Is internet piracy the new Scientology?

It would certainly seem so.

It looks as though advocates of internet piracy have adopted the Scientology method of suing / threatening to sue anyone who disagrees with the fucked up shit that goes on in their tiny little minds.

The folks over at Usenet (a sort of "Pirate Bay for grown ups") are terribly aggrieved that the Dutch copyright group BREIN are accusing them of....well, doing what they do - charging people money to download copyright material illegally.

It seems the pirate types are a bit sensitive to having their "ideals" challenged and have decided to sue BREIN for defamation.

Pay attention at the back. These freetards are suing someone (we wonder where they got the money for that) for offending their sensibilities.


The Bats

Oh the irony (part II).

Is there no end to the pathetic flailings of The Pirate Bay™?

Their latest rant as reported by the lackeys over at Torrent Freak is that they are pissed at someone infringing on their copyright.

Pardon us all over the place but we seem to recall Peter Sunde emailing us personally to let us know that there was no such thing as "disrespecting their copyright" when we laid claim to a fair rights usage of same.

It's funny that since we forced their hand to admit that they were seeking to commercialize The Pirate Bay™ brand they've suddenly become very interested in, and protective of, copyright to the point that they are now threatening to sue a Swedish company for use of their logo.

It must be due to the fact that it has the potential to cost them even more millions in lost potential revenue in the event that they ever manage to sell the brand on - despite the very public humiliation they suffered over the failed sale to the GGF.

It's not entirely surprising that nobody at either Torrent Freak or The Pirate Bay™ has produced a report saying that someone else using your brand does not cause you commercial harm.

Perhaps they're starting to get the picture?

The Bats

Update:

The company in question, following "discussions" with the "ex" Pirate Bay™ spokesman Peter Sunde, have decided to revoke their patent application and have reached an agreement as to how they can still use The Pirate Bay™ logo on their usb pens.

Bizarre!! Here we have an ex spokesperson brokering a licencing deal for a brand that he purportedly has nothing to do with since selling it to some "unknown" company "probably" based in the Seychelles some three years ago - according to him in various court statements.

I sincerely hope the judiciary involved in his appeal are paying attention - cheers Torrent Freak.

Of course this decision has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the planned DDOS attacks as announced on Torrent Freak.

"Internazis" - I think that's what you'd call 'em.

About fucking time too!!

Well, well, well, Lily pisses her pants and the FAC suddenly decide that there's enough media hype / interest for them to now get involved.

Cheers guys - better late than never, eh?

The Bats

Lets face facts - sometimes the music isn't enough.

Who, if anyone, will be the first to successfully harness the obvious consumer demand for readily available downloading and address same in a fashion whereby all parties involved feel they achieved something as a result of the transaction? This is a question which has vexed, and continues to vex, many labels, publishers and artists.

An interesting proposition was floated at Bats HQ recently whereby the notion of a reward scheme for music fans was discussed. Think "Air miles".

Has anyone thought as to how consumers (those who buy music downloads as opposed to those who think that the internet fairy makes music for free) might respond if their download transaction gave them something more than just music, artwork and the quiet satisfaction of knowing that they haven't broken the law?

The monetized value of music has diminished to the point that we have a generation of people who have never actually experienced paying for music, indeed the very notion of paying for music is an entirely alien concept to them, their mindset is that music should be free. Anyone involved in music knows that this is neither sustainable nor realistic. Free music never put food on anyone's table and free music does not pay bills.

The genie is out of the bottle, downloads are not going away and you cannot beat people about the head with pseudo legal arguments in an attempt to make them see the error of their ways. The damages awarded in the Jamie Thomas-Rasset case, whilst not determined by the plaintiffs, were obscene and did nothing but further propagate the notion put forward by those who believe that music should be free that everyone in the music industry is driven by greed and the desire to bathe in money. It was nothing short of a pyrrhic victory on the part of the "music industry" and a PR coup for those who claim to be fighting "The man".

