassin[5], two pending cases in which the legal viability of that accusation is being tested, for an examination of the legal issues. So far only one case against an alleged infringer is known to have gone to trial[6], and no other fully contested cases are known to have been determined by a trial, summary judgment motion, or otherwise. The trial which did go forward took place in October, 2007, and resulted in a verdict of $222,000 for "making available" 24 song files having a total retail value of $23.76, or less. The defendant is moving to set aside the verdict, and if that does not succeed will be filing an appeal. So the question of whether 'making files available' over a peer to peer network is actionable, is an open question in the United States.

The fundamental question, "what use can a p2p filesharing network's customers make of the software and of copyrighted materials without violating copyright law", has no answer at this time, as there have been no trials, and almost no dispositive decisionmaking on the subject.

This issue has received virtually no appellate attention, the sole exception being BMG v. Gonzalez[7], a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held that where a defendant has admitted downloading and copying song files from other users in the p2p network without permission of the copyright holders, she cannot claim that such copying is a "fair use". Since Gonzalez involves a defendant who had admitted to actual copying and downloading of songs from other unauthorized users, it is of limited applicability in contested cases, in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right, and does not deal with defenses other than "fair use".

A case which has broad implications, not only for the subject of p2p file sharing but for the internet at large, is Elektra v. Barker,[8] an RIAA case against Tenise Barker, a Bronx nursing student. Ms. Barker moved to dismiss the complaint, contending, among other things, that the RIAA's allegation of "making available" did not state any known claim under the Copyright Act.[9][10]. The RIAA countered with the argument that even without any copying, and without any other violation of the record companies' distribution rights, the mere act of "making available" is a copyright infringement, even though the language does not appear in the Copyright Act, as a violation of the "distribution" right described in 17 USC 106(3).[11] Thereafter, several amicus curiae were permitted to file briefs in the case, including the MPAA, which agreed[12] with the RIAA's argument, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA), and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which agreed with Ms. Barker.[13][14] The US Department of Justice submitted a brief refuting one of the arguments made by EFF,[15] but did not take any position on the RIAA's "making available" argument, noting that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available".[16]. The Elektra v. Barker case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on January 26, 2007[17], and as of this writing is awaiting decision.

There is at least one indication that the RIAA may be abandoning its "making available" theory. In a San Diego, California, case, Interscope v. Rodriguez, where the Judge dimissed the RIAA's complaint as "conclusory", "boilerplate", "speculation", the RIAA filed an amended complaint which contained no reference at all to "making available". [18] In subsequent cases, the RIAA's complaint abandoned altogether the "making available" theory, following the model of the Interscope v. Rodriguez amended complaint.

Meanwhile, in its first jury trial, the RIAA prevailed upon the trial judge to give the jurors an instruction which followed its "making available" theory[19], over the protestations of the defendant's lawyer.

you obviously don't understand the fair use doctrine.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:13 PM
You obviously dont understand law.

MarkO
10-24-2007, 03:13 PM
you're an idiot

How so ?? Scalping is illegal in at least some states and it appears filesharing is too. Why are you trying to differentiate the two ??

Do you scalp ??

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 03:14 PM
If it weren't illegal .... why was there even a trial? Why was a 222,000$ USD verdict resulted? Why are we even arguing the legality?

Does it hurt artists? Yes.

Is this a community that is supposed to be populated by members who care about artists and their continued production of art? Yes.

Are some people in this community so selfish, self-serving, and outright poor managers of money that they justify stealing from the same artists that they claim to like/love? Yes, apparently.

E

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:15 PM
No, its not actually.

yes it is actually

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 03:15 PM
Scalping has never hurt any artists. Never.

E

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:15 PM
Do I have to draw you a fucking diagram?

yes, please draw me a diagram so i can understand. i'm more of a visual person.

MarkO
10-24-2007, 03:18 PM
Scalping has never hurt any artists. Never.

E


What about concert goers ?? Do your activities hurt them ??

Why do you care so much about artists when you care so little about the ordinary Joe that wants to catch a show ??

luckyface
10-24-2007, 03:21 PM
Scalping doesn't hurt artists, but I sure bet it pisses them the fuck off.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:22 PM
How so ?? Scalping is illegal in at least some states and it appears filesharing is too. Why are you trying to differentiate the two ??

