TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Court Slams Music Pirate With Huge Fine – of $41.00

A young man, who as a teenager file-shared two music tracks, has finally discovered his fate. After rightsholders demanded damages of 600 euros ($828) the case dragged through the legal system. After nearly five years a court in Germany has just published its decision. It ruled that the damages demands of the rightsholders were excessive and instead ordered the defendant to pay 30 euros ($41.00) damages.

In 2006, a then 16 year-old German used a file-sharing network to make available two music tracks, “Angel” by “Rammstein” and “Roll Over not” by Marius Müller-Westernhagen. The teenager had used his father’s Internet connection to share the songs.

Rightsholders monitoring the unauthorized sharing mounted a case and demanded 300 euros ($414) per track, a total of 600 euros in damages. Yesterday the Hamburg Regional Court published its final decision.

Firstly, the Court rejected the rightsholders claims against connection owner, the teenager’s father. He neither carried out infringements or authorized them, and had no knowledge of them occurring. Although he was considered responsible for his connection, that did not lead to a liability for damages.

However, the Court did uphold the complaint against the teenager. It was determined that he had violated copyright law and as such was required to pay compensation to the rightsholders. There was, however, disagreement on the amount to be paid.

While the rightsholders had demanded 600 euros in damages, it was for the Court to decide the amount to be paid for what would in effect amount to a fictitious license for the songs.

The Court took several parameters into consideration when arriving at its decision. Notably it was decided that since the tracks were old there would be a limited demand for them. Furthermore, since it could only be proven that the tracks were made available for a short amount of time, few downloads of the tracks would have taken place.

To this end the Court ruled that the defendant should pay damages of just 30 euros ($41.40).

Lawblog.de notes that the decision puts recent damages claims against file-sharers of 1000 euros per song under severe pressure. In the light of this ruling by the Hamburg Regional Court, even brand new hits might only be worth 40 to 80 euros per infringement.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Anonymous

    LOL thats fucking hilarious, 5 years and $41
    AHAHAHA

  • Editor

    Happy?

  • The Doctor

    Finally a win for common sense!

  • jumping ship

    sounds reasonable just to end the affair. common sense indeed prevais, but a long time coming

  • Anonymous

    amazing news, because this means that when all those other cases happen with the pigs wanting about $500,000 per song, they can look back on this

  • Just Asking

    What about court costs though?

  • AnarchyNow

    30€ is still too much, 0.0€ is the way of the future (or else no future).
    Not a victory, just a return too more sanity less corruption. BAU…

  • tiw

    owned

  • R

    One word: awesome
    Hopefully this will be considered in other similar cases worldwide

  • Dr Gonzo

    LOL Brilliant

    30 Euros was probably the cost of getting a taxi to the courthouse.

    Ouch at the labels legal bills for a 5 year court case that results in 30 euros of damages.

  • Jannick

    Haha, news of the day.. Its so rediculous I dont even have a comment for it.. lol@ 41$ :p

  • Anonymous

    As usually, the only ones that wins are the lawyers.

  • Felix

    Roll over not? Seriously? Please don’t translate song names. It’s ridiculous.

  • anonymous

    As soon as I read the title I knew it had nothing to with the US. Why? They don’t have sane judgments, in fact I think the people there are even having a rally soon to try and restore sanity! Goooood luck

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Court Slams Music Pirate With Huge Fine – of $41.00 | TorrentFreak -- Topsy.com

  • Nobody

    Five years, probably a ridiculous amount of court and lawyer fees.. for $41.

    That was so worth it.

  • SquareWheel

    What about legal fees?

  • Anonymous

    This guy shared 2 songs and paid 30 euros total. That’s 15 euros per song.

    Imagine if he had made 10.000 songs available (not a large number for most internet users). 150.000 euros is a whole different number…

  • DLer

    30 euro’s is pretty reasonable, assuming that the rightsholders are paying all the legal fees. A lenghty trial like this can easily go over the 600 euro’s ;)

  • Barse

    I have to agree with 12. Who the hell translates song names? Come on TF, you can do better!

  • $$$

    @9

    Yeah I’ll bet the plaintiff’s attorney is pissed. His nice 40% slice of 30 Euros. What do you reckon he’ll spend it on?

  • Anonymous

    @19: chewing gum

  • The doctor

    i wonder if this will help influence uk courts and kill the extortion like claims by acs law and the others trying the same scheme.

  • Johnny

    Very reasonable fine.

    Glad that some judges have common sense.

  • dingdong

    whats wrong with you smelly smelly hippies, the world dosent work with every thing is free you sound like star trek freaks.

  • bubrub

    yea and if he hadent been a cheap nerd it would of only been $2 if he had paid for them.

  • mitzen

    He had most likely already paid for them. If you care to read – if not too challenging for you – you would see he was dragged to court for sharing, not downloading.