Artists should be thankful that there are still consumers who recognize the flawed nature of the "free" argument. Those consumers are the lifeblood of what remains of an industry which reacted too slowly and has fought for too long, too disjointed and at too great a cost in human, never mind monetary, terms to address the mindset of free.

Those consumers should be encouraged and rewarded for their efforts and loyalty. Artists, labels and publishers should now be consolidating their existing relationships with these consumers and thereby encouraging others to come on board.

What if there was the prospect of something more physically tangible for consumers who download music? What if consumers were awarded points for each legal download they made? In theory these points could be awarded on an incremental scale - hypothetically lets say 0.5 points for a single track download and perhaps 7 points for a full album download - accumulated and exchanged at a later date for, by way of example, merchandise or a ticket / discounted ticket to a live show.

Participating artists could offer additional loyalty incentives (autographed photo sets, meet and greets, name listings on up and coming releases) the list of potential incentives for consumers is limited only by the ability / willingness of the artists to be creative in their thinking and engage those consumers who elect to partake in any such scheme.

It can't be that hard for the multitude of online digital retailers like Amazon, I-tunes etc to get their heads around - in fact it should be attractive to them. If a consumer strikes up a relationship with an artist through their stores then they also benefit from that consumer loyalty as that is where their rewards points are centralized. Obviously artists could set up and tailor specific incentives unique to a certain download store - affording both the artist and store the opportunity to develop exclusives which they feel might prove attractive to existing and potential consumers.

The bottom line is that it's a buyers market out there and sometimes the music isn't enough.

Discuss.

The Bats

The irony - lesson I.

As always, nothing is ever as it seems.

It's very enlightening to read some of the comments being posted by supporters / users of the Pirate Bay on various sites & blogs - most notably on the Pirate Bay blog itself. It's amazing to see the depth of anger, frustration and naked aggression of those who now appear to have had something stolen from them that they, as a community, created.

A few of those posting might now realize that the idea of taking something from someone without their permission and doing with it what you want isn't such a good idea after all. In the event that the sale, which now appears subject to an insider trading investigation, does go through this could prove to be one of the biggest deceptions in modern history.

Either way this has proven to be a salutary lesson for those who bought into the ideals and aspirations of a commerce free model. A commerce free model which, on the backs of the creators (the community), has now the potential to earn several individuals many millions of dollars.

Those who have been betrayed would do well to query the Pirate Party stated objective that they recognize"...a balance between common demands of availability and distribution on the one hand, and the demands of the creator to be recognized and remunerated on the other”.

Is it the case that the revenues raised from any sale of the Pirate Bay will be equally divided amongst the creators (the community)? It certainly looks like it won't.

The users were sold an ideal, a dream, which several individuals espoused as "the future". All the while knowing that one day they would abandon ship leaving the core of their crew floundering, gasping for air.

The next time someone offers you something for free in exchange for your allegiance, or indeed your vote, you might want to think very long and hard about it.

The Bats

Doing it for the kids,.......really?

Several sources are today reporting that the Pirate Bay is to make the transition to a commercially based model as a result of ownership change.

See here and here.

Whilst we are acutely aware of the "Web sheriff" debacle (funny as it was) we are accepting at face value the merit of these announcements as we have been in contact with the Pirate Bay as advocates of this proposal over the past few weeks - see previous blog posts.

The Bats welcome this brave and historic move on the part of the Pirate Bay and are hopeful that those involved in and charged with protecting the copyrights of individuals who are active in the creative industries will grasp this opportunity to develop what is, quite obviously, a viable business model for the distribution of digital works.

Those now disillusioned and disaffected vociferous users and supporters of the Pirate Bay who might wish to vent their anger at having been "sold out" may be interested in our "Fuck the Pirate Bay" t-shirts which are still available from our online store.

The Bats

Opt in / opt out?

Of the many varied emails we’ve received over the past week or so, thanks to everyone including those who are vociferously pro piracy, one constant has been the reference to the argument regarding the “increased sales” generated as a direct result of sharing files across p2p networks with a lot of file sharers reiterating their preference to “Try before they buy”.

