Loosing an KOINK account. | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (2)
recycle
big
...and 389 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614083
Today 3
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
Loosing an KOINK account.
 

offline cuntychuck from Copenhagen (Denmark) on 2007-05-02 12:24 [#02078476]
Points: 8603 Status: Lurker



You are on Ratio Watch because your ratio is too low. You
have 4 days 2 hours to upload 1.16 GB more (required ratio
is 0.25).
While on Ratio Watch, maximum additional download before
account is permanently disabled: 9.97 GB.

What can you do when you're on a shitty spanish 3mb/250 line
(3mb = 750/250kbit in real internet speed.)?

I'm just watching myself loosing a great preview source for
almost every one of my album buys of 2007.


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2007-05-02 12:26 [#02078478]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict



that's what i'm on. you can bloody well do it.

just find stuff, demos, whatever, that's not up there and
upload your own bloody torrents, and keep them uploading
24/7


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-05-02 12:30 [#02078479]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker



I had it happen once - I just ripped some discs to lossy
format and upped them.


 

offline dog_belch from Netherlands, The on 2007-05-02 12:31 [#02078480]
Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



You deserve to loose your account, you parasite.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-05-02 13:04 [#02078488]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



buy music


 

offline trewq from doodam (Netherlands, The) on 2007-05-02 13:11 [#02078491]
Points: 613 Status: Lurker



yeah that happened to me too and im banned now
fucking oink nazis

i dont want the fucking crap music with a lot of seeds
so its fucking obvious im not sharing alot fucking oink
wankers
hope they get hacked very hard sometime


 

offline goDel from ɐpʎǝx (Seychelles) on 2007-05-02 13:37 [#02078501]
Points: 10225 Status: Lurker



best is to rip everything lossless


 

offline OK on 2007-05-02 14:02 [#02078507]
Points: 4791 Status: Lurker



yes rip losless. hell make multiple rips, lossless, 320, v0
just upload stuff


 

offline roygbivcore from Joyrex.com, of course! on 2007-05-02 14:16 [#02078508]
Points: 22557 Status: Lurker



just find something popular, grab it and leave it seeding
for the 4 days


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-05-02 14:45 [#02078524]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to roygbivcore: #02078508



Be wary of that - I've tried that before and it didn't work.


 

offline OK on 2007-05-02 15:02 [#02078537]
Points: 4791 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02078524



yeah, if you're not 'clever' that wont work.



 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-05-02 15:07 [#02078541]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02078488



artists make art, performers make money. it's good
that art can be duplicated, that way more people are able to
share in the experience of it. and if it was truly a great
piece of work to begin with, i'm sure the original would
fetch a pretty penny at auction. enough to keep the artist
alive in order to continue his passionate pursuit to create.
the way things persist now, musicians have come to expect
monetary incentive just because they recorded something,
which is how we've come to find such an overwhelming
proliferation of shit artists that don't deserve a cent
because they haven't actually contributed anything
meaningful to their art form. that's where performance
comes in. performing, is providing a service for people.
that's how musicians have always been successful going back
to the very beginning.


 

offline dog_belch from Netherlands, The on 2007-05-02 15:34 [#02078551]
Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Followup to EVOL: #02078541 | Show recordbag



I agree. Recorded music should serve as an advert for
performance, and therefore be free.


 

offline dog_belch from Netherlands, The on 2007-05-02 15:34 [#02078552]
Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



Or even pay out every time the listener endures it.


 

offline dog_belch from Netherlands, The on 2007-05-02 15:43 [#02078553]
Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



Maybe when the medium catches up to the point that the
Artist performs for you every time you put their "record"
on.. maybe when there's enough bedroom Aphex's that each
listener can reasonably expect to hire one to perform each
time they want to hear fucked up dance music for
wallflowers.


