KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
The downing of the torrent search site The Pirate Bay last week, was a watershed moment in online file sharing. As with the takedowns of other infamous internet sites it spawned dismay from fans, was heralded as a breakthrough in copyright protection by the lobby groups and became an opportunity for scam artists to try and take advantage of the file sharing vacuum it created. However it's also led to innovation, like the fall of Napster that spawned its initial creation. Now though we have an official comment from the people behind the site on what's been going on and what their plans for the future are – in short, they're far from certain.
“We were not that surprised by the raid. That is something that is a part of this game. We couldn't care less really,” Mr 10100100000 informed told TorrentFreak. However he did say that it had given the team behind the site a well earned break. While they aren't the original founders of TPB, the site has only been down for a few days here and there in its ten year+ operation.
Metaphor.
The indifference at the raid suggests nothing of value was lost, though it's clearly not as simple as plugging in a front-end server somewhere else. The admins seem to be taking the opportunity to see if TPB is really needed in today's landscape of file trading.
“Will we reboot? We don’t know yet. But if and when we do, it’ll be with a bang,” Mr 10100100000 said.
The “problem,” for lack of a better word with The Pirate Bay, is that while iconic, it is quite antiquated. The site itself, though effective, is simple and lacks many features that more updated and contemporary torrent sites have implemented.
In recent days however copies of TPB have appeared online, some scams, some not. While the admins of the real site urge people to be careful of those looking to rip them off, they said that the copycats were just a more independent version of the proxies that have served to get people around government pushed ISP blocks.
“Overall, we'd love to see a thousand Pirate Bays,” MR 1010010000000 said. “If [Pirate Bay’s] code wouldn’t be so s****y we would make it public for everyone to use, so that everyone could start their own bay.”
Whether The Pirate Bay every emerges phoenix like from the ashes or not, it's certainly had a big impact on how the internet and the world views sharing. The admins for now just want people to keep the spirit of Kopimi alive.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: Would you guys like to see TPB make a triumphant return? Or is it time for another site to take up the mantle of world's most hated torrent site?
Image source: Guillaume Phoenix
Funny how people think TPB was the original site for torrents when it wasn’t really. It has stayed up the longest in terms of public usage, but there is other private torrent sites that have been operating just as long and are still going. Infact TPB is just a search engine and not a host of many of the torrents it was listing.
Net neutrality is a good thing for sites to rally on, but not when a site is breaking the law. And people are all crying about how this raid has disrupted their rights…. they have no rights to steal copyrighted works. So they have no real case to stand on.
And then of course groups opposed will cry like kids and hit governing bodies with DDoS attacks etc, because it is now getting harder for themselves to get warez releases.
It is all stupid childish nonsense.
If copyright owners refuse to complete with torrents and file lockers then I really have no sympathy for them.
Piracy is here. It’s never going to go away. Fighting it, from their POV, had to be done. They cannot just leave it. Legal action must be taken where plausible. But they have the greatest anti-piracy weapon at their disposal and they refuse to use it.
Compete. Legitimise users. Band together and release a download service for films and TV. Not Netflux, Hulu, HBO Go… Etc etc. Too much money, and you still only get about 70% of what is available to pirate. Piracy is free. Piracy lets you keep and convert the files. Where else can you do that? You can’t. You but something from them and they limit how you can use it, put DRM to stop you transferring it to other devices and restrict the use. Piracy doesn’t do this. This is not a feature of piracy.
Piracy is not childish, is just common sense.
I’d wager that most pirates would happily legitimised fire the cost of whatever they pay now in seedbox fees, filelocker fees, USENET charges and torrent site donations. Easily. But the alternative has to give the same level of use.
It may not have been the Original torrent site but I always found it spot on with the searches and very fast, I for one would like to see it back with a bang…
You make a lot of assumptions. From what I’ve seen of the piracy crowd, they wouldn’t pay for anything. The companies would have to downsize because of the lack of people willing to donate. If people can save money, they will. Right now Piracy doesn’t make a dent in the salaries of anyone involved in making these films and games. The only people it really hurts are the indie devs, who end up losing the most.
