What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
82 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+114Terrible description.
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36The interview was poor, and questions like "Can't you quit your anti-copyright ***** and just admit you're really only in it for the money?" are *****.
That was a pretty cocky bitch considering Hollywood making hundreds of billions of dollars per year controlling media distribution, what nerve. If they were in it "for the money" then they would likely be more like Hollywood, or pull a stunt like mp3.com did. (After mp3.com rose in prominence, they decided to embrace copyright to woo the media industry to use them as the next gen in distribution - it's didn't work). - SamKellett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Still beats the hell outa "Title says it all"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+38What a terrible interview.
Why do people care about how much money they make? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25The questioners seem pushy and ignorant.
- darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27I am so disappointed after reading this. The general "buzz" you hear around these guys is that they are some sort of revolutionaries who want to turn the copyright world on its head because its messed up. But you read their own comments and it becomes abundantly clear that they are just a couple of wastes-of-space punks who want everything for free.
There's a lot that's broken about Copyright--but that doesn't mean that the concept of intellectual property is a bad concept altogether (oh *****, I can already feel the "digg downs" coming for that statement). GNU & Linux (and Open Source in general) Software is all copyrighted and there are restrictions on it (yes, I know, it sounds like an oxymoron to see that free software is in some way restricted, but it very much is). If you create something, you have a right to do what you want with it. You can sell it, give it away, lease it...whatever you want. In all the fighting for consumer rights (which is an incredibly important fight as it seems media companies do not care one ounce about their customers) you can't neglect the rights of the person who created the work to do as they choose with it.
As a side note, given that the MPAA & RIAA don't create a damn thing except marketing buzz over such great hits as "Paris Hilton Sings Off-key" so I personally don't believe they deserve any of the rights that copyright should be protecting. - madcaesar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10That's even worse tan John Stewart's "Seat of Heat"
- Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I read about the first 5 or 6 questions and couldn't go any further. If I was those guys I would've punched the interviewer out by that stage. How many times do they have to say they don't know how much money they make and they don't deal with the financial side before they guy will ***** get it.
- combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10By censoring ANYTHING, they are accepting the responsibility for censoring everything. If they censor nothing, they leave it to the community to police themselves. Generally speaking, it works.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I just block all their ads anyway. Nothing but pure torrent goodness and some hilarious legal threats on the site for me.
- PDelahanty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm glad The Daily Show stopped doing that so soon. It was a good concept. It failed horribly.
- phyburn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7zomg, how many times are they going to talk about money... Even if they are, witch they arn't in it for the money I DONT CARE I obtain my torrents from them for free.
- Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What the hell? This entire interview was about the interviewer trying to find out their money stuff, or the names/places of the companys they deal with. WTf.
- Lord_oftheTrons, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Gottfrid: One example of a little more unusual threat was when I had a snail mail from someone complaining that a torrent had a collection of fonts that their clients owned. He claimed the fonts were copyright protected. We sent a snail mail in reply, using all the fonts he had complained about.
Humiliation the old fashioned way. - pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, it is a crappy interview. The interviewers are concerned about being "Hot" that actually end up being morons.
this:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%22Avast_ye_scurvy_file_sharers!%22:_Interview_with_Swedish_Pirate_Party_leader_Rickard_Falkvinge
was a better interview. Anyway, it is more about the pirate party than it is about the Pirate Bay.
Also; http://www2.piratpartiet.se/the_pirate_party - darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Did anyone else read that more along the lines of "Because we're stashing as much of it away as quickly as possible before we take off"
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's not one interviewer, but who ever approved the questions, erm, should be fired.. Some of the questions are nearly identical, others are contridictory, others are just "stupid". Not quite sure how they got these questions, unless it was a "live" thing (Which I doubt - if it was a written-in thing, they should be screened. If it's a people-asking-questions-in-a-studio, why is there typos?), there's no excuse for asking such crappy questions..