 

offline cuntychuck from Copenhagen (Denmark) on 2007-05-02 16:13 [#02078561]
Points: 8603 Status: Lurker | Followup to dog_belch: #02078553



my philosophy: listen first, buy later. quality music is the
key, i will buy the music that i find worthy of buying
within my budget. and you can't blame me for not supporting
the underground music industry - because thats mainly what i
buy.

those who i already have made their money, i have no problem
downloading their music. if you can afford an adequate
lifestyle, with all the pleasures the world can bring a
mid-to-upperclass person. and then.. if the music is good
enough - people will automaticly buy it. and thats the truth
in the fucking "underground"..

and by "underground" i mean everything thats not mainstream.


 

online big from lsg on 2007-05-02 16:39 [#02078574]
Points: 23727 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



mmaybe jump on new linkin park, not out just yet


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-05-02 17:19 [#02078596]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to EVOL: #02078541 | Show recordbag



So because they're shit you download their music in stead?
Just because?

If you like the music, you buy it instead of downloading it.
If you don't like it, don't do either.


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-05-02 17:33 [#02078598]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02078596



sheesh. if i didn't d/l their music in the first place i
wouldn't know if it's shit or not. i'm not gonna spend
however much $ on 100 cds just to find that 3/4 are shit.
that's a lot of fucking money. even at 50-50 that's money i
could be using to support the artists i do like, for
instance; tickets to their show when they tour and merch
from said shows. like i said before, if their work was any
good to begin with, then the original release becomes worth
purchasing. if i determine music to be shit, i
don't d/l it.


 

offline Ms Brazil from Extremely Arrogant on 2007-05-02 17:38 [#02078599]
Points: 40 Status: Regular | Followup to cuntychuck: #02078476



Give me an invite and I'll download all your shit.


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-05-02 17:47 [#02078600]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ms Brazil: #02078599



nuevo avatar es mucho mejor


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2007-05-02 17:54 [#02078602]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Followup to Ms Brazil: #02078599 | Show recordbag



Whatwhatwhaaat!?!?!!?


 

offline dog_belch from Netherlands, The on 2007-05-02 19:47 [#02078633]
Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



This Post costs $5 and if you read it it you agree to pay
for it otherwise you are liable for the death sentence by an
otherwise unoccupied CIA who are just twiddling their thumbs
inbetween making up another 7/11.


 

offline cx from Norway on 2007-05-02 23:44 [#02078680]
Points: 4537 Status: Regular



Ratio: 1.594 Uploaded: 295.31 GB Downloaded: 185.29 GB


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2007-05-03 04:49 [#02078762]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



heh. i got banned, but got another account : )


 

offline _gvarek_ from next to you (Poland) on 2007-05-03 04:59 [#02078764]
Points: 4882 Status: Lurker



I can d/l anything I want with light speed, but uploading
takes forever, and must create my torrents each time I want
to seriously boost my ratio. stupid external IP's.


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2007-05-03 05:04 [#02078770]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



that reminds me, i need to open ports for my router or
somthing, but everytime i try i only get a little bit
further before getting stuck and confused. i tthiink i need
a static ip, and i looked into that, but surely enough got
stuck and confused..


 

offline cuntychuck from Copenhagen (Denmark) on 2007-05-03 05:05 [#02078771]
Points: 8603 Status: Lurker | Followup to pigster: #02078762



well, then you know what you are going to do.. :)

laukjeldsen@gmail.com


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2007-05-03 05:47 [#02078781]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



im sorry! i dont actually have invites nor did i have any
invites myself.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-05-03 06:17 [#02078787]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to EVOL: #02078598 | Show recordbag



But do you buy the albums you like? Do you think most
of the other wankers on there do?


