Pirate Bay co-founder denies MPAA allegations
Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, a Pirate Bay co-founder who has long been the service's spokesman, reacted to the latest lawsuit filed by the movie industry in his typically defiant way.
Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi says if Global Gaming can't find the funding, it just won't get The Pirate Bay.
(Credit: Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi)He called it "bull****."
On Tuesday, the Motion Picture Association of America filed legal papers in a Swedish court that alleged the three operators: Kolmisoppi, Fredrik Neij, and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg continue to help millions of people commit copyright infringement, even after being sentenced to jail and ordered to pay $3.6 million in damages. In their legal filing, the studios have asked authorities to stop the trio.
Also in the filing, the MPAA asserts that Reservella is just a front. Reservella is the company based in Seychelles, an island nation northeast of Madagascar, that The Pirate Bay founders say owns the site. The studios maintain Reservella is controlled by Neij, but Kolmisoppi denied this.
"Please ask (the MPAA) how they can know that since it's not true," Kolmisoppi said. "They're just saying it because they're upset that they have a faulty claim. They have essentially no idea on the ownership of the Bay."
Kolmisoppi has said in the past that the founders transferred ownership in 2006.
The question of The Pirate Bay's ownership has come up often in the past few weeks. The music industry's trade group has said that if a Pirate Bay sale is completed, it will try to seize any money that falls into the hands of the site's founders. And then there's Global Gaming Factory, a Swedish software firm, which announced plans last month to buy the service.
Hans Pandeya, Global Gaming's CEO, has said he wants to turn The Pirate Bay, a BitTorrent tracker most often used to locate unauthorized film copies, into a legal music operation.
But those plans appear to be on rocky ground. Two weeks ago, Pandeya hired Wayne Rosso, Grokster's former president, to help acquire content legally. On Tuesday, Rosso told CNET News that he had quit and that he had strong doubts about Pandeya's ability to raise enough money to acquire The Pirate Bay after talking to the CEO's investors.
Rosso said Pandeya may not have all the funding he needs. Pandeya denied there was any hold-up and said his company's investors and board will vote on whether to acquire The Pirate Bay sometime in August.
As for Global Gaming, Kolmisoppi said: "If (Pandeya) doesn't have the funding, it won't go through."
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
A pirates life for me!
Long live TPB!!
They have shown their true colors and the world no longer has to and will not stand for it anymore. The DMCA will not become the world standard as it is just too draconian.
Because those all take physical resources to produce. Should intellectual property exist? Should ideas be a product?
Only if we believe it does. The law in the United States says yes, but if anyone else "believes" no, they should be punished on their own soil by a corporation? I guess The Pirate Bay is accessible in the United States...
It's a complex issue. You can't boil down to "if you think music and books should be free, then cars should be free." That's ludicrous.
The fact that the physical instantiation has dwindled to zero is irrelevant. What matters is that creating the bits is REALLY REALLY HARD to do really well and it takes the efforts of many people and much money. For a movie, it can be upwards of 100 million dollars (and each blockbuster pays for many less popular titles). So no, you don't just get it for free because you want it. I'm not going to give it to you unless you follow the rules, and if you don't, you need to suffer the consequences. It's not too complicated: I don't work for you for free. Duh.
1. I never explicitly said I agree with piracy. I write software. Of course I don't believe my own work should be free.
2. I was disagreeing with you on the grounds that "IP = free" is the same as "Cars = Free."
3. I was not trying to suggest that IP is "free to distribute therefore should be free." It costs millions to make a film, an operating system, it costs thousands for production and advertisement of music. It's not free to make these things.
Most IP we're talking about here is music, movies, games. Entertainment. Cars are a utility, houses keep us dry, TVs deliver us information. You can't equate downloading a song or a movie for free to receiving a home, car, or television. Copyright law is outdated, and needs an overhaul.
When people wake up and realize they don't have to live this MAFIAA imposed nightmare anymore though, look out!
Thomas Jefferson
Run up the Irons and FREE the Bay
J.A.Pro
Now don't get me wrong. I think the prices software makers put on their products can be ridiculous at times -- a good example being anything made by Adobe -- but at the same time, they put out these products to make a living. I have a friend whose roommate has binders full of pirated Xbox 360 games, and this fellow and my friend don't see the harm in it. Conversely, I'm hoping to get into game development, and I'd be pissed off if something I put months (or even years) of my blood, sweat and tears into was just taken by people. Heck, I have friends who *are* in game development, and it pisses me off that jerks like him may be costing them their jobs.
But then again, I know I'm in the minority on this debate; especially when voicing my thoughts on the Internet.
