sadatx

I don't know if anyone here used the site, but it was arguably the best p2p site for music sharing out there. Not only did it have a massive selection, but the quality of the files was pristine.

Here's the article about it on TorrentFreak:

http://torrentfreak.com/oinkcd-serve...dmin-arrested/

The IFPI and the BPI (The European and British RIAA) have commandeered the site and put up some BS threat, because apparently, like the RIAA the IFPI feels it's their duty to go all vigilante on p2p networks. I swear if these orginizations were given badges and guns they'd go around shooting any 14-year-old with a laptop.

SecretMethod70

Arguably? It WAS the best p2p site for music sharing. Great community...great selection...great quality.

I'm really very sad about this. Here are links to all the different torrentfreak articles so far...

OiNK.cd Servers Raided, Admin Arrested
OiNK Investigation Seeks Identities and Activities of Users
OiNK Admin Released From Custody
Why Are The IFPI and BPI Allowed To Hijack OiNK?

For those who had no experience with OiNK...think back to Napster. Remember how Napster was...and how ever since Napster nothing has really come quite close to matching the Napster experience? OiNK was the Napster of the bittorrent era.

OiNK Memorial
OiNK's Pink Palace Memorial Forum

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

sadatx

You're right Secret. It was the BEST period. No arguing about it. Thanks for putting up the Oink memorial link, I didn't know about it. From the posts on the blog it doesn't sound like it'll be back up for a while, but there might be hope yet...

Derwood

you guys act like the RIAA or whoever should happily watch their property be illegally distributed

Shauk

I've never even heard of oink, and fyi, napster sucked, Audiogalaxy was always the best, thats they they got shut down, revamped and comercialized before napster did.

SecretMethod70

Never used Audiogalaxy, though I've heard OiNK compared to it quite a bit as well.

There are a few issues here. First, the punishment that goes along with something like this does not fit the crime. Second, this particular case is being filled with a lot of disinformation, such as claims that users had to pay for subscriptions in order to participate, etc. It'd be like saying that TFP users were required to pay, and then using that to charge Halx with something.

The other issue is a lot more general, and there's a lot more room for debate. The music industry has greatly devalued its commodity, and now it's suffering the consequences. Music is simply not very valuable to the average person anymore: it's everywhere, and most of what's everywhere is crap anyway. That's where sites like OiNK come in: a community with far more selection than can be found in most other places, in high quality files (not the crap that's on the iTMS), and without the high costs associated with experimenting with other artists.

And what about those artists anyway? Obviously they deserve to benefit from their work, but CD sales aren't exactly the most lucrative option. It's better to have exposure through a site like OiNK and have a larger fanbase who will go to your concerts and buy your t-shirts than it is to be a nobody, playing only in local pubs. This is a young business model, and it's only developing slowly because the behemoth that is the current music industry is stifling it as much as possible...because the future of the music business does not include them.

One thing that has been consistent as I've talked with OiNK members lately is that they talk about what a great resource it was and how they discovered new artists and a new appreciation for music through the site. And they all pretty much agree: they'd be willing to pay $25/month for legal use of a site like OiNK, with a good community, a vast collection, and high quality audio available through the generosity and sharing of its members. Even if the fee were $15/month, that's the equivalent of every user buying 12 CDs a year...which is more than most people I know bought even before downloading became big.

The future of music as a business does not include the big labels that exist right now, and there's no reason it CAN'T include DRM-free, high quality digital music. And such a business model will allow for more cultural diversity and a greater benefit to artists as a whole than the current one ever did. (Note that it does mean that there will be less gigantic superstars.) It's starting: Trent Reznor, Radiohead, Madonna...the old model will fight as long as it can, and the new model will only be fully realized once it reaches critical mass. As a musician and music lover, I find this to be a tumultuous but exciting time.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

God of Thunder

Very nicely written Secret. I was a big fan of OiNK, I had a pretty good ratio there and, as you pointed out, I got a lot of music from bands I had never heard of. I loved their similar artist search functionality.

By downloading Barenaked Ladies, I was able to discover bands like Guster, whom I had never heard of. They certainly aren't getting any airplay on stations I listen to. Hell, come to think of it, neither are BNL.

