Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
When Pirates Pay, They Pay Good
torrentfreak.com — Last week we reported on the release of Steal This Film 2, a documentary about the past, present and future of filesharing. The film is free to download, but people are encouraged to donate some money if they want to support future projects. Surprisingly, the pirates who decided to donate were quite generous.
FameMoney- 1484 diggs
- digg it
- t2t2, on 01/06/2008, -2/+83"Yarr me matey, take some booty!"
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -4/+12There's not much booty to take. They made $5000 from 150,000 downloaders? On average they paid just over 3 cents for the movie. Over 90% donated $15 or more that means only a few hundred people actually bothered paying anything at all, out of 150,000.
Typical torrentfreak spam... validate kids for diggs and sit back watching the ad impressions grow.- prophetpimp, on 01/06/2008, -3/+4Problem is some want to pay but the payment system suck. Depending on paypal is kind of a downer and many people dont like using credit cards. Once a system is in place you might see people being more generous. Also to earn money the guys could have looked at what pure pwnage does. They make tons of money from merchandising and from advance screening in theaters. Its not the fact that people don't want to pay, its about how and in what form.
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -4/+7That's not the problem it's just another excuse.
The whole "make money another way as long as we don't have to give you any" is not your call to make and frankly just sounds childish.
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -4/+7That's not the problem it's just another excuse.
- prophetpimp, on 01/06/2008, -3/+4Problem is some want to pay but the payment system suck. Depending on paypal is kind of a downer and many people dont like using credit cards. Once a system is in place you might see people being more generous. Also to earn money the guys could have looked at what pure pwnage does. They make tons of money from merchandising and from advance screening in theaters. Its not the fact that people don't want to pay, its about how and in what form.
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -5/+3Also lol @ the crap about brokep thinking people will pay if there's an easy way to pay.... like there aren't already a whole bunch of really easy ways to pay for things.... like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Paypal, brick and mortar stores? Mailing a cheque even? You can even buy prepaid credit cards if you don't have a real credit or visa-flavoured debit card.
- Mike89, on 01/06/2008, -3/+2Pay for what we actually want, he means. I'd rather pay for a simple XviD download than have a physical DVD copy mailed to me, then me having to waste my time ripping it, transcoding it (to XviD, because I'll either be watching it on the PC, XBMC or my Zen Vision M). I'm not paying $30 for a DVD to have the privilege of 'breaking the law' by format shifting it (and it IS against the law, thanks to the DMCA)
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2Most likely he means pay him to pirate something. Where's the money go after it reaches his bank?
Also if you ever look around you'll notice most DVDs end up available a whole lot cheaper than $30 after a short period of time. You're paying a fee to have it 'now' rather than 'later' and if you don't want to wait, suck it up or break the law and risk a whole lot more money.
As for format shifting, that's a fair use argument and doesn't really apply to piracy. Sure it gets used as an excuse, but so does reasonable rates, DRM, convenience and everything else that's been disproven every step of the way by a market that listened to a bunch of lies.- Mike89, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1It used to be fair use, now format shifting that avoids DRM is considered illegal due to the DMCA. Anything that breaks DRM is illegal. I'm going to be breaking the law either way, I don't see why I should pay to do so.
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2Most likely he means pay him to pirate something. Where's the money go after it reaches his bank?
- Mike89, on 01/06/2008, -3/+2Pay for what we actually want, he means. I'd rather pay for a simple XviD download than have a physical DVD copy mailed to me, then me having to waste my time ripping it, transcoding it (to XviD, because I'll either be watching it on the PC, XBMC or my Zen Vision M). I'm not paying $30 for a DVD to have the privilege of 'breaking the law' by format shifting it (and it IS against the law, thanks to the DMCA)
- SiNN4R, on 01/06/2008, -2/+1You sure you want that? I have crabs.
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -4/+12There's not much booty to take. They made $5000 from 150,000 downloaders? On average they paid just over 3 cents for the movie. Over 90% donated $15 or more that means only a few hundred people actually bothered paying anything at all, out of 150,000.
- jizzlies, on 01/06/2008, -6/+8Poor pirates!
- heartless_, on 01/06/2008, -8/+20Too bad there isn't any proof that pirates are actually the ones donating :/
- CraigCarlyle, on 01/06/2008, -4/+11I'm a pirate and I donated $15 today after I finished watching Part II.