Do you scalp ??

i've never scalped in my life. but it is legal in most states. fliesharing for personal enjoyment of the album is always illegal.

i'm not trying to differentiate. i don't have to try. there is a difference. one (scalping) can be perfectly legal, even though it is immoral imo. the other (filesharing) is always illegal.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 03:24 PM
What about concert goers ?? Do your activities hurt them ??

They should get their tickets in time.



Why do you care so much about artists when you care so little about the ordinary Joe that wants to catch a show ??

I don't care about Joe. He can get his ticket on time, or he can pay true market value after it has sold out. His choice.

E

JustSteve
10-24-2007, 03:25 PM
Scalping has never hurt any artists. Never.

E

it may not hurt them financially, but if i were in a band and many of my fans were kept out of a show because scalpers were selling tickets at way above face value i would be pretty pissed.

sidenote: back in the day when i worked in the promotion biz a guy was caught outside one of our shows scalping fake tickets and selling bootleg tshirts. our security went out and took all the money he had collected, along with the shirts and tix. it was so funny, what the hell could the guy do? couldn't go to the cops or anything.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:27 PM
i've never scalped in my life. but it is legal in most states. fliesharing for personal enjoyment of the album is always illegal.

i'm not trying to differentiate. i don't have to try. there is a difference. one (scalping) can be perfectly legal, even though it is immoral imo. the other (filesharing) is always illegal.

File sharing is not illegal. Please show me where it is.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:35 PM
*Puts TomAz phone hold music on and patiently waits*

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:35 PM
You obviously dont understand law.

I understand the law perfectly well. Hell, it's what I do for a living.

The case you cite to raises the following novel issue...


The fundamental question, "what use can a p2p filesharing network's customers make of the software and of copyrighted materials without violating copyright law"


So this case is trying to determine just how far you can go without violating copyright law. It is attempting to define the extent of fair use.

The holding which you cite goes on to reference the BMG v. Gonzalez holding...


BMG v. Gonzalez, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, held that where a defendant has admitted downloading and copying song files from other users in the p2p network without permission of the copyright holders, she cannot claim that such copying is a "fair use". Since Gonzalez involves a defendant who had admitted to actual copying and downloading of songs from other unauthorized users, it is of limited applicability in contested cases, in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right, and does not deal with defenses other than "fair use".


In other words, if you download an album from an unauthorized user, you cannot claim "fair use."

EDIT: This makes sense, because if the album was illegally obtained in the first place, how can you argue you are making fair use of it? Now, if you purchased the album, then you can obviously make a "fair use" argument for using the music in some manner.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:39 PM
Thats a mighty big "if" sport.

orbit
10-24-2007, 03:41 PM
And file sharing is not illegal.

Thanks to oink and sites like that, I discover/discovered many artists. If I like their music, I buy it, and I go to their shows. How does that hurt them?

BMG/Sony lawyer said that even copying music you own for yourself is same as stealing. Bullshit.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 03:42 PM
Thanks to oink and sites like that, I discover/discovered many artists. If I like their music, I buy it, and I go to their shows. How does that hurt them?


You're in the minority. Most thieves don't compensate those they are stealing from. Defeats the purpose of stealing, actually.

E

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:43 PM
Thats a mighty big "if" sport.

a mighty big "if"? are you fucking kidding me? at least 90% of downloaded music is from unauthorized users who themselves downloaded it illegaly.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:44 PM
I guarantee that if you audit all of Edwin's secondary market ticket transactions you would see that 90% of them are illegal this excludes any events that take place in Nevada and California.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 03:44 PM
Don't forget about leaks of releases that haven't even occurred yet, which is what drove the international police force to take down Oink and send their creator to prison where he will be assraped for years to come. No filesharing of those tapes will be made available by Oink's creator.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 03:45 PM
I guarantee that if you audit all of Edwin's secondary market ticket transactions you would see that 90% of them are illegal this excludes any events that take place in Nevada and California.

Go ahead counselor. It's not hard to do.

E

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:47 PM
It was made available through fair use. Therefore not illegal. RIAA has failed to show (a) dissemination, (b) of actual phonorecords or copies, (c) "to the public" (as opposed to a limited group), or any (d) sale, transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending all of which are required components of a 17 USC 106(3) "distribution".

