digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Why Are The IFPI and BPI Allowed To Hijack OiNK?

torrentfreak.com — As you have read here already, a joint team of Dutch and British police were involved in 'Operation Ark Royal', to take down the music torrent site Oink. This action however, has brought lots of questions, with very few answers. Questions such as "Why Are The IFPI and BPI Allowed To Hijack OiNK?"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Holocaust, on 10/29/2007, -7/+37Moo.
    • doritoclock, on 10/29/2007, -4/+6Oink.
      • MagicXB, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5Because 'moo' just doesn't sound right.
        • meez, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2And lead us not into transcodes,
          but deliver us from *****.
    • ivanvanderbyl, on 10/29/2007, -3/+3Looks like the pigs can't get enough bacon.
    • PricklySponge, on 10/29/2007, -2/+2Keep things on the DL
    • fkr3, on 10/24/2007, -24/+8Good old torrentfreak.... you can just about see the dollar signs in their eyes on this story.

      "Questions such as “Why Are The IFPI and BPI Allowed To Hijack OiNK?”"
      Because OiNK chose to infringe their material and they represent big-assed corporations who, contrary to popular belief on digg, are far from dead, dying or powerless.

      Nintendo participated in a raid just the other day, shutting down a factory that made mod chips and ***** to faciliate piracy on the Wii.

      "Could this raid then be a retaliatory action on their part, targeting another site rather than the Pirate Bay, who are/were probably expecting some sort of backlash like this?"
      No, it's a retaliatory action against people who think the law doesn't apply to them. But hype it however you want, it's all about the ad impressions!

      "In the end, we’re right back to the question, “Are Private Torrent Sites Safe” and it would appear that they are becoming less so as time goes on, irrespective of the law."
      Irrespective of the law? They're unsafe because they exist to create private networks of people who are breaking the law.

      • cmdrNacho, on 10/24/2007, -2/+16You are a moron..did you even RTFA
        1. "How many times do they let the father of a murder victim work on the investigation of the Murder?" why are these groups involved , and probably the bigger question is (im asuming these groups are similar to the RIAA) why are corporations using government funded police to enforce what they've investigated. It would be like one gang using the police to take out another gang, based on what gang 1 was investigating.
        2. the record labels hijacking the site and with no real investigation.
        copyright violation is a very small issue in the overall big picture of this article
        • kag9000, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7The reason why the 'victim' is allowed to be a part of the execution and investigation is because the victim is the Corporations. The corporations own our governments. Our politicians are bought and paid for, thats why they allow the use of our police officers, Thats why corporations have the ability to ignore the law when it suits them. Its called collusion and corruption, and it is not just happening to file-sharers.
      • dbr_onix, on 10/24/2007, -2/+9'Nintendo participated in a raid just the other day, shutting down a factory that made mod chips and ***** to faciliate piracy on the Wii.'
        Modchips have plenty of other uses aside from piracy. I have an Xbox, for which I never played an illegal game on, which is modified (albeit soft-moded, but the concept is identical)

        'big-assed corporations who, contrary to popular belief on digg, are far from dead, dying or powerless.'
        I don't think anyone is saying big corporations are dying (if they were, they wouldn't be 'big', would they?), it's the 'old' methods in which they handle media distribution that is 'dying'

        All this money they are spending suing random people for 'stealing music and killing the music industry' could (and should) be put into something slightly more important. Yes, they are breaking the law, but I'm sure you've probably broken about 20 different laws today, if you read into all the archaic texts, odd by-laws and such that are still in place today. Should everyone turn themselves into the police because they didn't wear a hat in public on sundays, or because their ducks aren't wearing long-pants? No, because it's of negligible.

        We'll see. In a few years, when the 'oh no casette tapes mean people won't go and see live music anymore!' repeat-of-history blows over, I imagine there will be lots of companies wishing they spent less time suing everyone and more time improving the experiences of legitimate customers (Mini-rant: Improving the experience of buying games/music/TV shows/films will do infinitely more to prevent piracy than any annoying and inconvenient, or damaging DRM system will.)
        • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2"All this money they are spending suing random people for 'stealing music and killing the music industry' could (and should) be put into something slightly more important."

          What is more important to the music industry than this? This is there livelihood and people don't mess around when it comes to that.
      • TheButterThief, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3Oh, I see. They did something illegal, so their rights are property are forfeit.