- NorthKorea, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1i posted comment number 3:
3 Jan 05, 2008 at 17:52 by yoQuote yo
i gave five bucks before i even watched the film.
why five? cause 15 is too much, and i really didn’t think they’d actually mail me any little trinkets anyway… the shipping alone would be more than 5 bucks anyhow….
also, that swarm was huge. i got my file super-quick BUT i didn’t feel like seeding at all, so i may have subconsciously guilted myself into chipping in the 5 bucks.
$5K for 150,000 downloads is a pittance. sure, some were generous, but most were complete scroooges.
peace!
- NorthKorea, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1i posted comment number 3:
- jiveturkeyblues, on 01/06/2008, -2/+18who else would be interested in supporting the film?
- Dohko_Xar, on 01/06/2008, -6/+3I know, the MPAA!
- CraigCarlyle, on 01/06/2008, -4/+11I'm a pirate and I donated $15 today after I finished watching Part II.
- stevejobs, on 01/06/2008, -4/+166You mean '...Pay Well'.
- Shogi, on 01/06/2008, -5/+97They're pirates, you think they sat through English class past "R"?
- joegibes, on 01/06/2008, -1/+11http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/081301.htm
- DiggMasterJ, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3Yar, nothing we do is good.
- CloseTheCode, on 01/06/2008, -6/+16I think distributable media needs a new business model. This is a great example of how unconventional thinking CAN work.
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4No it's not. Illegal immigrants are making more money than this chump.
- bingobongony, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6Give me a fucing break if you think that this would translate to a regular movie not trying to send a message. The ONLY reason why some people (and it is not that many) are paying, and that they are paying as much as they are is that they pathetically think that they are sticking it to the man by doing so. But if they released, say, the new Rambo movie quietly for free, and asked people to pay...the numbers would be MUCH lower than what the movie will do at hte box office. Like 1% as much.
- Cybermaul, on 01/06/2008, -4/+1Then again, who would actually go to see the new Rambo, even if it were free?
- bingobongony, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1If you think that Rambo is not going to be a modest box office hit, then you apparently have not been paying attnetion. Is it going to do $300 million? Probably not. It IS, after all, a January release. But $150 million and therefore the highest grossing Rambo film? Probably.
- Cybermaul, on 01/06/2008, -4/+1Then again, who would actually go to see the new Rambo, even if it were free?
- cliffski, on 01/06/2008, -3/+2what self-deluding *****. If the pirates can afford to pay for this movie, why the ***** are they so keen to steal the work of everyone else. They are just a bunch of ***** hypocrites who think they wont get caught. eventually, they do.
- adhiza, on 01/06/2008, -11/+8It's probably because of all the extra cash in their pockets since they don't have to pay $30 for a DVD.
- Audacitor, on 01/06/2008, -1/+5Well, I'm sure as hell not dropping thirty dollars on one DVD. Whether I pirate film X or not, they're not getting my money until they offer it for a more reasonable price.
- DaDrake, on 01/06/2008, -2/+5Yet you will still illegally download their material? So you don't like their prices, you take their goods anyways without paying.
The world is going to hell =p- Aensland, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2...he said whether he pirates it OR not.
- JudgeMonkey, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Going? We've been there for far longer than you've been alive.
- DaDrake, on 01/06/2008, -2/+5Yet you will still illegally download their material? So you don't like their prices, you take their goods anyways without paying.
- Audacitor, on 01/06/2008, -1/+5Well, I'm sure as hell not dropping thirty dollars on one DVD. Whether I pirate film X or not, they're not getting my money until they offer it for a more reasonable price.
- blix797, on 01/06/2008, -2/+50One of the pirating guidelines I follow: "Support the good stuff."
- zongamin, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2Liar.
- someone173406, on 01/06/2008, -3/+21I'm downloading the movie now, at a rate of 400kbs. o.o
- chugger1992, on 01/06/2008, -2/+19I'm only getting 290, stop hogging it! :(
- tian2992, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Damm, i just got ~20... (goes to the corner and cries)
- LeafInTheWind, on 01/06/2008, -0/+19what was the secret prize offer you got when you donated $15? If its good I might donate too
- allyant, on 01/06/2008, -1/+30Donate and find out! It's a surprise!
- ja1217, on 01/06/2008, -1/+55A boats a boat, but the mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat!
- BlueTunicLink, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3I'll be the only guy on the block with a boat!
- ja1217, on 01/06/2008, -1/+55A boats a boat, but the mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat!
- allyant, on 01/06/2008, -1/+30Donate and find out! It's a surprise!
- N256, on 01/06/2008, -0/+7I see we have a new definition for piracy.