Before you go saying that prices for anything are ridiculous, you better make darn sure you know the economics of that product. Hint: you don't. See how many programmer-years are involved to make a real product (heck, you can't GIVE gimp away). See what the advertising and support costs are. See how many jerks rip you off, forcing higher prices for everyone.
The notion that things should be free because you don't want to pay, or can't pay, will not and can not happen.
You are falling behind in a fast moving world, just like the RIAA, MPAA and other mafia-like organizations.
A few weeks ago I went into a book store and read a few chapters of a book. A thought detector went off as I was trying to leave and the knowledge was quickly confiscated out of my brain. It hurt, but it wasn't nearly as bad as when the RIAA smashed my kneecaps for singing Free Bird in the shower.
When are you people going to realize that culture is a community resource and the more you try to prevent its use, the more people will find ways to free it.
We can't get clear picture of what, if any, effect it's having cause everytime someone digs into the BSA's numbers they quickly find they're not supported and are often simply made up in circle jerk of bogus research. Manufacturing consensus has become specialty of the groups like the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA.
"Before you go saying that prices for anything are ridiculous, you better make darn sure you know the economics of that product."
It's a value judgement. Too him the price for preceived value may not be worth it.
"heck, you can't GIVE gimp away"
Funny, that's exactly what they're doing, and Gimp appears to have a fair number of users.
From reading your posts, you seem to have a problem with free in general, regardless of whether it's piracy or someone choosing to give their stuff away. Constantly saying that free can not work or otherwise maligning it, despite the fact that it has and does work.
"See what the advertising and support costs are. See how many jerks rip you off, forcing higher prices for everyone."
Unless they're stealing CDs from the stores it's arguable what effect they are having on prices.
You can't count every download as a lost sale, it just doesn't work.
Will Page, the Chief Economist for the UK's PRS music royalty collection group, who you may remember was in the news not too long ago because of their fight with Google, recently revealed that industry revenues are up 4.7% from 2007 to 2008, despite spending on recorded music being down 6% in the same time frame.. This is thanks largely to 13% rise in concert ticket sales and 10% rise in direct licensing.
Thomas Jefferson
P.S. This go's double for what you and can and can not do.
And in reply to Mr. Contentcreator: Having worked at IBM for 18 years I must remind you that if you think this Great Country was build by good upstanding people you need to re-read your history. The first people to settle this land was Rogues, Vegabonds, Outcast, That dear Ol England didn't want in Her country anymore.
Personally I pay for my music, but I pirate my video. Why? Because music isn't first supported by ad revenue. TV on the other hand is. Is ad revenue down? Perhaps, but they still have pretty dang deep pockets and I don't really mind if the sequel to Battlestar Galactica has to rely a bit less on crazy whiz bang effects and just have good plots and character development.
Granted I also listen to music that's a bit more thoughtful. It's no wonder the people who listen to Hip Hop and R&B don't respect the labels, they continually put forward messages that you shouldn't respect anyone else, (Especially not women!).
Basically the big media companies got viewers by catering to our base impulses and now that same look out for number one attitude that has been praised so much in popular media, is biting them in their *****.
- by sandonet July 29, 2009 11:10 AM PDT
- What I'd like to know is what you guys think are the reasons why so many video and music sites are struggling. Many of them can't seem to get funding, which seems to be what's holding up the Pirate Bay acquisition.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by El_Segfaulto July 29, 2009 12:17 PM PDT
- I'll try to answer as best as I can. For the record I am a graduate student in anthropology and don't have a whole lot of experience with corporations, but I like to think that I understand people.
- Like this
-
(25 Comments)A lot has been written about how the music labels and Hollywood studios charge too much to license content but start-ups like Imeem, Qtrax, SpiralFrog, Ruckus, iLike, Last.fm, Pandora, entered into agreements presumably thinking their models could pay for the licenses. Some are now out of business or limping along. None has emerged as a legit iTunes challenger or profit maker.
Some people think investors have lost faith.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10293815-56.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
It seems to me that the content creators are afraid of losing control of their products. So they litigate to prevent this from happening and rely on laws hundreds of years out-of-date to win the cases. Big investors have seen the courts rule in favor of the **AA's for awhile now. I would imagine that they could be held financially liable if they invested in a company that was committing copyright infringement.
Pandora and their ilk were doing fine until the cost of royalties went through the roof. Once again there are a group of companies who would prefer to keep their business model in predictable waters rather than take a chance on finding a new source of revenue.
I would argue that Amazon and even Microsoft have emerged as iTunes alternatives, although admittedly neither has the wide selection that Apple does. I will buy albums every now and then, but only after I've already listened to it a few times and I'll usually try to buy directly from the band. I do download TV shows and as long as they appear on stations already broadcasting for free I don't have an ethical problem with that.