It's sad that the record companies think they are sending a positive message by shutting sites like that down, instead of embracing in a manner like Secret said. Instead they are sending a very negative message to users like myself. You see, I love music. I have tons of it from a lot of different genres. But I also have them in a bunch of dead formats. I have over 200 vinyl albums, over 100 cassettes and just as many CDs. Now I'm trying to build up just as big of a collection in digital format, but the industry wants to throw digital rights management onto them and limit how I can use them. Screw that.

It's sad how the music industry is alienating their user base and patting themselves on the back for it.

RIP OiNK. Hopefully you'll be back.

__________________
I reject your reality, and substitute my own

-- Adam Savage

Derwood

OiNK is definitely a good business model, but my problem comes from the aspect that bands aren't (all) willingly participating in the system. of course it's great for the people getting all sorts of free music, but let's be honest, how many people are going to concerts for all the music they're getting for free? a small percentage, i'd say. especially when the ease of access means people are downloading hundreds of songs at a time.

it all sounds great in theory, but i think the artists suffer in the end. Radiohead can afford to flip off the labels and invent a new business model because they're established. Madonna and NIN can follow suit because they also have enough money to experiment. "New Band X" can't afford those luxuries

Martian

"New Band X" won't do well with the labels either. It surprises me how few people actually understand how the music industry in it's current form works.

Imagine that I have a band. And that, right now, my band catches the eye of some label suit (A&R man is the industry term) who decides that I ought to be signed. Standard procedure goes like this:

A&R man will wine and dine me. Image is everything for these guys and the competent ones practically ooze success. The idea is to get me all hyped up and thinking that I have a shot at being the Next Big Thing. A&R man then waves a big fat cheque under my nose, typically around $1 million. And all I have to do, of course, is sign on the dotted line.

What most outsiders (and a shocking number of musicians, to their detriment) don't seem to grasp is the nature of that $1 million. It is not a signing bonus, nor a gift. It's an advance; in other words, it's essentially a loan. I as a musician must now use that money to buy new equipment (my old gear probably isn't up to the standards of the pros) and pay my bills out of that money. So we've got $1 million divided by the four (typical) members of my band = $250 000, - new equipment, recording costs, studio rental, production costs...

Wait, you didn't think the label paid for all that stuff, did you?

These are what are referred to as recoupable costs. What that means is that the label will take a portion of the net profit from my album sales (packaging costs also get added to the advance) in order to pay off these debts, until the balance is back at zero. Given that the standard release schedule has gone from an album a year to one every two years or more and that the artist has to live during those intervening periods, the bulk of artists who sign to a label end up having to renegotiate their contract again and again in order to get more advances to live off of. Meanwhile, the label continues to pocket all the profits from the album and the artist, due to increasing debt, continually loses leverage. Something like 80-90% of artists never manage to pay off their advances. This results in a situation akin to indentured service, with the artist being in a position where they basically do exactly what the label tells them when it tells and how it tells them. If the artist is unco-operative, the label may delay the release of their next album, basically holding it hostage. That puts the artist in a bind, because any and all music produced under contract to the label constitutes what's known as a work for hire; copyright on works for hire goes to the hiring party, not the artist. Thus, the artist doesn't even hold the rights to their own music. This is, incidentally, where you end up with bands like the Presidents of the United States of America, who pissed off their label and are subsequently not allowed to distribute any of the music they wrote and recorded, or even use their own band name.

The music industry as it stands today is not kind to artists. That's why I, like so many musicians, am thrilled to see this new trend. Should I ever become ambitious enough to release my own music, I can't imagine doing it with one of the big four, because I know exactly where that road leads. It's great if you're Metallica, who is one of the 5% who actually see success. For everyone else? Not so much.

Radiohead isn't incurring expenses by flipping off the labels; on the contrary, they'll probably net more off this album than any they ever produced under EMI. By releasing the album online, they bypass the whole packaging phase and turn all the money made here into profit. Once they recoup production costs, they'll be back in the green and without EMI dipping into any of it. Barenaked Ladies, having formed their own label, will similarly see much more of the profit from their subsequent albums. Granted, this is only possible because they're able to bankroll the production costs themselves and therefore doesn't work for the little guy, but even so it's certainly a wise move on their part.