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:47 PM
I guarantee that if you audit all of Edwin's secondary market ticket transactions you would see that 90% of them are illegal this excludes any events that take place in Nevada and California.

but i'm not defending delta. what's your point?

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 03:51 PM
It was made available through fair use. Therefore not illegal. RIAA has failed to show (a) dissemination, (b) of actual phonorecords or copies, (c) "to the public" (as opposed to a limited group), or any (d) sale, transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending all of which are required components of a 17 USC 106(3) "distribution".

these are all factual issues for the jury to decide. the point is, the activity is illegal if these elements are established.

Robototron
10-24-2007, 03:56 PM
...some astroglide for his anus.
...getting raped in prison soon.
...brutally ass raped...
...when your pussy ass is getting raped in prison...
Enjoy your five years of getting buttraped.
And may you get raped for years to come in pound-you-in-the-ass prison.
...prison where he will be assraped for years to come.

Is there something wrong with you?

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:57 PM
but i'm not defending delta. what's your point?

He says his secondary market ticket practices have never been illegal.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 03:58 PM
Prove where they have been a) illegal; and b) harmful to artists.

Dipshit.

E

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 03:58 PM
these are all factual issues for the jury to decide. the point is, the activity is illegal if these elements are established.

No case has been upheld. Therefore it is not illegal

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:00 PM
Prove where they have been a) illegal; and b) harmful to artists.

Dipshit.

E

I don't care about you enough to even think about doing something like that.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 04:02 PM
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2200570/riaa-wins-file-sharing-test

RIAA wins US file sharing test case

Minnesota mum faces $220,000 bill for copyright infringement
Clement James and Iain Thomson, vnunet.com, 05 Oct 2007

The US record industry won a key victory in court this week after a Minnesota woman was found guilty of copyright infringement and ordered to pay $220,000 to six music labels.

The courtroom battle between single mother Jammie Thomas, 30, and the recording industry is an important test case because it is the first time that a consumer has elected to forgo settlement and argue the case before a jury.

Thomas was accused of the illegal sharing of more than 1,700 songs on peer-to-peer network Kazaa. The charge was later cut to 24 songs.

The woman claimed in her defence that she has never used Kazaa and does not have a Kazaa account.

The case could set a dangerous precedent, in that the owner of an internet account could be held responsible for any file sharing taking place from that connection, such as children using a family computer.

Around 26,000 people are thought to have been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) since 2003, almost all of whom have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 04:03 PM
I don't care about you enough to even think about doing something like that.

Then stop making blank accusations before I sue you for libel.

E

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:07 PM
Settled out of court. Thank you for highlighting that for me. They gave up because it can be overturned because it is not illegal. But they are to stupid to hire a good lawyer or research the facts for themselves, and don't want these douchey record labels to threaten them with keeping the trial to go on so long that they spend every last dime defending themselves.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:09 PM
Then stop making blank accusations before I sue you for libel.

E

hahahahaha go for it.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 04:10 PM
Are you half retarded or FULLY MENTALLY RETARDED?

Let's do this again:


http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2200570/riaa-wins-file-sharing-test

RIAA wins US file sharing test case

Minnesota mum faces $220,000 bill for copyright infringement
Clement James and Iain Thomson, vnunet.com, 05 Oct 2007

The US record industry won a key victory in court this week after a Minnesota woman was found guilty of copyright infringement and ordered to pay $220,000 to six music labels.

The courtroom battle between single mother Jammie Thomas, 30, and the recording industry is an important test case because it is the first time that a consumer has elected to forgo settlement and argue the case before a jury.

Thomas was accused of the illegal sharing of more than 1,700 songs on peer-to-peer network Kazaa. The charge was later cut to 24 songs.

The woman claimed in her defence that she has never used Kazaa and does not have a Kazaa account.

The case could set a dangerous precedent, in that the owner of an internet account could be held responsible for any file sharing taking place from that connection, such as children using a family computer.

Around 26,000 people are thought to have been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) since 2003, almost all of whom have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.

E

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:12 PM
copyright infringement. Not file sharing. Learn English.

MarkO
10-24-2007, 04:12 PM
I don't care about Joe. He can get his ticket on time, or he can pay true market value after it has sold out. His choice.

E


So what if Joe decides the true market value for that new album is $0 ?? Same thing right ??

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:12 PM
No case has been upheld. Therefore it is not illegal

You are talking about 'making files available' over a peer to peer network. This issue has only been tried once, and the defendant was found guilty. He is now appealing. He will probably lose.