- thejitters, on 01/06/2008, -0/+34This is slightly off-topic, but I keep seeing it and it's untrue:
"Take the Radiohead release for example, you could get the album virtually for free, but you still had to pay the credit card company nearly $1. This is probably why most people decided to pirate the album, instead of getting it for “free”."
If you decided to download it for free, you don't get any kind of credit card service charge. You aren't even asked for a credit card. (I wasn't.) This isn't the reason the Radiohead release was pirated.- jiveturkeyblues, on 01/06/2008, -10/+2i went to their site to download it a month ago, and it asked for my credit card information and required i donate at least a dollar. then i pirated it, and turns out it isn't even that great..
- actorboy, on 01/06/2008, -2/+5Cheap *****, aren't you?
- zongamin, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2You're a liar. Again - if you chose to pay nothing, as most people did, then you didn't have to supply a credit card.
You probably entered 0.01 or something you ***** idiot.
- jiveturkeyblues, on 01/06/2008, -10/+2i went to their site to download it a month ago, and it asked for my credit card information and required i donate at least a dollar. then i pirated it, and turns out it isn't even that great..
- hamalicious, on 01/06/2008, -9/+1"by stevejobs You mean '...Pay Well'."
C'mon steve they are pirates after all - brwright, on 01/06/2008, -4/+41$5000/150000 downloads...that's less than $.03 per download.
- l2OI3, on 01/06/2008, -4/+14$0/16270... that's $0 per download. 16270 is the number of peers and seeders on one download for I Am Legend, a movie that has been on torrent sites since it came out 3 weeks ago.
My point? $.03 is better than $0- Twasi, on 01/06/2008, -8/+6And yet $5000 wouldn't even cover the bandwidth for distributing the movie so there is still no incentive for movie studios to do this. In fact, they would probably lose money since bandwidth bills would cost far more than anything people would donate. The only real viable option is BT but getting non-computer literate people to use it and keep people seeding would be difficult.
The fact the majority of people who donated, donated more than $15 and they still only made $5000 shows that only a tiny percentage of the 150,000 people who downloaded it actually donated. If anything this is a bad example and just shows pirates aren't interested in paying regardless of if change is made or not. Radiohead's experiment is much more convincing than this.
I'm all for Internet distribution and massive reform in the entertainment industry but this is more disappointing than anything else..- exomni, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4There are zero bandwidth costs, the bandwidth costs are covered by the downloaders... you haven't been around long, have you?
- Twasi, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2I said the only viable option is BT. You still can't read can you? Unfortunately BT comes with all sorts of issues that would be nearly impossible to incorporate into a industry wide distribution model. Next time you comment I would suggest you read what you're applying to. My comment was since BT isn't viable the bandwidth costs simply outweigh the benefits.
- fkr3, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2What about production costs? Paying the people who made the movies and leasing the equipment they needed and everything else? Bandwidth is cheap as ***** whether it's distributed or not.
- lovestospooge, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6BitTorrent = distributed bandwidth
- Twasi, on 01/06/2008, -3/+2Which is why I said BT is the only viable option. But the fact of the matter is most people won't be able to work/understand using BT even if major studios made a proprietary client. Not to mention they would have all sorts of issues with seeding.
- l2OI3, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1They key is probably to trick users into uploading/seeding, like joost does.
- exomni, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4There are zero bandwidth costs, the bandwidth costs are covered by the downloaders... you haven't been around long, have you?
- bingobongony, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Gee...and how about those people that paid to go see I Am Legend in the theater?
- Twasi, on 01/06/2008, -8/+6And yet $5000 wouldn't even cover the bandwidth for distributing the movie so there is still no incentive for movie studios to do this. In fact, they would probably lose money since bandwidth bills would cost far more than anything people would donate. The only real viable option is BT but getting non-computer literate people to use it and keep people seeding would be difficult.
- Zero2aHero, on 01/06/2008, -0/+8Your point is lost dude.
If I Am Legend was offered for free, and they asked for kind donations... they would have gotten a ton of money. The title of this made it sound like a huge amount of money was raised. $5000 sucks for having gotten 150,000+ downloads... If you assume (which would be wrong), that the $5000 was raised by 5000 people donating $1, then that would be 3% of the people who downloaded it made a donation. That percentage in itself is low, and we know that users were donating more than that so... the percentage of people who donated was less than 3%.
We know when Saul Williams/Trent Reznor released their new album they said they had 18% of the people pay... that number is pretty damn low as well... let alone less than 3%.- bingobongony, on 01/06/2008, -0/+10If I Am Legend was offered for free and they asked for doantions, it would have made MUCH less than it currently is making at the box office.
