6 OiNK users arrested

[Dumpy Dooby]

Cleveland police have today confirmed that six people have been arrested for allegedly sharing music files via the defunct BitTorrent tracker OiNK.cd.

Five men aged between 19 and 33, and a 28-year-old woman were detained "in relation to uploading pre-release music", the force said in a statement. Three of the arrests were made on Friday 23 May, and three on Wednesday 28 May.

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/02/onk_further_arrests/ [link

When the majority of a state's citizens do not respect the laws of the state, then I think it's safe to assess that the law is no longer a means of protecting freedom and it is now a means of inciting tyranny and oppression. Intellectual property policy needs to be completely revamped throughout the entire western world.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Cleveland police have today confirmed that six people have been arrested for allegedly sharing music files via the defunct BitTorrent tracker OiNK.cd.

Five men aged between 19 and 33, and a 28-year-old woman were detained "in relation to uploading pre-release music", the force said in a statement. Three of the arrests were made on Friday 23 May, and three on Wednesday 28 May.

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/02/onk_further_arrests/ [link

When the majority of a state's citizens do not respect the laws of the state, then I think it's safe to assess that the law is no longer a means of protecting freedom and it is now a means of inciting tyranny and oppression. Intellectual property policy needs to be completely revamped throughout the entire western world.

Using the easy definitions majority means "half plus one." I didn't know ohio only had 10 people

[Ardentfrost]

I just want to point out this is Cleveland, England, not the US (yet).

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

Using the easy definitions majority means "half plus one." I didn't know ohio only had 10 people

Well, first let me point out that I never made any remarks about Ohio. This happened in the UK. Additionally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: when I'm discussing a State within the United States, I will capitalize it because it is a legal term (as is President, and Senate, and House, and Congress, and Supreme Court, etcetera). When you see me lowercase the word, then I'm not talking about a US State.


That said, I think it's fairly obvious that the vast majority of citizens in the western world don't respect intellectual property laws. Do you skip commercials when you TiVO your favorite shows? Ever dubbed a tape? Do you ever visit the streaming porn sites that provide copyrighted porn for free? Ever save a picture from a website on the Internet and then show your friend the saved copy?

I would estimate that well over half of the western world does not respect IP laws to one degree or another. And I think you'd have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Well, first let me point out that I never made any remarks about Ohio. This happened in the UK.

I saw cleveland and assumed it was ohio. Let me rephrase

Using the easy definitions majority means "half plus one." I didn't know the UK only had 10 people.

Better?

Additionally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: when I'm discussing a State within the United States, I will capitalize it because it is a legal term (as is President, and Senate, and House, and Congress, and Supreme Court, etcetera). When you see me lowercase the word, then I'm not talking about a US State.

Oh yeah, I'm going to memorize every person's individual posting style

It's the same fucking point whether it's ohio or the uk.

That said, I think it's fairly obvious that the vast majority of citizens in the western world don't respect intellectual property laws. Do you skip commercials when you TiVO your favorite shows?

That's legal.

Ever dubbed a tape?

No.

Do you ever visit the streaming porn sites that provide copyrighted porn for free?

No.

Ever save a picture from a website on the Internet and then show your friend the saved copy?

Hmm.......I've sent links, but I don't really save pictures too often. But in a strange twist of fate you could use my av against me on his one

I would estimate that well over half of the western world does not respect IP laws to one degree or another. And I think you'd have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise.

No true scottsman.........!!!



Most people speed, should we revamp the speed limit laws?
Most people have made an illegal u-turn, should we revamp traffic laws?
Many people have lied about their kid's age to get something free or reduced price, should we revamp the calendar?
Most people have "cheated" on their taxes, should we change the entire tax structure?

"A lot of people do it so we should make it legal" sucks for reasoning.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

Most people speed, should we revamp the speed limit laws?
Most people have made an illegal u-turn, should we revamp traffic laws?
Many people have lied about their kid's age to get something free or reduced price, should we revamp the calendar?
Most people have "cheated" on their taxes, should we change the entire tax structure?

Yes
Yes
Calendar's aren't enforced by the laws of man
Yes

[motivez]

That's really interesting, the new OiNK style sites now have a "paranoia" level where your username wont be attached to anything you upload, or so I've heard

I think a lot of people feel like music should be free, or at the very least once they pay for it, it should be theirs to do what they want with it.. burn it to a cd, add it to their mp3 player, save a copy of it to be opened with any program they want, etc

The online music today that you pay for all sucks because it restricts your rights to something you've paid for once you have paid for it. They all have shitty DRM attached to the song, meaning you have to technically violate the law if you want to use your property (the song) in a way they say you aren't allowed to.. and often times, once you download something, if you want to download it again.. you have to pay for it all over again

I actually read an interesting thread not too long ago somewhere else where a guy was talking about trying to go legitimate as far as paying for the music he wanted, but he wanted all quality to be at least V0, have no DRM, and some other stuff, and he couldn't find a service that did it all.

In addition to that, he often had a hard time finding rare songs or editions of songs for download on the services that came closest to his liking, and he ended up having to turn to torrents or other not so legal means if he wanted them.

