What is Digg?70 Comments
- todu, on 11/13/2007, -6/+43I just donated £10 just in case he would need it. But why give the surplus to "an animal charity"? It would be better if the receiver would wait a while until someone else gets into the same type of legal trouble, and then forward the surplus to /his/ fund. Animals are cute and stuff, but I care more about my fellow sharers than I care about animals.
- iceman0113, on 11/14/2007, -2/+37I wonder how much Trent Reznor is gonna give
- canthraxp, on 11/12/2007, -0/+23Surprised that no one has made a piggy-bank analogy.
- inactive, on 11/11/2007, -1/+17I never used OINK, I was strictly a Demonoid boy, but after the loss of demonoid I feel I have to rally behind the entire bittorrent community. They've given me so much (literally), and now it's my turn to give back and support the brave admins.
- sishgupta, on 11/12/2007, -0/+12He should donate the excess to the EFF
- peaches017, on 11/12/2007, -6/+17***** the RIAA
- AcePup, on 11/13/2007, -3/+11For those who want the direct link it is: http://www.saveoink.com
- tylerni7, on 11/11/2007, -3/+9Pussy.
After Alan stuck up for everyone and made OiNK and took all the heat, don't you think you could "risk" donating (if you don't have the money that's a different story) - AcePup, on 11/11/2007, -2/+8Buried comment and a good way for people to bury your own story StaplesGuy. TOS say not to spam your own links into the comments field, not to mention if you knew Digg users they aren't to fond of people spaming links into other submissions and frankly neither am I.
- nphase, on 11/13/2007, -3/+9Hopefully the donation list is anonymous?
- actorboy, on 11/12/2007, -5/+10Maybe you guys would do better to contribute to a "paying for my music" fund.
- merdiesel, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5...and don't forget both CRIA & IFPA suck balls equally well.
- Hewbie, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3hmm loki site had defence fund if i remeber......
- AvengeX, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Source and proof, or you're lying.
- snapcase, on 11/11/2007, -4/+7Similar thing happened to me. I used the latest Azureus (at the time, and it was on their approved torrent app list) and downloaded a ton of ebooks. Next day I was banned. All they would say is their automated system said I was cheating and wouldn't give me even a chance to read the reason I was banned until I rejoined 5 times after changing my ip. Then as soon as I was able to read the reason they banned my isp from the irc.
I still have no idea how their system thought i was "cheating" I was just downloading torrents and leaving them to seed. Some of the torrents that had no other leechers I quit as soon as they finished downloading, and as far as I can figure maybe that had something to do with it. My only guess is that since they were extremely small ebooks that they downloaded and quit before Azureus had communicated back to the server..... if that's even possible. I'm still clueless why I really got banned.
And yeah I'm a little bitter. So I'm not at all sad to see the site burn. However I don't think they deserve to get arrested. - inactive, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3I feel bad relying on a celebrity figure, but Trent has truly been an inspiration to the passive "leechers" in the BT community. Hopefully with the un-official backing of someone like this bittorrent will be around for many years.
- shark72, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5If the money isn't needed it goes to an *animal charity*? How about going to the artists?
Hear me out: we all say that we really do support the artists deep in our hearts, even if we don't think their music is worth buying. If it really is all about the music, here's a chance for them to step up: if the money isn't needed, it should go to the artists. They can start with looking at the top ten most popular musicians on oink, and spread it among them.
I would suggest that it go to the indie musicians who understood what oink was about and freely spread their stuff around oink, but oink had a policy against that. If it was freely available, oink didn't want it. Seems oink was about saving money, and not helping indie musicians. Here's a chance to correct that. - snapcase, on 11/11/2007, -2/+5As I stated Commie, my client was on the approved list at the time.
I triple checked that before I ever even downloaded a single torrent from the site. And regularly from then on. So I did not get banned from using the wrong client.
Also I had been a member for at least a couple of weeks before getting banned and had something like at 4.0 ratio with several unique uploads. - EvilBunnys, on 11/11/2007, -1/+4What are you afraid of? It's not like the RIAA is going to come and sue you for donating money to a person. They have no proof that you are donating because you downloaded illegal music form OiNK. For all they know you could be donating because you like pigs.
- saisumimen, on 11/11/2007, -0/+2You think Oink's gonna snitch the way Loki did?
- Kelmon, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Where can you donate money to see this bunch of crooks buried? As the old adage goes, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". If this sort of activity goes away then we might actually get DRM-free media a bit faster.
- thailand1972, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3Well said - all these people who "cut out the middle man" also cut out the guy who markets the band, as well as cut out the money the band DOES get from sales.
- fflush, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2I don't know why you're being dugg down. That is paine's blog, and he's done a damn good job of making sure people haven't fallen for all the oink scams that came about.
- mrfreeziexp, on 11/11/2007, -0/+2Why can't the paypal account be in his name then?
- darkone_05, on 11/11/2007, -1/+3Ok, good point, except utorrent was on the allowed client list. I read the rules and broke none.
- inactive, on 11/11/2007, -1/+3You are living in a dream world. The argument that file sharers support the artist in their own way is ***** and only makes you look and sound stupid. (PS I am former oink user and admit that I stopped buying CDs I could easily get copies of from oink- along with most of the other members.)
- darkone_05, on 11/11/2007, -1/+2I feel ya, it was the same here....
- Fungyo, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1better still, don't buy the media mafia cd's, instead support your fav artists by buying concert tickets and merchandise. Sorry but you need to learn the facts. The labels are the problem, the more you support the labels, the longer the problem exists.
- darkone_05, on 11/11/2007, -2/+3yea... that may have been a little harsh of me... but damnit... I am VERY bitter...