But you are missing the point entirely. Downloading music from a peer to peer network from an auauthorized user for your own listening pleasure is clearly illegal.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:13 PM
Next time post the entire article.

However, many industry watchers expect that the case is far from over and that an appeal is likely.

The case also highlighted some curious thinking by the record companies. For example, an executive for Sony BMG stated that the act of copying a music track from a CD to a media player is an act of theft.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song," said Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation and anti-piracy at Sony BMG.

Making a "copy" of a purchased song, she said, is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'".

Pariser also acknowledged that the money spent on lawsuits such as this is not being recovered from the pirates, and that the RIAA is making a loss.

When questioned on the stand Pariser admitted that the recording industry had no idea how much money it had lost to file sharing.

PotVsKtl
10-24-2007, 04:14 PM
Not if you own the original CD.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:14 PM
Settled out of court. Thank you for highlighting that for me. They gave up because it can be overturned because it is not illegal. But they are to stupid to hire a good lawyer or research the facts for themselves, and don't want these douchey record labels to threaten them with keeping the trial to go on so long that they spend every last dime defending themselves.

when 26,000 people settle out of court, the activity is illegal. stop making intellectually dishonest arguments.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:14 PM
The Copyright Act contains a special exception for “private copying”: it permits the copying of music files “onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy”, but does not permit copying for the purpose of “distributing” or “communicating to the public by telecommunication” (s.80). It is generally accepted that downloading music for personal use is legal under this section. However, the record industry disputes this on the basis that a computer’s hard drive does not constitute an “audio recording medium”.

instinct
10-24-2007, 04:14 PM
No, I'm not. Is it worth it?

E


No. I joined it for a month, it was not helpful at all.

MarkO
10-24-2007, 04:15 PM
Prove where they have been a) illegal; and b) harmful to artists.

Dipshit.

E

Please post a complete and detailed list of the tickets you have sold, to whom, when you sold them, and for how much.

Then we'll see.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:15 PM
when 26,000 people settle out of court, the activity is illegal. stop making intellectually dishonest arguments.

Settling out of court does not mean it was illegal.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:17 PM
Settling out of court does not mean it was illegal.

when every single person sued settles, it's fairly obvious that what they were doing was illegal. you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

instinct
10-24-2007, 04:17 PM
Man...you guys are fucked up. You know if you had a spare ticket and someone offered $400+ for it, you would sell it in a heartbeat.

I sold a water bottle to this kid for like 10 bucks at coach hhahahhaha IM A SCALPER

Word. Oh my gosh, you should have seen how much I sold some camping passes for.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:17 PM
You are not a very good lawyer.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:19 PM
You are not a very good lawyer.

who the fuck are you? based on the arguments you have set forth, it is fairly obvious that you are ignorant.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:19 PM
when every single person sued settles, it's fairly obvious that what they were doing was illegal. you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Im not arguing. Im proving to you that it is not illegal. If it is show me the law that says it is.

instinct
10-24-2007, 04:19 PM
scalping does not harm the artist in any way, shape or form. i'm not defending scalping, but the only people scalping harms are the fans. the artist is not harmed.


it's true.. if anything.. they are making sure the artists sell lots of tickets! A lot of the time there are extra tickets that go to waste.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:21 PM
Im not arguing. Im proving to you that it is not illegal. If it is show me the law that says it is.

you fucking moron....you cited to it yourself....


This issue has received virtually no appellate attention, the sole exception being BMG v. Gonzalez[7], a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held that where a defendant has admitted downloading and copying song files from other users in the p2p network without permission of the copyright holders, she cannot claim that such copying is a "fair use".

instinct
10-24-2007, 04:22 PM
For those that are think that scalping is horrible..


Do you think it was horrible for people to wait in line for Ps3's just to sell them on Ebay for twice as much money?

Fuck Reselling is how people make money, with all types of products.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:23 PM
the reason the RIAA is settling with everyone is to avoid the public relations nightmare that would occur if it obtained six figure judgments against a bunch of college students.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:24 PM
Put the entire quote in there shitty lawyer.

Since Gonzalez involves a defendant who had admitted to actual copying and downloading of songs from other unauthorized users, it is of limited applicability in contested cases, in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right, and does not deal with defenses other than "fair use".

