OiNK stopped...

[Dreamor]

Not sure how many read this side, but reports have come in that a popular torrent site of OiNK has been shutdown

The servers of OiNK.cd - one of the most popular private BitTorrent trackers - are raided and the admin, a 24-year-old man from Middlesbrough, is arrested.

OiNK.cd Servers Raided, Admin ArrestedThe British and the Dutch police both contributed to the investigation that was initiated by the IFPI and the BPI, two well known anti-piracy organizations. The operation was supported by Interpol who coordinated the international cooperation.

According to early reports OiNk’s servers were confiscated in Amsterdam last week. This seems to be unlikely because the site was still fully functional 24 hours ago. The administrator of OiNK was arrested this morning by the Cleveland Police. The BBC reports that his employer and the home of his father were raided as well.

Jeremy Banks, Head of the IFPI’s Internet Anti-Piracy Unit, said in a reponse to the news: “OiNK was central to the illegal distribution of pre-release music online. This was not a case of friends sharing music for pleasure. This was a worldwide network that got hold of music they did not own the rights to and posted it online.”

OiNK hosted hundreds and thousands of torrents with over a million peers which makes it more popular than most public trackers. The site was known to be one of the first places where leaked music albums appeared, so anti-piracy outfits such as MediaDefender were keeping a close eye on it.

In July the tracker already changed its name from OiNK.me.uk to OiNK.cd due to “legal” issues with their domain registrar. Unfortunately it now seems that the popular private BitTorrent tracker is in bigger trouble.

 

[mank!]

i've never heard of it, let alone used it. what's a torrent?

honest guv.

 

[Clown]

BBC NEWS | England | Tees | Huge pirate music site shut down

I never used the site anyway.

 

[Mazling]

Jeremy Banks, Head of the IFPI’s Internet Anti-Piracy Unit, said in a reponse to the news: “OiNK was central to the illegal distribution of pre-release music online. This was not a case of friends sharing music for pleasure. This was a worldwide network that got hold of music they did not own the rights to and posted it online.”

Pardon me, but I have many, many friends

 

[Trem]

i've never heard of it, let alone used it. what's a torrent?

honest guv.

I believe you Mankatron

 

[Tom]

Remember when the Pirate Bay was shut down, only to pop back up again almost instantly?

I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened here.

The music industry is shooting itself in the foot. I've spent lots of money on legally purchased music because of sites like Oink.

 

[Opt1]

Tv-links.co.uk has been shut down too

 

[Calaen]

Alot of those links were either down or the quality was tosh though

I agree with Tom, I have bought a lot of music off the back off oink, music I would never have given a second glance at in a music store.

 

[DaGaffer]

The music industry is shooting itself in the foot. I've spent lots of money on legally purchased music because of sites like Oink.

It's funny how many people say that, its a shame actual music sales don't back it up...

This particular story has been rather badly reported by the BBC though; if it was just another tracker UK plod would probably have left it alone, but they were sharing pre-released music (e.g. proper nicked out of the studio stuff rather than copyright infringement), hence the law's interest.

The BBC also imply the guy was actually selling music though, which ain't true.

 

[Raven]

Personally i download an album from places like Oink to give it a try then go and buy it if i like it, would prefer to have the CD, artwork etc, not as if they are that expensive these days anyway. It saves the trouble of buying stuff i don't want. Used to be the case that i heard stuff on the radio and bought stuff because of that but the music on the radio these days is dire, maybe i am getting old.

 

[Tom]

It's funny how many people say that, its a shame actual music sales don't back it up...

Why would they? Record companies make nothing like the profits they used to. Thats not anything to do with piracy, and everything to do with the price of CDs dropping. Compare the price of a CD now, to what it was 10 years ago. Also consider that with solid state storage, there is no need to upgrade any longer. So no more customers buying the tape, then the record, then the CD, then the SACD.

I have zero sympathy for them. The internet will kill their business model and they know it, and nothing they can do will stop that.

 

[DaGaffer]

Why would they? Record companies make nothing like the profits they used to. Thats not anything to do with piracy, and everything to do with the price of CDs dropping. Compare the price of a CD now, to what it was 10 years ago. Also consider that with solid state storage, there is no need to upgrade any longer. So no more customers buying the tape, then the record, then the CD, then the SACD.

I have zero sympathy for them. The internet will kill their business model and they know it, and nothing they can do will stop that.

