The Death of Oink

[mos dan]

what i would like to know, is why did no-one tell me about this site when it was still going?

 

[UFO over easy]

http://torrentfreak.com/why_are_the_ifpi_and_bpi_allowed_071024/

http://torrentfreak.com/oink-domains-pirate-bay-dns-071027/


so oink.cd now points to a waffle recipe site hosted by The Pirate Bay

"Yesterday The Pirate Bay announced that it will launch an OiNK replacement named BOiNK. However, this has nothing to do with OiNK.cd and OiNK.me.uk. These domains will be used for something totally different and there are no plans to relaunch OiNK."


And on the legal side of things -

"The ‘Presumption of Innocence’, better known as “innocent until proven guilty” is a cornerstone of law both in the Netherlands and UK. Surely, if anyone should have put a temporary website under the Oink domain, then it should have been the Cleveland police, or the Dutch police, not the record label owners union.

This violation of what should be standard practices brings into question the ethics and procedures of the forces involved. Cleveland police have yet to respond to inquiries, however.

Of further interest is the apparent investigation on the Dutch side by the Investigation Service of the Tax and Customs Administration (or FIOD-ECD for short). This would appear to be in relation to the claimed monies that were paid by users for access to the site, which are known to us here at TorrentFreak as “voluntary donations”, but then we do our homework. The question does come to be how these criminal investigation groups manage to execute these raids, without first having done any investigation; undoubtedly heads will roll."

 

[nomos]

some good perspective from mike paradinas posted over at the dubstep forum:

As a label owner i just wanted to make a few points.

There are over 80 artists on planet mu and being friends with over 50% of them I happen to know that most of them DO pay for their software.

It is also very disheartening knowing telling an artist how little they've sold when u know how much of their life and soul they've put into their music... "well u know that thousands more people have enjoyed it for free" is very little comfort. But at least it spreads the sound.

Everyone downloads and there's no getting away from it. It doesn't matter whether it's mp3/flac/wav... via torrent or p2p, it's always there now. It will always be there.

The main point about free music is it is very hard to compete with. There is no way of undercutting free unless you provide for free yourself. (That may have to be an option in the future). Planet Mu has been going since 95 so i know how much sales have falln in electronic music. In 93-98 albums were selling 20-90 thousand (yes, including mine). When I started Planet Mu independently in '98 we were selling 6-10 thousand of an album. in 2 years that quickly fell to about 1000. Partly to do with fashion. It's been a lot of hard work to build back up from that point. Many albums we release struggle to sell 250-300 now (mainly electronic "idm" sorta stuff). These are available all over torrent sites and there are hundreds of copies available when u log-in on slsk.

But an artist like Vex'd would have sold 30-50 thou easily in the 90s now struggles to sell around 4 thousand

Regarding the spread of the sound, You can't ignore how influential the internet has been. But we did used to have things called import record shops and DJs - how do u think detroit techno and chicago house spread over here from 86+? before the internet.

Rant from an old man, sorry...

this and jace clayton's responses are about the most sober and realistic that i've seen on the issue. it's certainly frustrating to see music that has been offered at a good price, high bitrates, and with no DRM (e.g. from bleep) ending up on file sharing sites for free. the argument used to be that people shared vinyl rips because other formats weren't available. at the same time, as others have said, bittorrent is unmatched when it comes to letting people find new things that many will often seek out and pay for.

thinking this through, it sure would be good to see:

a) legal torrent sites based on ratio + subscriptions that allow for varying levels of monthly downloads, alongside...

b) grey market torrent trackers of oink's caliber that maintained a strict policy of tracking only out-of-print releases, and with a built in, non-punitive take down mechanism for copyright holders.

ideally, in some sort of fantasy land of goodwill and reason, the two could be combined, and perhaps the owners of out-of-print copyrighted materials could be offered a route to earning some revenue from legal, subscription based sites.

 

[slackk]

I'm just tired of people trying to pretend that p2p has done anything but fuck up music completely. The kind of artist that could previously try and make a living has no chance these days unless we're talking constant touring and maybe a bit of publishing money if something gets licensed. Unless we're careful a lot of things will be in a really bad place soon.

I won't deny that major labels are cunts, all that, but an independent or "niche" artist is hardly a viable prospect these days. In a lot of cases they may as well just give the music away or pull an honour thing like Radiohead did, Saul Williams is trying. All the same, though, there are a lot of people tied into contracts to whom p2p is destroying their livelihoods. Can't deny that.

 

[UFO over easy]

I won't deny that major labels are cunts, all that, but an independent or "niche" artist is hardly a viable prospect these days.

well firstly, why are there so many of them then? there's more music being made (and released) than there ever has been, so it seems as though people care more about music than they do their financial prospects.

and secondly, since when was a 'niche artist' ever a 'viable prospect'? Monetarily I mean, as you're talking about making a living out of this stuff. I was under the impression that the two were incompatible by definition. and again, there are simply more little niches in independant music than there ever have been before - more specialised areas, more tiny little self-sufficient scenes existing independently. when your audience is split, revenue suffers. but so what, right? we're fans of music, not money.

and thirdly - concrete proof of your entire first paragraph or why should any of us pay any attention? 'the kind of artist that could previously try and make a living' out of this stuff is neither here nor there - we're not living in the 70s, things change. And I'm not just talking about the birth of the internet. Besides which, who are the 'kinds of artists' your talking about? Who are they now, and who were they then? How come you feel so comfortable comparing the two when so much has happened not only to music distribution but also to the creative side of things, even over the past 15 years?

