OiNK Will be Missed, For Awhile at Least

Many, many years ago Napster emerged into our lives. Where we had previously relied on the radio, MTV, blindly buying CDs, or seeing a band live to become exposed to new music, a new service became available that granted us access to a boundless supply of new music that we could sample. Every song imaginable existed on Napster; owning a full album was as easy as going to Amazon.com, looking up the track list of a CD, and getting all the tracks in a matter of about fifteen minutes. The barrier to new listening experiences had been significantly reduced.

Eventually, Napster got shut down. It was a moment that we all had gradually accepted to be inevitable, but that didn't make the loss hurt any less. Even though it was blatantly obvious that new peer to peer applications would pop up all over the place, the vast Napster user community had been de-centralized and fragmented. It was not feasible for this newly eclectic group of music fanatics to all move on to the same place immediately.

As the months and years passed, none of the new music sharing programs could even come close to approaching Napster in effectiveness for reliably finding every conceivable song and album to snatch at high speeds. We went through Audiogalaxy, Morpheus, Bearshare, Kazaa, WinMX, mIRC, Soulseek, and ThePirateBay but there was never a moment where we felt that any of these new applications could even hold a candle to Napster.

Finally, OiNK came along. Here, an avid music community burgeoned. There were many aspects of OiNK's culture and ideals that caused it to thrive as the first peer-to-peer concept to actually eclipse what Napster brought us in 1999.

Firstly, music quality was mandated and enforced. A minimum bitrate of 192 kbps was demanded, and users who uploaded albums that failed to meet the quality threshold were banned. Secondly, there were ratio requirements which prevented users from leeching music without giving back to the community. This meant that if a user did not upload at least .25 (later .15) what he/she downloaded, he would no longer be welcome in the community. Most albums on OiNK also came with the option of being downloaded in FLAC, which is a music format that is as high in quality as the physical CD itself.

In OiNK's newly established community, there existed a vast selection that even eclipsed that of Napster's. Everything was on OiNK, and if it wasn't you could make a request for an album and have it filled very quickly. To test OiNK, I made a request for a Grover Dill CD. Grover Dill was a local pop punk band from Hartford which broke up sometime around 2003. Probably less than 1000 people have heard of them. Lo and behold, I received a message one day when I logged into OiNK that my request had been filled.

On top of an immeasurable selection of music, OiNK offered forums where users could recommend new music to each other and discuss almost every other imaginable facet of the music industry. The OiNK forums were intelligent, thoughtful, and widely used. OiNK was not just a means to download music, it was a medium to connect with 180,000 other music lovers who were genuinely interested in helping each other enjoy music even more.

Those who had not been invited to the OiNK community labeled us as snobs and elitists. We were. OiNK was a better place to connect with music fanatics than anywhere else on the internet. We demanded quality from our music and our users and made sure to not invite people who would not give back to the community.

Like Napster before it, OiNK became an ingrained part of our lives and at times felt like an inalienable right. We all knew that downloading was illegal, but most users did indeed spend money in the music industry, even if that money was not being allocated for album purchases. We went to concerts, bought T-shirts, and spread the word about new artists to anyone who would listen both inside and outside of OiNK. Therefore, when I awoke Tuesday to find OiNK shut down, it felt like I had been punched in the stomach. The community that 180,000 people had worked so hard to build into the best music source on the internet collapsed in a second.

As the day progressed, the loss of OiNK began to slowly seep in. We read that its creator had been taken into custody and began reading a proliferation of lies about what OiNK was all over the media. Articles said that OiNK charged users to download music, which was at best a tremendous mistake in the police report and at worst a blatant lie meant to decrease the backlash that the authorities would receive from the public. To see our community flamed all over the internet was frustrating and discouraging.

Like the collapse of Napster, the user base has been de-centralized and fragmented. There are all sorts of torrent groups claiming to be the successor to OiNK, but we will most likely go through many more insufficient groups before once again re-convening on a better program to find new music. The only glimmer of hope for us is that OiNK may one day return, preferably soon. It doesn't seem likely. We knew how special OiNK was before it got shut down and having it snatched away from us in one fell swoop still hurts.

******
Professional recording associations can not continue with their current path. It has failed. People download music. The strategies that the RIAA and other groups have enacted of shutting down the bases and suing a select few of random downloaders in order to instill fear do not have a prayer of causing the populace to buy CDs in the current market. We have heard their arguments that downloading music is stealing, have thought carefully about it, and have made conscious decisions to continue our practice. In the current market, paying fifteen--or even ten--dollars for a CD seems asinine and like a path for suckers. Going to the store to buy a CD is an inefficient process because nobody listens to physical CDs anymore. The process of putting a physical CD on an I-Pod is unnecessary and will always be circumvented by downloading.

