If you donated 5 euros, you were allowed to invite 2 friends to the site.
If you were a member of the site for a certain amount of time with a certain ratio and amount uploaded/downloaded, you were able to invite 2 friends a month and had access to the same features as donators.
Well I either misread it or they changed the article since my original post. (By the time you posted this comment, about an hour had passed since I submitted that correction).
If the donation thing is incorrect or exaggerated, how did he make the $300,000 he supposedly had (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/8446247.stm) when the police raided his home? Seems impressive if it's just ad revenue.
Donations weren't required. He did accept donations, however.
That $300,000 thing hasn't really been substantiated AFAICT. It's directly from the mouth of the prosecutor. As someone who helps run a website where we ask users for money (but don't require it), $300,000 seems insane.
I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure a good ratio got you all the same stuff a donation would have. So a donation might have made up for a low ratio in some ways.
And I also seriously doubt that the bulk of that $300k, if it was really there, had anything to do with donations from OiNK. OiNK was pretty big but imo nowhere near big enough to yield that kind of bounty off of voluntary donations.
Comments
"Users were required to make a donation to be able to invite friends to join the site."
I'm pretty sure this wasn't the case. Someone who is not me invited several people and didn't ever donate.
Glad to hear he's been cleared, though.
If you donated 5 euros, you were allowed to invite 2 friends to the site.
If you were a member of the site for a certain amount of time with a certain ratio and amount uploaded/downloaded, you were able to invite 2 friends a month and had access to the same features as donators.
I just submitted some feedback to the BBC saying this was false. I'm guessing many other people did as well. Hopefully it's not some sort of honeypot.
Actually they just stated what the prosecutor said, not that it's true.
Well I either misread it or they changed the article since my original post. (By the time you posted this comment, about an hour had passed since I submitted that correction).
yeah that's certainly wrong. oink worked like any other private tracker, through invitations that were accrued by maintaining a good ratio
You got additional invites if you donated.
If the donation thing is incorrect or exaggerated, how did he make the $300,000 he supposedly had (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/8446247.stm) when the police raided his home? Seems impressive if it's just ad revenue.
Donations weren't required. He did accept donations, however.
That $300,000 thing hasn't really been substantiated AFAICT. It's directly from the mouth of the prosecutor. As someone who helps run a website where we ask users for money (but don't require it), $300,000 seems insane.
and the donations did buy additional access to features on the site, yes?
I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure a good ratio got you all the same stuff a donation would have. So a donation might have made up for a low ratio in some ways.
I don't remember any ads appearing on OiNK.
And I also seriously doubt that the bulk of that $300k, if it was really there, had anything to do with donations from OiNK. OiNK was pretty big but imo nowhere near big enough to yield that kind of bounty off of voluntary donations.
I don't know. Trent Reznor was an admitted member/user of OiNK. It's not like he couldn't have donated a decent amount to keep the site running.