Whist nobody appears able to validate the claims of increased sales with any degree of accuracy or hard factual evidence it does present both sides of the argument with an opportunity to further develop the notion as a potential business model. We mentioned earlier that many file sharers considered the “battle” between p2p users and the industry was one which was business model based and not necessarily targeted at artists themselves. The unfortunate reality is that the artists, distributors, publishers and retailers have become the collateral damage resulting from this battle.

Given The Pirate Bay is widely acknowledged as the market leader in p2p together with the fact that the Pirate Party Declaration of Principles openly states “Copyright was created to benefit society in order to encourage acts of creation, development and spreading of cultural expressions. In order to achieve these goals, we need a balance between common demands of availability and distribution on the one hand, and the demands of the creator to be recognized and remunerated on the other”, the Pirate Bay medium and its users would be an excellent means by which to both test the veracity of the improved sales claims and move forward the Pirate Party political manifesto as published.

How can we as consumers, industries and advocates of change, collectively best harness and use this technology and endeavour to examine the phenomenon of increased sales by additional free marketing and the “try before you buy” consumer approach?

Essentially we believe that an opt in / opt out approach would be the best vehicle to achieve this. If the Pirate Bay were to act in the positive in relation to the party objective of achieving “a balance between common demands of availability and distribution on the one hand, and the demands of the creator to be recognized and remunerated on the other” one obvious way of achieving this would be to actually acknowledge the artist wishes as to whether their works may or may not be distributed for free via p2p.

If, for example, an artist is willing to have their material distributed via that medium in order to potentially generate additional sales then that is a commercial decision taken in good faith which they ultimately believe will benefit / sustain them. On the other hand if an artist decides the opposite and wishes to refrain from the opportunity then that, by all accounts according to the logic of the core argument of many Pirate Bay and other free p2p users, is the rock upon which they will perish as artists.

The notion that by distributing someone’s works for free, without their permission, in the hope that someone is exposed to it and decides to remunerate the artist is fundamentally flawed. True democracy, another tenet of the Pirate Party, is not built upon individuals making decisions – political, commercial or otherwise - on the part of third parties without the participation of that third party in any decision making process. This is not Nazi Germany, nor should we be advocating or seeking a return to that mindset. These are decisions ultimately for the artist, as the creator, to make.

We believe that the music industry, whilst flawed in many regards, has the resources and a moral obligation to its employees to facilitate an opt in / opt out policy as far as free torrent distribution is concerned where torrent sites are minded towards a truly democratic participation on the part of artists.

Whether it has “the will” is another matter which will need to be explored.

Both camps (p2p and the music industry) have entrenched positions and the people suffering the brunt of the inaction are the artists, publishers, distributors and retailers. Certain consumers, in this scenario specifically those who use the p2p networks with no intention of ever paying for materials downloaded, may feel that they are in a golden age – a Groundhog Day birthday present scenario. This is unsustainable. Already there are creative people questioning the rationale behind their being expected to invest heavily for nominal, if any, return.

The argument “if they are any good they will sell” is a straw man defence. Not everyone has the skills, wherewithal, technical knowhow and resources to self finance and promote themselves. What are the incentives for those with those particular skill sets to help any such individual where there is the very real possibility, despite even their best efforts, that they make no money from doing so?

As a society we cannot simply expect everything for free otherwise the supply dries up as there are no true monetary or business incentives for people to continue to be creative, nor for those in the ancillary service industries to support them.

Everyone knows that The Pirate Bay is not the only show in town when it comes to p2p / torrents. They are, however, the largest, most popular and the only medium with affiliations to a political party and clear manifesto objectives. We would therefore welcome and encourage an open and frank dialogue between both parties – without the tit for tat retaliatory posturing of the past – in an attempt to arrive at a mutually respectful position whereby the Pirate Bay / Party might achieve at least one of their stated objectives with broad consent and the music industry, per se, might embrace and engage a technology and proposed business model - the proponents of which firmly believe to be the future.

It is only by working together that both parties might come to understand and appreciate each other as truly viable entities.

If there were to be a meeting of the minds we, The Bats, would be happy to act as facilitators in that regard.

The Bats