"CS asks: Why won’t you answer questions about your profits?", and the very next question "CS asks: How much does your most expensive ad-package cost?"..
"Economicon asks: How much profit did the Pirate Bay make in 2006?
Peter: That is a good question. I have no idea. I think we made a lot of loss."
"CS asks: Many seems to sympathize with you as anti-copyright fighters. Do you think that the public opinion would change if people realized that you actually made money on what you are doing?"
- Ben - kevinarth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry if this question has already been answered, but the title says "Hot Seat" because that's the name of the show on which they were interviewed. Anyone who actually read the interview would have picked that up.
I thought the interview was quite interesting. Also of interest is how evasive they were about profits. Despite their comments, I'm not convinced that they're so oblivious to their business that they have no idea how much money they make. Hmm. - darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not the money (exactly)--they seem to care about getting stuff for free more than making money to buy it.
- PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The one comment that I actually felt had meaning was that saying software houses should look for ways to sell their product other than through licenses.
Other than that, it's really a reminder that we don't want to see the 1337 G33X04RZ behind oh-so-popular websites. - mathew_bug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I second that.
- cal3b, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I guess you failed to read the line saying 'because we'd be able to see who they were'.
Selective reading? - mgarde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The questions they didn't dodge had some interesting answers I just wish the did a better job explaining themselves. But I understand that at the same time they could be locked into those answers when the lawyers show up.
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ya okay, you got me on that one
- pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Matt2k:
By reading your posts I can tell you don't you know what you are talking about. And also know that you never take the time to answer back anything.
The GNU is meant to be a "cancer" license. A way to fight software copyrights from the inside. The actual "restrictions" you and the parent talk about are just ways of ensuring free access to the software and ensuring that the underlaying philosophy spreads and, of course, that the authors get the merits. - dlsspy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"It is rare for anyone to do something that takes time, effort and risk and NOT be in it for the money."
Really? I put a lot of time and effort into snowboarding on the weekends. That's pretty risky (both from the hills and the drives), but I don't see any money coming out of it for me. It certainly costs me a lot.
During the week, I write a lot of code either for myself, my family, my friends, or the local schools. I've been offered money for my applications more than once, so let's say over the last ten or so years, I've made under $500 on personal projects. I do write code professionally as well, but I'd honestly rather be sitting at home writing my own code most of the time (I'm doing cool projects at work right now, so it's actually rather fun).
Plenty of people have plenty of hobbies/habits that have more of a chance of breaking them than making them money. Sometimes it's because they enjoy it. Sometimes it's because they believe in it. - Achilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jesus, what a sketchy interview.
- tompalomp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Forgot to include source on the quote,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay - mathew_bug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WP sucks. I think we all agree having seen almost all WP driven sites down when dugged.
- lcmatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Thats the worst interview I've read in a long while. Doe's it matter if TPB are making money through ads? Look on nearly every website and you'll see them (If you haven't got Ad-Block installed).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It is rare for anyone to do something that takes time, effort and risk and NOT be in it for the money. If you can further a cause you believe in and also make some money then all the better.
Is it actually true that the State covers all legal fees in Sweden? - kenjura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Who are these Computer Swedens people (I assume "CS asks" refers to them) who seem to have such a bug up their ass about Pirate Bay's financing?
If ads are bad, then everyone who has them is bad. If not, then nobody is. If you don't like piracy, well, then you gotta admit it's a more heinous "crime" than having ads. It's like criticizing Ted Kaczynski's fashion choices.
I would have liked to see some questions about the scale of the company (how much hosting, how many employees), some of the legal minutiae with which they'd be familiar, and where they think piracy is going in years to come. It's been said that record companies are considering non-DRM options; could piracy have played a role in that development?
In short, screw you "Computer Swedens", IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME. - looll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I guess you failed to read the line saying 'because we'd be able to see who they were'."
They're not going to run stings themselves. They will, however, collect advertisement revenue from the traffic generated by offending visitors.
