Music file-sharer 'Oink' cleared of fraud
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/8461879.st...
This is an odd one.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see this go down for 20 years or be fined 100k - BUT - surely he doesn't set up a mahoosive file sharing site liek this, make lots of dough and get away.
For one it doesnt really send out a good message when file sharers can be done but the ones facilitating and making money get off free?
I appreciate if he was charged for fraud and he was not guilty of fraud - but surely he could be done under IP specific laws?
Don't really buy his excuses either - he did it for the kudos first probably and possibly a big F U to the industry! Then the money once it got big.
This is an odd one.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see this go down for 20 years or be fined 100k - BUT - surely he doesn't set up a mahoosive file sharing site liek this, make lots of dough and get away.
For one it doesnt really send out a good message when file sharers can be done but the ones facilitating and making money get off free?
I appreciate if he was charged for fraud and he was not guilty of fraud - but surely he could be done under IP specific laws?
Don't really buy his excuses either - he did it for the kudos first probably and possibly a big F U to the industry! Then the money once it got big.
Eric Mc said:
Who brought the case against this individual - the state (in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service) or the music industry?
Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
He hasn't infringed anyone's copyright though.Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
Good for him. Oink! was awesome, and introduced me to all kinds of music I wouldn't otherwise have ever found. Its successor has filled the gap very well, though.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Friday 15th January 19:15
Parrot of Doom said:
Eric Mc said:
Who brought the case against this individual - the state (in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service) or the music industry?
Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
He hasn't infringed anyone's copyright though.Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
Good for him. Oink! was awesome, and introduced me to all kinds of music I wouldn't otherwise have ever found. Its successor has filled the gap very well, though.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Friday 15th January 19:15
Isn't there a legal provision for providing a means for copyright breaches?
If not I bet there will be soon!
Parrot of Doom said:
Eric Mc said:
Who brought the case against this individual - the state (in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service) or the music industry?
Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
He hasn't infringed anyone's copyright though.Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
Good for him. Oink! was awesome, and introduced me to all kinds of music I wouldn't otherwise have ever found. Its successor has filled the gap very well, though.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Friday 15th January 19:15
Mojooo said:
Parrot of Doom said:
Eric Mc said:
Who brought the case against this individual - the state (in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service) or the music industry?
Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
He hasn't infringed anyone's copyright though.Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
Good for him. Oink! was awesome, and introduced me to all kinds of music I wouldn't otherwise have ever found. Its successor has filled the gap very well, though.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Friday 15th January 19:15
Isn't there a legal provision for providing a means for copyright breaches?
If not I bet there will be soon!
So why is nobody chasing Google?
Mojooo said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/8461879.st...
This is an odd one.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see this go down for 20 years or be fined 100k - BUT - surely he doesn't set up a mahoosive file sharing site liek this, make lots of dough and get away.
For one it doesnt really send out a good message when file sharers can be done but the ones facilitating and making money get off free?
I appreciate if he was charged for fraud and he was not guilty of fraud - but surely he could be done under IP specific laws?
Don't really buy his excuses either - he did it for the kudos first probably and possibly a big F U to the industry! Then the money once it got big.
Oink was not a pay to use service, any money given was a donation ... This is an odd one.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see this go down for 20 years or be fined 100k - BUT - surely he doesn't set up a mahoosive file sharing site liek this, make lots of dough and get away.
For one it doesnt really send out a good message when file sharers can be done but the ones facilitating and making money get off free?
I appreciate if he was charged for fraud and he was not guilty of fraud - but surely he could be done under IP specific laws?
Don't really buy his excuses either - he did it for the kudos first probably and possibly a big F U to the industry! Then the money once it got big.
Conspiracy is notoriously hard to prove.
When he set up the facility did he do it knowingly to make money off the back of sharing some files ?
Probably not.
In the last 5 years or so, the music industry has been turned on its head. The live sector is now where the money is made. The record companies are seeing the end is almost nigh for their business models. Overtaken by advances in technology, meaning that new artists can make themselves heard as can established artists without the control of the behemothic Mr10% A&R men.
When he set up the facility did he do it knowingly to make money off the back of sharing some files ?
Probably not.
In the last 5 years or so, the music industry has been turned on its head. The live sector is now where the money is made. The record companies are seeing the end is almost nigh for their business models. Overtaken by advances in technology, meaning that new artists can make themselves heard as can established artists without the control of the behemothic Mr10% A&R men.
Parrot of Doom said:
Mojooo said:
Parrot of Doom said:
Eric Mc said:
Who brought the case against this individual - the state (in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service) or the music industry?
Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
He hasn't infringed anyone's copyright though.Surely the music industry shoukld be taking him to court on copyright infringement issues.
Good for him. Oink! was awesome, and introduced me to all kinds of music I wouldn't otherwise have ever found. Its successor has filled the gap very well, though.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Friday 15th January 19:15
Isn't there a legal provision for providing a means for copyright breaches?
If not I bet there will be soon!