The RIAA needs to create a community like OiNK and find a way to profit from it. Charging for individual songs or CDs would probably not work in today's current market so they would probably have to have it be based on a monthly subscription. If we were given the opportunity to pay 20 dollars a month to use OiNK legally, I feel like a vast majority of the 180,000 users would agree to, provided that a fair share of the fees went to the artists who were making the music and did not disproportionately go to the suits who were pushing it. The RIAA should create a community where every album ever thought of can be procured at fast speeds and where there are a massive selection of forums to peruse that allow users to have free-flowing, intelligent discussions about music.

If a private group of internet users can create a community as beautiful as OiNK, a major corporation could certainly succeed in making something comparable. Music entertains us and we know that we should pay for entertainment. The system that the music industry has established, and for whatever reason refuses to appropriately adapt, is outdated and will never again garner the vast profits that the RIAA became accustomed to. That does not mean that they cannot evolve and stay relevant. If they want to have any chance at success in the current market, they should be trying their hardest to effectively capitalize on the void that the fall of OiNK has created.

Nascar people are unbelievable

From the Jim Rome show today:

A.J. Foyt (a racing legend apparently despite the fact that I have never heard of him) had a ridiculous quote regarding the corporate sponsorship of nascar: "It brought in all those Ivy League boys who like wine. I'm not into that crap. Wine, that's not for A.J."

Does he live on the moon? No Ivy League boys have even considered watching nascar. Ever. Ivy Leaguers, and rational people in general, would never devote an entire afternoon of drivers turning left where the major excitement stems from a sadistic hope for collisions and fire.

Why does AJ care if nascar fans drink wine? If their wine tastes are indicative of their beer tastes they are buying 6-liter $10 boxes of Franzia and have chugging contests. Apparently, this is too classy for AJ. He is "not into that crap."

Next, AJ refers to himself in the third person. Who does he think he is, the Rock? No nascar driver, even if they are a "legend," has earned the right to refer to himself in the third person.

Nascar fans and drivers, like soccer fans and players, can't get over the fact that they are proponents of a niche sport and therefore refuse to function on the same plane of existence as logical human beings.

At least AJ wants less fans, that's good I guess.

The 5 dumbest rules in sports

1. The fact that pass interference and force-outs aren't subject to instant replay review in the NFL because they are "judgment calls." First of all, why aren't the rules for pass interference more clearly defined and recognized? It seems way too arbitrary and different depending on which officiating grew got up on which side of the bed, wore different pairs of socks, and ate different cereals interpret what does and does not constitute pass interference. On top of this, why is an official's initial opinion of a play that just happened at 742.91 miles per hour while the official was thinking more about the itch on his left arm than the game at hand infallible? The reason instant reply took so long to implement in the first place and still has absurd quirks is that NFL referees stubbornly refuse to ever admit they were wrong. As for force outs, these are clearly defined enough that instant replay should be able to give these plays justice.

2. No instant replay in baseball. When I saw him speak at Hillel a few months ago, Bud Selig stood sternly by the absence of instant replay but failed to give a single rational reason. Why does the tradition of human umpires trump getting the call right? It is like in Bridge when a 2 beats an ace because the 2 is trump or in euchre where a 9 trumps an ace. The only difference is that the absence of instant replay in baseball is utterly irrational and doesn't fit with any of the other aspects of new technology that have evolved into baseball. It would not be that difficult to make fair/foul, out/safe, and home run/double subject to replay, giving the managers two challenges a game.

3. Overtime in the NFL. The NFL should adopt the college football overtime procedure because it is really annoying when a team only has to drive 40 yards and kick a 45-yard field goal, for some reason achieving the sudden death victory. No team should be able to get away with that on the first drive in overtime with no fear of rebuttals. It completely trivializes the entire game that was so close it needed extra time to allow it to perpetually end in a lame, unsatisfying manner. Buzzkill.

4. Whatever random loophole in an obscure rule that allows Evander Holyfield to continue fighting. Is there really any demand to see this anywhere in society? Who still watches these fights and who still sponsors them? If I ran a television I would pay for the rights NOT to air these fights.

5. The rule that allows a college basketball coach to get one team on probation and then get hired by another school and bolt to avoid the clean-up process for the mess he created. This might be more ridiculous than Evander Holyfield fighting. So many of these coaches preach education and discipline but end up as corrupt role models who are more self-interested than anything else.