        Just like when I steal something from Best Buy: they come to my house, take everything in it, then throw a Best Buy sign up my front yard.
        • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4really bad analogy.
          they didn't come to a downloaders domain, they went to the source. This is like shutting down a black market and holding everything in evidence (which would be done). They also would shut down the store and may put up a sign informing the community.

          You fail
    • bingobongony, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4AFLAC
    • Mike89, on 10/25/2007, -3/+20Sorry to comment jack, but I'm surprised no-ones taking the liberty to DDoS the 'new' oink.cd in retaliation. I mean, doesn't digg usually love this kind've thing?
      It wouldn't be hard either, the IFPI logo on that page is 151 kilobytes, just get a bunch of diggers running Gigalodader (http://www.gigaloader.com/)
      Image: http://oink.cd/IFPILOGO.JPG
      Set multiplier to 50.. enter a message if you wish (How about International Federation of Pirate Interests? :P)
      • maffiou, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6Is oink paying for the BW or Ifpi ?
        I'd be interrested to know...
      • Alstroph, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2Great idea. Doing it now. Hopefully more people jump on the train :D
      • willyjlyles, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2For the lazy among us, the direct link is http://www.gigaloader.com/?images=http://oink.cd/I ...

        If that crashes your browser (if you have a slow machine or connection, skip the one above) use http://www.gigaloader.com/?images=http://oink.cd/I ...

        I hope Digg doesn't truncate the URLs
        • willyjlyles, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Bury that, I'm not really sure how to keep it from cutting off the address, and don't feel like figuring it out right now.

          If anyone does know how to, just post a URL w/ a post variables images set to the image above, and multiplier set to 200 or 150.
      • willyjlyles, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Sometimes I forget about tinyURL.

        Here is the direct link to strain their servers.

        http://tinyurl.com/2b7zv4
      • Alpione, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1Ha! It's like watching 5 year olds throw a group tantrum because their toy got taken away...
        Grow up - piracy lost on this one...
    • Mike89, on 10/24/2007, -7/+1bury this
    • mclewell, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1you are a genius.
  • doritoclock, on 10/25/2007, -9/+33False charges Ftw.
  • erov, on 10/25/2007, -13/+3~ Barbara Streisaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand ~
  • remisser, on 10/25/2007, -6/+51Let's hope that the way they executed this helps exonerate the people of oink and that some semblance of a site can go back up.
    • TomKarpik, on 10/25/2007, -21/+10Exonerate the people of oink? Why do they deserve exoneration? I'm all for "***** the RIAA", but copyright violations are copyright violations, no matter how massive your sense of entitlement is.
      • Zzone, on 10/24/2007, -9/+3I love how TomKarpik gets modded down for being the only person on this comment board to use real logic, meanwhile diggers dare call the outside world "sheeple"
        • jtmeyer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1dont' be so ignorant. You really think he's being buried because he's using "real logic?"
    • epicstruggle, on 10/24/2007, -14/+13Does anyone smell the irony? Those who steal are complaining that someone else stole a domain name. Lol.
      • HalFTW, on 10/26/2007, -3/+19Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing.
        • PA42, on 10/26/2007, -11/+61) stealing is not theft. Stealing has a long definition (dictionary.com for examples) and many of them would appropriately apply to copyright infringement.
          2) even if you disagree with (1), then you must feel that stealing doesn't apply to the domain name either, so clearly you realize that epicstruggle could be speaking in hyperbole
          3) Stop trying to justify infringement by playing semantics
          • vat0r, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Do not assume anything about me and quite frankly stealing and theft are one in the same. I will continue to justify and advocate "infringement" of ANY copyright based on my OPINION that they are completely out of control with their regulations and ridiculously harsh criminal penalties. BTW as stated before my copyright on the English language is still pending.
          • PA42, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2You are almost too stupid to respond to, but evidentially I have too much time on my hands:
            "Stealing and theft are one in the same"
            Theft and the definition you use for theft is legal. Copyright infringement is similarly legal. Stealing is not a legal term. For example if I said "she stole my heart," would you say "that's not stealing"? no you wouldn't. Is the girl who stole my heart a theif? no of course not.
            Stealing is a word with many meanings, theft is not.
            "o not assume anything about me" I assumed you were trying to justify infringement and you were, so my assumption was right.

