The Pirate Bay's New Owners: Service Providers Will Pay Us, We'll Pay Users

from the in-theory... dept

One of the things that got a lot of attention with the announced sale of The Pirate Bay to GGF was the claim that the new owners would launch new business models that would compensate copyright holders. Many took this to mean that it would stop offering tools where people could freely exchange content themselves -- but that's not what GGF said. It just said it would compensate copyright holders. That could involve a variety of different business models, as surely they recognize that trying to charge directly would simply lead to mass abandonment of The Pirate Bay. And, indeed, it appears that GGF isn't planning to charge users at all. Instead, it's actually trying out a business model based on BitTorrent's original purpose: making sharing files more efficient by breaking up the pieces so that a single source doesn't bear the brunt of the bandwidth costs. GGF's argument is that they can use the community at The Pirate Bay to reduce congestion for ISPs and bandwidth costs for other service providers. On top of that, GGF claims that rather than having users' pay, its plan is to pay users for providing a service to those who have files to distribute. In an interview with the BBC, GGF's Hans Pandeya explained the plan:

"More than half of all internet traffic is file sharing and P2P [peer-to-peer] traffic and buying Pirate Bay gives us one of the biggest sources of traffic.

"We can then use this massive network of file-sharers to help [internet service providers] reduce overload.

"Let's say a popular song comes out. Rather than a million downloads from a site - which would cause a considerable strain on that ISP - we can take that song and put it out on P2P.

"The copyright holder still gets paid, the users still get their file, the ISP doesn't have a million people all grabbing a file and - for the users who share that song - a payment for putting that file on the P2P network."

This is the sort of thing that sounds good in theory, but that the entertainment industry will never go for. GGF is right, in some ways. The fact that individuals are sharing the content via BitTorrent actually is helping decrease the distribution costs, but as we've seen, the entertainment industry likes to ignore that, and assume that the entire value is in the content, not in the distribution. I can't see the entertainment industry seeing this as a viable solution, even if it makes some amount of sense (distribution is expensive, GGF can use TPB to reduce distribution costs, that seems like a service worth paying for). I just don't see the industry buying into it.

Separately, I have to take issue with one comment from GGF:

Mr Pandeya said that one of the biggest hurdles in overcoming illegal file-sharing was that there was zero cost to the users, while legitimate sites required users to pay for content. The only way to make something more attractive than free was to pay users to share files.

On this, he's fundamentally wrong. There are many ways to make something more attractive than free without paying users. In fact, there are many cases where paying users actually makes something less attractive than free because they're doing things for non-monetary reasons, and the money actually changes the equation significantly. Yes, paying users is potentially one way to make something more attractive than free, but it's hardly the only way, nor is it always the best way.

Filed Under: business models, file sharing
Companies: ggf, global gaming factory x, the pirate bay

The Pirate Bay Has Been Bought By A Public Company [Updated...]

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

Details are a bit scarce at this point, but Martin alerts us to the news that The Pirate Bay has apparently been sold to a public company for 60 million SEK (about $8 million US) -- at least according to a press release from the supposed buyer, Global Gaming Factory X (GGF). Apparently it's 30 million SEK/$4 million in cash and another the rest in shares in GGF. The company claims the acquisition will be complete in August, and that it will "launch new business models that allow compensation to the content providers and copyright owners." Separately, it appears GGF is also buying another technology company, called Peerialism.

Apparently GGF operates internet cafes and gaming centers in Sweden, and also offers software for managing internet cafes as well.

I assume more details will be forthcoming soon (we'll update the post as necessary), but this raises a variety of questions -- in part about the ongoing lawsuit and the lingering jailterms for the four people who were on trial. Considering it was always quite amorphous who actually "owned" The Pirate Bay, it makes you wonder who sold it and who gets the money. Also, since the guys on trial insisted they actually didn't make much money from The Pirate Bay, they may actually be seen in a worse light after this news, suggesting that even if they didn't make money from ongoing operations, they may have cashed in on the sale. All in all, quite a surprise, and we look forward to additional details.