  • Anonymous

    Those extortionist looks like losers now

  • Whatever

    @16 Oct 28, 2010 at 13:45 by Anonymous

    I was thinking about that too.

    However, there is some hope there, as a ruling of a euro would look strange. This court would probably treat 10000 tracks differently and end up with something from 200-2000 Euros. Its not like one can just extrapolate the so called damages 10000 times.

    Assuming they would be able to sue ALL who shared a song then it should be no more than price of the track for each person otherwise the ‘rightholders’ would be using the legal system as a means to profit from so called illegal actions thus being part of it. In no real property cases does anyone get more than actual damages (physical, emotional or ‘proved’ loss of income). In case of ‘criminal’ activity any fines would go to the treasury (and even be the first to collect).

    This is strange about the US where it almost seems they make a film to sue for profit. Probably hiring an anti-p2p company before leaking the movie. Forgetting for a moment that the spying is flawed, they catch everyone in the US this way. This means that nobody can be responsible for more than one copy (minus distribution costs).

    (outside US ofcourse) The MAFIAA might actually try to use this as a pricetag in future cases. But they may run into the problem that some proof is needed that the content of 10000 tracks are what the titles say they are.

  • Reason

    @23: LOL

    an uptight conservative capitalist.
    When do they get extinct again?

    hihihihihi hahahahahaha :D

  • whatev

    There’s no win or loss in this article really. Some files got distributed illegally and someone got fined for it. We should all remember for a sec that filesharing isn’t legal. I respect the descision, and I’m happy it could end up as a joyful article on torrentfreak 5 years later, but with that said; He did get busted, he dit get fined, it is illegal.

    The real crime here Rammstein.. How the hell can you listen to this crap?

    kthx.

  • Anonymous

    Yet still 40x the price of the songs.

  • Simon Moon

    Justice!!!!!

  • anonymous

    This is just more bullshit.

    NO wrong was, or ever has been done in sharing.

  • Anonymous

    Its not bad, but its only 2 song no one downloads just so songs they are downloading about 2 albums a week! Does this happen in the US at all?

  • Erm

    Still is about 20-40 times the amount of the actual retail value in iTunes et al.

    Sure, punishment etc, but seriously, what are you going to do to folks with a 10k+ collection of MP3s?

    Fine them half a million?

    We need new proportions and legislation.

  • meh

    40 bucks? This one’s on me!
    Im more upset it would be over a Rammstein cd, I always thought they were cool.

  • Recall2000

    “even brand new hits might only be worth 40 to 80 euros per infringement”

    Most brand new “hits” aren’t worth anywhere near that.

  • Swiss_Pirate

    Your report is missing a few important details!!!!!!!

    The court assumed that each song was downloaded 100 times.

    This is how they got 15 Euros per song!! They calculated that for each song 100 cased of unauthorized distribution occurred.

    So the correct math is that 1 x infringement = 0.15 Euro

    100 infringements = 15 Euros

    2 songs, each approx. uploaded 100 times to other users = 30 Euros.

    I’d say that’s an important bit of information, don’t you think? For details (in German) please check German news portals such as golem.de or heise.de :)

  • Pingback: Court Slams Music Pirate With Huge Fine – of $41.00 | Systema

  • Anon

    This will never fly in America. U know that whole “constitution” thing with “rights” like “no cruel and unusual punishment” that the government ignores ALL THE TIME. The Germans just can’t be nazi’s anymore cuz of the whole ww2 incident, Obama bin Biden doesn’t have such hang ups. Also, dont these mafiaa groups just keep appealing with their infinit money till they buy, I mean “win” the court decision they want? This is hardly victory, we just didn’t lose uber bad one time. Please destroy these corrupt a holes, they are tyrants, and we love freedom. Yay freedom :) BOOOOOOOO MAFIAA and the bought, paid for, and gift wrapped government they own.

  • Whatever

    @37 Swiss_Pirate
    Indeed an important bit of information which makes it a win. Not the war but at least the battle.

    Makes me wonder, if they target someone else who claims to have downloaded it from this person then claiming it is already “paid” for is a possibility.

    @TF
    #37 piece of information is important.

  • Pensive

    This should put some serious downward pressure on the predatory law firms.

  • badass

    >> 1 x infringement = 0.15 Euro

    now this makes sense.

    yet when condsider large scale sharing (10k songs) the amount is even not that high as Jammie Thomas is supposed to pay, eh?

  • Someone

    Keep sharing people

  • TerribleTony

    Personally I would appeal the decision, it’s clearly wrong.

  • tremor

    Enjoy your lousy $41 dirtbags

  • Jonesy

    Nothing wrong in sharing so even 30 Euros is faulty verdict. Still, if this happened in the USA or Sweden, the guy would have had to pay gazillions of dollars for those two tracks.