Not talking about profits, I'm talking about unit sales, which are waaaay down, even including legitimate download. Now some of that is due to the shocking quality of the music scene, some of it is due to demographics (fewer young people), but please, please don't pretend free file sharing hasn't damaged the music industry, and try to justify free file sharing with bullshit about buying music you've "sampled" (the lost revenue comes from all the music you sampled and didn't like/buy, and all the millions of people who don't feel the need for your cozy rationalisations at all).

Whether you have sympathy with them or not is besides the point (I don't either, much, and even less every time I see Simon Cowell), the RIAA and the BPI wouldn't be spending so much time and effort running around after these sites if the figures didn't tell them it makes financial sense at the moment. Yes, their model is doomed, yes, there needs to be a new paradigm for making money out of music, but don't assume the death of the traditional music label will necessarily make things better, why do you think Murdoch bought MySpace? It wasn't to publish the semi-illiterate ramblings of 14 year olds from Bumfuck, Nebraska, it was for the potential to start monetising music in new ways. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[caLLous]

Spot on Gaff.

 

[Calaen]

Not talking about profits, I'm talking about unit sales, which are waaaay down, even including legitimate download. Now some of that is due to the shocking quality of the music scene, some of it is due to demographics (fewer young people), but please, please don't pretend free file sharing hasn't damaged the music industry, and try to justify free file sharing with bullshit about buying music you've "sampled" (the lost revenue comes from all the music you sampled and didn't like/buy, and all the millions of people who don't feel the need for your cozy rationalisations at all).

Whether you have sympathy with them or not is besides the point (I don't either, much, and even less every time I see Simon Cowell), the RIAA and the BPI wouldn't be spending so much time and effort running around after these sites if the figures didn't tell them it makes financial sense at the moment. Yes, their model is doomed, yes, there needs to be a new paradigm for making money out of music, but don't assume the death of the traditional music label will necessarily make things better, why do you think Murdoch bought MySpace? It wasn't to publish the semi-illiterate ramblings of 14 year olds from Bumfuck, Nebraska, it was for the potential to start monetising music in new ways. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

BUt if I had not of listened to it and discovered it was Shit I would not have bought it anyway, so they have scored from me because albums I would not have bought, I have actually went out and bought.

 

[Tom]

the lost revenue comes from all the music you sampled and didn't like/buy, and all the millions of people who don't feel the need for your cozy rationalisations at all

Ignoring the rest of what you wrote, which I mainly disagree with, I don't see why anybody should expect me to buy shit music.

When I was young I could go into the record shop (yes, records) and listen before I bought. If it sounded shit, I didn't buy it.

If you're suggesting that record companies are losing money because people aren't buying shit music, then I have even less sympathy for them than I did previously.

And yes, despite what you think, I do buy music I download. The last two albums were english versions of Mozart operas. Not something I'd ever have considered if it wasn't for file-sharing.

 

[bob269]

the lost revenue comes from all the music you sampled and didn't like/buy, and all the millions of people who don't feel the need for your cozy rationalisations at all).

That's the sort of argument the BSA uses about lost billions of revenue, In reality the home user wouldn't payout £600 each for Photoshop, Office and approx £2-3k for something like 3D Studio so technically you can't count this as lost sales as they would not be sales in the first place.

*I am not condoning the piracy of the above products.

 

[Trem]

*I am not condoning the piracy of the above products.

LMAO!

 

[Opt1]

Tom ftw.

Thanks to some of the shit that I've ended up paying £10+ for only to find out its nothing like the 1/2 tracks previously released, I'm very, very unlikely to buy a CD I haven't listened to first.

If its good, I buy it, if its shit, I don't - how tf can you disagree with that?

If you're really expecting me to go out and buy every CD I decide I might like on a whim, you're having a laugh, because most will turn out to be crap and I'll have wasted my money.

Record company profits are huge already.

It's like the Knock-Off Nigel adverts at cinemas - I feel like I'm the one being ripped off by going to the cinema these days. I'd go a whole lot more if they didn't mark up the price of coke and everything else they peddle to you from 10p manufacturing cost to £3.75.

 

[DaGaffer]

Ignoring the rest of what you wrote, which I mainly disagree with, I don't see why anybody should expect me to buy shit music.

What is there to disagree with? Are you honestly saying you think there's no connection with filesharing and sales decline at all? Don't be ridiculous. I wish I still had my BPI login; you can map the inverse correlation between internet penetration and unit sales decline almost exactly; you can even see the hockey stick when broadband take up ramped.