The reality is that the old way of doing things is no longer valid. The internet and digital recording technology have made it possible for nearly anyone to record a professional quality album and release it to a worldwide audience, which makes the big record labels superfluous. I don't pretend to know what comes next, but I'm positive that it's going to be better for artists and fans both.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Fire

the net has, and will continue to change forever the face of the whole entertainment industry- just as radio and tv and cinema did in their day- and the industry is a monolithic thing that does not enjoy change- and it is gonna have to learn to, and very much EARN the respect and devotion of fans- because at this point it has no choice.....people have figured out that they can make music without the big labels, movies without the big studios- it will be interesting in the next few years to see where it goes.......

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

SecretMethod70

Thank you, Martian, for summing up those issues in an excellent post.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

philanderer

Martian and Secret hit it on the head. I get tired of people talking out of their ass about this issue. There are plenty of people that abuse places like oink, but if you think there aren't countless more in the music industry abusing power for their own gain you don't have your head on straight. look at the dealings with internet radio or DRM or any number of moves by the "music industry." I'd gladly pay premium if the quality of selection at oink was preserved in some future iteration, but i sincerely doubt that's possible. Without oink I would have never gotten into so much music that I listen to every day.

RIP oink. You'll probably never be the same again.

Go to shows. End rant.

Derwood

Everything Martian said I already knew.

But there are several problems here:

- without money, how do artists make their albums? who pays for studio time and hosting fees for their now download-only content?
- when everyone is taking the music without paying for it, how do artists afford to tour? yes, they can make a lot of money by the end of the tour, but the start up costs are very high.

Listen, i hate the recording industry as it stands now, but i can't in good conscience take the music from the bands i love and not pay them for it. if i could send them a personal check instead of using the current system i would, but for now, i'm happier with them making $1 off my $15 CD purchase than them making nothing. In other words, i'm not going to screw over the artist in order to stick it to the RIAA

LoganSnake

Actually, I've been concerned about this. I've been a member for a while at Oink and have accumulated a good amount of music. Now, should I be worried about being charged with something? The site now says that there is an ongoing investigation of site's users. That made me a little worried inside...

__________________
Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques

God of Thunder

From a board that is featuring updates:

*source http://tehpaine.blogspot.com/

__________________
I reject your reality, and substitute my own

-- Adam Savage

Derwood

you play with fire...

Martian

One does not affect change by supporting the established system.

I'm not by any means saying that it's easy for the little guy out there, but to be fair it never has been. The reality is that most musicians will never make any real money off their music, if any money at all. Small time musicians tend to be all too familiar with the 'pay to play' concept, turning their music more into an expensive hobby than anything else.

There are hosting solutions for the small musician. Myspace pops immediately to mind and is geared specifically towards musicians and bands, allowing them to post show dates and upload music for streaming. This is a great way for a small band to gain some exposure and bring up attendance at their shows, thereby making some cash to finance more traveling and eventually, touring.

Which is the second point. The formula is not "create a band > sign a contract > tour." Assuming such is an unreasonably simplistic view. A smaller band will invariably start out playing dates in individual clubs in their home town (which of course means that any serious band needs to migrate to a town large enough to support them.) Once they've built up a name for themselves, they may consider releasing an album; the majority of the small groups do so either independently or through a small local label. Through the album their music can get out to more people and their name can spread, allowing them to play more and larger venues, thus increasing their revenue. The albums are not a money maker here, but rather a means of gaining exposure. The smart musician will realize this and embrace digital medium as it provides a method that's more cost effective and has the potential to effect a wider audience.

The established groups, by the way, do make about $1 per album, minus whatever the label skims off for recoupable costs. If you really want them to get your $0.50, cut them a cheque. The reason that artists are starting to jump ship from the labels and go indie is because labels are no longer necessary and thus the artist has no reason to see all the money from their work wind up in other peoples' pockets.