Update: Ok! Martin alerts us to the fact that Peter "brokep" Sunde has confirmed the deal and provided some details via a Twitter interview. Martin, helpfully, translates:

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep Is this correct? http://bit.ly/1YR0m

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Yes.

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep What a thing! Who gets the money? Who owns the TPB?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Foreign company, with demands from our side to finance a fund for internet projects. We get no money.

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep Cool. What do you mean internet project? Will you not have to use the money to cover the damages?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Internet Project in the form of political activism, etc. TPB changed hands in 2006 already to not be sued.

Daniel Goldberg
@ brokep Congratulations, the scoop! Who is the owner of TPB today?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg It's partly why we've have been so sure that lawsuits against us is pointless in the end ... :-)

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg I do not think that I may say for legal reasons. But they are people we trust. And have conditioned things too..

So... that answers some of the questions (and raises a few others!). The money is not going to these guys, but will go towards funding internet political activism. Also, apparently the official ownership of The Pirate Bay had been in the hands of others who are not clear.

Update 2: The official blog post from The Pirate Bay basically says the same thing as the interview above, and suggests that the site operators felt that the service needed new blood to power it and keep it evolving.

Update 3: Apparently The Pirate Bay is also close its tracker and remove the torrents it hosts itself, instead just will rely on third parties, which it will index. The claim is that this is to make the service even more decentralized, but it is a bit of a headscratcher.

Filed Under: copyright, deals, sweden
Companies: global gaming factory x, the pirate bay

Swedish Appeals Court Denies Pirate Bay Retrial -- Says No Bias By Judge

from the no-bull,-no-bias dept

The Swedish appeals court charged with looking into whether or not the judge in the original trial against The Pirate Bay was biased, has said they found no bias (for real, this time) with the judge, despite his belonging to two groups that have pushed for stronger copyright laws -- and the fact that the prosecutors' lawyers were involved in that organization as well. Apparently, the court says the judge should have brought this information to light sooner, but otherwise said it was no big deal.

According to Brokep, one of the four people convicted in the trial, the group plans to file charges against the court for human rights violations, and will claim that the appeals court judge was also biased. Not knowing much about Swedish law, I have no idea if that has any chance of succeeding, but it doesn't seem like the argument has worked all that well so far. Christian Engstrom, the Swedish Pirate Party member just elected to the EU Parliament seems to believe that the courts are blinded by the high profile of the case, such that they're applying the law incorrectly:

This is part of a pattern. It show that the Swedish legal system is no longer to be trusted when it comes to copyright cases. It's a travesty of justice quite simply. There are certainly problems with the laws too but this also shows that the courts are not capable of applying the laws in a correct manner. I've been a lay judge for seven years and I've never seen an indictment as bad as the Pirate Bay verdict. But that didn't stop the court from setting ridiculous sentences.

Now, of course defenders of the entertainment industry's position seem to have a blind spot as to how The Pirate Bay can possibly be considered legal, but Engstrom's right. The law in Sweden doesn't seem to have been applied properly, since The Pirate Bay itself does not host any infringing files directly. It seems like the court still doesn't quite understand that fact. Either way, Engstrom seems to recognize that chances for winning on appeal seem unlikely as well. Instead, he's hoping that citizens will recognize that the law itself needs to be fixed even more:

This makes it clear that the only way to win this battle is through politics. It's a political issue and it's going to be decided at the general election in 2010.

Filed Under: bias, brokep, christian engstrom, copyright, lawsuits, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay

NY Times 'Corrects' False Article About Pirate Bay Appeal... Still Gets It Wrong

from the fact-checking? dept

It my seem like I'm pushing on this one a bit, but it's because I am honestly surprised that the NY Times got this one so badly wrong, and that they've been so slow to do anything about it. I actually think the NY Times is an excellent overall newspaper, and I'm as surprised as anyone that they'd muck up a story so much -- especially as its editors are hyping how good their "fact checking" is and how every day people just can't compare.