            Stop being a horses ass.
        • vat0r, on 10/26/2007, -0/+11PA42 is using twisted logic. If I "steal" a copy of an album the creator/owner of the album does not lose the album. They still have copies and retain the rights. A domain is a whole different ball game since as we all know domain names are unique and cannot be copied. So if someone "takes" a domain from you it qualifies more as stealing in my opinion because you no longer have access to your property.
        • PA42, on 10/26/2007, -6/+3Steal: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right (dictionary.com) ... notice no depriving is necessary
          Take: to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action: (dictionary.com) ... once again no depriving.

          As you can see copying an mp3 is getting into one's possession without permission or right.

          My point with the domain is that with the domain you never had anything in your posession (just as with an mp3) you just have access to something. You are correct that when a domain is taken you no longer have access to it. My counter would be that when an mp3 is taken the owner loses a value in their property, which is a value they can not get back.

          My overarching point is that this constant comment that saying infringement is using false semantics. You are assuming that the person who calls infringement stealing is making some sort of legal distinction, while they are really using stealing in the the general english language sense as described by the definitions above. The goal of saying copyright infringement is not stealing is an effort to suggest that copyright infringement isn't really bad, this is wrong.
        • MetIncome, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2I love how you got dugged down because people can't rationalize copyright infringement
        • aerogant, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I can agree that copyright infringement can be really really wrong. But no where in the original copyright act was this referred to as 'property'. IP (intellectual property) is modern language, designed to create more imaginary rights then there originally was. If some one possesses the information, data, music, etc then it is their property. So copyright isn't a right in the sense of property, it is a right taken away from any one possessing the information from duplicating it. Like for example allowing people to own a animal as a pet, but denying them the right to breed them with out permission from the original person who discovered it. It isn't stealing as taking *property* away from some one, and it isn't stealing as in taking credit for some one else's work, so unless there is some other meaning of the word stealing then it isn't stealing (doesn't mean it is right to not give to the author for their work). People should still pay the artists/authors for the work they have done.

          The original intent of copyrights and patents wasn't about protecting individuals like other laws which protect property rights, it is to promote progress in science and useful arts, which happens that people will want to produce more works when the incentive is there that they can be paid for it.
        • PA42, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1look at the dictionary.com definition of steal:
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

          Semantically, stealing is a very broad word. If you are willing to allow staling to mean taking credit for someones work, then why not here (especially since it fits well into the first definition).
          • aerogant, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1My point was that it doesn't fit into the first definition since we are not talking about 'taking property'. If some one goes into my computer and takes information from my computer with out permission, that is stealing! If I give some one a copy of the information is not stealing.

            There is 2 ways in which I can see using the word 'stealing' in the case of copyright infringement. First is stealing of money, that is some one is selling copies as originals or bootlegs. Second is stealing of value (potential for making money), which is some one distributing it for free, and given a choice between paying for it or getting it for free, some will choose the later.

            But this does not contradict what HalFTW said, because a copyright infringement IS NOT the same as stealing, in cases where some one would not have ever paid for it in the first place, either because of lack of interest or because they are unable to afford it. The only people who are hurt by this form of infringement are the alternatives who would love the attention, like for example Linux or music bands who distribute their music for free. But even then there may not be alternatives. Which I reiterate copyright infringement can be really wrong.
          • PA42, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2I see your point, but here is where I disagree. I would add a point to your second paragraph. You state "Second is stealing of value (potential for making money)." The potential for making money isn't determined by whether or not the pirate is going to pay for it, because the simple fact that it is given away free lowers the value of the property as a whole. If everyone knows that many people are getting an item for free, they are far less likely to purchase it at a high price. So they are stealing the value. Not to mention the fact that at least some pirates would have paid if they couldn't pirate.
            I wouldn't say that all copyright infringement is stealing, but the mass downloads of a plurality of mp3's by thousands of people clearly lowers the value of the IP and thus meets your requirement for stealing.

            AS for the original comment that copyright infringement is not the same as stealing. I would agree if it wasn't in response to what it was in response to. He (or she) was not making a generalized point. he was making the point that epics statement that the stealing of the domain was ironic considering they were in the business of stealing (I paraphrased, but you know what I mean). So epic wasn't saying that all copyright infringement was stealing or that they were the same thing. So the phrase "copyright infringement is not the same as stealing" specifically and unquestionable was stating that what OiNK was doing was not stealing.
          • aerogant, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1Copyright infringement simply means that some one copied information in their possession that they did not have permission to (and is not done in fair use). Which in and of itself is not stealing. Copyright infringement *may* cause reduction in value, it is not necessarily reduction in value, was the point I was making.