Your point is idealistic, and that is why it is not plausible. You cannot rely on people’s goodwill toward companies, especially in this day and age.
You simply misunderstood.
I’m not suggesting a goodwill gesture at all. I’m speaking from experience and from a personal view point.
If you could subscribe to a service that allowed you to download the latest films and TV shows. Keep the files and put them on any compatible device… Legitimately. People would do it. You have this idea of pirates as cheapskates, boy that’s simply ignorance. All private torrent sites are donation funded. Seed boxes are expensive and very rarely used to seed legitimate files. File lockers premium customers pay to download.
This is money that it’s being spent that isn’t going to content creators, but could be.
I, myself, download TV shows despite posting for Netflix and Amazon. I do it because it’s more convenient and I have more control. I’m anything but cheap, and I’m not alone.
Exactly right here. Look at examples of great game devs who have posted on piratebay uploads asking people to buy it if they enjoy it. Fantastic games like This War of Mine have had great success because the pirates actually believe they deserve their money and want them to continue to make more games. If people believe companies deserve it, they will reward them, and that’s how piracy will continue to work.
I must agree with what kryten says it is allot more practical, but also when I do download games and the like I do it with the intent on buying them when I have the money, im literally on £10 a week and that’s for travel to and from college meaning I don’t have money for games so i have to download them from torrent sires but i do so with the intent of if i like it ill buy it when i get chance and the more I look about and the more I talk to all my pirate friends the more I see the exact same thing, allot of the time we pirates don’t do it because it’s free but more because it’s the only way we can play the games we like, I mean so far the vast majority of games in my steam i bought in the steam sales because I’d downloaded them and liked them so I decided to support the developers, we pirates are not cheapskates if you look at the majority of the people doing this you may see a pattern emerging and it’s most likely to be precisely what i have just said above, I apologise if bits of that don’t make sense I have just woken up but I believe I have made my point well enough.
Maybe if it was a subscription service I would agree. I still maintain that most of those who engage in piracy wouldn’t pay if the free option is available. I say this as someone does torrent certian things, like what is out of my pay grade but required for me, but I mainly buy what I want to play after doing research. To me, that is more practical than torrents. I can look at gameplay videos, demos, livestreams, whatever and make a judgement. There isn’t a reason you or anyone else can’t do that instead of resorting to crime.
You assume that they would pay for it, but you’re assuming wrong. Its been proven statistically in every similar and comparable situation. Switching to a service wouldn’t matter. If there is a free option, most people who are capable will flock to that.
You contradict yourself. This – ” but i do so with the intent of if i like it ill buy it when i get chance” “the vast majority of games in my steam i bought in the steam sales” – is exactly why Kryten’s idea won’t work. If a free option is available, the majority will go to that. If there is a cheap option, but not a free option, they will go to that. The only pattern your seeing is the pattern of not spending money for the sake of not spending money. You torrent to tide yourself over, and when it becomes available for cheap, you buy it, which makes the developer lose money.
Having a gaming market like you guys want will do nothing but drive developers away. Development won’t be as profitable, games will decrease in quality, large amounts of jobs will be lost due to decreased returns, and people will shy away from the field if they can’t get a job. Gaming as a whole will be dominated by Freemium in the hands of a company without enough resources to support it, or too many resources to care.
Its not a good idea. I pirate some software, mainly very expensive programs I require to get my education, but all other buying decision are done through research, not crime.
I’d like to know what statistics you are talking about, because by almost every study done on piracy vs legitimate content, prolific pirates are shown to consume more content via legal means than non-pirate consumers do, in one study up to 300% more (and that was an Ofcom study, not some shady internet pro-piracy outlet).
If the legal alternatives are there and are convenient and affordable, then people will and do pay. That’s not an assumption that is fact backed up by a multitude of studies conducted into consumer behaviour which specifically look at the piracy angle.