It started on Friday, when we noted that the NY Times was reporting that The Pirate Bay had lost its appeal in court. The only problem? It hadn't. Not even close. It may eventually lose the appeal, but that decision won't come for some time. It's true that other sources (including The Hollywood Reporter article that the NY Times reporter relied on) also got the story slightly screwed up, but that's no excuse for the NY Times to repeat blatantly incorrect information. The error appears to be caused by the confusion about the difference between a district (lower) court and the appeals (higher) court. The appeal is over whether or not the district court judge in the case was biased. So, as a part of that appeal, the district court told the appeals court that, no, its judge was not biased. This is to be expected. Did anyone think that the district court wouldn't defend its judge?

However, many people simply got confused, and when they read that a Stockholm district court said (in the appeals court) that the judge wasn't biased, they assumed that it was a court ruling, not just testimony/a filing from one of the participants. Still, you would think with a story that's received so much attention that the NY Times would check with someone first to make sure such a ruling actually came down.

On Monday, however, some of our readers noted that the NY Times had "updated" or "corrected" its story. However, the really amazing thing? Even after realizing that it got the story wrong, it still hasn't gotten the story right. Instead, they changed the first sentence from: "A Swedish court has denied the appeal of four men convicted of violating copyright law.... " into "A Swedish court has said that the judge who presided over the case of four men convicted of violating copyright law for their involvement in the Pirate Bay, an Internet file-sharing service, was not biased against them."

Okay, that's closer but still wrong. First, the NY Times left the headline as is, saying "Appeal Is Denied in Pirate Bay Case." Then, the current first sentence doesn't make any distinction at all between what the lower court said as a participant in the higher court case and what the higher court will ultimately pronounce as a ruling. In fact, given the headline, nearly everyone would still read that first sentence to say that the court has issued a ruling denying bias. The NY Times also added this correction line that would likely confuse most people, saying: "An earlier version of this report stated that the men's appeal had been denied." But reading the article, it still sounds like the appeal has been denied. Is it that difficult for a big journalistic endeavor like the NY Times to fact check a story? Even when told that the story is wrong, and then going and "correcting" it, they got the story wrong.

Filed Under: fact checking
Companies: ny times, the pirate bay

Has The Pirate Bay Lost Its Appeal... Or Should We Not Trust The NY Times?

from the fact-checking? dept

Someone just alerted me to a NY Times story claiming that the guys behind The Pirate Bay have lost their appeal of the verdict that found them guilty. That would be big news (and it may very well happen). However, I can't find anything else to support it. The NY Times credits the Hollywood Reporter, whose only recent article I can find on the subject merely claims that the TPB guys failed to get the case thrown out. But digging deeper, the only information I can find is that the District Court, which made the original ruling has told the Appeals Court that there was no bias. That's not surprising -- of course the District Court is going to say it wasn't biased and that its judge wasn't biased. But I haven't seen anything that says the Appeals Court has ruled one way or the other on the issue. It looks like the reporters at The Hollywood Reporter and the NY Times may have gotten confused about the difference between the District Court and the Appeals Court -- and assumed that because the District Court claimed the judge wasn't biased, the Appeals Court had ruled that way. Now, it may well come to pass that the Appeals Court does rule that way, but I haven't seen any reports of that yet, and given how news has spread about this case, you would think such reports would have been out there.

But, you know, it's the professional reporters at the NY Times who fact check stuff. We bloggers just make up innuendo and rumor. Surely, they couldn't have gotten the story wrong, right?

Filed Under: fact checking
Companies: ny times, the pirate bay

Band Used By The Prosecution In Pirate Bay Case Releases Latest Album... On The Pirate Bay

from the whoops dept

Advance Patrol was one of the bands used by the prosecution in The Pirate Bay trial as an example of a band harmed by The Pirate Bay. Except... apparently the band didn't think so. Isak sends in the news that the band has released its latest album on The Pirate Bay, with a message saying how they love The Pirate Bay:

The hiphop group known as Advance Patrol hereby release its new album on The Pirate Bay today. They do so to spread their music to as many as possible, and at the same time discredit the prosecution against The Pirate Bay, a prosecution where Advanced Patrol has been used as a weapon in the circus around the court proceedings....