            On the other hand, it is mistaken to say that "a copyright infringement steals value", not according to the definition of 'steal' any way. Because while what you own can have value, you do not own how much other people value the thing. You do not own how much people are willing to pay for it. Also note that value is almost never directly protected by law. Like when you buy stock for example, it's value will go up and down based upon the market, it is not protected. Or another example if you produce a work, and some one releases a competing work and because they release it, it decreases the value of your own. There are plenty of laws that are indirectly related to value, such as committing fraud about the value of something.

            I don't know all of what oink did, if all they did was provide a way for pirates to find each other and share files, then they were aiding a crime (the crime being copyright infringement), they didn't commit the crime themselves, they didn't steal anything.
  • jtmeyer, on 10/25/2007, -2/+46for a while they had the page source as "SMILEY FACE"
    how snarky.

    i hope OiNK takes legal action against them for hacking their site.
    • bingobongony, on 10/24/2007, -21/+6They won't. Because they can't. Learn some law before acting like you have ANY idea what you are talking baout.
      • XxN3RDC0R3xX, on 10/24/2007, -3/+9Chill out dude.. way to be a dick
        • Zzone, on 10/24/2007, -7/+4chill out diggers, way to be ignorant.
        • vat0r, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5Zzone is cool enough to not be a "digger" yet here he is posting comments on digg....mmmmkkkay
      • jtmeyer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2actually, they can. i do know some law. some.
    • epicstruggle, on 10/24/2007, -5/+3I wonder what they will say their site was up to in court.
      • jtmeyer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1even if you commit a crime, you'll still be protected by the law.
    • actorboy, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5Double or nothing comment system.
    • actorboy, on 10/24/2007, -3/+6

      "Your honor, do you think you could knock a few grand off my fine or a few years off my sentence? They hacked my page."
      • jtmeyer, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3that's not exactly how a lawsuit works.
  • merdiesel, on 10/25/2007, -8/+10A part of me died today.
  • refugeechris, on 10/25/2007, -6/+63Damn police state holding hands with corporate entities again.
    • r3bol, on 10/25/2007, -1/+13This trend is getting very worrying. So if you have a lot of money and want to change/break laws people have put in place - you just do it with the help of the police (which makes it legal:| ). This should be petitioned so that the top key players are brought to the peoples justice and imprisoned.
  • blurrie, on 10/24/2007, -8/+6they'll be back.
    ***** em.
    they can't stop us.
    • MrSkoTSir, on 10/25/2007, -5/+4seriously, 2 weeks or so and it will be back up as oink.de or oink.be or something
  • jron, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4sounds like Interpol was involved in the bust: http://www.forbes.com/markets/commodities/2007/10/ ...
  • Alex2, on 10/25/2007, -3/+97Because artists are starving.

    Have you seen Iggy Pop? You can see his ribs!
    Seen Kid Rock? The guy is a stick!
    Fats Domino? NO LONGER FAT!

    You downloaders are killing artists!
    • TripcodeMel, on 10/24/2007, -6/+2These days, the Fat Boys are just the Could Stand to Lose Some Weight Boys.

      9.99 FOR ALL YOU CAN EAT (Adjusted for inflation)
    • philz, on 10/24/2007, -1/+9What about Fat Boy Slim? Is he fat? slim? both?
    • graemee, on 10/24/2007, -1/+16So that's why Britney's a bad mother.
      Damn Downloaders.
      • yergi, on 10/24/2007, -0/+18How dare you insinuate that Britney is an 'artist' in the slight.
    • isaactwito, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1They're not starving, they're on meth.
  • gldfshnpcklejar, on 10/25/2007, -5/+46I want to know this too, it seems a bit crazy to allow a company to take control of someone else's site. Guess that's Britain for you. Police state. I've never used oink but I find this "We're above the law because we think you're breaking the law"-attitude bull *****.
    • Zzone, on 10/24/2007, -6/+2because we think you're breaking the law attitude bull *****??
      Cause people use this site to download ***** legally, right?
      • jtmeyer, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3doesn't matter what it's used for.

        it doesn't put the record labels above the law.
        • Zzone, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2It doesn't put you above the law either.
          • jtmeyer, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1well the big difference is we're not working with law agencies to try to "crack down" on them...
      • nexah3, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2I know my friend's band uploaded his own album there so that more people could hear them.
  • bingobongony, on 10/25/2007, -25/+4At some point you idiots are going to have to relaize that your grasp of hte law is WRONG.
    • madroneDorf, on 10/24/2007, -7/+2you mean we actually have to follow the law even if we disagree with it?