 

online big from lsg on 2007-05-03 06:47 [#02078790]
Points: 23727 Status: Regular | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02078787 | Show recordbag



i can't believe a new generation does. though maybe you
would still like to physically own stuff you really like.
like, men is that materialist possibly


 

offline pigster from melbs on 2007-05-03 06:57 [#02078793]
Points: 4480 Status: Lurker



i was going to reply to this with a post about how the
internet is set up with people freely sharing so much of
artists music to which they should be getting money for. and
how while this is bad, it does mean heaps of people are
actually getting awesome accessibility to, most which we'd
never get or even know of.
then i decided to not post it because it became too much of
a mess and i dont even know what im talking about anymore.
its great and its terrible. in the end, i vote YES for teh
internets.


 

online big from lsg on 2007-05-03 07:00 [#02078794]
Points: 23727 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



it's like fighting a tsunami


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-05-03 07:38 [#02078797]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker



why should people be denied access to art only because they
can't afford it. surely a person can afford $15 for a cd if
they really like it but people like more than just one
artist and artists have more than one cd. does that mean
people only deserve to enjoy and experience art if they have
an excess of financial wealth? that's how it worked in the
begining of music and those musicians were basically slaves.
sure they had traveling minstrels but you weren't forced to
give them anything, but people did. i wouldn't call someone
who creates art an artist if they're only looking to gain
money from it. it should be a hobby. true artists have a
passion to create. they will always create whether or not
they can make a living off of it or not. collecting music
isn't my full time job but you know what somehow i still
find time to do it. and i support my passion by working
9-5. if an artist is worth their weight they will become
successful, unfortunately not every one is lucky enough to
be that great. perhaps what i'm trying to say could be
broken down like this: reciprocal obligation.

btw, in answer to your questions; yes. idk.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-05-03 09:22 [#02078807]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to EVOL: #02078797 | Show recordbag



Ok, first of all, I kind of agree that you shouldn't be
denied access to art, but artists, being normal people too,
have to eat, live somewhere, etc, etc. This means they need
money. Sure, it'd be nice if the rest of us didn't have to
pay to experience art, but the way to go about changing this
isn't by illegally downloading all their music so that they
don't have the time to do art professionally any more. If it
was to be free, the artists would still require money for
food and stuff. In some cases, the government takes care of
this; They have money for aspiring artists and they hand it
out, but they don't have an unlimited supply either, and
they also have other things to spend money on (preferably
something useful).

So, the government can't give out money to any aspiring
artist, and if they could, the money would have to come from
somewhere, most likely taxes. So if you were to pay more
taxes for funding artists, you would not only be paying for
it anyway, you would also be paying for artists you didn't
like.

Most normal artists aren't looking to gain money (I don't
even think the overproduced pop artists are necessarily in
it for the money (their promoters, agents and record
companies are a different thing)), but looking to make a
living. I know a guy who is a professional musician, and
it's a lot of work. He's out touring almost all the time,
and when he's at home, he spends lots of time in the studio.
There isn't much time for anything else, and there really
isn't too much money in it either (they're well known in
norway, and should be making money, but they aren't). I also
make music on a hobby basis, and I do it because I love
music. I wouldn't, however, dream of starting a career in
it, but that's because I love philosophy more, because I
feel I can do more if I do philosophy, but if I were to try,
it'd be enough hard work, making a name for myself that I
wouldn't have much time for other things.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-05-03 09:23 [#02078808]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02078807 | Show recordbag



Now, I wouldn't necessarily call myself talented, but you
seem to believe that if you're talented, you just have to
keep making music, and attention will fall upon you as an
act of god or something.. This doesn't happen. Artists, no
matter how talented, have to work really hard, spending lots
of time doing gigs, making new material, promoting
themselves, etc, etc, to become known outside of their
circle of friends.


 

offline OK on 2007-05-03 09:28 [#02078811]
Points: 4791 Status: Lurker



artists are supposed to starve.

/thread.


 

offline roygbivcore from Joyrex.com, of course! on 2007-05-04 00:40 [#02079143]
Points: 22557 Status: Lurker



i dunno my idea worked for black cats


 

offline kid from mum (United Kingdom) on 2007-05-04 07:23 [#02079294]
Points: 551 Status: Regular



ratio: 5.325, uploaded: 15.57 GB, downloaded: 2.92 GB.

heh
heh

heh


 

offline kid from mum (United Kingdom) on 2007-05-04 07:25 [#02079295]
Points: 551 Status: Regular



just rip something and upload it man, and be sure to rip it
as flac, 320 and v0. i just uploaded the new tatamax album a
coupla days ago and got plenty uploads from that.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-05-04 07:28 [#02079297]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Aphex Twin


Attached picture

 

offline Silly Willy on 2007-05-04 07:33 [#02079300]
Points: 89 Status: Addict



I fucking hate sites that do that. I was on one once.
Downloaded some album as my first download. Took me below
the required level and they banned me from
uploading/download until I'd spoken to someone. The admin
got all arsey with me when I pointed out that it would've
been better to just ban me from downloading until my ratio
reached a better level as I'd now lost a whole days worth of
uploading which made it harder for me to attain their ratio
limits. Fucking idiots.


 

offline roygbivcore from Joyrex.com, of course! on 2007-05-04 10:26 [#02079376]
Points: 22557 Status: Lurker



damn dude are you okay

how did you cope with not downloading


 

offline K300i from United Kingdom on 2007-05-04 12:32 [#02079441]
Points: 670 Status: Regular



actually, it sems that most people on oink are stupid
christina aguilera fans. it says that oink provides most of
albums which you cant get anwhere else, or at least its an
idea to create a lobby of music-lovers.
after a while ive noticed theres hardly any album you
couldnt get on torrents or slsk fwiw.
more ambitious musical projects such as glacial records or
hafler trio albums, etc, are hardly upped and seeded. and
even when they do, its like 1/2 albums. not really a thing
to be proud of if the community snatches the beatles more
times than an eye blinks in a day (fact: beatles =
boysband).

i would really give away my account as it seems its useless.
no way to do that though..

and for sure im not going to rip of my albums to flac
rapidly just to see them not beeing even snatched onto
wishlists by anyone, seriously.

bunch of wankers, judged by inspection.



 

offline Narkotic from United States on 2007-05-04 12:54 [#02079458]
Points: 667 Status: Regular



Uploaded 168.89 GB (1.11 GB/day)
Downloaded 6.31 GB (42.48 MB/day)
Share ratio 26.777

It's not so bad... I got lucky and took advantage of the
free downloads during christmas, downloaded over 100gb and
now share all of that.

10 invites left, and none of you are getting them.

ONIK OINK mofuckas


 

offline cuntychuck from Copenhagen (Denmark) on 2007-05-04 12:55 [#02079461]
Points: 8603 Status: Lurker | Followup to Narkotic: #02079458



comic genius.


 

offline Narkotic from United States on 2007-05-04 12:56 [#02079462]
Points: 667 Status: Regular



wonderful retort. my wit is unmatched.


 

offline goDel from ɐpʎǝx (Seychelles) on 2007-05-04 12:58 [#02079465]
Points: 10225 Status: Lurker | Followup to Narkotic: #02079458



holy motherfucking C*R*A*P

my ratio's hoovering around 1 at the moment (dl/ul around
5GB)


 

offline Ophecks from Nova Scotia (Canada) on 2007-05-04 13:16 [#02079480]
Points: 19190 Status: Moderator | Followup to K300i: #02079441 | Show recordbag



There's nothing on Oink that you can't readily find
somewhere else, but I miss those blazing speeds and massive
artist discography torrents. There was some Prince torrent
that must have been like 40 gigs, it was 2 much 2 handle.

But they did away with discog torrents a while ago... did
they end up bringing them back?


 

offline goDel from ɐpʎǝx (Seychelles) on 2007-05-04 13:55 [#02079502]
Points: 10225 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ophecks: #02079480



nope. the speed's still blazin', but no discogs.


 


Messageboard index