We never asked to be plaintiffs in this case, Gonza from Advance Patrol explains, they used us as a weapon in a fight in which we don't wish to participate. We refuse to be used in a war against our fans!

You cannot legislate away file sharing, Gonza says. Those who share our music are also those who appreciate it the most. They are my friends, and friendship is something to be valued highly. That's why we're giving away El Futuro to the internet, to our friends.

Once again, the further this goes on, the worse and worse the lawsuit looks for the entertainment industry...

Filed Under: advance patrol, bands, file sharing, music
Companies: the pirate bay

Another Day, Another Bizarre Twist In The Pirate Bay Case

from the ain't-nothing-normal-going-on-here... dept

It seems like not a day can go by without another oddity popping up having to do with The Pirate Bay trial in Sweden. There was the labels pretending the ruling said stuff it didn't. Then there were the charges of a biased judge -- followed up by charges of bias against not one but two of the judges put in charge of figuring out if the original judge was biased. Oh, and then there was that oddity where Warner Music apparently hired the lead police investigator in the case while he was still investigating the case. The latest such news is that Sweden's Cultural Minister told a gathering of entertainment industry folks that she supported the ruling. Now, to many of us outside of Sweden, that may not seem like a huge deal, but apparently the laws in Sweden state that a gov't minister cannot influence ongoing litigation -- and these comments could be seen as an attempt to support one side of the case. It seems like the oddities around this case are not going away any time soon.

Filed Under: bias, pirate bay, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay

Record Labels Attempt To Stretch Pirate Bay Ruling Rejected For Now

from the not-yet-guys dept

Last week, we noted that the major record labels were already trying to stretch the disputed ruling in The Pirate Bay case, pushing to get the site taken offline and to increase the damages for every day the site stays online. It was notable that the original ruling, while fining the four defendants and giving them jail time, included no injunction to take the site down or any formula for continuing fines. That's no problem for the record labels, who just asked the court to add those fines anyway. At least initially, that strategy appears to have failed, as the court has rejected the request, at least until The Pirate Bay defendants have a chance to respond. Once again, though, it's fascinating to watch the record labels slowly realizing that the "big win" they thought they got from the case has been pretty much the exact opposite of what they hoped for. It didn't shut down the site. It increased interest in the site and the political movement behind it. And it exposed a potentially biased judge. At some point, you have to wonder if the recording industry would have been better off just letting the obscure (at the time) Swedish site continue living in obscurity, rather than generating all sorts of attention by trying to get it shut down.

Filed Under: sweden
Companies: the pirate bay

Swedish Judge In Charge Of Determining Bias Of Pirate Bay Judge Removed... For Bias

from the but-why-did-this-happen-in-the-first-place? dept

A few folks have sent in various version of this story about how the judge assigned to review whether or not the original judge in The Pirate Bay trial was biased, by belonging to two separate groups in favor of stronger copyright laws, has herself been removed from the case because she belonged to the same two groups. This raises all sorts of questions -- including how the hell she was put in charge of the review in the first place. Did no one think to ask if she was in the same groups? Or did she not volunteer the info when handed the case? In the meantime, how difficult is it to find an unbiased judge in Sweden?

Filed Under: bias, copyright, lawsuits, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay

Music Labels Trying To Force Pirate Bay Offline Now

from the hmm dept

Earlier this month, we noted that the record labels were already stretching The Pirate Bay ruling to use it to go after web hosting firms who clearly were far separated from the actions of their clients. And, of course, the ruling itself is both being disputed, due to conflicts of interest, and also being appealed. But, it appears that the record labels are so freaked out by how badly the ruling has backfired on the industry that they're trying to do anything to regain what they think (incorrectly) is the moral victory. Among the web hosting firms they're approaching is the one that provides bandwidth to The Pirate Bay, and the music labels are demanding it to stop. Also, the labels are demanding more money. This is notable because for all the problems with the original ruling, it didn't do two things: order the site shut down or provide any guidelines regarding future infringement. So, now it appears that the labels are simply taking that matter into their own hands and interpreting the ruling beyond what it actually said. At some point, will they actually realize that everything they do here is just making things worse for themselves?

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay