This isn't like a former prostitute or drug dealer writing a book. This is like a drug dealer or prostitute running a website that makes money telling you where to get drugs and whores.
From this morning but I accept there's a difference. I had just got up so it was kind of a knee-jerk post. Off the top of my head I can't think of a commercial service that makes money in a similar way to this website (directing people to illegal activities), but I think there's probably something you could stretch that definition around.
japan on
0
Options
astrobstrdSo full of mercy...Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
Also, is OiNK profitable? The article used the term "lucrative", but I thought they were funded pretty much exclusively through donations. There are no advertisements and membership is free (though invite only).
Also, is OiNK profitable? The article used the term "lucrative", but I thought they were funded pretty much exclusively through donations. There are no advertisements and membership is free (though invite only).
a common thread has developed in the articles on oink's shutdown wherein people have made up the idea that oink charged for memberships. i'm sure if they did, it would've been pretty lucrative.
Before OiNK, I pretty much exclusively bought used CDs or visited the library for music. Should that be illegal?
I imagine the RIAA (and probably ASCAP) would like it to be illegal, because they’re not getting any royalties out of it.
The RIAA's position on fair use does in fact put both those activities in the illegal category.
Remember, you're not buying music. You're leasing the right to listen to music on the medium you purchased it on and forbidden from ever making a copy.
The fact that fair use is established law doesn't stop them from being huge cunts. Huge cunts who are currently dying a slow death due to their inability to properly respond to the demands of the market. Instead of changing and making more money they've decided to fight the laws of supply and demand in an attempt to stop the inevitable death of their profit model.
geckahn on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
This isn't like a former prostitute or drug dealer writing a book. This is like a drug dealer or prostitute running a website that makes money telling you where to get drugs and whores.
From this morning but I accept there's a difference. I had just got up so it was kind of a knee-jerk post. Off the top of my head I can't think of a commercial service that makes money in a similar way to this website (directing people to illegal activities), but I think there's probably something you could stretch that definition around.
It's more like. . . directing a tourist to an illegal hooker in the city limits of las vegas instead of a legal hooker just outside of the county. . .
Also, is OiNK profitable? The article used the term "lucrative", but I thought they were funded pretty much exclusively through donations. There are no advertisements and membership is free (though invite only).
a common thread has developed in the articles on oink's shutdown wherein people have made up the idea that oink charged for memberships. i'm sure if they did, it would've been pretty lucrative.
Alot of these media pieces on both the bcc and less well known news sources seem to be insisting that oink was some sort of pay for use service, catering for a large network of illegally obtained pre-release materials. While the later is true in a very narrow sense it only accounted for a very minor percentage of the websites usage, alot of the content available on Oink was not to be found in the shops and therefore the service the website provided was not so much about obtaining pre-release material but finding music not available anywhere else.
Edit: Lets just make this clear, oink was an illegal file sharing website and i have no problem with it being taken down. it just seem like this is being distorted by both the media and the authorities.
J_L on
Got A Penny?[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
EvE: Vetitum/Venitum
Also, is OiNK profitable? The article used the term "lucrative", but I thought they were funded pretty much exclusively through donations. There are no advertisements and membership is free (though invite only).
a common thread has developed in the articles on oink's shutdown wherein people have made up the idea that oink charged for memberships. i'm sure if they did, it would've been pretty lucrative.
Alot of these media pieces on both the bcc and less well known news sources seem to be insisting that oink was some sort of pay for use service, catering for a large network of illegally obtained pre-release materials. While the later is true in a very narrow sense it only accounted for a very minor percentage of the websites usage, alot of the content available on Oink was not to be found in the shops and therefore the service the website provided was not so much about obtaining pre-release material but finding music not available anywhere else.
the language kind of tips their hand as to which users they're going to be looking into. they're clearly most concerned with stopping pre-release leaks, and they're going to try and target the release groups that frequent oink. or at least, i'm assuming the news outlets are getting all of the stuff about it being a pay service specializing in pre-release material from the authorities.
Well I have been downloading shows legally from Amazon this tv season (don't want to pay for cable but buying a high quality download for a couple bucks is no skin off my nose). They are usually off by about a day, but the download is pretty good quality and looks nice even on my 42 inch plasma.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I pay for my cable television. I do not have a TiVo or any other dvr. Sometimes I miss an episode of House. I already pay for my cable, why should I have to pay another fee just to watch the episode I missed?
I pay for my cable television. I do not have a TiVo or any other dvr. Sometimes I miss an episode of House. I already pay for my cable, why should I have to pay another fee just to watch the episode I missed?
I pay for my cable television. I do not have a TiVo or any other dvr. Sometimes I miss an episode of House. I already pay for my cable, why should I have to pay another fee just to watch the episode I missed?
Because paying for cable isn't related to Fox?
What I'm trying to say is, I pay for Cable, Fox gives me the shows to watch correct? Now, if I happen to miss that show, why should I be charged again just to watch it?