      DAMN IT
    • MisteR2, on 10/24/2007, -3/+7Ok then...Tell us what to do when the "law" is bought and paid for by monied interests and flies in the face of the original idea of copyright(at least in the states, with respect to advancement of the arts and human knowledge).
      • actorboy, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6There are obviously a lot of people who think like you. Why not start your own lobby group? Everybody seems eager to pony up a few for Jammie Thomas or a magical Pirate Island. Why not pool your resources resources instead of throwing it away on already-lost cases or pipe dreams?
        • Waiting2awake, on 10/24/2007, -2/+5Because that thought lasts for about 1 minute before you realize regardless of the numbers of the little people - they still only have little money to donate. The RIAA would drwarf anything the masses can put together, and

          even if there was a ground swell of support for this - the powers that be would only claim that the lobby is only an internet thing, or the system is being gamed, or some of the other silliness we see with ground-up campaigns...

          The best way to defend an unjust law - is just ignore it. Don't obey it, act as if it, and those that would enforce it, simply have no authority over you.
          • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3"The best way to defend an unjust law - is just ignore it. Don't obey it, act as if it, and those that would enforce it, simply have no authority over you."

            This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you don't like a law, try to change it. Start a grass roots effort, find a congressman that supports your position. Start a phone in campaign to congressman or senators, don't just break.

            Plus, there is nothing unjust about letting people protect their IP.
            I wouldn't expect anything different from you though Waiting ... you always seem to side with the immoral people.
      • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Copyright laws in the US come from the constitution, not from money. Look at the original notion of copyright in the constitution (which you incorrectly paraphrase) states that congress has the power to:
        "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (article 1, section 8). It is very clear that an author (in this case a song writer who sold his write to a producer) should have "exclusive rights," meaning they control how it is sold or distributed.

        • MisteR2, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1My apologies, I should have been a bit clearer with my beef with the current state of copyright. How is the current term for things distributed widely ( life of author + 70 years after their death ) a reasonable limit? One of the bought and paid for laws I'm speaking of is the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act, called the Mickey Mouse Law, because it was put into place relatively close to the copyright term end for Mickey Mouse.
        • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1@misteR2: I'm not saying you are wrong about the life of a copyright, but what bearing does that have on the OiNK issue?
      • bangerznmash, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1like your grasp of spelling?
    • jtmeyer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4at some point, idiots like you are going to have to realize the the LAW is WRONG.
  • Damien79, on 10/24/2007, -8/+7Lars Ulrich strikes again!
  • DTCNT, on 10/24/2007, -9/+14That is, because you are living in a police state, where the rule of law is with those who have the guns, not the people. Welcome to 1984.
    • cgomez, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5The police in Britain don't have guns.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Need I remind you that the people do indeed have guns?
  • TiKoZ, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7because they can!
  • tomis, on 10/24/2007, -1/+13My first guess would be it's because the government has more/bigger guns than you do. Not that stealing entertaining media is worth fighting to the death over, but you're not likely to get very much resistance from an unarmed citizen surrounded by cops. Because if they do, it's likely they'll end up dead.

    Government and religion, the original terrorist organizations.
    • IADTatami, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Nothing was stolen. It's all still there, either selling like hotcakes or mouldering in a warehouse somewhere.

      Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.
      • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Steal: "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal)
        Interesting, there is nothing in the definition suggesting that it needs to deprive the owner .
        • wshs, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Ooh! I can play this game too.
          Take: to remove; to bring about a change in the state or condition of; to seize or capture
        • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2@wshs
          I am stating that copyright infringement can be considered stealing, not that every definition equates stealing. If you go to dictionary.com, the first definition of take is:
          to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action ... that does not suggest depriving.