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 04:25 PM
Please post a complete and detailed list of the tickets you have sold, to whom, when you sold them, and for how much.

Then we'll see.

I don't have to provide my detailed records to you or anyone else. It's not hard to find eBay sales. Look them up. And shut up.

E

MarkO
10-24-2007, 04:28 PM
I don't have to provide my detailed records to you or anyone else. It's not hard to find eBay sales. Look them up. And shut up.

E

You asked for us to 'prove' you're not engaged in illegal activity. I am simply requesting all pertinent information.

And dude, seriously, seek mental help. Doesn't the VA help folks like you ??

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:29 PM
Put the entire quote in there shitty lawyer.

Since Gonzalez involves a defendant who had admitted to actual copying and downloading of songs from other unauthorized users, it is of limited applicability in contested cases, in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right, and does not deal with defenses other than "fair use".

exactly. if you copy or download a song from an anauthorized user, you are engaging in illegal activity.

what don't you understand about this?

you are a fucking pest.

MarkO
10-24-2007, 04:31 PM
For those that are think that scalping is horrible..


Do you think it was horrible for people to wait in line for Ps3's just to sell them on Ebay for twice as much money?

Fuck Reselling is how people make money, with all types of products.

There is no limit on PS3's, just a temporary short supply. Jeff Tweedy didn't put on a 2nd show for me because I missed the first one. Try to differentiate between the two. You can do it.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:33 PM
Im not arguing. Im proving to you that it is not illegal. If it is show me the law that says it is.

here you go dumbass....

"Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders’ exclusive rights . . . .Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights….[V]irtually all Napster users engage in the unauthorized downloading or uploading of copyrighted music . . ."
A & M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:33 PM
OMG it has nothing to do with file sharing.

in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right, and does not deal with defenses other than "fair use".

Hence file sharing (distribution) is not illegal. Unethical yes but not illegal.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:34 PM
Im not arguing. Im proving to you that it is not illegal. If it is show me the law that says it is.

here you go dumbass....

"Uploading is copying. Downloading is also copying. Unauthorized copying is an unauthorized use that is governed by the copyright laws. Therefore, unauthorized uploading and unauthorized downloading are unauthorized uses governed by the copyright laws . . . ."
Ohio v. Perry, 83 Ohio St. 3d 41, 697 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1998).

luckyface
10-24-2007, 04:35 PM
Do you think it was horrible for people to wait in line for Ps3's just to sell them on Ebay for twice as much money?

Uh yeah.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:37 PM
OMG it has nothing to do with file sharing.

in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right, and does not deal with defenses other than "fair use".

Hence file sharing (distribution) is not illegal. Unethical yes but not illegal.

dude, just because the issue hasn't been adjudicated yet does not mean it is legal.

more importantly, file sharing (distribution) necessarily means that others will be downloading the shared file. so even if file sharing is held to be legal, the practical effect is that anyone who downloads it is engaging in illegal activity. what's the point of sharing if no one can download?

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 04:39 PM
P
rove where they have been a) illegal; and b) harmful to artists.

Dipshit.

E

B. Harmful to artists

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-21-ticketmaster-auction_x.htm


With the Ticketmaster auctions, "the whole point was to try and recapture revenue that's being generated on the back of the artist and promoter," says Arthur Fogel, president of tour promoter TNA International, which is behind Madonna's summer tour.


And here is the economics that shows you stealing from the artist.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f209/carbine000/scalperssuck.jpg

Delta you are dumb dumb dumb.

TomAz
10-24-2007, 04:40 PM
You asked for us to 'prove' you're not engaged in illegal activity. I am simply requesting all pertinent information.

And dude, seriously, seek mental help. Doesn't the VA help folks like you ??

you're gonna need a subpoena. without one your gonna need astroglide for your prison ass gang bang. you gonna get ass raped. you gonna get dirty cock shoved up your poophole. You gonna be taking filthy meat going the wrong way on the hershey highway. your gonna get aids cuz you don't know bjj to defend yourself from assrape. I'll laugh my ass off when I see your hemorrhoids.

MarkO
10-24-2007, 04:42 PM
So how do you report scalpers to the law ?? Local PD ? State Police ? or the Feds ??

TomAz
10-24-2007, 04:43 PM
you gonna get your anal cherry busted in jail, loser! ahahahahahha!!!