When I was young I could go into the record shop (yes, records) and listen before I bought. If it sounded shit, I didn't buy it.

Except that's not true is it? What you actually did was decide there were enough tracks on a particular album that you liked to make it worth your while to buy. If you bought only albums where you liked every track you liked immediately then you live in a very special place, population, you.

If you're suggesting that record companies are losing money because people aren't buying shit music, then I have even less sympathy for them than I did previously.

See above. The old model worked because it was basically an aggregate model, you bought a bundle of tracks every time you bought an album. This is why even legitimate download breaks the model; people now tend buy only the tracks they like, which is both good and bad, as the consumer has more control, but they also tend to be more conservative, "challenging" tracks or "growers" need not apply (for the majority - we're not talking about you, we're talking about the market). I'm not arguing that the old model was right or fair, but its certainly not the case that the new models are necessarily going to be better for the quality of the music market, there are likely to be lots of unintended consequences.

And yes, despite what you think, I do buy music I download. The last two albums were english versions of Mozart operas. Not something I'd ever have considered if it wasn't for file-sharing.

You may be, but the market isn't, there simply aren't hordes of file sharers beating down HMV's door after "trying out" music online; (which, incidentally is why HMV will probably be the last music retailer on the high street soon, the Virgin Megastore MBO isn't a good sign, look at Andy's Records, MVC, Fopp! etc. etc.)

That's the sort of argument the BSA uses about lost billions of revenue, In reality the home user wouldn't payout £600 each for Photoshop, Office and approx £2-3k for something like 3D Studio so technically you can't count this as lost sales as they would not be sales in the first place.

Yeah, because that's exactly the same

If its good, I buy it, if its shit, I don't - how tf can you disagree with that?

See above. I'm not questioning your mental buying process; but please don't pretend that everyone share's your high morals; the vast majority of file sharers don't go out and buy music they've downloaded, even when they think its good.

 

[Dukat]

internet penetration

Calm down Trem!

 

[Tom]

What is there to disagree with? Are you honestly saying you think there's no connection with filesharing and sales decline at all? Don't be ridiculous. I wish I still had my BPI login; you can map the inverse correlation between internet penetration and unit sales decline almost exactly; you can even see the hockey stick when broadband take up ramped.

Wonderful. Lets see it then?

Except that's not true is it? What you actually did was decide there were enough tracks on a particular album that you liked to make it worth your while to buy. If you bought only albums where you liked every track you liked immediately then you live in a very special place, population, you.

Actually no. I tend to prefer concept albums, and there are rarely shit tracks on those. The only albums I ever bought on a whim were from second hand vinyl shops, and they only closed down because of the IRA bomb.

See above. The old model worked because it was basically an aggregate model, you bought a bundle of tracks every time you bought an album. This is why even legitimate download breaks the model; people now tend buy only the tracks they like, which is both good and bad, as the consumer has more control, but they also tend to be more conservative, "challenging" tracks or "growers" need not apply (for the majority - we're not talking about you, we're talking about the market). I'm not arguing that the old model was right or fair, but its certainly not the case that the new models are necessarily going to be better for the quality of the music market, there are likely to be lots of unintended consequences.

The real money is in concerts, and those aren't in decline.

You may be, but the market isn't, there simply aren't hordes of file sharers beating down HMV's door after "trying out" music online; (which, incidentally is why HMV will probably be the last music retailer on the high street soon, the Virgin Megastore MBO isn't a good sign, look at Andy's Records, MVC, Fopp! etc. etc.)

HMV is shit, the prices are a piss take. People are stupid if they don't use the supermarket or Amazon or similar. I'd be quite happy for HMV to disappear up its own arse.

the vast majority of file sharers don't go out and buy music they've downloaded, even when they think its good.

I hope you have some evidence to support this claim, most people I've spoken to say they do.

 

[Dukat]

I hope you have some evidence to support this claim, most people I've spoken to say they do.

While I agree with what you're saying mostly, I cant help but smile at this... how can you expect anyone else to substantiate thier claims when you yourself use hearsay to back up yours?

I have to admit, while I buy some of the music I get, I by no means buy all of it. Sometimes it isnt even possible to buy the music in the first place, which is what initially started my interest in filesharing.

I wont pretend that this is an excuse though, I know what I do is legally wrong, end of story.

you pays your money you takes your chances - just without the money paying bit

 

[Tom]

I never made a claim though. I simply suggested that others do as I do.

 

[Dukat]

I never made a claim though. I simply suggested that others do as I do.

