Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
He has a point you know...
he aided and abetted a crime.
not that i dont illegally download music of course, but if you get caught then trying to defend yourself by claiming its not a crime is just rubbish.
AFAIK, ANAL etc.
I think the only reason the police are involved is because Oink were soliciting donations, hence some kind of fraud charge potentially.
"If somebody wants to illegally download music they are going to do it whether my site is there or not" was pretty gormless.
1. Idiotically, he's just used the word 'illegally' despite just insisting at length that what his site does isn't illegal
2. Imagine someone using this defence against a charge of any other crime.
"Your honour, if he didn't get the crack off me, he would have just gone and got it from someone else anyway".
"By god, he's right - free the man immediately..."
carries criminal penalties as well as causes for civil actions - s107 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The requirement for a criminal offence is knowledge.
doesn't apply to copyright infringement in the same way that it does criminal activities, though, in that the lines between what is and isn't acceptable aren't clearly defined.
By and large, breaking the law is a case of you did or you didn't. Copyright infringement, however, is generally only picked up on under select circumstances: usually if people are using it to make money (as is dubiously alleged here). He'll be charged (probably heavily) on a technical issue; albeit one that could be applied to thousands of other music blogs, websites and forums in operation at the moment.
from the Daily Telegraph
Also, he has not been convicted of any crime yet, so as with any suspect of a criminal offence, he is innocent until proven guilty.
they didn't have to shoot someone, is a crap defence especially when you put 'get your free guns for crime here' posters up.
This is one of the few occassions that I'm glad I still only buy cd's.
To be honest I don't really know much about oink. Do you download files from the site itself, or does it link you to somewhere to download what you're looking for?
It acts as a tracker to point you to lots of peoples' hard drives so you can download something in lots of little bits. It didn't host any content itself although, as already pointed out, I don't think that's any kind of defence.
To be honest that's it for me downloading (apart from Emusic). I have used a similar site that only hosts bootlegs and public radio broadcasts (and bans any artists/venues that ask it to) but it's still pretty much illegal and it looks like the authorities are now trying to get on top of it - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7059881.stm
The fact is that in recent years, in certain quarters, the idea of paying for music has been looked upon with ridicule. No argument I've ever read on here has convinced me that illegal downloading is ok. I'll be glad if the tables turn a bit. Ok people will still copy the odd CD from their mates or the library and I'm not saying the music industry functioned perfectly by a long, long way (the 'try before you buy' element of downloading could be easily incorporated for example) but I think the erosion/eradication of large-scale illegal downloading can only be a good thing in the long run.
I think Limewire, Soulseek et al have served their purpose- now that there's myspace, last fm and a million other sites where you can listen for free there is no excuse. Saying that, it probably forced chainstores to lower their ridiculous prices.
If the current (and future) big thing is to listen 'for free' to a selected range of content on all these sites you mention (this is also starting to happen with mobile devices), there's the same problem of trying to get people to pay for music. It's a very confused marketplace: here, you can listen to this as a stream for nothing. Or, here, why not download this track for free? Oh, you want that one? You'll have to pay for it. Why's this track free, not that one? Dunno, it just is. Oh, you want it on CD if you're going to pay for it?
In my opinion, the record companies are stalling before they have to bite the bullet and overhaul the whole system of how music is payed for. It'll be a massive, expensive job, and one that might not even work. In this respect, they have a lot to learn from Oink: don't put the man in prison, give him a bleedin' job.
The radio has always let you listen to music for free. I reckon that bands streaming their albums (or at least providing decent sized clips) on the net will become more and more commonplace so that people can listen before they buy. It's no different to the HMV listening posts. They can even put the odd noise in or something to stop people recording the stream if they really want, I don't care.
I mostly agree with your second paragraph though.
analogy with the radio works, but represents something of a waste. The problem, however, is in the product people are paying for: there's a big difference between something coming on the radio at random and having a physical CD/vinyl in your hand (pretty packagaing and all) that you can play whenever you want.
On the 'net, however: button 1 streams it for free. Button 2 lets you download it for £8. I think most people will be reaching for their tape recorders, not their wallets.
I just don't believe people are willing to spend as much money on 'data licenses' for music (which is essentially what they're doing in paying for MP3s) than they will be for physical media. And I don't ever see this changing.
I totally agree that £8 on iTunes for a sub-standard sounding recording with no packaging is wrong and has probably fuelled some downloaders' views that what they are doing is ok. I believe Emusic is genuinely trying to achieve a compromise here, even if it isn't as comprehensive as it could be. I don't think it's just a question of a 'data license' it's a moral question of whether someone deserves to be paid for the music you listen to. Recently I've detected the tide shifting back in favour of this.
As for the try before you buy question maybe the radio is a bad analogy but like I said maybe they just offer longer clips than you get on Amazon or something. I'm not sure how many people tape all the albums that NME stream. If it was that significant I don't think any of the majors would support the current Napster format which, in that sense, offers you as much music as you want (albeit for a subscription).
