Illegal download site shut down in police raid

[KevinG]

One of the world's biggest websites for pre-release illegal downloads, OiNK, has been shut down by police, and its alleged owner has been arrested.

OiNK was a subscription-based website with over 180,000 members, and made money through users paying voluntary donations.

Cleveland police worked with Interpol in the raid, which culminated in the arrest of a 24-year-old man from Middlesbrough - the alleged organiser of OiNK - and the seizure of the website's servers in Amsterdam.

OiNK provided major release albums before their scheduled release dates, which relied on users sharing music with each other using peer-to-peer program BitTorrent.

Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive of the British Phonographic Industry, said he hoped the authorities would keep applying pressure on illegal downloaders.

Source:
http://web.nme.com/news/tabloid-hell/31992

Eh, I don't really have an opinion on this. I know a lot of people that do illegal downloads. I do not, but I don't want to piss off all my friends by siding with the opponents of illegal downloading.

I did burn a copy of my friend's store bought CD once though.

I also tried pot once, but I didn't inhale.

[gonzo]

Source:
http://web.nme.com/news/tabloid-hell/31992

Eh, I don't really have an opinion on this. I know a lot of people that do illegal downloads. I do not, but I don't want to piss off all my friends by siding with the opponents of illegal downloading.

I did burn a copy of my friend's store bought CD once though.

I also tried pot once, but I didn't inhale.
Content theft is content theft.
Weve all done it but its no fun when its your shit being stolen.

Reminds me of when Rusty & Edies BBS was shut down. They had a T1 going into the house selling pics years ago. What got them in trouble was the pirated software section on the board.

They were already on the radar and just stepped over the line.
They were huge back in that day too!

[EmporerEJ]

Content theft is content theft.
Weve all done it but its no fun when its your shit being stolen.


Yes, it is.
But I can't tell you how many times I've purchased RUSH 2112 in various formats.
Now, shouldn't I have a license to one copy at a time of that album in any format? (Whatever the revlevant format of the day is)
And while it doesn't apply to that album, as ALL the music on that is excellent, I even understand the practice of making you buy the album to get the "other" songs on that album. But once I buy the album, I think I should have a license to listen to one copy of that music at a time in any format.
I don't mind paying the artists for their work, and I won't argue about the price of what's "fair." It is a free market economy after all. But dammit, if I buy it, I own it. The first sale doctrine has clearly stated that you own the rights to that copy to use, resell, rent, etc.

I gots one license, and I wants to use it, precious.

[RawAlex]

EJ, the problem is that you misunderstood your license. You didn't buy the rights to the music period, but rather the rights to the music in the format your bought it in. Your responsiblity is to maintain and protect your investment.

It is no different from buying a car, driving it 250,000 miles, and then going back and asking for a new one for free because you already a car. It's just doesn't work out.

This particular file sharing place provided high end recordings, often stolen content from studio sessions and other unreleased material, and had the balls not only to share it, but to charge for the right to access it.

Copyright violation, resale of stolen goods, often working to obtain those stolen goods be convincing studio techs and such to sneak copies out of the studios and pressing plants before stuff was released... this fucker needs to enjoy some federal butt slammin' prison time (or whatever the UK version is).

[EmporerEJ]

Oh, I agree this ass clown was a criminal.

But back to my license for 2112.
I don't think that's an accurate statement for my 8 track version, album version, or cassette version of 2112. (All of which I owned.)

And the first sale doctrine clearly defines that I have the right to rent or resell that physical intellectual property.
Why could I repair a broken cassette door on the tape, but not the tape itself?
Does that mean I can't splice the tape if it rips? How far does that go?

I know many hear are too young to remember the "good 'ole days" but as a video store owner, I paid $72.50 for an $89.98 retail Hollywood video back in the 80's. If I didn't rent that 45 times minimum, I had a bad ROI. Some idiot with a "new VCR just last Christmas, and he didn't damage it" destroys my investment, you mean my license is gone?

Let's just say I interpreted it differently. Especially after Hollywood got into bed with rentrack (National video) and eventually blockbuster. They instituted a revenue sharing system similar to the movie theaters in an attempt, (which pretty much succeeded) to put independent stores out of business.

Let's just say this issue (not the specific case above) isn't as Black and White as it may seem on the surface.

[RawAlex]

You can do anything you want for your own personal benefit with the product you have purchased, in the format you have chosen. Further, because of the limited rights that do exist to create a backup or to store it in another medium for your personal use (disk to tape, or to MP3, or whatever), you have a pretty open field.

However, there is a point where your license expires. If you lose all your backups and the original fails, the original purchase didn't entitle you to free replacements for life. You bought the music in a particular format and in doing so you accepted both the benefits and limitations of that format.

Let's say you buy an album online in MP3 format. Three years from now, you have an HD crash and you lose the album. Is the MP3 site obligated to give you another copy for free?

You could always go online to a torrent site and download a new copy. There is only one problem: The person distributing it to you doesn't have the rights to do so, so in reality you are receiving stolen property, even if you have previously purchased the album. I doubt anyone will get up set, but IN THEORY, you don't have the rights to that copy.

I could go on...

As for your video issue, the problem in that model was twofold: First, your purchase price was for one copy in the format purchased. There may or may not be a manufacture guarantee on the product, but in reality you purchased something at a risk. The second issue was more of the cost of product versus what the market was willing to spent to rent it. When you are paying $75 for something and renting it out for $2, yeah, you have to rent it often just to break even.

Seperate example: I run a car rental company. I buy a car and rent it to a customer, who has an accident and totally destroys the car. Should the manufacture replace the car?

You didn't buy "rights", you bought an end product.