Mike Paradinas' post on dubstepforum irritated me for exactly the same reason -

But an artist like Vex'd would have sold 30-50 thou easily in the 90s now struggles to sell around 4 thousand

It's not the 90s anymore, get over it...

 

[slackk]

But an artist like Vex'd would have sold 30-50 thou easily in the 90s now struggles to sell around 4 thousand

This is the exact reason why it's a bad thing. There are a lot of artists who deserve a lot more sales than they're getting. Look at grime, for instance, Trim's mixtapes should be pushing more than they are and without p2p they would do. Undeniable.

As regards to statistics, why try and deny it, just look at the overall downturn in record sales everywhere. Bands aren't selling as much as they used to, fact. Fuck this "this isn't the 70s," what it means is that artists are making less off their art than ever before bar the the few exceptions. How can this be justified?

 

[UFO over easy]

This is the exact reason why it's a bad thing. There are a lot of artists who deserve a lot more sales than they're getting.

What does this even mean!? Why do they deserve more? Because you like their music? Because you think it would be nice if bands you liked sold hundreds of thousands?

Prove to me that they're losing money because of p2p, and not because of the literally thousands of other ever changing variables involved in the music industry. Prove that Trim is losing out because of p2p, rather than because of anything else. Prove that Trim somehow deserves to be a huge name, and that it's not totally subjective. In fact, I'll give you an easy one - prove that record sales are going down.

All you can prove about file sharing is that it exposes tons of people to music they wouldn't otherwise have heard. Whether or not they buy it is down to the individual, but there is no statistical evidence to suggest that p2p is a bad thing, so - AIR.

 

[slackk]

What does this even mean!? Why do they deserve more? Because you like their music? Because you think it would be nice if bands you liked sold hundreds of thousands?

No, it's a statement referencing the fact that people are more likely not to buy an album if they receive it for free. That's a fact, never mind whatever point you're trying to raise here.

Statistics and links are everywhere, literally. I'm not even searching for links, it's a known fact that record sales are dropping at ridiculous rates.
On a local scale, three independent music shops in my area have shut down in the last 18 months. Probe, which has been open 20+ years, and champions a lot of great music that isn't necessarily sold anywhere else in the north-west, is in a relatively perilous situation. This is one of many, I am seeing the effects on my doorstep for fuck's sake. Without the internet these shops would still be open.
Yes, it opens avenues for acts but it also means that they're also selling very little because it's so easy to obtain their music on the net. Especially with sites like Oink (which I was a member of) and their extensive catalogues.

I don't know how you can try and deny this really.

 

[muser]

at least artists are getting ripped off by people that truely appreciate their music as opposed to records company big wigs like it infamously has been in the past! There is also a notable trend of increase in revenue from music = less creativity, drop in quality of music, you see alot less of peoples later work being nothing compared to their earlier work in the culture we live in now imo, especially in electronic music its often more the reverse.

 

[shudder]

Look at grime, for instance, Trim's mixtapes should be pushing more than they are and without p2p they would do. Undeniable.

It still seems slightly ridiculous that in this digital age of p2p etc., I can't fucking pay to download Trim's mixtapes. You'd think an independent scene like grime would be the quickest to wise up to something like this.

 

[msoes]

I fail to see how artists not being able to make a living off their music is fucking music up completely.

Especially given that the cost of recording an album is practically zero.

People will continue to make music even though it doesnt put food on the plate. Because they love it.

 

[mms]

I fail to see how artists not being able to make a living off their music is fucking music up completely.

Especially given that the cost of recording an album is practically zero.

People will continue to make music even though it doesnt put food on the plate. Because they love it.

you've got a poor grasp of economics.

 

[Dusty]

Especially given that the cost of recording an album is practically zero

You have to be joking... its only zero if you are using stolen software, and rely entirely upon your laptop and no other hardware, which you half-inched from PC world.

 

[UFO over easy]

No, it's a statement referencing the fact that people are more likely not to buy an album if they receive it for free. That's a fact, never mind whatever point you're trying to raise here.

Even if they'd not have heard it without it? There's more going on here than just people 'stealing', there's a lot of subtle changes going on. That's a fact too.

Statistics and links are everywhere, literally. I'm not even searching for links, it's a known fact that record sales are dropping at ridiculous rates.

The last few things I read about it were that 2004 was the best year for album sales ever, that digital downloads were boosting single sales, and that 7" sales were through the roof thanks to indie kids I also read an interesting article recently arguing that negative sales trends can be put down to the fact that the internet has made people more aware of independent artists - sales are being split between more and more artists all the time, no naturally top sellers won't sell as much as in the past.