The problem is no alternatives currently exist to piracy for a huge amount of content for people who would pay for it. I can’t watch Game of Thrones without a Sky subscription and I can’t get one, I can’t watch movies until months after they are out in the theater and I despise going to the theater to watch them (there’s no one kicking the back of my chair and throwing popcorn around in my livingroom), I can’t watch a HUGE amount of US tv shows because they are not licensed to any UK-based channels and are not on netflix. That’s just for the UK, which with the exception of Canada probably has the most access to US content of any other country. I physically can’t pay for some of that content even though I would, I have subscriptions to Netflix and Amazon and others but I still end up back on pirate sites because that’s the only place I can get a lot of the content I’m looking for.
Yes there is ALWAYS going to be the people who want something for nothing, but that is a minority. The majority of people will pay if given the opportunity to in a way that is equivalent to the convenience and availability which piracy offers.
I still think all those people who pay $20-30+ a month for seedboxes and site donations would happily legitimise their dealings….
Point stands, that is money they’re not getting now that they could be.
You presented the same argument I did with an opposite point. No statistics on your side were given. The one you did give from Ofcom is in herently flawed. The numbers were twisted severely to get that result. I’ll explain:
They measured two groups, Infringers (A) and non-Infringers (B), and compared them. That in itself is flawed, because instead of saying that Infringers are X% of Non-Infringers, they have two groups that are 100% of themselves. IE: 30% of infringers is 300% of 10% of non-Infringers. They don’t clarify exactly how many are in those groups. For the sake of this example, we can say that A= 10 and B=100. 30% of A = 3, 10% of B = 10. That still brings up the 300% result, without actually being 300% more money spent. This goes off of the simple fact that pirates are a small fraction of content consumers, in fact, according to Ofcom study, (Assumed by me through Ofcom statistics I’ll note later in the comment. No idea how accurate they are) Pirates only make up 14% of all consumers.
Also, they divided their group of Infringers even further. They denoted a couple different groups. Sorry its big, but its too much to type myself. Quoting from the study:
“So-called ‘Justifying Infringers’ were the group who demonstrated the highest levels of infringing behavior. This group accounted for 9% of all infringers, 24% of total infringed volume and 2% of total digital consumers. They felt that they’d already spent enough on content (the researchers say this was confirmed) but like to try before they buy. They’re also the most receptive group when it comes to considering fairly priced legal alternatives.
The ‘Digital Transgressors’ group (9% of all infringers, 22% of total infringed volume, 2% of total digital consumers) consumed more films and TV shows than the ‘Justifying Infringers’. While they showed the least remorse over their behavior, this group had the highest fear of getting caught and the researchers say they would be the most receptive to warning notices sent by ISPs.
The largest group, the ‘Free Infringers’ (42% of infringers, 35% of infringed volume, 10% of total digital consumers) lived up to their name. They all download content because its free and pay for the lowest proportion of legal content compared to the other infringers.
Ambiguous Infringers (39% of infringers, 20% of infringed volume, 9% of total digital consumers) had the lowest level of digital consumption and the highest proportion of paid and legal content. They made less attempt to justify their infringing.”
They go on to say: “Across all content types, the top 20% of infringers on average not only spend more than the remaining 80% of infringers,”
Then they go further and assume: “The 20% worst infringers spent £168 over the six month monitoring period with the remaining 80% spending £105. Tailing in last place were the ‘honest’ consumers with just £54 spent, three times less than the prolific pirate group.”
They go further to clarify: “to consider the top 20% of all infringers (equal to 3.2% of all Internet users over 12)”
So no, that study isn’t accurate. That study is telling us that <3% of all Internet Users spend less than $265 every six months on digital media. The study further assumes that a lesser percentage spend less than $165 every six months. That is preposterous. I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. That spending model doesn't match any of the people I've ever known, or ever associated with through various real and virtual associations I've ever been a part of. Hell, my mother alone spends at least $100 a month on movies and games. 6 months, just forget about it.