- l2OI3, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3Well you have to realize this doesn't even qualify as an indie flick, in my mind even 5000 dollars is great for the makers of this film.
- l2OI3, on 01/06/2008, -4/+14$0/16270... that's $0 per download. 16270 is the number of peers and seeders on one download for I Am Legend, a movie that has been on torrent sites since it came out 3 weeks ago.
- ECas123, on 01/06/2008, -4/+16What do you expect? Pirates save up so much money with porn, software, music, and movies this isn't very surprising.
- rockrapdude, on 01/06/2008, -8/+2The formula for success(usually): If you don't have to pay to DL/use it they will pay. If you force them to pay to DL/use they won't pay.
- cliffski, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2you run a business that feeds your family on this hippie ***** do you?
I didn't think so.
- cliffski, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2you run a business that feeds your family on this hippie ***** do you?
- Fawkes, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5uhh, all things considered; I think Jessica Simpson had a better ratio...
- seanhive, on 01/06/2008, -3/+2Guilt! :(
- welliamwallace, on 01/06/2008, -6/+3they pay WELL
- whathappened, on 01/06/2008, -0/+4http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3636669624 ...
- dustinmacdonald, on 01/06/2008, -7/+6Anyone else think the film was stupid? They tried to link the censoring of information with media piracy, which are two totally different things.
- 02lawsonja, on 01/06/2008, -9/+4The correct title would be When Pirates Pay, They Pay WELL.
and they don't.... they are stingy bastards! - Goobernutz, on 01/06/2008, -4/+17wow! $5000. i bet the camera crew, actors, production team, producers, writers, catering crew and everyone else is going to retire. heck, they should make a 2nd crappy movie and rake in ANOTHER 5k. lamborghini monster trucks and diamond capped teeth for everyone!
- bingobongony, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4Not to mention the "surprise gifts" they have to give out to people. These people lost a LOT of money.
- jonnyeuchre, on 01/06/2008, -4/+3They pay well, not good.
- bejayel, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2i must be standing in the middle of a friggin canyon.
- bourbonandcoke2, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3How are they 'pirates' when the film was made strictly for free distribution and asks for 'donations' only?
- open_sauce, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1Its only "kind of" made for free distribution in that the film is copyrighted so that you can "actually" steal it. See FAQ.
- pizzas, on 01/06/2008, -4/+0well well well
- MrLeEx, on 01/06/2008, -2/+1"heaps good english"
- barroni, on 01/06/2008, -1/+5i gave up my 5 pieces of silver
- aaabatteries, on 01/06/2008, -0/+8beat that, ninjas!
- DaDrake, on 01/06/2008, -4/+6Wow...... stop for a moment.... an ENTIRE 5 grand. Wow... I think we really have a new industry booming here.
Not - bitterbug, on 01/06/2008, -4/+2There's a certain irony in the article when they get to the part about talking to Brokep about the new project but they can't release any information yet. The guys at TPB expect that all information should be free, so why not info on their project?
- cliffski, on 01/06/2008, -3/+1because they are thieving criminal hypocrites?
- ghostz00, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2of course we......I mean pirates pay well, they haven't had to pay a dime for any movies, music, or games for at least a decade or so.
- smurfsahoy, on 01/06/2008, -4/+2Okay, so as long as I go and shell out a lot of money for safe-cracking equipment in order to better steal things from you, that makes me generous?
A movie that promotes their side of things is no different than a set of lockpicks, really. It's a facilitating tool. - sparced, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2All that Grime made me think twice about donating.
- MacintoshMan, on 01/06/2008, -7/+11haha pay good?
150,000 downloads
5,000 dollars
thats a grand total of... .033333333 cents a person!
Now if they charged online a dollar to see it, that'd be 150,000 dollars!
Aparently giving somthing away doesnt pay off!
Watch as this gets burried because diggers cant face the facts...- crypt, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1more like 0.03 dollar ... still way too low
- bingobongony, on 01/06/2008, -2/+7How can they call this a success when they have made just $5000, and they say that most people are donating the $15 to see what the surprise gift is. That means that about 400 people out of 150,000 have paid anything...most to see what else they can get for free.
In other words, take away this free gift, and the amount they made is much less than $5000. Not counting their costs.
And producer Jamie King is as delusional as the worst Ron Paulian..."Jamie King, producer of the film gives the following explanation on his blog: “Over 90% of people donating are deciding to go over the artificial $15 threshold we set. But I don’t think people literally ‘want that gift’; I think they want an excuse to be generous!”" No, Jamie..they are not just looking for an excuse to give you money. - umber2007, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3I have 7 GB of MP3s I have "Collected" over the years, and have decided that each song from my collection that is available on Amazon, DRM free for 89c or 99c, I will buy.