- Kelmon, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1By all accounts the artists don't get much, if any, money from sales of their music directly, although they do get paid for signing the contract in the first place. If the artists release their music for free then that's OK to share it via P2P but ripping CDs to the InterWeb and downloading copyrighted material because you can't be bothered to pay for it isn't OK. So, in this respect, I entirely agree with you - buy it, don't steal it.
- sdyson, on 11/11/2007, -1/+2Small record shops have been shutting down long before bittorrent came along. They just cant compete with the HMVs and Virgin Megatores.
- inactive, on 11/11/2007, -3/+4Well spoken, but I disagree with you. The people who don't care about supporting the artists are still using Limewire. The majority of members of the PRIVATE trackers are there to discover music that they like, and then support the artist in their own way.
This has been said so many times already, but the record industry has gone straight to hell. Bittorrent helps to ensure that the Paris Hilton's and Linkin Park's of the industry stop making so much damn money while helping to build a fan base for the Alias' and Odd Nosdam's of the world. - gryphonauto, on 11/12/2007, -3/+4How sure is everyone this site is legit? Seems a little scam-ish to me so be careful "It's my friend's account . . . . "
Anyway, support your favorite artists by buying their music. Sure the major music labels are bloated and exploit artists, but the artists (or people who make vidoe games, or software) don't survive without an income which has to come from somewhere. - grimward, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2*laughs* I thought everyone had learned from the lokitorrent debacle, never ever donate any money to legal defense funds, because half the time, they'll grab the cash and run, or even worse, they will be scammers that just stole your cash :)
- sdyson, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Late reply here but I still disagree. I can buy niche records online much cheaper and easier online than in a small record shop. If anything Amazon is to blame for the death of the small record shop.
- inactive, on 11/11/2007, -3/+4You cretin. Why is there no risk at all in donating to this. I'm furious that you are such an idiot.
- Kelmon, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Yes and no. It is a fact of life that without someone to provide the initial investment that it's going to be difficult to for a new artist to get themselves known widely enough that you'd know about them and go to their concerts. Besides, people want to listen to the music outside of the concerts so we need some means to obtain it. Again, if the artists are able to distribute the music for free then that'd be ideal but in most cases they rely on the record companies to handle production costs and distribution.
Still, with the Internet enabling people to share information cheaply it should be more and more possible now for bands to distribute their music directly without the need for the record companies. That would be nice. - scott2007, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1These people stealing music were too cheap to pay. I kind of doubt they'll fork out a lot of money to save this idiot's ass.
- readerofbooks, on 11/12/2007, -2/+3http://tehpaine.blogspot.com/ the former mods blog also links to the site making it more 'official'
- drcru, on 11/13/2007, -0/+0You should know that servers and bandwidth can cost thousands of dollars per month. They likely spent all of the donations paying off server bills monthly.
- NeonElixir, on 11/11/2007, -2/+2I never knew that OiNK's userbase was a mere 180,000 users. Amazing that it had as much content as it did with so few users.
- Kelmon, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1Give your money to a worthy charity and not these bloody thieves. I have no issue with copying materials that you already bought (e.g. ripping DVDs to iPods) but downloading stuff that you haven't bought is just theft without the risk. Just buy the stuff legally.
- thailand1972, on 11/11/2007, -2/+2Your claim that private trackers help listeners "support the artist in their own way" is unsubstantiated. I agree SOME downloaders do this via going to concerts, or donating money if there's a means to do this, or actually go out and buy the track, but I highly doubt this is the norm, particularly when specialist record shops are closing down at an accelerated rate (in the UK at least). I argue only a minority of downloaders feel obliged to support artists they download, and no business model can be supported by obligation alone (see how aggressively charities often have to advertise).
It's always the small guys who get hit first by piracy (small record shops, small record labels); these guys normally charge quite a bit more as they don't have the scale of the bigger labels. When the small shops and labels go, you're left with just the junk we see now in the top 40. - thepaine, on 11/25/2007, -0/+0yes
- billturner, on 11/11/2007, -0/+0If you now click on the "Send gift now" link, you get this message: "This recipient is currently unable to receive money."
- thailand1972, on 11/11/2007, -0/+0@sdyson, that is not true at all. Smaller shops CAN compete against HMV and Virgin because they are NICHE. They stock music that the megastores do not stock. BUT, they can't compete with piracy, because that rare and hard-to-find track is now available online.
- spinningobo, on 11/11/2007, -1/+1I'm not going to fund an organization that sues its customers. Sorry.
Until the RIAA changes its ways or is abolished (the latter seems more likely) it's bittorrent for me. - AvengeX, on 11/12/2007, -2/+2I'm not parting with any of my money until I know what charges he's facing. Given the fact it says "if or when" a legal defence should be mounted, I wouldn't want to pay to help save animals with three eyes and so on...
- thailand1972, on 11/11/2007, -0/+0Dugg up for being honest, and I agree - people are dreaming if they think your average filesharer gives one hoot about the creator of the media they are downloading (be it music, video, game). It's like opening up a mall without security guards, cameras or staff and thinking that the majority of people would leave money next to the till after taking items from the shop. Everyone's got money worries - if they can get away without paying, they will. I still accept a small minority truly care about supporting artists, but this group is too small to make a real difference unfortunately. Anyway, time will truly tell (and I'm looking forward to seeing if anyone copies Radiohead's payment format, or if the format goes down without a trace like Duran Duran tried 10 years ago).
- lotides, on 11/12/2007, -3/+2Karma, karma, karma. As said before, they were elitists. Perhaps if they didn't try to be so secretive they could have used the "search engine" defense. I've never heard of an invite-only search engine that you have to upload a certain amount or be banned. That's because it's *****.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is