I think eventually the industry will catch up, but for right now, it's no wonder people download music illegally, the legal options, frankly, suck.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think a lot of people feel like music should be free,

they can feel whatever they want, if they didn't create it their "feelings" don't matter

or at the very least once they pay for it, it should be theirs to do what they want with it.. burn it to a cd, add it to their mp3 player, save a copy of it to be opened with any program they want, etc

that's all legal.

The online music today that you pay for all sucks because it restricts your rights to something you've paid for once you have paid for it. They all have shitty DRM attached to the song,

[motivez]

Yeah, amazon is one of the few that offers DRM free music, and the guy talked about that in his article on trying to switch to legal music. I'll try to dig it up when I get home.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by 7960

they can feel whatever they want, if they didn't create it their "feelings" don't matter

that's all legal.

I personally don't find BitTorrent sites a bad thing. If someone went out purchased the material and then went on a file-sharing network to SHARE with other people then the government should have no right to say we're stealing. Now if they're getting it from people who didn't purchase the material (ex. I download a song from a friend that does own the material and then put it on a site to share with others. I consider that theft from the other users. You should have to download stuff from people that actually OWN the material who want to share it. That's why it's file-sharing, it's like trading.), then that is stealing. Oh well, this is why the government is trying to regulate internet, so they can control these free download websites. They'll never get rid of it and hackers or advanced computer users that use those sites will just get better at making their site undetectable.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kombayn

I personally don't find BitTorrent sites a bad thing. If someone went out purchased the material and then went on a file-sharing network to SHARE with other people then the government should have no right to say we're stealing.

"share"



you are more than welcome to play the song for a friend. but if you rip it and email it to him then you're both in the wrong.

[Smull]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Intellectual property policy needs to be completely revamped throughout the entire western world.

I agree, the way people are thinking about this is changing. I've been somewhat following this issue and I think its incredibly interesting, but I really have no idea whats going to happen. People who've grown up in my generation have an expectation of music being free, but that obviously isn't maintainable as artists need to be compensated for their work. I think the way we buy and sell music (and possibly other media as well) will change during this next generation and I'm very curious as to how we'll do this.

For the meantime though, its still against the law, your taking music without paying for it, and while I am guilty of this too, its pretty hard to defend. The only thing i think is ridiculous is that some people get outrageous charges for this. (several thousands of dollars in fines if i remember right) Thats not right, making examples of people isn't working, and theres no reason to punish people so harshly over something as trivial as downloading music.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by 7960

"share"



you are more than welcome to play the song for a friend. but if you rip it and email it to him then you're both in the wrong.

That's exactly what I'm saying. If a friend rips it for himself (say off the artists' CD) then I download it, I'm in the clear. If a person purchases it from their music publisher we should be fine. But it's not the case in our system. We want to end all file-sharing programs, that's true by their actions.

[willis]

Originally Posted by 7960

that's all legal

late last year the RIAA tacked on to a few cases the idea that any copies on a computer (even of cd's you own) are unauthorized and illegal copies.. so yes it may be legal now, but that idea will be challenged soon enough.. if people start being found guilty of infringement for making copies for personal use and not distributing them will we all be able to agree that IP laws are ludicrous then?

[7960]

Originally Posted by willis

late last year the RIAA tacked on to a few cases the idea that any copies on a computer (even of cd's you own) are unauthorized and illegal copies..

no, they did not.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9843939-7.html

[7960]

Originally Posted by kombayn

That's exactly what I'm saying. If a friend rips it for himself (say off the artists' CD) then I download it, I'm in the clear.

no, you're not.

even my 5 year old gets this...........

do you have it? <yes>
did you buy it? <no>
then you shouldn't have it.

If a person purchases it from their music publisher we should be fine.

what?

if he buys it then it's fine that HE has it, not you.

We want to end all file-sharing programs, that's true by their actions.

Their lawsuits say they're going after people for "sharing" music, not for running a file-sharing program. There are files (even music) that's ok to share and download. You just can't "share" copyrighted material. So no, they don't want to end all file-sharing programs. They want to end illegally uploading/downloading copyrighted material.

[willis]

Originally Posted by 7960

no, they did not.

Washington Post says it 'incorrectly' reported RIAA story | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

yes.. they did..

the post article was incorrect at first, and then retracted etc etc, but the recording industry still said in court that digital copies of legally purchased music were unauthorized..

Recording Industry vs. The People

Recording Industry vs. The People

[7960]

Originally Posted by willis

yes.. they did..

Recording Industry vs. The People

no they didn't.

did you read this page? Recording Industry vs. The People

Here is the actual statement. I've italicized part of it, and underlined part of it.

It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies... Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies....

He then goes on to make some stupid accusation that the underlined part was added to "fudge it" . Utter crap. They claim what was in the complaint, that ripping it AND SHARING IT is what made the copy unauthorized.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by 7960

if he buys it then it's fine that HE has it, not you. (Unless he willingly lets me borrow or shares it with me. It's HIS property, HE can do what HE wants w