Techdirt. Stories filed under "brokep"

Minecraft Creator Stops By Pirate Bay Co-Founder's Reddit AMA To Thank Him For 'Making The World A Better Place'

Tim Cushing — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:45:17 PST

A recent Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything, for the .005% of readers who aren't aware) featuring Peter Sunde, co-founder of the Pirate Bay, had a visitor drop by to pay his respects... and nearly derail the whole thing.

The perception of the Pirate Bay as a lawless infringement paradise makes it an unlikely entity for a software developer to be praising, even with a few reservations. But this is what Notch, the creator of ~~Legos~~ Minecraft, had to say when coming face-to-face with Peter Sunde.

How much money have I lost because of this? Do I need it? God knows I certainly work hard enough to deserve it. That said, thanks for making the world a better place.

Notch and TPB go way back, or at least Notch and piracy do. Minecraft has proven hugely successful for the developer (check out the "Do I need it?" link), much of that due to the sort of "rampant infringement" that makes Chris Dodd and Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot cry themselves to sleep at night (and craft terrible DRM strategies during the day). The difference between Notch and the aforementioned weeping sleepers is his refusal to equate piracy with either "theft" or "lost sales."

Piracy is not theft. If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.

There is no such thing as a 'lost sale'... Is a bad review a lost sale? What about a missed ship date?

Notch addressed the "lost sale" fallacy again, following up on a question from another Redditor.

Do you think the sales that you've made through pirate versions are worth the number of downloads? I know I bought the real Minecraft after testing it out via. pirate software, as I do with most worthwhile software.

This is an extremely interesting question. For a game like Minecraft, I definitely believe it's at least broken even because the game has quite a long lifespan and has viral aspects in that people enjoy sharing what they create in and with the game. More users means more talking about the game, which means more sales.

For other games, I think piracy can definitely negatively affect the total number of units sold. This is especially true for hollywood style big story heavy big productions that are only expected to sell well and stay in the public conscience for a few months. That still doesn't mean anyone has actually LOST any money, as a bad review also can affect the total number of sales, and hopefully nobody thinks it would be sane to sue magazines for "loss of profit" over bad reviews.

And for a few games where there's a per-user cost, piracy can definitely be directly harmful to the company.

As Notch states, no one's suing magazines for bad reviews... yet. And that day may never come, especially if a convenient scapegoat like "piracy" can be asked to shoulder the blame for lousy sales. As for the statement about per-user cost, Notch is referring to ProjectZomboid, which was taken down, not because of piracy itself, but because of a glitch in the program that downloaded the entire game from Zomboid's cloud server any time the player clicked the "Update Now" button, racking up bandwidth charges for the developers. Unlike a torrent, where the delivery cost is footed by every user, Zomboid was footing the bill for bandwidth on its own. Not your usual "taken down because of rampant piracy" situation.

And then there's his response to a Redditor's simple "I'm sorry."

For what? Pirating the game?

I strongly believe individual rights are much more important than corporate rights, and I consider piracy to be an extremely minor offense. It's less harmful than jaywalking.

Organized and business run copyright infringement where people try to make money of someone else's work is a problem, but people sharing stuff casually is just barely even worth talking about...

This is the part that is often overlooked when the usual suspects begin decrying piracy. They choose to conflate it with counterfeit goods, child pornography, drug trafficking, terrorism... whatever it takes to make individual, non-commercial file sharing look like criminal behavior.

Thousands of individuals sharing stuff they like adds up. But attempts to place this behavior in the same basket as commercial enterprises that sell pirated content just make the person doing the basket-loading look ridiculous. As Notch says, casual file sharing is "barely worth talking about." This sort of behavior has gone on since the day of cassettes (for music and software) and isn't going away anytime soon.

By taking a more pragmatic approach to infringement, creators may find that an entity like The Pirate Bay isn't the enemy -- or at least, not the only one or even the worst one. Attacking The Pirate Bay also attacks its users, and its users are people you want on your side, not fighting against you. Notch sees both the upside and downside of free (and uncompensated) distribution and his solution has been to craft something that people want to pay for, even after they've already picked it up for free. Part of that profitable equation is an awesome product. The other part is simply being awesome -- something that's much easier to do when you're not painting potential customers as freeloading pirates.

(This really was Peter Sunde's AMA, so I'm going to give him the last word with this particularly hilarious response to a somewhat loaded question.)

Leeches: you have been served.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Music Industry Execs Debate Brokep From The Pirate Bay

Mike Masnick — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:28:00 PDT

Over in the UK, on Thursday evening, there was a music industry panel discussion that involved a massive number of panelists (ten -- which seems a bit too many) covering a wide variety of viewpoints from the music industry. Mostly they came from the traditional parts of the music industry, but the interesting participant was Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, aka brokep, from The Pirate Bay (and now Flattr), taking part in the discussion with a group of folks who regularly call him all sorts of unfriendly things. Stuart Dredge, over at Music Ally, ran a nice live blog of the conversation, which mostly went down about as you would expect. Dredge noted that it was mostly an "industry" audience, and he worried that "there’s a bit of a kick-the-Pirate-Bay mood bubbling" in the audience.