They apparently didn't arrest the guy for copyright infringment, but under trademark legislation which is a little unusual. The legislation is designed to apply to goods and no-one's ever tried to apply it to a service. I don't know how they're going to argue it though as the wording from the legislation is:
"A person does not commit an offence under this section unless- (a) the goods are goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered, or (b) the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark."
The films/shows themselves would likely be the trademarked "goods."
I think under UK law merely the fact that viewers weren't being charged the full price set by the distributor (Disney, FOX, etc.) at the point-of-sale for materials brought in from outside the EU (US movie theatres) is enough to consitute a trademark violation. That's what screwed Lik-Sang (vs Sony) and Tesco (vs Levi).
It's part of why Britons get such high pricing, with MSRPs somehow going from $100 US to £100. If Sony says a PSP is £250, you aren't allowed to import a PSP from the US where it's priced $250 US, because it violates Sony's right to distribute their trademark.
Even if the website were legit (like Lik-Sang was), they could still be shut down for differing with virtually any facet of Disney/FOX/Sony's chosen distribution plan.
They apparently didn't arrest the guy for copyright infringment, but under trademark legislation which is a little unusual. The legislation is designed to apply to goods and no-one's ever tried to apply it to a service. I don't know how they're going to argue it though as the wording from the legislation is:
"A person does not commit an offence under this section unless- (a) the goods are goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered, or (b) the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark."
The films/shows themselves would likely be the trademarked "goods."
The problem is that he didn't distribute any "goods". Even if he gave away physical copies of the copyrighted work, he still wouldn't be in violation of the trademark legislation unless he put the trade mark on the discs. If he used a company's logo as the image for a link, then I can understand their justification. I'm guessing that's probably where they are coming from as it means they don't have to show that he was distributing anything.
Posts
From this morning but I accept there's a difference. I had just got up so it was kind of a knee-jerk post. Off the top of my head I can't think of a commercial service that makes money in a similar way to this website (directing people to illegal activities), but I think there's probably something you could stretch that definition around.
a common thread has developed in the articles on oink's shutdown wherein people have made up the idea that oink charged for memberships. i'm sure if they did, it would've been pretty lucrative.
The RIAA's position on fair use does in fact put both those activities in the illegal category.
Remember, you're not buying music. You're leasing the right to listen to music on the medium you purchased it on and forbidden from ever making a copy.
The fact that fair use is established law doesn't stop them from being huge cunts. Huge cunts who are currently dying a slow death due to their inability to properly respond to the demands of the market. Instead of changing and making more money they've decided to fight the laws of supply and demand in an attempt to stop the inevitable death of their profit model.
It's more like. . . directing a tourist to an illegal hooker in the city limits of las vegas instead of a legal hooker just outside of the county. . .
I host a podcast about movies.
Alot of these media pieces on both the bcc and less well known news sources seem to be insisting that oink was some sort of pay for use service, catering for a large network of illegally obtained pre-release materials. While the later is true in a very narrow sense it only accounted for a very minor percentage of the websites usage, alot of the content available on Oink was not to be found in the shops and therefore the service the website provided was not so much about obtaining pre-release material but finding music not available anywhere else.
Edit: Lets just make this clear, oink was an illegal file sharing website and i have no problem with it being taken down. it just seem like this is being distorted by both the media and the authorities.
EvE: Vetitum/Venitum
the language kind of tips their hand as to which users they're going to be looking into. they're clearly most concerned with stopping pre-release leaks, and they're going to try and target the release groups that frequent oink. or at least, i'm assuming the news outlets are getting all of the stuff about it being a pay service specializing in pre-release material from the authorities.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because paying for cable isn't related to Fox?
What I'm trying to say is, I pay for Cable, Fox gives me the shows to watch correct? Now, if I happen to miss that show, why should I be charged again just to watch it?
The films/shows themselves would likely be the trademarked "goods."
I think under UK law merely the fact that viewers weren't being charged the full price set by the distributor (Disney, FOX, etc.) at the point-of-sale for materials brought in from outside the EU (US movie theatres) is enough to consitute a trademark violation. That's what screwed Lik-Sang (vs Sony) and Tesco (vs Levi).
It's part of why Britons get such high pricing, with MSRPs somehow going from $100 US to £100. If Sony says a PSP is £250, you aren't allowed to import a PSP from the US where it's priced $250 US, because it violates Sony's right to distribute their trademark.
Even if the website were legit (like Lik-Sang was), they could still be shut down for differing with virtually any facet of Disney/FOX/Sony's chosen distribution plan.
The problem is that he didn't distribute any "goods". Even if he gave away physical copies of the copyrighted work, he still wouldn't be in violation of the trademark legislation unless he put the trade mark on the discs. If he used a company's logo as the image for a link, then I can understand their justification. I'm guessing that's probably where they are coming from as it means they don't have to show that he was distributing anything.
http://www.negrophonic.com/2007/defending-the-pig-oink-croaks/
EvE: Vetitum/Venitum