For those in countries that do not mind much about child pornography, it's a boon. - lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4this amused me in particular:
CS asks: Many seems to sympathize with you as anti-copyright fighters. Do you think that the public opinion would change if people realized that you actually made money on what you are doing?
Gottfrid: It is really completely irrelevant to the debate how awful we are as individuals. Even if my basement at home were full of kidnapped children it wouldn’t make our arguments less valid. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@phyburn
Exactly the point. Everyone is up in arms over how much money film companies makes because they are the one's paying out. But when it comes to getting something something free, these same people don't care who gets screwed. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2FTA:
"Gottfrid: I worked as a software developer before the Pirate Bay started. Back then we made money on adaption, consulting and installation, instead of on the software itself."
That pretty much sums up their business model. The only difference is that, at his former place of employment, the company actually developed the products they got paid to distribute. Now he profits off the work of others. - Hellfire51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This was a poor interview because all of the questions were what I would call 'loaded' questions. The first half of the interview was just trying to get them to say they make money. Even if they do make some money, I don't care... I don't expect them to be Robin Hoods. I am just looking for a place to get my pirate on.
- 8fans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One thing I know is when you don't know how much profit you made last year you're rolling in dough. Long live TPB!
- dAbReAkA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hey what was that free movie talking about bittorrent's history (particularly TPB's history) in which Gottfrid (Anakata) takes part called?
did the second part get released? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you COULD get paid to snowboard I expect that you would try to work that angle.
I think the whole point here is that if you are doing something that can make you money then most people would take the $$$. Granted there are, of course, people who do things purely for charity or to further a cause but for the most part if people offer a valuable service they want to get paid. - fiver22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So far, by my count, 2 morons have posted the entire interview whithin digg's comments: why would they bother?...some work-places block the site BUT STILL -post a freakin' mirror to get around that.
- redwards, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That was a retarded interview. I want my ten minutes back.
- Outdoor83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The difference is that they're making money off of the work of others. You just want to go get software for free and not pay for it. What you're doing isn't hurting the real ***** (those who impose DRM, CEOs, etc) but the people they fire when profits are down (programmers, audio technicians, etc).
"I am just looking for a place to get my pirate on." It's disappointing that people like you exist. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That dude looks like a fruitcake. Get a haircut and some acne medicine.....
- Outdoor83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's not exactly true. What the RIAA would do is get the fiber cut to the island. You only have to lobby one company for that, and that's not too hard to succeed (with the weight of the US government going there). It is not in the world's best interest to have rogue nations which exist solely to not "play nicely" with the others.
As we've seen in the past, the world has a way of pushing back when you don't act in everyone's best interests (remember Iraq invading Kuwait?) - HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LOL @ connection between Stallman and rationalization. :)
- ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Like everyone before them, they know they only have a limited amount of time before "the man" crushes them. What will they have at the end of it apart from a brand name (that presumably they copyrighted) with a bit of street cred attached to it. Thats all Napster ended up as.
Best of luck to them. It would be wrong if they retired to their own island with palm trees and girls in grass skirts as that is saying crime does pay. I just hope they put something aside for a rainy day. - HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I prefer genuine freedom like BSD. Copyright is bad, but making money, and closed source itself, is NOT evil.
Companies should have every right to develop and release whatever they want in closed source...and should have no legal recourse whatsoever when someone reverse engineers it or duplicates it's capabilities. True freedom is about choice...consumer choice that is not limited by what choices developers are ALLOWED to offer. - Outdoor83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, yeah. If you create something and make money off of it, that's OK. Many people find it wrong to make money when your purpose is to distribute others' work. It's also hard to believe someone, saying they're doing it because it's the right thing, if they're making a financial windfall (personally, I'm quite sure they are).
- mastertop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Even if my basement at home were full of kidnapped children it wouldn’t make our arguments less valid."
ahah -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is