This Just In: If You Hate On BitTorrent Sites You Are Committing A Hate Crime

Oct 25th, 2007 // 58 Comments

Okay, we give. This will be Idolator’s last OiNK-related post unless some actual news drops. There will be no more “commenting on the commentary.” Seriously. Hell, if I post anything else about it at all, I promise to give each and every one of you a dollar. Because we have officially hit the “Godwin’s Law” portion of our program. Actually it’s way more distasteful and embarrassing than Godwin’s Law.

What scares me the most about all this is the loss of a revolutionary feeling. Why are all these people, most of them young people, on the side of the government? Do you know what the government does? Are you familiar with the 60s?

Before civil rights, were these the same people who were like, “Well it’s the law, so let’s go lynch some peeps.” (Note: yes, lynching was the law in the South. It was the law.)

I mean, seriously, do you have any ability to think for yourselves?

And that’s why we’re officially checking out of this “conversation.” When you have people comparing the theft of albums to the revolutionary politics of the 1960s… well, thank goodness Rosa Parks and the family of Medgar Evers can take some solace in the fact that you’re keeping the struggle going by stealing that Deerhoof record. Forget even falling into the crater-sized holes in the recycled “b-b-but we’re turning people onto new music!” argument, let alone the ongoing fallacy that a vote against OiNK is a vote for the RIAA. How can you honestly, earnestly compare Matthew Perpetua’s thoughts on OiNK to the mindset of a lynch mob* and expect anyone to take you seriously? How can you just not realize how monstrously offensive and misguided it is if nothing else?

Some Obnoxious Title I’m Not Going To Bother Typing Out [This Recording]

* Full disclosure: they took a few shots at us as well, though I’m not sure they think we’re as bad as the KKK.

  1. SabreFanCS

    @sleuthee: i’ve been grappling with the same issue – i don’t know why the discussion doesn’t go in that direction.

    ESPECIALLY with the Radiohead release being what it was – Pay what you want (can)

  2. SAShepherd

    @SabreFanCS: While I agree that the conversation could head in this direction given that technology has outstripped long-held principles regarding music and ownership, the “private property” argument seems to focus on the physical (or digital) object itself.

    It fails to take into account an artistic creator’s right to control how his or her work is disseminated. Radiohead chose to distribute In Rainbows that way. If an artist chooses to – gasp! – demand payment for a sound recording (or concert, or whatever), or to sell a portion of that right to another entity, that should be their right as the creator of that piece of art.

  3. blobby

    Question: Do so many more people download off P2P sites than just internet sites that offer links to sendspace and rapidshare-hosted files?

    I have never used a torrent, but I have used websites like all the time. (Which brings to mind another question: is that traceable? I had always assumed that it would be extremely difficult, but I actually have no idea.)

  4. troybulldogs21

    @sleuthee: Libraries are not a proper analogy.
    1. You do not keep things you borrow from a library, whereas you keep music you download.
    2. Libraries are thought to be a public service, specifically the non-fiction area. No one could reasonably expected to find and purchase all of that information on their own every time they needed to make a justified argument. Music, of the nature downloaded illegally, is not really a public service.
    3. Libraries still pay for things, obviously not per person per use like buying the book/cd in a store, but they own the material legally.
    4. Libraries were around before the current copyright law. Libraries are legal. Face it. File sharing is illegal. I’ve never heard any legitimized argument saying libraries are illegal. The law (a big deal in some places) says file sharing is illegal. There’s no ineffable law that says drugs are an illegal, controlled substance, but you don’t see people saying that when there’s a drug bust (and winning at least). The law defines what you can do and not do without facing punishment. You break it, you face punishment. Simple, no?

  5. troybulldogs21

    I was an active member of OiNK just to clarify

  6. mackro

    Generation Yhine

  7. troybulldogs21

    Writing a review about an album is not remotely illegal, or even associative with illegal downloading of an album.

    Take the free download trial to see if you want to buy the music idea; You have an idea of the music and the actual music, all without ever paying the artist. Now, look at the idea of writing a review (like Idolator), you have the idea of the music, but you still have to seek out the music (legally, illegally, telepathically, etc.) to have the music.

    The didn’t provide a server that links you to others from whom you can obtain the music. They stopped providing direct downloads of things deemed questionable so there was no copyright infringement, and thus illegal downloading from their site.

    Yes, they provide a link to where you can obtain the music, but at that point, anyone who wanted the music (and reads blogs) could’ve found the music in <1 minute of searching.

    If you’re attacking them for writing reviews of albums before they are released to the public, you’re actually attacking the institution of music criticism, which often releases reviews of music before it is available at Best Buy.

    And if turning people onto new music because they downloaded stuff they would never hear if they didn’t have to buy it is such a great thing, why are music profits still declining? The music is still available digitally, physically, and in just as many (if not more) concert choices as earlier periods when music was far more profitable, but profits are declining. Just because the recording industry may not be using the best business model does not explain this loss of profits (Potential profits could be greater, everyone agrees on that, but actual profits should not decline if people are being turned on to more music, no?)

  8. FunkyJ

    @Swankster: America not a police state?

    How about it being illegal to smoke in your own home? Or if you’re not a smoker, or worse – someone who has quit and is now like sanctimonious prick about tobacco – how about the woman being busted for swearing at her own toilet in her own home?

    Yes, land of the free alright…

Leave A Comment