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 04:44 PM
So how do you report scalpers to the law ?? Local PD ? State Police ? or the Feds ??

i guarantee that if you call the police of the Feds to report a scalper, they will laugh at you.

luckyface
10-24-2007, 04:45 PM
B. Harmful to artists

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-21-ticketmaster-auction_x.htm




And here is the economics that shows you stealing from the artist.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f209/carbine000/scalperssuck.jpg

Delta you are dumb dumb dumb.

Another point that can be made to say that scalpers have a direct impact on an artist's bottom line is that when you have someone who pays a lot more than face value for a ticket, he or she might be less inclined to buy merchandise due to the lack of funds.

MarkO
10-24-2007, 04:46 PM
Oh I know. It's pretty pathetic though that DeltaScalperChi can blatantly get away with his carry on.

Trick Loves The Kids
10-24-2007, 04:48 PM
I almost read this thread but Delta's posts simultaneously give me a headache and make me want to punch shit

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:52 PM
dude, just because the issue hasn't been adjudicated yet does not mean it is legal.

more importantly, file sharing (distribution) necessarily means that others will be downloading the shared file. so even if file sharing is held to be legal, the practical effect is that anyone who downloads it is engaging in illegal activity. what's the point of sharing if no one can download?

It doesn't mean thats its illegal either. If it is held to be legal. Then you are engaging in legal activities. Downloading is not illegal.

TomAz
10-24-2007, 04:54 PM
you gonna get assraped justin.

J~$$$
10-24-2007, 04:55 PM
Prove that it was unauthrorized.

crazzz2007
10-24-2007, 05:15 PM
Downloading is not illegal.

"Uploading is copying. Downloading is also copying. Unauthorized copying is an unauthorized use that is governed by the copyright laws. Therefore, unauthorized uploading and unauthorized downloading are unauthorized uses governed by the copyright laws . . . ."
Ohio v. Perry, 83 Ohio St. 3d 41, 697 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1998).

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 05:51 PM
"Uploading is copying. Downloading is also copying. Unauthorized copying is an unauthorized use that is governed by the copyright laws. Therefore, unauthorized uploading and unauthorized downloading are unauthorized uses governed by the copyright laws . . . ."
Ohio v. Perry, 83 Ohio St. 3d 41, 697 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1998).

Well if you want to get all technical. Have you ever watched a baseball/football/basketball game one night then came in to work the next day and told someone about it? If so, you are breaking copyright laws and violating the rights of the NFL/NBA/MLB in doing so and can be held accountable up to $250,000US and 5 years in prison. stfu, crazzz.

brownbuffalo
10-24-2007, 06:02 PM
if you were a member of oink relax nothing will happen to you

check out this page for offical news from people at oink

http://tehpaine.blogspot.com/

jackstraw94086
10-24-2007, 07:09 PM
Scalping has never hurt any artists. Never.

E


I actually took the time to read most of this shit just now because your bullshit is actually pretty fucking hilarious.

when are you going to get it through your thick fucking moron skull (which, based the size of your tiny head, leaves about a square inch for your brain)? You're hurting FANs with your fucking scalping shit.

You spout so much stupid, weak-minded, ill informed bullshit and claim to be all self-righteous, but when it comes to taking advantage of your fellow concert goers you hide behind this idiotic "well it's legal so it's OK" shit.
There's a lot of legal shit that's horribly wrong, dickslug. Once you grow up and graduate janitor school you may find that out. FACT: you jump ticketmaster systems when sales begin and buy tickets you fully intend to scalp while who are actually busy at a JOB or perhaps just seconds behind you get fucked.


Don't bother preaching to me about how artists get paid. I know how artists get paid. I know I spend far more on music than you ever will, and I help to keep small distributors in business. I don't steal from major labels because by and large their music is shit.


oh and btw, you made a fool of yourself when wmgaretjax said commented about how nobody has ever been arrested off a torrent site list, and then you hilariously refuted that with a video of a guy being arrested for selling mp3s off his own server.

Really dude? Seriously? Do you actually think you refuted what wmgaretjax asserted? It's so laughingly obvious you haven't a clue about any of this and are just talking out your ass.

Boourns
10-24-2007, 07:27 PM
It's spoiled rich kids and celebrities that can spare $2000 for a Radiohead ticket, not fans. And those types tend to think they are above acts of fandom like buying merchandise, which is how a lot of bands get their beer money. Ever see Paris Hilton wear a Radiohead shirt? Exactly.