So why is nobody chasing Google?
Google may be breaching copyright - do the photographers care enough to take them to court?
I just think its funny that downloaders can and will be fined/internet possibly cut off soon whereas the organisers get away with it - and make vast sums of money over what is essentially illegal - or is it?
Mojooo said:
I think this site is slightly different as it was specifically designed to basically breach copyright on a massive scale
Google may be breaching copyright - do the photographers care enough to take them to court?
I just think its funny that downloaders can and will be fined/internet possibly cut off soon whereas the organisers get away with it - and make vast sums of money over what is essentially illegal - or is it?
Google does the same thing. In fact, Google is currently scanning in copyright books, and making them available (on limited terms) through their Google Books website. They're doing this without permission in many cases, and have recently been taken to task for it in France.Google may be breaching copyright - do the photographers care enough to take them to court?
I just think its funny that downloaders can and will be fined/internet possibly cut off soon whereas the organisers get away with it - and make vast sums of money over what is essentially illegal - or is it?
Funny isn't it, very few people are worried about what Google do, but when its some bloke in a bedroom the weight of the state comes down on his head.
If it wasn't for sites like Oink!, I wouldn't have found superb artists like this - http://www.theflashbulb.net/ (and that bloke released his albums for free via torrent sites. Didn't stop me buying them).
I don't want to dispute the finer points of file sharing - I think its irrelevant to this discussion.
Google are a cash cowto be taken to court for CR infringement if the owners can be bothered
Also i think they are slightly different - google only provide links to websites - surely the websites are guilty of the infringements
whereas torrent sites actually host the torrent files even if they dont hold the actual music files. their sole purpose is to provide the tracker, right?
morally, in my head they are different, but maybe legally they are different. i dont have a problem with either being taken to task as such.
i wonder where these 'server costs' were really going - makes me wonder about all those sites i use that want 'desperate' donations to keep things going.
Google are a cash cowto be taken to court for CR infringement if the owners can be bothered
Also i think they are slightly different - google only provide links to websites - surely the websites are guilty of the infringements
whereas torrent sites actually host the torrent files even if they dont hold the actual music files. their sole purpose is to provide the tracker, right?
morally, in my head they are different, but maybe legally they are different. i dont have a problem with either being taken to task as such.
i wonder where these 'server costs' were really going - makes me wonder about all those sites i use that want 'desperate' donations to keep things going.
Mojooo said:
I don't want to dispute the finer points of file sharing - I think its irrelevant to this discussion.
Google are a cash cowto be taken to court for CR infringement if the owners can be bothered
Also i think they are slightly different - google only provide links to websites - surely the websites are guilty of the infringements
whereas torrent sites actually host the torrent files even if they dont hold the actual music files. their sole purpose is to provide the tracker, right?
morally, in my head they are different, but maybe legally they are different. i dont have a problem with either being taken to task as such.
i wonder where these 'server costs' were really going - makes me wonder about all those sites i use that want 'desperate' donations to keep things going.
Torrent files aren't copyrighted material. Torrent websites only host torrent files. Those files provide the links to the copyrighted material.Google are a cash cowto be taken to court for CR infringement if the owners can be bothered
Also i think they are slightly different - google only provide links to websites - surely the websites are guilty of the infringements
whereas torrent sites actually host the torrent files even if they dont hold the actual music files. their sole purpose is to provide the tracker, right?
morally, in my head they are different, but maybe legally they are different. i dont have a problem with either being taken to task as such.
i wonder where these 'server costs' were really going - makes me wonder about all those sites i use that want 'desperate' donations to keep things going.
How is this any different from Google Image search, or Google Book search? Except that Google actually host the files on their website (Google cache, Google books)?
Parrot of Doom said:
Mojooo said:
I don't want to dispute the finer points of file sharing - I think its irrelevant to this discussion.
Google are a cash cowto be taken to court for CR infringement if the owners can be bothered
Also i think they are slightly different - google only provide links to websites - surely the websites are guilty of the infringements
whereas torrent sites actually host the torrent files even if they dont hold the actual music files. their sole purpose is to provide the tracker, right?
morally, in my head they are different, but maybe legally they are different. i dont have a problem with either being taken to task as such.
i wonder where these 'server costs' were really going - makes me wonder about all those sites i use that want 'desperate' donations to keep things going.
Torrent files aren't copyrighted material. Torrent websites only host torrent files. Those files provide the links to the copyrighted material.Google are a cash cowto be taken to court for CR infringement if the owners can be bothered
Also i think they are slightly different - google only provide links to websites - surely the websites are guilty of the infringements
whereas torrent sites actually host the torrent files even if they dont hold the actual music files. their sole purpose is to provide the tracker, right?
morally, in my head they are different, but maybe legally they are different. i dont have a problem with either being taken to task as such.
i wonder where these 'server costs' were really going - makes me wonder about all those sites i use that want 'desperate' donations to keep things going.