I'd have said the same thing about the 'moral' aspect of downloading myself; oddly, though, it's through more talking more to casual buyers that I'm seeing the other side of it.
I find that lots of people who wouldn't class themselves 'into' music (by which I guess I mean.. nobody posting on these forums.) find the idea of buying music without an actual product in their hand a bit.. alien. I guess they just don't think of the people making the music: or, perhaps (and this is more likely), they don't see a moral conflict in denying a tenner to the kinds of mainstream artists they're likely to be into. I hear this a lot from older people, especially: "What am I paying for, here? The right to listen to this music? Get RIGHT out."
It's going to be really hard, I think. But agreed that emusic is miles out in front; I don't understand how their pricing system isn't either bankrupting them or pissing off the record companies.
A lot of the kind of music I like is based on long tracks (which would count as album only on iTunes) so I can get certain albums for less than a quid which I guess is no different to downloading illegally. On the other hand I want that first Napalm Death album but really can't justify it. I'm surprised the record companies don't have a problem with this but it generally works in my favour.
I would never (unless i really really liked the band/knew them) oay for a download simply because if my computer/hard drive messed up or was stolen id have no music. wereas if my cd player broke id still have a ton of CD's.
plus are mp3's insured? if they are a 'physical product' then if you lose them you should be able to claim them back.
there's a whole ton of problems, letting music be distributed freely and obviously - whilst only picking on/arresting a few people to 'make examples of them' doesnt work.
but as far as I can tell neither does paying for mp3s.
doesn't mean I haven't in the past.
btw what's more of a problem websites/servers offering free music or one of your mates who has 20-30k mp3s on a hard drive (some illegal most just copied from CD) and then you picking and choosing what you want.
short of some form of regulation of the net (which I wouldn't support) I can't see a solution that would work.
just because it may be no worse than someone copying 20gb of music for a mate doesn't make it any less illegal, or any less reasonable for the authorities to stamp on it...
Don't know about iTunes. I have mine on an iPod and my hard drive for that reason.
but why does Limewire never seem to come under any scrutiny?
Surely it's responsible for millions more illegal downloads than oink is. And is it any different than Napster was, which obviously got closed down?
No Lars Ulrich on their ass probably makes it easier to keep going I suppose.
well hidden or in countries where copyright has no effect, and there are lots of them. also i think in comparison to napster, limewire, emule etc are used by slightly less people. also they do actually flood some of the servers with fake stuff using fake profiles....
This article on the MTV website: 'OiNK Raid Raises The Question: What Risks Are You Really Taking When Downloading Music?' implies that the authorities' problem is with the uploaders (sorry, don't know how Limewire works myself).
The gist of the various articles on Oink seems to be that they were targeted mainly due to all the pre-release leaks on there. Having said that I can't see the authorities stopping with Oink.
maybe it would be a good thing if, like he says, this case does change the internet for good.
It would be nice to see artists releasing their work when they see fit, rather than when a geek uploads it. I can't begin to imagine how infuraiting that must be after you've worked so hard on something.
While I'm no big fan of Radiohead, so couldn't get caught up in the whole In Rainbows thing, I did think it was nice to see some sort of community 'event' happening around music again - they're so much rarer than they used to be.
And if you couldn't get anything you wanted for free at a seconds notice, perhaps music could get a bit of value attached back to it that it seems to have lost recently.
I can't help thinking that I'd hate to be a teenager just getting into music. On the positive side, you're exposed to a hell of a lot more music than in the past, but it just seems to me like a lot of the romance is gone. Even news like yesterday's suggestion that the NME might fold made me feel a little sad - no music tv, no music magazines, no saving up for such and such an album would have made my teenage years so so much different.
Sorry, I've gone off on one here. To sum up....Oink closure - not so bad
Music has lost its value. I bought my first CD in about 4 months (Comicopera by Robert Wyatt) the other day and it made me realise that I was happier when I bought 2 or 3 CD's a month as opposed to the 100 downloads I get for £20 on Emusic. It's so rare that I really treasure an album and listen to it repeatedly because I've got so damn many. These days so many of us collect and music instead of really listening to it.
I am even thinking of going 1 step further and taking a year off from getting any new music for a year so that I can rekindle my love for my collection (conveniently coinciding with going back to uni!).
Sorry that was really off-topic too but the moral of the story is less is not always more.
I really should stop trying to sound clever. It's not a good look on me.
view with Limewire is that it's 'under control.' The users are stingey, the files on there unreliable, and it's flooded with fakes. Basically, it's not very good, and therefore doesn't pose too much of a threat to sales. I see people try to get something off Limewire, and end up going straight to Amazon in frustration. (Also, I can't remember; do they have a donation request or not?)
The relative problem with Oink, however, is that it provided a service/method that worked extremely well.
but from that quote he seems to be putting himself across a lot better than he did on five live yesterday morning...
Should I be scared?
Saying that, I only use Soulseek, and always buy the albums I like. That's Ok. Right?