Anyway, that Ofcom study isn't accurate. Now for statistics that prove my original point, I can give you any flavor you want. Suicides, Choice of Medicines and medical equipment, Cars, Computers, and virtually any other product that exists. Studies show that people will take the easily available free option over the paid option every time, no matter what that paid option is. Perfect example relevant to this topic: Music services like Spotify, Pandora, and Grooveshark. The majority of their users are free users. Its why they have ads, and took away features to make people pay up.
The real numbers are there. You say Ofcom doesn't twist anything, but they clearly do. An average of ~3,000,000,000 – 3.2% of normal Internet users is definitely going to come up less than the 3.2% of people who are smart enough to torrent things.
OfCom study says they wouldnt. Already posted a big reply. Majorit of pirates already pay nothing, ever. Around 80% of pirated media is never paid for according to Ofcom studies. The population of pirates that pay is ~4%, and they consume the second largest pirated volume. The Biggest group if pirates are “Free Infringers”, and they consume the most content and don’t pay for it.
So, if most people don’t pay, but a small portion would, wouldn’t that at least mean they’d get something rather than nothing?
Im okay with waiting for a few months for it to actually get an upgrade instead of the same thing being re-started 🙂
No. Now you’re trying to twitwist the argument. Companies make less money pandering to pirates than they do prosecuting them. Piracy continues to be a crime, and it if grows enough, we will see a huge drop in the quality of our media, all because a majority of people are selfish.
Piracy won’t grow to those levels though. Hidden code unlocked through various verification methods will make sure of that.
I’m just trying to get you to see that there is money to be made in competing with piracy rather than the current method which isn’t working.
I disagree with you, I think a lot of people would happily legitimise and pay, but we disagree so I’m trying a new tact.
You won’t, because there isn’t. You cannot compete with free, unless you use free. Development companies cannot sustain by charging nothing for their product. You can switch your model to your idealistic sub service that offers unlimited DRM free downloads, but that will lose them money in the end. Less money means less employees, less employees means less service. The service will suffer, and people will go back to pirating after complaining that their $10/month payment doesn’t get them enough for their taste.
You can disagree all you want, but the studies already confirm it. You are disagreeing with proven fact. 42% of pirates don’t pay anything ever, 9% don’t pay because they think they have paid enough. That being said, 9% do pay out of fear of being caught, but the rest of the 39% consume microscopic amounts of media through piracy, and wouldn’t make them money anyway.
These numbers are from the pro-piracy Ofcom study. I suggest you look it up. Their conclusion is flawed (I explain in the big comment below), but they break down the numbers. I don’t care how much you personally disagree, because reality disagrees with you.
Ofcom, of course, being a UK agency.
On the other side of your coin, I know how much money pirates pay to be able to pirate from their chosen sites.
And I’m saying compete, not give stuff away. Instead of ligating and trying to stifle innovation in the digital arena, they need to be competing and adding value.
I used it pirate video games, but owning one legit was always more desirable than not.
Ofcom came out in favor of piracy. Not sure why that is even an issue.
” I know how much money pirates pay to be able to pirate from their chosen sites.” – 1: No you don’t
2: and making them pay for what probably ends out being multiple services accomplishes what? They’ve already paid to be pirates, why would they pay more for a service that probably won’t give them what they want? This brings me to my next quote and point
“And I’m saying compete, not give stuff away” – How exactly is that accomplished? Releasing DRM free downloads doesn’t work for a company. Ever. Sub service or not. The few sub services that tried quickly went out of business, since a few paid for the service, then because “it wasn’t fair to make us pay” some subscribe specifically to release the content for other pirates to download. That is how it currently works, and that is how it will always work. At least until the new verifications become mainstream. Torrents will slow way down then.
They aren’t “stifling innovation” by preventing you from downloading illegal copies of games. In fact it would encourage more innovative methods of pirating. That was just a stupid comment by you. You can compete and add value to a game without giving away free copies.
