Trading in The Pirate Bay bidder stopped over deal funding

I don't get it...

Fair enough, start a P2P distribution service that users subscribe to but why use the Pirate Bay as the foundation? The 'customer' base is pirates, hence the name.

Also the content would need to be scrubbed for cracks and a mechanism put in place to replace keygens & register etc, that is as easy as using a keygen otherwise they will be charging for an inferior service.

I've not heard of anything so daft in my life.

Surely if anyone could pull this offer Amazon would have already done it, no?

openbittorrent tracker for the win.

Also, some other recent PRQ related developments seem intriguing; though there has been so much noise/bleating generated by the ubiquitious freetard commentariat on sites like Torrentfreak/pirate blogs and so on, that it is rather taxing to attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

Still, as events unfold I imagine a clearer pirate related narrative will present itself. Somehow I doubt it will involve mass freetard→paytard conversion...

thanks Jenkins!

"mass freetard→paytard conversion"

Ha ha ha ha ha!

pirates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Pirates!

From the page:

The game tests a wide range of skills: hand-eye coordination during the fencing sections, tactical ability during the land and sea combat phases, and strategic thinking, for everything from choosing a wife to deciding when to divide up the plunder.

Of course, this might be totally irrelevant.

Saw this coming

Suprised TPB fell for it, whole thing looked like a set up from the off. Score 1 for the content holders, pirate bay closed and owners shown to have been chasing profit, even though it will never materialise.

Freetards, who us?

Rules:

#1 If you don't want stuff copied, don't make it in a format that is so easy to duplicate.

#2 Don't put stuff on the interwebs

#3 Stop sniveling about 'losses', I was never going to buy your shite anyways!

No loot then?

So if this deal collapses does that mean the TPB lot won't get any money and in fact be in debt with fines totalling several miliions?

trying not smirk.

@Winkypop (Freetards)

Re: #1.

Gee this works well with CD/DVD copy protection, doesn't it -- it just gets cracked. Duh. :-/

Re: #3.

For some types of product piracy it IS a "loss". I wish the "freetards" and pirates would get an education before posting wrong information and spreading this garbage.

For example Software is licensed. When you buy a copy you may own the media, but you don't own the software. You are purchasing a license to use it. So if you did not purchase a license to use the software then you do not have any right at all to actually use it. And your use of the unlicensed copy is a definite provable loss on licensing payments.

If you are simply a software hoarder and only collect everything imagineable but never actually install it and use it, then it is not a loss. But if you do actually use the unlicensed software then it is a loss.

Use requires a license payment. Unlicensed use = a license payment loss.

Do you understand yet?

I've had a few friends over the years who do pirate various things, such as music or software, and then when they get an IP of their's ripped off whether it be music (if they are in a band) or images (if a photog), etc., they whine about it. I always tell them to STFU or GTFO because now they know what it is all about.

"The Pyrite Bay"

Oh, bravo. Snorted my mid-morning Miso Soup through the nose.

@Winkypop

Grrrrrrrr.

"#1 If you don't want stuff copied, don't make it in a format that is so easy to duplicate."

Conbloodygratulations! You've just justified DRM. Yes, it exists because the world is unfortunately full of complete knobs who take that attitude.

I hope you're fucking proud.........

Site backups

Does this giant file include file number 900,001 --- being the TPB backup? I think we should be told.

As for providing hard-to-copy files as a prevention against theft, hard-to-copy logically equals hard-to-open files --- not a genius business proposition. [Oh, I remember, DRM separates these two? For example CSS was making DVD copying impossible... for a month or so. Similarly you can convert DRM'ed music via WAV to DRM-free music, en masse. hence hard-to-copy = hard-to-open, even if it takes a while for someone to find the route.]

@DeeGee

"And your use of the unlicensed copy is a definite provable loss on licensing payments."

Ah, No.

Adobe Photoshop is a classic example - where the 'Pirate' user could never have afforded a licensed copy in the first place (CS4 is currently £527 on Amazon). Therefore no sale was lost by an individual downloading a copy so no negative financial impact on the publisher. Before you waste your time mentioning it, no most people DON'T qualify for the educational versions.

There IS a provable POSTITIVE impact though. A load of guys out there have learned Photoshop using copied media, and have gone on to be employed by the sort of agency who purchase dozens of licenses for this - and associated products - thus propogating the skill base and driving corporate purchases of the software.

@Fraser

Photoshop is a bad example, as there ARE good alternatives out there. Eg. Paint .NET which is one of the best image-editing packages I've ever used. However your argument doesn't quite work out, as the alternatives to the paid version quite often are distributed as free. They don't have the same featureset as the paid software, but they also don't make any money, they're just left as downloads all over the net. I'd guess that you can probably get most free software from download.com or similar sites, and if you get it from there the original creator isn't going to get any advertising revenue (AFAIK) or have any knowledge that it was downloaded unless the creator monitors all of these sites.

Of course, your argument also forgets that the possibly 'crapper' versions that are available for free might never be used at all anyway, simply because they don't do what the user wants them to. There's no lost download (which is of minimal impact anyway), or lost sale of the professional software, as the user may well just not have bothered if the fully featured software wasn't available for free.

Let's say you had pirated your version of Office, what would you use instead if you didn't? OpenOffice? Are you seriously suggesting that OpenOffice are damaged by you not using their software or do you think that they are quite happy with the fact that they're popular and don't really care that you don't use it (yet).

All this is bollocks anyway because the original argument was about proving that a license is lost by a company when you don't buy their software, which is clearly addressed and proven false by the AC. The other manufacturers are not addressed in bit lawsuits where the pirating is seen as a loss from the person you pirated it from. That is what the AC was addressing. Maybe if the FOSS solutions were better publicised (why not upload torrents of their own software if it's free and tag it with the name of their common competitor so that people who are trying to download illegal content see them first as a free, good, legal alternative?) maybe they'd win over some of the pirates, as it is, if you know about one big product, and not the competitors you'll get the big product every time, won't you? And if you couldn't buy it because of the cost of it in the first place, it's not a lost sale. Simples.

Let me get this straight...

The value of TPB plummets after tPB is used to share the intellectual property of TPB?

Now that's what I call irony