          see IADT said nothing was stolen ... I showed a definition of stealing (the first one, mind you) that shows that the word "stealing" can be defined in that manner. Showing an alternate definition just shows a different way it can be used, it doesn't show that you can't use it in other ways. It's not a hard concept.
          • wshs, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Ask a typical person what stealing is. Then ask a typical person if it's stealing if you lend your tape of last week's Grey's Anatomy to a friend. That is copyright infringement. You'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to say it's stealing.
          • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1@wshs
            your typical person would say that taking something that doesn't belong to you against the interests of the owners is stealing.
            There are degrees of copyright infringement and some copyright infringement is not stealing and some stealing (most) is not copyright infringement.
          • RonBurgundy76, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2A troll that plays with semantics is still just a troll.
          • MetIncome, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2You're right, PA isn't playing semantics though
          • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2@RonBurgundy
            So when you can't win an argument you move towards name calling?
            and you say I'm the troll
  • thevelvetsun, on 10/25/2007, -3/+19This is intellectual terrorism. They put up that message on Oink to scare people. In reality, with over 250,000 members, it's unlikely they will go after any users, and if they do, it will be a very small number, just to set an example. They assume everyone is guilty, and spread propaganda in the media to try to make people agree with them. But downloading will never go away. A huuuuuge portion of internet users do it. Closing down one site will hurt the music industry's reputation far more than it will hurt any user.
  • drakethegreat, on 10/24/2007, -6/+6Its obvious that the UK and Dutch police as well as the IFPI have never heard of the age old adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right." You would think that by this point in time everyone the world over would of heard this but apparently the people with power and money don't see it that way, who would of thought.
  • thailand1972, on 10/24/2007, -10/+10Since this thread will undoubtably be full of the same types of comments, let me play Devil's Advocate (feel free to answer one, or all questions):-

    1. Would people here complain if a paedophile website was taken offline by the police? What if a website links to a number of paedophile images not stored on the actual server, but hotlinked, or gives links to torrents of paedophile videos?

    2. What if a highstreet shop was giving information about how to purchase goods without paying for them? The police aren't allowed to raid it?

    • darienphoenix, on 10/24/2007, -4/+81. No, because no one likes pedophiles, whereas everyone likes music.

      2. It's not a crime if it happens on the internet from the comfort of a padded swivel chair.
      • thailand1972, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2"No, because no one likes pedophiles, whereas everyone likes music."

        So it's just a question of what people like to do? People like films and would no doubt like to watch them for free, so cinemas should just allow people the option not to pay? Your argument isn't compelling.

        "It's not a crime if it happens on the internet from the comfort of a padded swivel chair."
        - so it's not a crime for a paedophile to upload images of child buggery for other paedophiles?
        • adam2z, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3it is a question of what the majority want to do. eventually. right now the law is at odds with that.
      • Zzone, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2I like food but I certainly can't get food for free.
        • Monk22, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2you could grow some, much like you could make your own music.
        • jtmeyer, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2you certainly could recognize the difference between physical goods and digital files.
      • bckn, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Your comparison is broken. We would be fine if OiNK was taken down by the dutch police with something that said 'This site has been removed as part of an ongoing investigation'. In your comparison it would be like a children's rights activist group taking it down and putting 'We're coming for you, perverts' in the placeholder.

        It makes it seem as though the IFPI and BPI are running the investigation, and they have a clear bias in the matter. In most 'justice' systems, there's something wrong with that.
    • ariez84, on 10/24/2007, -4/+61. Immoral, but go after the source, not the the website that hotlinked.
      2. Information should always be free, as in freedom. What you do with the information is when consequences comes.
      • Zzone, on 10/24/2007, -3/+3
        Music isn't information, it is intellectual property.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Digital copies of music ARE information. As in 1's and 0's. Just because they happen to tell your mp3 player to make pretty sounds doesn't change this fact.
          • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2so all information should be free??
            Then College should be free, since all you are getting is a degree. They should outlaw selling mp3's because according to you it's information and it should be free. Movie theatres should be free. Book stores should only be allowed to charge the cost of the paper, ink and binding because the information must be free. Newspapers should be cheaper since paper is real cheap. No pay sites on the INternet too, they should outlaw it.
            Screw the market economy and free will because all information should be free.

            /sarcasm
        • MetIncome, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0How is it not intellectual property?
    • zeitgueist, on 10/25/2007, -2/+111. If no images were stored, just links, then depending on local laws, it is likely that the website should not be taken offline.

      2. No. A website can tell me how to kill a man, but they're not responsible if I do it.
      • tshawkins, on 10/25/2007, -3/+5RE 2) That's not true, there are a number of laws in UK that counter "incitement" activities.
        • brainbox, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6You're conflating "telling someone HOW to kill a man" with "telling someone TO kill a man".