Ramblings

I spent a majority of the day watching the NFL today (sorry poli sci) and here are some of my quick thoughts:

That NFL shop commercial where the Vikings fan and the Bears fan keep trying to one-up each other with the gear they bought really annoys me. The reason that I find this commerical aggravating is not because the fans are petty and materialistic because I am petty and materialistic--the commercial culminates with the Vikings fan winning the "contest" by showcasing his 30-foot inflatable Viking. This is when the caption comes on the screen that this inflatable Viking is not available for sale. What? Isn't the point of the ad to show that you can one-up your obnoxious neighbor by buying cool gear online? If you can't buy the product that causes you to be superior then what exactly is the point of the commercial? If you followed its directions and bought your NFL gear through them then you would lose the contest and your neighbor would reign supreme.

Unless the Bears switch to Brian "Look at me I'm mediocre" Griese, they will not beat Seattle or Dallas in the playoffs. I have watched a majority of the Bears games this season and Rex Grossman is an unbelievably bad quarterback. He isn't even worthy of the backhanded compliment of "game manager." Jake Plummer and Brett Favre think that Grossman's decision-making is questionable. I know that the Ravens and Buccaneers won championships with mediocre quarterbacks but they didn't turn the ball over nearly as much as the Bears do.

There was another new Peyton Manning commercial on TV today...something about some new revolutionary TV that is made for both men AND women or something. I find all these Peyton Manning commercials intriguing because I don't know too many NFL fans who actually like him. I feel like this is the sports equivalent of Donald Rumsfeld in commercials--why make someone who is polarizing at best the face of your product?

Joe Buck needs to fire his barber.

I'm ready to admit I was wrong. Vince Young will be a very good NFL quarterback.



MY thoughts on BCS games
Boise State - Oklahoma
While both of these teams definitely deserve to be in the BCS and are great stories, I can't say that I will watch this game unless I am already watching TV and nothing else is on. In other words, I won't plan my day around it. Had Rhett Bomar not been kicked off the Sooners, I feel like they would be in the national championship game against Ohio State.

Wake Forest vs Louisville
It's kind of ironic that BC, Miami, and VA Tech left the Big East for the ACC to be in a better football conference and this year the Big East was actually better. Just out of spite, I hope that Louisville wins by 39 points. That being said, this match-up really isn't all that interesting and I probably won't watch this game.

Ohio State vs Florida
This is a cop out by the voters because it causes less controversy than a Michigan - Ohio State rematch. I honestly have no idea whether Florida is a better team than Michigan and there is really no way to find out. The best case scenario in favor of the end of the absurd BCS "system" (I refuse to call anything that relies on arbitrary judgment a system--its about as much of a system as Russian Roulette) is an Ohio State blowout. Michigan inadvertently hurt itself by not playing these past two weeks. However, I'm not really going to pile on the BCS system. Yet...

Wisconsin vs LSU
I'm really excited for this match-up. When I decided to go to Wisconsin (not that any other schools accepted me) it was in part because of the possibility of a BCS bowl birth. Both of these teams have had tremendous seasons that merited taking place in the game. Oh wait. Wisconsin isn't in this game. Notre Dame is. The BCS has a rule that prohibits three teams from the same conference from being in the BC$. The reason that this rule is complete bullshit is that Notre Dame is not in a conference and therefore cannot be adversely affected by this rule despite the fact that Auburn and Wisconsin are far more merited for the spot. Sweet.

USC vs Michigan
If Ohio State and Michigan win by a combined 40 points the BCS might fall. This gamer really isn't that intriguing because USC really has not looked all that spectacular to me (two losses against unranked teams and marginal victories against several others)

Once every four years or so--usually around World Cup time, but not always--the hype for soccer and its impending popularity surge in America becomes unbearable. We are constantly reminded that the rest of the world devours soccer voraciously and that America is somehow less sophisticated because we prefer sports that are interesting to watch.

This past summer the soccer lovers came to my camp in droves, preparing to spread their love of the sport and at the same time castigate those (well, at least me) who did not enjoy soccer. For them, non-soccer fans were "ignorant" and did not like soccer because "they don't understand it." Moreover, they said I did not like soccer because I never played it. As my good friend Zack Colman pointed out to me, fans of other sports will leave you alone if you don't like it but soccer fans seem unwilling to do so.

Well I admit that I have not always given soccer an open-minded chance and probably am ignorant, should I have to understand or play soccer to enjoy it? I enjoy watching hockey, but my feet never fit comfortably into ice skates and I was (am) slower than a two-legged dog and therefore never enjoyed playing the sport. While I don't necessarily understand the intricacies of the sport, I can still watch hockey live or on TV and derive utility.

Although I play basketball about five times a year, my previously acknowledged (lack of) fleet of foot and a correlated lack of jumping ability prevents me from playing the sport with any semblance of regularity. That being said, I devoted more time to watching the 2006 NBA playoffs and NCAA tournament than ever before.