Note to RIAA: Sell your music at a good price with no DRM and we will buy.- Avi17, on 01/06/2008, -4/+3At a proper quality.
Heck, for $1 a song, I want the wave file (that would come on the cd) so I could format-shift it as needed. Or FLAC or Apple lossless.
I'll pay up without hesitation/- maexus, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Why is he being dugg down. I completely agree. DRM Free lossless and I will broke from the music I'm buying. I will not pay for a lossy format, ever.
- Avi17, on 01/06/2008, -4/+3At a proper quality.
- Avi17, on 01/06/2008, -1/+0Yarrrrrr Matey!!
- Tweekster, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2If you dont get the history of "steal this book" you will find this story interesting, if you learn the history of that book and why it was called such, you will quickly understand why the naming series of books, dvds, and cds that have followed are by a bunch of retards.
While you are at it, go learn about "smoke a book week" too. equally interesting part of the same movement.
To simplify, Steal this book was not about free access to info, but a combo of "i dont give a ***** whatsoever and all proceeds will be literally spent on massive quantities of LSD and weed" and publishing rights to that book involving abbie hoffman, a co author, and less importantly penguin publishing (if i recall correctly)
stil this ______ just means you are a useless tool that couldnt bother to come up with anything original. - actorboy, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3Anyone else notice that whenever you can smell neck-deep ***** coming off the headline, Ernesto's name is always on the other side of the click?
- Jerky1312, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2These guys get $5,000 donated and they are ecstatic about it, yet Trent Reznor and Saul Williams get $140,000 and they are disheartened about it.
- maexus, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1At 5000.00, I believe its just that they have very low standards.
- Velvetmoo, on 01/06/2008, -0/+0Umm, This confused the ***** out of me. How do you reconcile these two statements within the first four paragraphs?
"When Part 1 was released, “The League of Noble Peers” asked downloaders to donate $1 (or more) if they wanted to support the project. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority donated just that."
and
"...the people who donate (still only a small percentage) are obviously dedicated to the cause..."
So which is it?- secrity, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1The vast majority of those who donated donated $1.
- olivercross, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2If the I am Legend film was releases for free and asked for donations they would make more money because 1. Will Smith is in it 2. It's been more widely publicized in many more mediums 3. You don't have to be a computer nerd to watch it.
- tehxen3, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2$5000 for 150,000 downloads is good? Poor pirates...
- DarkRabbit, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1And they have the cheek to tell us no one will make or pay for media without Copyright! hah!
Eat that, Capitalist swine! - SeethisPass, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2 As the son of a full time musician and writer I can tell you that, at best the artists and the writers share for creating and performing music is tiny to nothing under the old system. That system is being replaced by people taking control of their own production and distribution. Under the recording and distribution system of the past You must make many many other people rich before you get anything at all. A recording contract is really just a high interest loan.The artist or writer bears all costs and only gets some low single digit percentage as his possible return. That return is usually eaten up by the interest rate on the "recording contract" and even that small return is much delayed.
Under the system that is being replaced the musician has little to no chance.to get paid for his creations.
Some very well known artists never get anything.
There was a periodical in Miami some years ago that spent an entire edition interviewing bands and musicians with hit records to their credit. They were all asked the same question " What did you do with the money?"
Almost universally the answer they got was " what money?" One multi hit 1980's group, KC and the Sunshine Band, had one member ( KC) who paid down on a house, after having a string of 4 or 5 hits.
That turned out to be the big haul. The sooner the greedy 'old guard' dies out the better it will be for musicians and writers. - mybeat, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1I've donated 20$..
- DarkRabbit, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/movies/Watch_Steal_This_Film_I_II_ ...
Watch both One and Two here! - D4N747, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1Disrespect me and treat me like a thief and I will no longer buy your product. [DRM]
Respect me but give me a bad deal and I will steal your product. [Radiohead - 160 kbps MP3s? Come on now.]
Respect me and treat me as your equal and I will respect you and treat you as my equal. [Steal This Film 2]
Treat others like you wish to be treated.- zongamin, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1You are a ***** idiot.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with 160 k MP3's - you should support the band for trying something different. If it had been 192k you would have moaned it wasn't V0, if it was V0 you would want FLAC. - metalwolf, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0Except for complaining about the 160 kbps, I agree with you.
- zongamin, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1You are a ***** idiot.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by