I'm not necessarily advocating piracy here; you must, of course, do what you think is best. However, to take a holier than thou view on the platform of 'it's for the good of the artists' is not only elitist, it's painfully uninformed.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Derwood

my viewpoint isn't grounded in elitism, it's grounded in legality. as i've said, i think the current system sucks, and i'm all for a rebellion against......by the artists. file sharing is a revolution of the consumers, and if the artists aren't on board (and many have been very vocal about it) then it won't work. once the artists are willing to change it (and it looks like some are ready to lead the way), then the concept of file sharing won't be as big a deal.

another problem i have with the whole thing is the concept of the consumers "sticking it to the record companies" by file sharing. this isn't brave. it's easy. most people who file share would not go into a Best Buy and steal CD's. but under the blanket of usernames and internet anonymity, they "crusade" against the establishment. give me a break. most people aren't stealing music because of some idealistic notion about changing the establishment, they're stealing it because they CAN

Martian

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. You state that your viewpoint is grounded in legality and then continue on to make what seems to be an emotionally based argument (artist viewpoint, which has nothing to do with the actual copyright law, since in most cases they don't actually own the rights).

If I take your first statement as fact, then that's perfectly valid. If your issue with piracy is strictly from a legal standpoint, that's your prerogative. In that case, however, the 'won't somebody think of the artists' rhetoric really has no merit on the discussion, as well as not really holding up to scrutiny.

If, on the other hand, your argument is that it's morally wrong to pirate an artist's music without that artist's express consent, then that's a whole different issue. There certainly are some out there in the industry who are against piracy. There are some who are vocally for it and there's a very large silent majority. Remember that most of the artists are heavily in debt to their labels, who hold all the cards. It's difficult to speak out against an entity who basically controls your livelihood and income. Regardless, I'd certainly agree that the current trend seems to indicate that at least some artists are ready for a change; it's actually moving much faster than I'd expected, personally. It wouldn't surprise me at this point if we see a significant percentage of high-profile musicians following the trend, as they fulfill their contract obligations and quietly (or vocally, as the case may be) go their own way.

I do wonder, though. Under this stance, is it thus okay to steal the music of System of a Down or Nine Inch Nails? They've both advocated piracy in the past. Am I still wrong to torrent the new NIN album when it comes out, then? Or what about Weird Al? He hasn't outright condoned piracy as far as I know, but he certainly satirized the issue pretty heavily on his last album (Don't Download This Song, Straight Outta Lynwood). Given what this implies regarding his views, would it be okay for me to pirate his music?


This is how change comes about. Regardless of the logic behind it, people are pirating music. The intent of the individual isn't really relevant, because the statement is the same; if these people were willing to pay the arbitrarily high prices to buy the music in store, piracy wouldn't be an issue and there wouldn't be any change. The fact that they're not means that in order for the industry to survive, the whole system of distribution and compensation is going to have to be restructured. And rest assured, the industry will survive this, although the RIAA may not.

Far be it from me to tell you what to do. If you're content to pay the prices put on these albums, I'm certainly not going to browbeat you for it. Again, though, this is not the argument you started on; the point I was making was simply that piracy does not hurt artists nearly as much as the RIAA or Kirk Hammett would have you believe.

For the record, I paid Radiohead for my copy of In Rainbows and was quite happy to do so. Technically the legal argument doesn't apply to me (Canadian fair use exemptions apply to all copies made for non-commercial use, including those downloaded from the internet; we pay levies on recordable media like blank cd's or mp3 players to make up the difference), but from a moral standpoint I don't have an issue with paying for my music. I do believe an artist deserves compensation for their work. I also happily buy from independent record labels and will buy out of practicality, for certain hard to find or obscure artists. The less logical reason is also that I'm an album junkie and like to have the cover art and all the trappings that go with the album. The one part that does not factor into my decision on whether to obtain music via purchasing or pirating is artist welfare, because I know exactly how much an artist benefits when I buy a cd produced by one of the big four.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Derwood

sorry for obfuscating my points. the legality point was simply that whether you're morally for or against piracy, it is currently illegal, and thus no one should be surprised about the closure of OiNK or the suing of file sharers. Again, not saying I support the actions (on a moral level), but the RIAA isn't attacking people unless they're breaking the law.

I think that we will see more and more artists break away from their labels and sell their own music. I don't think the "pay what you want" model will necessarily be the popular option. In any case where an artist wants to sell their own music, I will buy direct. I also hope that artists who are fine with piracy (System of a Down, etc.) will make their music available for download from their own sites, if only so they can keep track of how many people are interested.

I realize piracy won't stop. I mean, you could have paid nothing for In Rainbows on the Radiohead site, yet people STILL pirated it off torrents.

SecretMethod70

This is worth sharing (emphasis mine)....