"most people I've spoken to say they do"

Ah, ok then I thought this sounded like a claim.

You have to admit though, it would be suprising if the vast majority of people using filesharing followed your shining example, wouldnt it? I think thats the gist of what DaGaffer is trying to say - its going to be very difficult to prove the point with evidence, but it is a pretty fair generalisation to make.

 

[DaGaffer]

Wonderful. Lets see it then?

I think the line "I wish I still had my login" would make I fairly clear I can't supply this.

Actually no. I tend to prefer concept albums, and there are rarely shit tracks on those. The only albums I ever bought on a whim were from second hand vinyl shops, and they only closed down because of the IRA bomb.

Like I said, population, you. Beardie wierdie

The real money is in concerts, and those aren't in decline.

No they're not, but its not a substitution. Everyone says bands will make up lost revenue via concerts and merchandising, and while this may be true for Madonna or The bloody Spice Girls, it doesn't necessarily help smaller bands.

HMV is shit, the prices are a piss take. People are stupid if they don't use the supermarket or Amazon or similar. I'd be quite happy for HMV to disappear up its own arse.

Oh for crying out loud, HMV was an example. Substitute it for supermarkets or Amazon or even iTunes if you will. The only one that is growing is iTunes because it started from a zero base. iTunes is also a good example of the new paradigm not necessarily being that great for music; you're swapping one 800lb gorilla for another one.

I hope you have some evidence to support this claim, most people I've spoken to say they do.

Say what you like, the figures blatantly don't support this. And to be honest, I'm always suspicious when I hear this claim. I've seen the same line on forums about games and movies too, despite the fact that games have had a perfectly good way of free sampling for a long time. I have slightly more sympathy for movie sharing and a lot more for TV sharing; in the case of movies, someone downloading in the UK because someone in the US can't be arsed organising a global release in a global media market deserves all they get, and in the case of TV because I genuinely don't think watching a show you've downloaded from the US means you won't watch it again when it comes out on telly; probably several times.

 

[bob269]

Yeah, because that's exactly the same

You were saying the Music Industry is losing X amount of £££'s because of lost sales because people listen to downloaded stuff and think it's shit, or maybe they download an album that they think is well ok but not worth buying, either case this is not and would not have been a Sale the Music Industry would of got so how can it be lost revenue, my example is the same case of people using statistics to prove rediculous claims.

 

[Tom]

On the subject of games and software, rarely do I play a game I find good enough to warrant buying. I can think from the top of my head - HL1, HL2 (and Orange box), Far Cry, UT2004, Darwinia, Defcon.....thats about it. All the other games I've played haven't really been worth buying.

As for films/tv, well sooner or later these companies are going to have to realise that borders mean nothing these days, so get with the programme and release things worldwide, or lose money.

 

[Chilly]

Films and TV are total luxuries - these companies seem to think they are selling milk or bread or something. If the entire movie industry died tonight, wed all just get on with it.

 

[DaGaffer]

You were saying the Music Industry is losing X amount of £££'s because of lost sales because people listen to downloaded stuff and think it's shit, or maybe they download an album that they think is well ok but not worth buying, either case this is not and would not have been a Sale the Music Industry would of got so how can it be lost revenue, my example is the same case of people using statistics to prove rediculous claims.

No, actually I was saying the Music Industry is losing X amount of £££s because of lost sales because people listen to downloaded stuff and don't buy irrespective of what they think of the music. The way this whole debate started with the claim that file sharers generally use shared music to try out stuff which they subsequently buy; some may do this, but it in no way makes up for the shortfall caused by those who simply get all their music "free". Your example using pro software is a different argument because as you point out, its not really lost sales if someone would never have bought it in the first place; this emphatically isn't the case with music.

 

[Raven]

I buy games i know are going to be good, Bioshock, FM2008, Stalker (yes i actually enjoyed it) are recent examples and DL average games, not my problem if companies that churn out mediocrity lose money, they should make better games that are worth the £35.
As for TV shows, no i don't want to sit and wait for it to be TV, i want to watch it at a time that suits me without the story being broken by irritating adverts. I would quite happily pay per view on new TV shows if they were available but they aren't so again, not my problem if they lose money. I would quite happily just have 2 or 3 channels that have decent content and do away with all the crap thats on TV purely to fill airtime, even if it meant paying the same as i do now. Films i treat like CDs really, if its good i will buy it, if its shit it goes in the recycle bin.

I am afraid i have no sympathy for these companies that complain about losing money when they produce utter dross.