How is this any different from Google Image search, or Google Book search? Except that Google actually host the files on their website (Google cache, Google books)?
Just because book owners are not going after Google doesnt mean Music rights owners cannot go after Torrent hosters.
I would have thought 'fraud' was quite hard to prove as well; surely you'd have to prove that each person who downloaded a copy of an album would have gone out and actually bought that album, had Oink not been there?
I know this wasn't the case for me....I had an account on Oink for a couple of years.
I know this wasn't the case for me....I had an account on Oink for a couple of years.
Fantastic result. A precedent has now been set and this is excellent news for any UK based tracker admins!
The fact is that Oink was the greatest source of music the world had ever seen. Everything was there, in perfect lossless quality and available in an instant. Yet, some six years after the site was first founded, there is still no legal alternative that comes anywhere close and the 'illegal' alternatives continue to flourish (at least two fantastic new sites were born out of the ashes of Oink)
Why? Why is it that the illegal alternatives manage to offer a superior product? Why is it that major labels were so incredibly slow to adapt to a changing market? It's too late for major labels now - the business model has been rendered useless by changing technology, and they have failed to adapt or capitalise.
People realise that record labels are essentially useless. Without film studios, there will be no more films. Without music labels, there will be an increase in diversity and music will flourish. Give it ten years, and they simply won't exist. Good! Maybe that means an increase in musical diversity, along with an end to the loudness war and pay-for-play on the radio?
The fact is that Oink was the greatest source of music the world had ever seen. Everything was there, in perfect lossless quality and available in an instant. Yet, some six years after the site was first founded, there is still no legal alternative that comes anywhere close and the 'illegal' alternatives continue to flourish (at least two fantastic new sites were born out of the ashes of Oink)
Why? Why is it that the illegal alternatives manage to offer a superior product? Why is it that major labels were so incredibly slow to adapt to a changing market? It's too late for major labels now - the business model has been rendered useless by changing technology, and they have failed to adapt or capitalise.
People realise that record labels are essentially useless. Without film studios, there will be no more films. Without music labels, there will be an increase in diversity and music will flourish. Give it ten years, and they simply won't exist. Good! Maybe that means an increase in musical diversity, along with an end to the loudness war and pay-for-play on the radio?
Edited by wiffmaster on Friday 15th January 23:49
Interesting result, although does seem to go against what happened in the Pirate Bay case? Whilst I wouldn't condone filesharing copyrighted content, I would agree that the industry has been incredibly slow to react to the technology. I've certainly purchased much less music since I found Spotify, that's for certain. Grooveshark is another interesting one, but seems to operate in a "is it or isn't it legal?" kind of way. I think from their point of view, all content is user uploaded, so they don't have any liability for breach of copyright, although they are providing the means of accessing that content (the library), so that comes back to the Pirate Bay issue. I guess the technology has simply been evolving far more rapidly than the legal situation.
Mojooo said:
I agree that it is partially (or mainly) the fault of music companies for not coming up with good alternatives before.
Not so sure a lack of record labels will lead to more music tho - they do serve somesort of purpose.
I won't pirate movies, because I understand that, realistically, you need big funding to get a film off the ground. The only way to get that sort of money is from a studio. The studio creates something and then sells it on. Capitalism at its finest. No studios, no films. Ergo, piracy could kill the film industry.Not so sure a lack of record labels will lead to more music tho - they do serve somesort of purpose.
However, this is simply not the case for music. Of course, the big labels are quick to claim piracy is a threat to "music". What they should have said was that piracy is a threat to "our antiquated business model".
With the huge leaps in technology, music costs next to nothing to actually produce these days. Good music spreads via word-of-mouth and can be distributed to millions of people in seconds, via the internet. The internet is the most rapid and efficient source of new music and distribution possible. You don't need wads of cash; if you have the talent, you will get noticed eventually.
What the record industry does is take something that they played no real part in creating, and then expect to make millions off the back of it. Turn on the radio and it's the same generic crap, over and over again. A huge proportion of the money from CD sales is simply pissed away on pay-for-play and A&R. There's a reason certain songs are played ad-nauseum on the radio, and it has nothing to do with consumer choice.
Buy a CD and the artist gets the most meagre of slices. The rest goes straight to the label and allows them to further control and limit the industry. Well, screw that. I'll pirate it and go and see the band live, thanks. At least that way the people who actually created the product are getting more of the cash. People should choose what's going to be popular, not the labels.
If the labels had acted ten years ago to come up with an effective, legal distribution channel for CD quality music, then they wouldn't be in this mess. As it is, they simply panicked, realised that their business model was an outdated dinosaur, and decided to sue people rather than come up with decent alternatives. They're not long for this world, and we'll be all the better for it. Just imagine turning on the radio and hearing something new and original. Or, buying an album and realising that it's been mastered properly, not ruined in the never-ending loudness war. Bliss!
If anyone's interested, this is an excellent article on Oink, piracy and the music industry.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff