3 ms·

I wonder what has changed his mind since he was a member of Oink, a UK torrent site aimed at music. The (very brief) article mentions it. https://en.wikipedia.o

I wonder what has changed his mind since he was a member of Oink, a UK torrent site aimed at music. The (very brief) article mentions it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oink%27s_Pink_Palace#Notable_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oink%27s_Pink_Palace#Notable_u...

clydethefrog 10y ago
Oink was not a business. Oink was an invitation-only BitTorrent community. Reznor even has a relevant quote in the Wikipedia article you linked: "they're not stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band" Meanwhile, YouTube is a business, it displays ads for stolen content and everyone has easy access to it.
- unfocused 10y ago
  You have a good point. Perhaps one could say they are "trying" to pay content providers, but are just not doing as good a job as iTunes. Apple has far better control over iTunes, than Google has over Youtube. Youtube is just a different animal.
- Programmatic 10y ago
  Thanks for posting this, it's easy to forget the distinction between the two. I was just thinking that it's awful inconsiderate to have a stance against piracy given that he himself literally asked people to pirate his music, but there is a difference between people sharing information vs. a platform monetizing it.
k__ 10y ago
I thought he generally wasnt a friend of the Internet. Last thing I read from him was a rant about social media :/
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  Social media != the internet Years ago he was making his Nine Inch Nails tracks available for users to download and remix. He uploaded an entire concert (HD, multiple angles, terabytes of video if I remember) to bit torrent so users could download it and produce their own concert film. So he's been taking advantage of the power of the internet for a while and fans have benefited from that. I think his problem is when you take away control from the artist.

clydethefrog 10y ago

Oink was not a business. Oink was an invitation-only BitTorrent community. Reznor even has a relevant quote in the Wikipedia article you linked: "they're not stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band" Meanwhile, YouTube is a business, it displays ads for stolen content and everyone has easy access to it.

unfocused 10y ago
You have a good point. Perhaps one could say they are "trying" to pay content providers, but are just not doing as good a job as iTunes. Apple has far better control over iTunes, than Google has over Youtube. Youtube is just a different animal.
Programmatic 10y ago
Thanks for posting this, it's easy to forget the distinction between the two. I was just thinking that it's awful inconsiderate to have a stance against piracy given that he himself literally asked people to pirate his music, but there is a difference between people sharing information vs. a platform monetizing it.

k__ 10y ago

I thought he generally wasnt a friend of the Internet. Last thing I read from him was a rant about social media :/

k-mcgrady 10y ago
Social media != the internet Years ago he was making his Nine Inch Nails tracks available for users to download and remix. He uploaded an entire concert (HD, multiple angles, terabytes of video if I remember) to bit torrent so users could download it and produce their own concert film. So he's been taking advantage of the power of the internet for a while and fans have benefited from that. I think his problem is when you take away control from the artist.