Without the internet these shops would still be open.

Possibly, but I'd say it has far more to do with internet shops/ebay/discogs than it does to do with filesharing. Either way, I can't prove it, and you can't either without conducting an absolutely enormous study.

 

[Chef Napalm]

Statistics and links are everywhere, literally. I'm not even searching for links, it's a known fact that record sales are dropping at ridiculous rates.

The thing to keep in mind there is that the sales figures you are referring to have been provided by major label associations who are trying to use them as leverage to force governments into action.

On a local scale, three independent music shops in my area have shut down in the last 18 months. Probe, which has been open 20+ years, and champions a lot of great music that isn't necessarily sold anywhere else in the north-west, is in a relatively perilous situation. This is one of many, I am seeing the effects on my doorstep for fuck's sake. Without the internet these shops would still be open.

Well, you've hit the nail on the head there. Of course, one can't lay the blame entirely at the feet of p2p. Massive internet warehouses like Amazon and Juno have also been instrumental in the downturn at the highstreet level. Paying $15 shipping included from Juno today or $20 from your local shop IF it ever comes in; there's no contest there really.

I don't know how you can try and deny this really.

There's no denying that the webstore is slowly but surely killing one's favourite backstreet vinyl emporium. P2P could potentially be having an equal or greater effect. Nobody really knows though, since the only economic study completed on the subject (that's the one by those Harvard School of Business profs that stated p2p has little to no effect on record sales) has been roundly criticized by every record company on the planet for have the gall to negate their arguments.

I must say, as an admitted member of OiNK you must be having an awful time keeping your balance on that soapbox without a leg to stand on.

 

[UFO over easy]

since the only economic study completed on the subject (that's the one by those Harvard School of Business profs that stated p2p has little to no effect on record sales)

that's almost cruel

 

[slackk]

I must say, as an admitted member of OiNK you must be having an awful time keeping your balance on that soapbox without a leg to stand on.

Not really, I didn't use it much; as I said earlier on I've found much more exciting stuff on rapidshare blogs and the like. Probably downloaded about 2gb from Oink, bought half of it in the end maybe slightly less.

Also, the study you've quoted is from 2004. The situation was very different then, I know it's a hell of a lot easier to find music online now than it was then from personal experience. I also know a lot more people downloading all their music and not paying for anything now which wasn't the case in 2004.

The point about the record stores could well be true, internet buying can't be helping the situation, but speak to independent artists and people you know who make music- they don't sell as music as they used to and everyone's shit is constantly leaking. Just look at album sales figures, they don't lie. Why else are CDs becoming cheaper and cheaper if their sales are unaffected?

Even if they'd not have heard it without it? There's more going on here than just people 'stealing', there's a lot of subtle changes going on. That's a fact too.

That's not the point I'm making though. Yes, some people's horizons are expanded by the fact that a lot of music is available to them that they wouldn't have heard otherwise but there are also a lot of people who would previously have bought albums and no longer will because they're free. Probably 3/4 of people I know now take that option and these are people who used to buy a lot of music. If your personal experiences are different then that's why you're taking a different view than me I guess.

 

[UFO over easy]

Also, the study you've quoted is from 2004. The situation was very different then, I know it's a hell of a lot easier to find music online now than it was then from personal experience. I also know a lot more people downloading all their music and not paying for anything now which wasn't the case in 2004.

Yeah it has changed a lot since then - for one thing, back then major labels hadn't even begun to tap into legal downloads, which now amount for a huge percentage of singles sales, and the RIAA hadn't started targeting filesharers. If anything I'd say it was more difficult to download these days, at least for those who weren't lucky enough to have been invited to oink.

Why else are CDs becoming cheaper and cheaper if their sales are unaffected?

wait, you think it's a bad thing CDs are getting cheaper? you think it's a bad thing that pieces of plastic that cost about 4p to manufacture don't cost in excess of £15 anymore? Money 99% of which would never have found its way to the musicians in question anyway?

If your personal experiences are different then that's why you're taking a different view than me I guess.

well if your opinions are all based on personal experience would you kindly stop referring to them as undeniable fact?

 

[slackk]

I can back up my opinions with facts all day if you want.

http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1005348&src=article2_newsltr

This is one link out of hundreds that demonstrate a downturn in income from recorded music.

edit- to answer your questions, no I dont think its bad that CDs cost less than they do. I am simply making the point that if they were still selling as well as they were prices wouldnt need to be cut.

As for it being harder to download I really dont think so. The abundance of rapidshare and like mean that its incredibly easy to download music. You can type the artist and album title followed by rapidshare into google and find albums. Thats how easy it is.
Increasing broadband speeds and the abundance of bittorrent means that a lot of people find it very easy to find music. From the experiences of people around me I can confirm that. If you find it harder you are part of a minority.

 

[UFO over easy]

cool, you got the easy one - now show that it's p2p's fault

Regardless of the cause, the music industry has largely seen declining music sales as a crucible.

Note - regardless of cause.