          My suggestion to the former would be "straight through that soft spot on the lower-back of the head, with a really long pointy spike". My suggestion for the latter would be "don't, he's not worth the mess on your shoes".
      • RevEng, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Agreed with tshawkins. In my computer security classes, we learn how to hack into computers. Does that mean that the university should be responsible shutdown if I then go and hack computers? No. They are providing information, for good or bad. It's the act of committing the crime that can be prosecuted.
    • cmdrNacho, on 10/25/2007, -1/+41. there are varying levels of crime.. whats moral and immoral is judged by society. its not as black and white as you make it out to be -- refer to ancient greece, and tell me if stmt 1 is that bad
      2. police will do what they want. Look at the war on drugs, is it working ? take 1 down 100 more will take its place.
      • thailand1972, on 10/24/2007, -2/+21. You're applying moral relativism here. To YOU, sharing information about how to download media without paying for it is OK - but the law is objective as it applies to all people. If the website is breaking a law in the UK, the police have to act. To not act would be a dereliction of their duties even if individual officers felt it was a ridiculous move.

        2. The war on drugs is a bit of a non sequitur. I'm talking about the police acting on information (whether it works or not). Again, it's the police acting objectively based on UK law.
    • dbr_onix, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3Well, the creation of paedphilia is damaging to children, I don't really see the connection between it and making a copy of a CD.. The reason the police arrest such people is to stop the creation of child-pornography, rather than the distribution of it. Since it's fairly small group of people, arresting the people distributing it nearly always catch the people making the images in the first place...

      And, "purchase goods without paying for them" is a little contradictory.. I assume you are refering to theft?
      Both those things equate to other physical crimes, they are not the same as piracy. Hacking a website isn't the same as breaking into that same shop, is it?
      • thailand1972, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1"the creation of paedphilia is damaging to children, I don't really see the connection between it and making a copy of a CD."

        The connection could be that both are illegal (certainly the former is) and the police act on suspicion of illegal activities (whether they turn out to be illegal or not).

        "Both those things equate to other physical crimes, they are not the same as piracy. " So as long as it's not a tangible, physical item, you can't steal it? You can't steal information? (therefore, I think you're saying you can't even sell information). A lot of online businesses are involved in selling non-tangible items (digital downloads).

        "And, "purchase goods without paying for them" is a little contradictory" - yes, meant to say "obtain", not "purchase"
    • brickbat, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5your comparison is *****. What most of the people appear to be complaining about is that ifpi and bpi are NOT the police force. What gives them the right to basically hijack a site and threaten its users even before there has been a court case - or for that matter even after the court case. The only people that should have a right to post something on that website are the owners or the police. So for your comparison to make any sense there would have to be 2 rival pedophile gangs and...like I said, *****.
      • thailand1972, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0"What most of the people appear to be complaining about is that ifpi and bpi are NOT the police force"

        Did you actually read the message on the website? (oink.cd):-

        "This site has been closed as a result of a criminal investigation by IFPI, BPI,
        Cleveland Police and the Fiscal Investigation Unit of the Dutch Police (FIOD ECD) into
        suspected illegal music distribution."

        See the bit where it says "Cleveland Police" (this would be the local police in Middlesborough) and Dutch Police?
        • Nayamina, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1See the part where the logos of the 2 groups that should not have the right to hijack the domain that has been paid for? Shutting down a site is one thing. Taking their paid domain and posting their own messages is something completely different and is what most people are upset about.
      • ktetch, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2certainly, so why are the only logos the IFPI and BPI?

        Also, since when has a member of the public, or a non law enforcement group ever had the authority, generally, to participate in a criminal investigation? If I burgle your house, are you invovled in investigating a burgler? no, because as an alleged victim, you already have a conflict of interest.

        The IFPI and BPI do not have the authorisation to conduct any sort of criminal investigation, thats the police's job. They can make complaints, but anything else is against the law, just as me beating up street robbers would be.
    • mclewell, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11. Pedophiles and any related material is very wrong. I would not complain if a website containing that material is taken down because that is illegal. One cannot possess or distribute any child pornography. Storing an image I believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) is considered ownership and you would a be distributing.
      2. No. Police cannot raid anything unless a court order is issued. This means that a judge would have to review the situation and would not give the order. Also it is not illegal to tell, only to do; as zeitgueis pointed out. Also I understand what you mean in this question, but there a perfectly legal ways of acquiring "purchased goods" for free, such as promotional items or other marketing deals, etc.
  • Frostman3D, on 10/25/2007, -0/+20I think it is pretty questionable that the law enforcement would allow a private organization access to a seized domain.
  • iamdaiyuan, on 10/24/2007, -3/+0good,!
  • captainloogie, on 10/24/2007, -1/+11i quite like this blog post from the artist DJ/Rupture. a very clear and straightforward appraisal of the problems of this blank demonisation:

    http://www.negrophonic.com/2007/defending-the-pig- ...
  • MrSkoTSir, on 10/24/2007, -0/+22They may have a case for shutting the site down, but letting the IFPI mess with the domain isn't kosher. What did they hope to accomplish anyway with the stupid message they put up on the OiNK domain.