People put blood, sweat, and tears into those games, literally, and people don’t wan’t to pay because their favorite transgender, asexual, paraplegic dragonkin isn’t featured as a character, or main character is white, or the women in the game have too much/too little clothing on. I wish I was exaggerating on that point specifically. I really do. People find any excuse to not pay for something. You cannot deny that.
What you are asking for is for a majority of developers, big, small, and indie, to commit suicide. You want them to risk giving away their game for free, or loan it to Sub Service A for next to nothing. That is not an option in the real world. There won’t be a creative market if they cannot make money for their efforts. There would still be games, but they would be shit, with maybe one or two gems per decade.
You are coming at this argument based on what you personally want, not what is good for the development community or gaming.
The reason a lot of pirates don’t pay for something afterwards is because it (the product) was shit. Devs/producers/etc are losing 80% or whatever because they make poor quality stuff. as a pirate myself, I know. I bought the big lebowski, but I’d never pay money for borat. I bought CS:GO but I’d never pay money for a copy-pasted COD game. so your argument is correct, but not because pirates are evil – it’s just because we don’t pay for stuff that isn’t worth money to us. Make something valuable, and I’ll pay. I always do. So do the rest.
“The reason a lot of pirates don’t pay for something afterwards is because it (the product) was shit” – That is completely YOUR opinion. If YOU don’t do research on a product and spend YOUR money, and YOU aren’t happy, then its YOUR fault.
Case and point: “I bought the big lebowski, but I’d never pay money for borat” – Do you know how popular borat is? Clearly not an objectively “shit product”. You and me don’t like it, but it still sold millions after theater release.
“Devs/producers/etc are losing 80%” – Don’t flatter yourself. Piracy isn’t that big, and doesn’t have that much of an impact on things. It doesn’t make it any less wrong.
“it’s just because we don’t pay for stuff that isn’t worth money to us. Make something valuable…” – With consumers judging that value, its impossible. I say this a an employee of a company who makes a consumer AV product. Having consumers judge products through a DRM free download means no companies can have trade secrets, and competition would die out, which would drive prices up and recreate the problem you already have.
” I always do. So do the rest.” – 1: You probably don’t. 2: No, again studies prove you absolutely wrong, and you still refute facts. If you or Kryten are any indicators of how ignorant the pirate crowd is, then it doesn’t surprise me that its being cracked down on.
I’m not even talking about videogames to be honest. I’m talking about films and other media. Videogames are already becoming a service.
I had a long reply typed up, but you still won’t understand what I’m trying to say.
Its becoming increasingly clear that you’re either a child with no concept of how this market works, or you’re an idealistic adult who refuses to see how it works correctly.
Other media? Ok, lets look at movies. Movies have many subscription services for anything you want. You still aren’t happy. You want Netflix to offer downloads? They tried it, and it failed for 3 reasons. 1: Their userbase doesn’t have the bandwidth, 2: They are already fighting ISPs over bandwidth as it is. Downloads just make that worse. 3: Movie produces want 6-7X the normal licensing fee to offer download, and even more for DRM free. This happens for most of the sub services out there. Its why their services don’t keep movies and shows for very long. It becomes too expensive to be reasonable, and if they charged you for access to the premium shows all the time, you would bitch about how expensive it was.
Other software? Microsoft tried Office 365, and people did nothing but bitch and moan. The customer gets the Office suite or product of their choice, and unlimited support and all future updates, but people aren’t happy. Switch to Adobe. Adobe has a sub service for stuff like Photoshop. They haven’t bothered implementing it for all of their programs because it is their least used buying feature by a huge margin. Autodesk offers semi-DRM free downloads of their software. You only need a license key. People still bitch because they need to charge a few thousand dollars a seat.
Should I keep going? Do you understand a little more about how this works? People like you are never happy. What you want doesn’t, and won’t ever exist. You cannot have unlimited free anything for one price. If you do, it ends with your subscription, and you still aren’t happy. You need to get a better understanding of how all of this works before spouting off demands to these companies. Between you and others on this thread, its obvious to me that the pirate crowd is still made up of entitled children.