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 07:33 PM
Geez jackstraw......I was expecting something more, kinda seems like you let him off the hook. Was it because you cant fault him for his own intellectual incapacities? Maybe its genetic?

instinct
10-24-2007, 08:14 PM
Seems like this site is filled with a bunch communists.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 08:21 PM
So how do you report scalpers to the law ?? Local PD ? State Police ? or the Feds ??

Use the report button on eBay. lol.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 09:26 PM
A good friend of mine just got served with papers from RIAA stating that he is getting sued for using Oink. He can settle out of court for 18k because of the amount of music he downloaded. He said the "fine" is 1k per gig.

He's getting a layer.

I guess they found out everyone's name/address via IP address's and are seriously persuing lawsuits.

Good thing I never had an account.

Hopefully you guys won't get affected too.

Ahem. This was posted on the fora I already linked to earlier in this thread. Unlike this guy, I DO HOPE you all are affected. Every single one of you worthless assholes who illegally downloaded anything from Oink. Good luck. Be ready to file your Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. HA@!

E

miscorrections
10-24-2007, 09:28 PM
oh christ almighty, edwin. WHO GIVES A FUCKING FLYING SHIT.

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 09:29 PM
A good friend of mine just got served with papers from RIAA stating that he is getting sued for using Oink. He can settle out of court for 18k because of the amount of music he downloaded. He said the "fine" is 1k per gig.

He's getting a layer.

I guess they found out everyone's name/address via IP address's and are seriously persuing lawsuits.

Good thing I never had an account.

Hopefully you guys won't get affected too.

Ahem. This was posted on the fora I already linked to earlier in this thread. Unlike this guy, I DO HOPE you all are affected. Every single one of you worthless assholes who illegally downloaded anything from Oink. Good luck. Be ready to file your Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. HA@!

E


HAHAHAHAH. Link or shut the fuck up.

Edit: P.S. I see no rebuttal from my earlier post showing why scalping = stealing from the artist. I assume no rebuttal means you admit you look like a fucking retard and you just want the argument to go away.

Robototron
10-24-2007, 09:44 PM
A good friend of mine just got served with papers from RIAA stating that he is getting sued for using Oink. He can settle out of court for 18k because of the amount of music he downloaded. He said the "fine" is 1k per gig.

He's getting a layer.

I guess they found out everyone's name/address via IP address's and are seriously persuing lawsuits.

Good thing I never had an account.

Hopefully you guys won't get affected too.

Ahem. This was posted on the fora I already linked to earlier in this thread. Unlike this guy, I DO HOPE you all are affected. Every single one of you worthless assholes who illegally downloaded anything from Oink. Good luck. Be ready to file your Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. HA@!

E

Haha, like anyone believes this bullshit.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 10:00 PM
Uh, I was watching bases. You know. I am an American. U.S. American. And I do watch the fucking world series when it is on.

When the Police sold out their stadium tour, and the many amateur speculators were left with useless tickets because there was no market to resell, how did that hurt The Police? How did The Police get hurt by me paying something like 40$ for a 600$ ticket because the market was bust because there weren't enough people with interest to see them to even sell out the shows, had it not been for the immense amount of amateur speculation.

And the link to the discussion of ARTISTS REGARDING THIS OINK BUST was already posted. Look it up. I won't. This guy has no reason to lie, and you have a lot of reasons to fear this being true. I'm chuckling over here, because I know it is real, and I'm hoping each and every one of you Oink users are served.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 10:02 PM
Haha, like anyone believes this bullshit.

Don't believe it. I'm not asking you to believe. Go to church if you wish to be convinced to believe. Maybe you'll think that the paperwork that arrives at your doorstep is going to bullshit as well. I don't care. I have nothing to fear. I pay for the music I own through proper channels.

E

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 10:17 PM
Uh, I was watching bases. You know. I am an American. U.S. American. And I do watch the fucking world series when it is on.

When the Police sold out their stadium tour, and the many amateur speculators were left with useless tickets because there was no market to resell, how did that hurt The Police? How did The Police get hurt by me paying something like 40$ for a 600$ ticket because the market was bust because there weren't enough people with interest to see them to even sell out the shows, had it not been for the immense amount of amateur speculation.

