OiNK Ringleader: I Object To Your Characterization Of Me As The Creator And Facilitator Of A Large Piracy Operation

Oct 25th, 2007 // 12 Comments

notacrook.jpgWell, the head OiNKer has finally spoken to the press, and though his defense of OiNK is hardly novel in the annals of illegal downloading, it’s still funny!

“As far as I am aware no-one in Britain has ever been taken to court for running a website like mine. My site is no different to something like Google.

“If Google directed someone to a site they can illegally download music they are doing the same as what I have been accused of. I am not making any Oink users break the law. People don’t pay to use the site.”

You sure? ‘Cause I bet what a lot of smart people–like the lawyers we talked to earlier in the week and prosecutors and judges and blog readers–really hear when they hear that is:

“If Google directedcreated a Google-approved space in which someone to a site theycan illegally download music they are doing the same as what I have been accused of. I am not making any Oink users break the law, I am merely helping to facilitate their breaking of the law, which is in itself a crime, as well as using their donation money to maintain the equipment used to help them break the law, and so ditto to my last comment. People don’t pay to use the site, but even discounting the donations, they are recieving goods/services (new copyrighted material) in exchange for pirating copyrighted material (comitting a criminal act).”

Yeah, that’s better. Even if it sounds more like copping a plea than a defense. And sounds a lot like what we hear every time someone gets busted for piracy. (And yeah, yeah, how dare we defame the beloved clown prince of OiNK with these slanderous mischaracterizations.)

OiNK Founder: We’re Just Like Google [Daily Telegraph]

  1. Halfwit

    Thank you for being you, Jess. It would be a lot easier for to support the “Defective by Design” or “Fight the power through piracy” movements if the major proponents weren’t such assclowns. Not saying that the “DbD” guys are assclowns, but it’s like the marijuana legalization movement — a handful of measured, intelligent advocates surrounded by dumbasses who just want to get ripped and play “Guitar Hero”.

    Here’s a tip — “Boycott” means “do without”. It doesn’t mean “download everything you can get your hands on without paying for it, then acting like you’re pursuing the morally superior path”. And if/when you get caught, don’t try rationalize your actions — take the bullet and be a martyr, like G_d intended it.

  2. King of Pants

    Someday, someone might come up with an intellectually coherent argument to defend file sharing.

    Until then, why not just own it? Why not just say, “Yeah, I like free music” and call it a day? Why the tortured dance?

  3. Dick Laurent is dead.

    In all seriousness though (read: none) what would you have him say? ‘Yeah, I facilitated illegal file-sharing over the internet…like PirateBay, TorrentBox, IndieTorrents, etc…and you got me, sorry.’ There is NO high road here; now can we get back to snarking about Kanye and trying to figure out which cast member of HSM is going to be the new Lohan?

  4. King of Pants

    @Dick Laurent is dead.: Pleading out is always an option. ;)

  5. Anonymous

    The whole anti-OiNK bias is quite funny. Look in the mirror for the assclown, for the assclown is thee. Hipsters ripping other hipsters is a sad, sad sight.

  6. JobCain

    this is more tangentially related (and may have been mentioned in a previous thread) but tvlinks (dot) co (dot) uk got shut down over the weekend too.

    I haven’t heard much as to why it was shut down / who did the shutting and it makes me think that these could just be the initial dominos to fall.

    tvlinks was an aggregator that didn’t host any of the videos it linked to, which makes it sound a lot like the hype machine to me. so what’s to stop the HM from being shut down in the wake of the oink/tvlinks shutdowns and the recent RIAA legal victory? and then couldn’t each of the bloggers who are linked by the HM be sued for damages as well? and if there is legal ground for the record labels to go after HM, why hasn’t it been shut down yet? It seems like a much easier target than OiNK. maybe it has to do with the labels’ own (half-assedly covert) involvement with the leaking of records in the first place and their reliance on word-of-blog buzz to generate interest in their product.

    So was the industry’s biggest problem with OiNK that it was a giant filesharing house or that it wasn’t editorial and quotable?

  7. Dick Laurent is dead.

    Anyone also noticed that certain torrent sites are now blocking US IP’s due to all the hubbub?

  8. mullingitover

    This post is so right! I mean, it’s not like you can find torrents with google. Searching for ‘radiohead .torrent’ doesn’t turn up anything when I search with google, and there aren’t any ads on the nonexistent results page for google to make any revenue from.

    I mean, if that were true then Google would be facilitating and profiting from copyright infringement. What a laff!

    Nice try, thieves!

  9. Anonymous


    You’re “a laff”.

    And I don’t think you know much about searching google, ya n00b.


    correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe that a majority of the hits returned by the above search contain links to torrents.

  10. Anonymous

    @mullingitover: search for “radiohead filetype:torrent”

  11. Vitamin B12

    I think Mullingitover might have been being maybe just ever-so-slightly facetious. Just a thought. A mull if you will.
    I have nothing further to ad to file-sharing debate except for the facts that 1) it’s really the most convenient and efficient method for delivering digital music that I can think of, and 2) I like free music. There. If there was a subscription model for something like this, I would pay if I could afford. But for various reasons that don’t need to be stated here, that won’t happen.

  12. biddlebubbly

    Not too hard to find torrents with google. The “filetype:” modifier works wonders.


    And legally, he does have standing ground. It’s entirely true that his server never hosted any copyrighted materials nor did they ever pass through his server. The .torrent files themselves merely have information for connecting to the users who are uploading the content. If someone posts kiddie porn on digg, should digg be held liable for facilitating people finding it? I dunno really.

    I’m not going to argue over whether you should buy CDs or whatever boring moral business, just letting you know how torrents work.

Leave A Comment