Piracy is rampant because of the notion that it is “FREE” and this aspect attracts people to the piracy sites. On the other hand free doesn’t mean better and this stands for most games and videos but it is an alternative. People that can’t afford to buy games, movies, etc. and this because of either high prices, the length of time that is required for its availability or personal reasons. Yes- it is illegal, Yes- its available, Yes- it is free, Yes- it violates copyright but it is an alternative and some others the “ONLY” alternative other than buying. Not all people can afford to buy such luxuries at will and we must remember that. Another is that the internet should and always be free of control, to have freedom to spread information as it is meant to be. Yes, this includes sharing of files, videos and other information which clashes with the copyright and interests of the companies.
Kryten is right, when you buy or pay for a subscription, they do not have the right to tell you what you can and cant do with what you have paid for! If you pay for a movie, why cant you then put it onto your computer to watch somewhere else, its ignorant, a reason for pirating films is that you can take it with you, such as on holiday, where there is no internet to access the things you have bought or paid for with a subscription, such as netflix. so why would you pay for something that you cant do anything with, its like paying for a new bed, but you can only keep that bed in the same place, and can only use it at certain times. So why do this when you can download it from a pirate site and then take it wherever you want. And a few reasons for not going down to a store to buy a film is that first, you have to pay more for a better quality film, its disgraceful. And another is, when you download, its electronically, more convenience, so instead of carrying round 10 dvd’s in a bag, you can carry 10 perfect quality films on a small usb.
Why do people answer these old posts? Are you serious? You argument isn’t even good.
“Kryten is right, when you buy or pay for a subscription, they do not have the right to tell you what you can and cant do with what you have paid for” – Wrong. Absolutely wrong. You agree to a TOSA or an EULA when you subscribe to something. The owner of the service absolutely has the right to tell you exactly what you can and can’t do with your subscription. Are you stupid?
“If you pay for a movie, why cant you then put it onto your computer to watch somewhere else” – You can. Its called Ripping, and its been around since VHS was a format. You can rip things all you want, but when you distribute it to other people, for free or otherwise, you are violating Federal Law. You are a thief at that point.
“reason for pirating films is that you can take it with you, such as on holiday” – You either have a gross misunderstanding of Piracy, or you’re ignorant. Pirates don’t want to spend money for an experience they may not like. That’s the end of it. The problem with Piracy, is that once you experience it, there is little incentive to pay for it, since you’ve already gotten it for free. Therein lies our problem. No matter how many pirates try to justify it, peer-reviewed studies say that a large majority (over 80%) don’t pay for the shit they steal. Its like a looter going back to Best Buy and paying for a TV they took because they liked it so much.
“so why would you pay for something that you cant do anything with,” – If you’re at a point where you can pay for it, then you’re at a point to use it. This, and the stupid Straw Man after it are pure ignorant fallacy on your part.
“So why do this when you can download it from a pirate site and then take it wherever you want” – Because its illegal you moron. If everyone did that, no producer would make money, meaning the only movies out there would be shit, and you would still complain. The problem you’re describing maybe applies to ~1% of media consumers.
“And a few reasons for not going down to a store to buy a film is that first, you have to pay more for a better quality film” – WHAT? YOU HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR HIGHER QUALITY SHIT??!?!?!? WOW WTF IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?!?!? …. …. …. You’re a fucking idiot if you have a problem with paying more for higher quality items, which take more work and more manhours to make.
“And another is, when you download, its electronically, more convenience, so instead of carrying round 10 dvd’s in a bag, you can carry 10 perfect quality films on a small usb.” – Yes, again, this is called Ripping. Ripping is a standard feature in Windows Media Player, and most every other dvd player that exists. This is not pirating. If you buy a DVD, or a digital download, and move/copy it to a USB, that is completely fine. If you got it from unauthorized distributors, then its piracy and illegal.
Any more stupidness I can clear up for you?