    As a musician I don't approve of stealing music, but maybe there needs to be a little bit of restructuring in the way music is sold. For example, the new Radiohead cd is being freely distributed, but they're still gonna sell the cd in stores http://web.nme.com/news/radiohead/32001 for fan's who think its worth paying for. maybe the era of record companies making millions off artists is just... over/ending. cause i really don't think shutting one site down will have any noteworthy effect on people stealing/sharing music.
  • hakz, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1I like the way he crossed out "piracy" at the end and replaced it with "file-sharing"
  • HalFTW, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7It looks like the guy still has control over the domain: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=oink.cd& ... All he needs to do is point the domain at a new server. Perhaps accidentally send a recent site backup to TPB. :o
  • nnnr, on 10/25/2007, -0/+12TPB should launch an OinK clone at the domain they stole www.ifpi.com
  • floatingpoints, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Because no one held up a gun to them and said, "No, I don't think so."
  • postal21, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2lol phonographs. wouldnt it be funny if the RIAA was the PRIAA?
  • MrViklund, on 10/25/2007, -12/+2I have the answer right here so you can stop wonder...
    BECAUSE THEY SPREAD COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL!
    • adam2z, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3i have bad grammar so you can start scorn me
  • Damian91, on 10/24/2007, -5/+3How about we just throw all the laws out and let you guys do whatever the hell you want.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Sounds good.
      • Damian91, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1And don't come crying to the cops when everyone is going crazy...
  • missingnoh4x, on 10/25/2007, -0/+20You hadn't heard? The IFPI, BPI, RIAA, and MPAA now collectively compose the fourth branch of the U.S. government, with no checks on their power at all.
    • ktetch, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4The BPI is the british version of the RIAA, and both are members of the IFPI
    • TheLastFreeMan, on 10/24/2007, -0/+15th.. After the Office of Dick Cheney.
  • Alstroph, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5OiNK was an amazing community. I'm glad I at least had a chance to take part in it... although I was far from done. Thanks for helping me discover lesser known artists, OiNK.
  • effedup, on 10/24/2007, -4/+2never used oink.
  • postalblowfish7, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3i smell a legal precedent about to be set...
  • Rotzooi, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Equilibrium, anyone?

    We're more and more forced into behavior that suits the big boys that run this world.

  • rimmel, on 10/26/2007, -11/+3Because they steal music, idiot. Copyrighted under the law. Read a book. BURIED.
    • floatingpoints, on 10/24/2007, -4/+2Nope, they don't steal anything any more than you just stole digg's front page by downloading it.

      BURIED.
      • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2no one stole diggs front page because digg wants you to take it ... nice try though
      • MetIncome, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1They enabled you to steal music, don't play dumb
        • RevEng, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Still not stealing. Copyright infringement != theft. Thanks for playing.
    • diatonic1, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Not to mention, he has not been convicted of any crime yet. Why should they be able to vandalize OiNK without due process?

      BURIED
  • JoelBakan01, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4This is what happens when the elite run the world instead of the people; a rich minority rules. Democracy is dead.
    • RabidAngel, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Indeed, sir. Indeed.
    • catalysis, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1First they came for our mp3s, and I did not speak out

      Then they came for our iPods, and I did not speak out

      Then they came for my HDTV, and there was nobody left to speak for me
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry, but democracy is something much bigger than the being able to download music freely from whoever and where ever you want..
      • bckn, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Democracy is having a government responsible to the people, i.e., companies shouldn't be able to use police forces like their personal guard dogs.
  • NF102307, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1shirts: http://www.cafepress.com/neverforgetoink
  • mclewell, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2someone should hijack OiNK again, then give it back to the owner...
  • FredFredrickson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I don't know why OiNK was shut down by the authorities... I'm still trying my hardest to figure out why Napster was shut down by the authorities.
  • ubergeek09, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0They have government support, therefore they can do what they want. Right or wrong..
  • blawar, on 10/25/2007, -1/+0A great alternative is null3d.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.