And the link to the discussion of ARTISTS REGARDING THIS OINK BUST was already posted. Look it up. I won't. This guy has no reason to lie, and you have a lot of reasons to fear this being true. I'm chuckling over here, because I know it is real, and I'm hoping each and every one of you Oink users are served.

E


Hey man thats your risk. I am telling the fucking fact. You steal from artists. Artists make their living on the road. You literally take money out of their pocket.

And who gives a fuck what so and so said. It took them two years to investigate Oink. You think they served someone with papers in 24 hours? You're a fucking joke. Why would anyone believe that fucking nobody anyways when the administrator of the site himself says no IP's were stored. FUCKING DUMB.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 10:33 PM
Same administrator that is in prison right now as I sit here watching Baseball Tonight's review of GAME ONE? That same guy. Glad you think so highly of him. I'm sure he once said he would never have everything confiscated by INTERPOL and arrested either.

How exactly have I stolen from artists? If I purchase ten thousand tickets to live shows in the next month, I pay the same price as anyone else would. Exactly how am I taking money out of their pockets, you stupid cunt. In the case of market busts like The Police, they would have NEVER sold out their shows had it not been for speculation. How do I know this? Uh, there were a shitload of tickets circulating for near to nothing. I purchased my ticket on the secondary market for a mere fraction of its face value.

You don't know shit about live events and their secondary market. You are an illegal music downloader, yet try oh so valiantly at every opportunity to crucify me for buying concert tickets. The irony.

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 10:36 PM
Facts:

*Downloading copyrighted material from an unauthorised source like Oink is illegal.

*The administrator/founder of Oink was arrested, and all of his servers were confiscated, and a criminal investigation continues into the identities and activities of the site's users.

*An Oink user has come forward in announcing that they have been served with RIAA papers.

E

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 11:13 PM
Same administrator that is in prison right now as I sit here watching Baseball Tonight's review of GAME ONE? That same guy. Glad you think so highly of him. I'm sure he once said he would never have everything confiscated by INTERPOL and arrested either.

Wait. Are we talking about the same guy who has been released without charge? The 24 year old site admin? Hmm.....

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 11:26 PM
Oh, did he send you an email personally, or do you have a legitimate source as to this?

E

Wheres the beef?
10-24-2007, 11:32 PM
Look it up, douche.

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 11:39 PM
Look this up:

The OiNK Fallout: Should Its Ex-Users Be Watching Their Backs?


They should be very, very scared. There are at least two reasons why this is not just your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill file sharing copyright infringement: this involves music that has not yet been commercially released, and money changed hands.

Because the music has not yet been commercially released, as a practical matter, the fair use defense effectively disappears. The leading case involved The Nation beating Harper & Row to press by publishing merely "between 300 and 400 words" of President's Ford's memoirs; the Supreme Court held that "The Nation effectively arrogated to itself the right of first publication, an important marketable subsidiary right." Harper & Row Pubs., Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 548-49 (1985). "First publication is inherently different from other [exclusive copyright] rights in that only one person can be the first publisher;... the commercial value of the right lies primarily in exclusivity. Because the potential damage to the author from judicially enforced 'sharing' of the first publication right ... is substantial, the balance of equities in evaluating such a claim of fair use inevitably shifts." Id. at 553.

That fact also makes it criminal infringement, because it is "the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution." 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C). (A "'work being prepared for commercial distribution' means ... a musical work ... or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution (i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and (ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed." 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(3)(A).) Of course, it's also criminal because "the infringement was committed ... for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A).

Prison terms for this stuff run up to 3-5 years for first offenses, 10 years for repeats. 18 U.S.C. § 2319(a), (c).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/DeltaSigChi4/6hgjio8.gif

E

DeltaSigChi4
10-24-2007, 11:41 PM
The legal issue of what constitutes infringement in the US stays the same--there still has to be an infringing act in the US, or importation into the US. There are probably differences among the protections that US, UK, Netherlands, and EU law afford to subscriber information, but unfortunately, I don't know the other countries' law, so I don't know whether those differences are material.

As far as money goes, remember that "commercial advantage or private financial gain" can include the benefits of barter and the like. So the fact that, in your [description of OiNK's ratio rules], "they had to assist in infringement in order to keep infringing" might be enough.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/DeltaSigChi4/duntoldrape.jpg

E