Thankfully, it doesn't look like things got that far. Mostly it was the typical back and forth. Industry folks whining that they can't compete with The Pirate Bay... even as they were talking about the variety of ways they were competing with The Pirate Bay. Basically, what becomes clear is they would prefer competition that they control, rather than competition that consumers drive. Tragically, innovation doesn't work that way.

Peter made the point that a lot of people were confusing the music industry with the recording industry, and mocked them a bit for not actually talking about culture or music:

"Most of the things we're talking about today are about the record industry, not about the music industry. Everyone is talking about percentages... nobody is talking about music. It sounds like most people here could be selling diapers instead!"

While technically true, the discussion was about the business of music, so I think it's fair to be discussing some numbers and the business angle. But there is a larger point to be made here. With studies showing that more music is being created, the complaints about the "death" of the industry are clearly misplaced. The real complaints from the industry types are that they aren't able to make money off of it any more -- but that doesn't mean the music industry is in trouble at all. Instead, it's thriving. In fact, Peter also made that point:

It's not a right for the record industry to make a profit.... Technology has come that has made most of the record industry less valuable. We need to just move on, it's sort of an evolution... It might not be good for people working in the record industry, but the music industry is better than ever."

The industry folks on the panel still seem to be living in a state of denial at times, talking about how they should milk the 40 and 50 year olds who are still buying CDs, rather than really understanding the changing marketplace. My favorite laughable quote came from Guy Moot, of EMI Publishing, who said:

"The joy of ownership is a very different thing from the joy of a digital download or stream..."

Sure, it is, but the record labels have worked very, very, very hard to make it clear to people that they don't get to "own" anything. How many times have been told "you just get a license." If we really got to own stuff, there wouldn't be so many complaints.

There were so many people taking part, it's difficult to cover them all. Will Page (whose interview we recently posted) made some good points, and Jeremy Silver, from the Featured Artist Coalition (who's also a very interesting guy to chat with about these issues) comes off as being quite sensible in saying that file sharing of unauthorized works is here and not going away -- and the industry should take some of the blame for sitting on the CD cash cow and never innovating. Rather than complaining about it, it's time to look forward.

On that note, it seemed like the most reasonable speaker may have been David Stopps, who spoke from the perspective of an artist's manager. He noted that the it's absolutely possible to "compete with free," talked up the importance of touring to make money and using the music to boost those revenues and also played down the "demise" of the record labels, by noting that "they still have the back catalogue" to milk for a long time and that their job has become a lot easier thanks to technology:

He says A&R is becoming easier for labels, because sites like Hype Machine and We Are Hunted are where A&R guys are looking to see "who's listening to what music". It's less about "taking a punt" than in the old days. "Artists are building up fanbases themselves… and that can be monitored."

He also brings up the band Metric as an example of a band that has "gone all the way" without a record deal, noting that they turned down a variety of major label deals with massive advances to "do it on their own" and that it's working:

"They're doing a fantastic job, they use Topspin to sell their music, and that seems to be very successful for them. We're gonna see more of that..."

Along those lines, he also notes that The Pirate Bay can be a really great way for people to discover new music, and monetize them elsewhere, pointing to Imogen Heap, who discovered tons of people in Indonesia downloading her music in an unauthorized manner... but when she went there, she was able to sell out a 4,500 seat arena, making "a lot of money."

Finally, he also knocks BPI and others in the industry for still thinking that DRM is a reasonable solution -- pointing out that it's totally anti-consumer:

"The problem is, nobody really asked the consumer," he says, about attempts to put DRM on CDs. "They absolutely hated it. You put the CD into the computer and it wouldn't play... In the future, we've got to bring the consumers into the business model. In fact, they already are part of the business model."

Geoff Taylor, the head of BPI (basically the UK's RIAA) comes off as about what you'd expect. He trashes The Pirate Bay repeatedly, claims that it's "destroying national cultures" (with no proof, of course) and says that there needs to be "disincentives" to dealing with unauthorized file sharing.

It's the same story as usual: they're so focused on negative incentives for people doing stuff they don't like, they never seem to care about creating positive incentives for those they should be targeting. That's BPI's problem. Not The Pirate Bay.

Anyway... given the participants, it was about what you would expect, and didn't seem to get quite as nasty as some feared before the event. I doubt anyone's mind was changed about anything, but it still sounded like a pretty good discussion.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

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

Mike Masnick — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:51:53 PDT

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.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story