torrentfreak.com — Just hours ago The Pirate Bay and Piratbyrån held a joint press conference at the Museum of Technology in Stockholm. It was broadcasted live on the web and Pirate Bay co-founders Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm spoke at length. Here is a breakdown of some of the key points.
Feb 15, 2009 View in Crawl 4
meleelinkFeb 16, 2009
Close one, and new ones will replaced the closed one. Good luck....You will never stop it.
vat0rFeb 16, 2009
Click the ads at Piratebay to keep the f**king Feds away.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2009
They don't take risks. If they were actually taking risks there would be music better than Britney Spears, and a film-script wouldn't be reworked a dozen times to "spice it up" with "sex" and violence. They wouldn't hire Tome Cruise and pay him a few millions for that one film. And... hey, they would produce films that are cheaper, and could be sold cheaper... wouldn't that be more effective against piracy?
tyhenFeb 16, 2009
I agree with the whole discussion that the current biz models are outdated and need to change. However, that is a whole other topic which I didn't start and don't intend to discuss (we'll be here all night)."Stolen implies physical loss". Yes, it usually does. That does not mean it cannot be non-physical. For instance, there are virtual items for sale in online worlds. And if we are talking digital media, well, in reality the files are physical -- they take up space on disk and can be put on physical media. But even if they weren't on any physical media (an impossibility), the fact that there is a price (99 cents) on a song on mp3 format means it is for sale and taking it without paying for it is theft. Worse even, if someone buys the digital song, that now belongs to him/her and taking a copy of it is pure theft from the buyer. So as you can see whether it's the buyer or the artist, it will always be theft. Arguments about potential loss (or lack thereof) are moot as long as there is ownership of the item and there is no consent for copying/distribution. There is a reason why the term 'pirate' is being used all throughout. If nothing wrong is being done, why are there legal proceedings in progress?
say592Feb 18, 2009
@tyhenYour argument for it being physical is kind of pathetic. If you are suggesting that its physical in the sense that its ridges on the hard drives of a thousand data centers, then yes, sure it is. However, no one is paying or downloading or "stealing" the ridges of those hard drives. The original ones still exist, just new ones are created. At no cost to the original. How is that stealing? No one is losing anything. As for ownership? Really? Who owns it then? Does iTunes? Does the record company? Does the artist? Obviously the logical argument is the artist, but thats not what the current system implies, since the artist makes much less than most of the other parties. Oh, and the record company still owns it. The current market prevents ANYONE from owning ANY media. Even if you go buy that CD, or that DVD, or pay for a copy of it on iTunes, you dont own it. There are string attached. Now, do you really want to pay money for something you dont really own? If they want to keep the rights to their content (and they do) they need to use a model that appeals to the consumer. If I dont actually hand out any of my money for a song, or a movie, or a TV show, I could care less that its not mine. I dont really care if they say I cant share it with my friends, because my friends can also get it free. Am I suggesting they start tagging ads onto the beginning of every MP3? No. Far from it actually. Im just saying that a business model that uses ad revenue (most likely presented at the time of "purchase") keeps everyone happy. The records still own the license. I dont feel ripped off for paying $8 only to be told that the CD I just bought on Rhaspsody cant be used with my new Zune. In theory, the format would be universal, like an MP3. I would imagine they would still want some sort of clean water mark (no DRM, just a simple mark of where it originated, the session where the user actually watched the ads, etc) but thats not intrusive. I can still use that on whatever else I want to.Now, tying this all into TPB. TPB is encouraging free thinking, and new business models. Its encouraging the artists to say "Hey, why should I let the record own this stuff when all I want is for people to listen to it?". They are providing the groundwork for a new model. They have demonstrated that people would much rather see a couple backround ads than drop $0.99 on a song. Most of all, they (and many other torrent sites) have shown that with the right technology, it is a viable business model. Large torrent sites are often able to sustain themselves. Or at least close to it. And file sharing sites have the hardest time getting quality advertising revenue, because everyone pretends its some dirty business.If the model was embraced, and used by large corporations, they could get quality advertising that would pay more than the crap most people see on file sharing sites. That would allow them to operate, and even profit! Imagine that. Everyone would be happy. Sure, revenue might go down a tiny bit, but the consumer would be enjoying the product, the consumer would always be able to get the product, etc.