This brings me to football, which is by far my favorite sport to watch. While certainly handicapped in hockey and basketball, my body structure prohibits me from ever playing football. Every Friday afternoon--rain, shine, or blizzard--all of my friends play football and every week I need to think of a new excuse of why I can't play. The real excuse is that I can't run, throw, or catch and especially can't tackle. Despite all of this, I am glued to the television for a combined 20 hours on Saturday and Sunday, watching as much football as possible.

The fact of the matter is, soccer is not an exciting sport to watch--especially on television. Devoting two hours to a sport where there will be a maximum of 5 scores, a strong possibility for a tie, and no overt strategy just does not appeal to me.

Because of the lack of substitutions, the players are all visibly winded and tired at the ends of games. 1-0 leads are often insurmountable because the leading team sits on the ball for 45 minutes and the other team does not have the energy to pry the ball away, run up the field, penetrate a prevent defense of eight men, and then score on the absurdly athletic goalie. The field is both too long and too wide and there are too many men in play. The lightness of the ball prevents long-range accuracy in shots, the announcers over-dramatize simple plays, and the players don't look like they could compete in the NFL or NBA--they look like glorified track runners.

The worst part about soccer is the faking of injuries. How am I supposed to enjoy a sport where Manu Ginobli would be in the top 10% in toughness? The pace of the game is slowed down even more than usual because in every game there are at least ten plays where a player goes down and conveys the same level of agony as Nancy Kerrigan. Soccer fans defend this ridiculous behavior as "gamesmanship," but to me it makes the game seem more like a farce than a sport.

All of this would be fine if soccer fans would allow me to ignore the sport in peace. They are the only group of fans that will not accept the fact that not everyone enjoys their sport. When someone tells me that they don't like watching the NFL I don't immediately get defensive and proceed to insult their intelligence (well, at least out loud). To a soccer fan, it is inconceivable that everyone else does not share the same passion that they do for soccer and they feel like they have to be missionaries spreading a religion so that the ignorant can be saved.

Because of obnoxious soccer fans, I went from merely not watching the sport to going out of my way not to watch it. Their insistance that I do not understand the sport has led me to embrace my ignorance instead of trying to understand. The reality of the matter is that soccer will never be big in America and it is because baseball, football, basketball, and hockey are more exciting and fulfilling to watch.

Attention sports columnists: there is actually a rather large gray area that exists between being a homer and being a douche bag.

I understand that there are few things that are more annoying than the columnist or broadcaster who always makes excuses for the home team, never offer critical analysis, and wear their hearts on their sleeves when writing/talking about their teams. That being said, one of the few things that is more obnoxious than a homer is a columnist who is a douche bag.

These columnists are ones that consistently undermine the efforts of the team they cover by criticizing every single move, constantly whine, and are excessively negative. While these writers claim that they are merely being objective, their agenda is exactly the same as that of homers, but in the form of negativity instead of extreme optimism.

For example, last week in the Chicago Sun-Times, Jay Mariotti wrote, "Can we agree it's the worst job in baseball, worse than cleaning slimy dugout floors or discarding used steroids syringes? Just because the Cubs have a managerial opening doesn't mean anyone wants the job."

The manager of the Cubs is the worst job in baseball? Really? For me, being the manager of the Cubs seems like one of the best jobs in baseball because the fanbase is passionate, the city of Chicago is beautiful during the summer, and the culture of losing has been so far ingrained in the culture of the Cubs that you are a victim of the system if you lose but are a colossal hero if you ever win the World Series. Despite the fact that the Cubs have been uncompetitive for the last few seasons, no one would argue that the Cubs have less of a chance to win the World Series next year than the Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays, Nationals, or Orioles. The managerial job of the Cubs is a job with extremely high upside and relatively little downside, yet Mariotti exaggerates the downside of the position by saying that "the grief, the boos, the hassles, [and]the abuse" come with the job.

Columnists like Mariotti, the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy, every columnist at the New York Times and Daily News, and Jeff Jacobs of the Hartford Courant almost never have anything positive to say, do not give credit where it is due, and seek to undermine the home team's efforts while defending themselves because they aren't homers. What they do not understand is that it is possible to be critical when it is necessary while not being a douche bag 100% of the time. Michael Wilbon does this very well. This week, he correctly notes that the "Redskins are the most disappointing team in the NFL after the first third of the season," but then goes on to offer solutions instead of grossly exaggerating the team's problems and giving them no chance to succeed.

My biggest problem with the douche bag columnists is that I do not understand what their point is. Why undermine the team that most of their readers root for? One of the reasons that newspaper sports sections are a dying breed is that readers have moved on to the internet for their sportswriting where people like Bill Simmons and sites like Deadspin offer legitimate sports coverage without a selfish, negative agenda. While extremist negative columnists may sell more papers in the short run, they just piss people off in the long run.