[EmporerEJ]

You can do anything you want for your own personal benefit with the product you have purchased, in the format you have chosen. Further, because of the limited rights that do exist to create a backup or to store it in another medium for your personal use (disk to tape, or to MP3, or whatever), you have a pretty open field.

However, there is a point where your license expires. If you lose all your backups and the original fails, the original purchase didn't entitle you to free replacements for life. You bought the music in a particular format and in doing so you accepted both the benefits and limitations of that format.

Let's say you buy an album online in MP3 format. Three years from now, you have an HD crash and you lose the album. Is the MP3 site obligated to give you another copy for free?

You could always go online to a torrent site and download a new copy. There is only one problem: The person distributing it to you doesn't have the rights to do so, so in reality you are receiving stolen property, even if you have previously purchased the album. I doubt anyone will get up set, but IN THEORY, you don't have the rights to that copy.

I could go on...

As for your video issue, the problem in that model was twofold: First, your purchase price was for one copy in the format purchased. There may or may not be a manufacture guarantee on the product, but in reality you purchased something at a risk. The second issue was more of the cost of product versus what the market was willing to spent to rent it. When you are paying $75 for something and renting it out for $2, yeah, you have to rent it often just to break even.

Seperate example: I run a car rental company. I buy a car and rent it to a customer, who has an accident and totally destroys the car. Should the manufacture replace the car?

You didn't buy "rights", you bought an end product.


Man, where do I start here?

Well, in my example of the 8 track tape.....
No, they didn't specifically exclude other mediums. The mediums didn't exist then. Further, the format is obsolete, and can be "backed up" digitally in an effort to "retain quality," and use my license. My license extends for my life by virtue of the right we grant them with exclusive rights to their content for the life of the author plus 17 years (back then) if I'm remembering correctly. Of course now, it's plus 75 years due to Disney's efforts to extend copyright law.
I think I'm on pretty solid ground with that.



As for the MP3 site being obligated, that's the merchant, with a theoretical "physical" product (the digital download) and he doesn't have a warranty to me for the "physical" product. the physical product and the license of the intellectual property are completely different things. So that example is a species argument.

And on the videotape, i still think there is an argument there. The industry wanted to cut out renting the tapes, but the supreme court decided that I had rights under the first sale doctrine to one video tape. I could rent, sell, or give it away as I chose, including the intellectual property contained in it.
So, by that virtue, one could say "Well, if the physical medium breaks, I'm entitled to repair it, to enjoy the intellectual property." At what point does "repair" extend to a violation of the copyright? fix a tear? Glue the label back on? put the tape wheels into a new plastic shell because the last one is cracked?
You see, it's a very slippery slope?

The car argument is just completely off point. No intellectual property involved in the conversation.

In your last argument, how do you know the guy doesn't have rights?

[RawAlex]

Bottom up: When you buy a recording, you are granted non-distribution use. You cannot resell, redistribute, or otherwise reuse with permission. Exceptions do exist (as you mentioned) for places that rent videos / movies / music, but they are limited by being able to only lend or rent original copies, they may not make copies and rent those.

Anyone putting music online for download is immediately in violation of their license, unless they have a license for re-distribution. As they would entail a royalty to get paid for every unit distributed, it is extremely unlikely (read not going to happen) that anyone would do this for free.

Even that big russian MP3 site that sells the music super cheap is in violation, indirectly, because they are paying the russian level fees only (very low) and then distributing worldwide (which they don't have the rights to do).

For your video tape, you can fix it all you want. repair the heck out of it. Knock yourself out. You can do whatever you want with the product, including recording over it or using it as a door stop. But when the mechanism no longer works, you don't have much come back to either the manufacture or the artist. Further, as a video rental store, you would not be allowed normally to copy the movie and rent the copy,see above. So your physical copy is in a sense your licensed copy. Lose the copy, potentially lose the license.

The license for the content and the delivery method are interlinked, unavoidably.

If you buy a PPV movie, and record it while you are watching it, that is an acceptable trade off (for personal use). When you give that tape to a friend to watch the movie, in theory you have violated the copyright and the license that was granted to your when you paid for the PPV movie. Further, if you did not record the PPV movie, your license to the movie lapsed as the movie ended. You could not take your cable bill to Best Buy and demand that they give you a free copy because you paid for it on PPV. You also can't take your movie stub from the theatre and demand your cable company give you free PPV.

It also doesn't extend you the rights to then go and download a copy online. First (as mentioned above) the person posting it doesn't have the right, so you would be receiving stolen property, even if you have at some point in your life owned or paid for certain limited rights regarding the movie.

So in response to your first point, while you may be granted a "lifetime" license, it is effectively a lifetime license from the original product in it's original format, plus whatever legal backup copies you may have made from that original copy. Having purchased it once on 8 track does not give you unlimited access to the same work in any other format. You purchase a content / format combination.

All that said, will they come after you for it? Probably not in any single case. But I think it would make for some very interesting arguments in court if you had 1000 CDs of music you downloaded because at some time in your life you either bought the album, watch the music video on TV (another delivery method) or attended a concert.

[EmporerEJ]

Well, I think we've potentially beat that subject to death now......


NEXT!?

:yowsa:

[RawAlex]

yeah, it's a little puddle on the floor and not much more.

[Jace]

i can't believe I read this whole thread

[Greg B]

i can't believe I read this whole thread

Okay, now I'm laughing. I was about to post the same response.

[EmporerEJ]

Plop, plop, fizz, fizz,

Oh, what a relief it is.......

[ScreaM]

Plop, plop, fizz, fizz,

Oh, what a relief it is.......

That's good news for sure.