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Derwood

well the obvious difference between iTunes and OiNK is that iTunes is a commercial seller of music and OiNK isn't, so OF COURSE they are going to try to sell you on things like John Mayer.

Willravel

It would be nice if iTunes could just accept music from everyone (it's very cheap and simple for them), but the record labels still has Apple by the balls, which pisses me off to no end. Apple needs to be able to distribute DRM free music, and any music they want. Apple is hitting serious restrictions with the record labels and AT&T and I'm worried about future partnerships.

If the OiNK guys were smart they'd have set up shop in a 3rd world country without extradition and paid off the government a bit. They could have lived lives free of worries like being arrested.

Derwood

DRM isn't that big a deal to me since I don't try to buy music and then pirate it for torrents

SecretMethod70

That's a very simplistic way of looking at the issue.

DRM is a big deal if you want to be able to have multiple copies of an album (1 for home, 1 for car, as an example), or if you want to use it on different devices, or if you want to be able to transfer your library back and forth.

Just to name a couple circumstances.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

telekinetic

DRM becomes a big deal to me as soon as it prevents me from having a copy of my music in my car, on my computer at work, on my home theater computer, and on any mp3 player that I want (I have five devices that play mp3s).

So yeah, even without being a pirate (which I am), yeah, DRM is a pretty big deal.

Martian

Beyond all of that, DRM is a big deal on principle.

When I buy a piece of music, I'm not paying for the individual copy (be it mp3, cd or what have you). What I'm actually paying for is the license, which grants me the right to use that piece of music within pre-defined limits. when DRM comes into play, my rights for that music that I have paid for are being restricted. Whether or not I choose to exercise those rights, I still have a problem with this.

I will not pay for music that has any sort of DRM restrictions on it, and that's that.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Derwood

is it really that hard to burn the DRM tracks to a CD and then reimport them to wherever you need to? It's the easiest work-around ever

FoolThemAll

Bah.

John Mayer > Trent Reznor.

(At least lately.)

And just to echo some of Derwood's sentiments (I think): the current system sucks. Piracy sucks more. Stuff like Oink makes stuff like BMG the lesser evil.

There's nothing brave or moral about it.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

37OHSSV

The day that I discovered Sony had put rootkits on their CDs was the day I swore never to buy one of their CDs again.

I don't use iTunes, because of DRM. That, and the software sucks.

I was a power user at OInK, but I'm not spending a lot of time worrying about it. There are a great many legal hoops that must be jumped through, and quite a few loopholes in the law.

That said, I buy music online. From artists, not from record companies.

If the record companies want to continue to try to sell buggywhips, they have that right. Just don't expect me to buy one from them.

Scrub0

Oink absolutely filled a void in the market. The fact that it provided music for free is almost irrelevant as to why it was so popular. OiNK gave people the music they wanted, when they wanted it, hassle-free, in the format of their choice. There is no legal alternative providing that level of convenience. Instead of using propaganda in a futile attempt to control the market, music corporations need to start learning some lessons from the sites they shut down.

R.I.P. OiNK. You will be missed.

Slightly o/t... The same thing applies to pirated movies. When I want to watch a movie, I will simply download the DVD-R. Only takes a few mouse clicks. As a bonus, all those annoying warning screens and ads are conveniently stripped out. The quality is as good as the real thing. I'm also not polluting the environment with the handful of wrap, reciept and plastic bag.

The legal alternative: drive through crowded traffic to the nearest store, find my DVD, wait in line (or wait for delivery & pay shipping if purchasing online), fork over $15+, and drive through crowded traffic back home... only to have to screw around removing layers of anti-shoplifting wrap... THEN sit through unskippable advertisements before the movie even began playing? Basically, you pay more money and go through more hassle to get the "genuine" DVD, which is equal or inferior to a pirated DVD image. All this in the name of "following the law" and making rich assholes even richer.

Derwood

you illegally download pirated DVD's to save the environment from shrink wrap? really? that's what you're going with?

Scrub0

You have reading comprehension issues. I'll elaborate for ya. The shrinkwrap comment was an example added to further my point regarding the inconvenience of physically buying a DVD. Plastic wrap pollution is the least significant reason as to why I pirate DVDs.

Derwood

ah, sorry, you steal movies because removing shrink wrap is too much of a burden. thanks for clearing that up