  • Deville

    30 Euro for two songs? Thats way too much!

    Someone in Switzerland had to pay 300 Euro for 6’000 Songs and still many were complaining that 300 Euro are too high. And thats the truth, because nobody who downloaded the songs downloads them instead of buying them.

  • Anonymous

    46: It’s too much, but it’s progress.

  • GREATNESS

    so what if he did upload 1 million songs anyone think of that ?

  • me

    So the rightsholder overestimated their losses for the shared music by 20 times the actual ammount.
    I wonder what happens to the indutsry claims of worldwide losses if you apply the same reductions?
    Suddenly all these problems from file sharing are not quite as bad as they would have us believe.

  • PL Plucker

    Now we have to get the courts to do the same with tv shows and movies. Then all will be right with the world. Imagine the Walking Dead going for 40 euros and Iron man 2 for 45.

  • FuzzyX

    The lawyers ask for loads and not even the right person.

    They attack children and blame the unaware parent.

    The truth is what? Just 5% of what they claim.

    Our crime? We share because we care. He liked the songs and gave them free advertising.

  • GrX

    40 bucks is reasonable for 2 songs????

    what planet are you people on

  • baka

    @52:
    Well 30 euros is better than 600. The Copyright owners need to pay the court bill…
    I’d call this a victory :D

  • Wolfy

    If you read the quote carefully, it says that the court determined that the father, although the billpayer, wasn’t responsible for the copyright infringement.
    But, don’t the MAFIAA say that you’re automatically guilty if your internet connection is used to download media?

    I like this because this will mean case law in Germany, the record labels, when they sue, will have to show WHO downloaded the track, not just the billpayer

  • Freedom

    37 Oct 28, 2010 at 17:22 by Swiss_Pirate

    Your report is missing a few important details!!!!!!!

    The court assumed that each song was downloaded 100 times.

    This is how they got 15 Euros per song!! They calculated that for each song 100 cased of unauthorized distribution occurred.

    So the correct math is that 1 x infringement = 0.15 Euro

    100 infringements = 15 Euros

    2 songs, each approx. uploaded 100 times to other users = 30 Euros.

    I’d say that’s an important bit of information, don’t you think? For details (in German) please check German news portals such as golem.de or heise.de :)

    In response to those overreacting about the amount fined, please read the comment from Swiss_Pirate.

    I’d say its a small but pleasant victory in terms of a verdict; however, do not forget that 5 years worth of court fees do add up quite handsomely and a trial for $41 for sharing 2 songs is actually quite ridiculous if put into perspective. Also, the defendant should only be responsible for sharing (if even that!) but not responsible for how many download from (I doubt he can control how many download from if its a torrent like situation).

    In any case, its a slow but sure progress back to a proper justice system – even if it was on a small scale.

  • tonylmaner@aol.com

    password: r5t6y78

    That’s more likely, and realistic.
    But even $41 is too much. That’s even more than the price of 2 whole CDs here in the US, and this man only downloaded 2 tracks, not 2 CDs.
    Why some courts award the dogs at the music industry hundreds of thousands for individual songs downloaded is beyond me.

  • Swiss_Pirate

    @46 Deville:

    > 30 Euro for two songs?
    > Thats way too much!

    Again: Incorrect math. The content mafia was incapable of producing any evidence whatsoever concerning what their real damages were. The judges thought that their initial demands were ridiculously high. So the judges had to make educated guesses how many times those two songs were illegally distributed and they ended up with a guess that each song must have been uploaded 100 times. Then they looked at real-life licensing prices the *_content industry THEMSELVES*_ use in Germany: 0.15 Euro for old songs.

    And so the judges calculated that if the teen boy in question had purchased a perfectly legal license uploading 2 x songs 100 x times would have cost him: 2 x 100 x 0.15 = 30 Euros in licensing fees.

    So that’s the damage that was done, right there. In other words: The judges slapped the content mafia’s own numbers (0.15 license fee per song as published on their webs!) around their faces. Case closed.

    I still maintain that this is an epic win for us :)

    > Someone in Switzerland had
    > to pay 300 Euro

    Actually it’s 400 Swiss Francs. ;-)

    > for 6’000 Songs

    4200 songs and 270 movies. And yes, the medias here thought it’s too high because that girl in question was still a minor at the time of the infringement. Her activities count as *ONE* single infringement: “illegal distribution of copyrighted material”. So that’s one single activity and one single “crime”, not 4470 crimes. If we apply the US system of counting each single infringement as separate “crime” … in that case she was charged 0.089 Swiss Francs per infringement.

    So the girl in the Swiss case got away with a far better price than the guy in Germany with his 0.15 Euros per song :)

  • traum

    Really hard bargain. Good that it end that way and

    http://torrentfreak.com/court-slams-music-pirate-with-huge-fine-of-41-00-101028/#comment-725451

    had good viewpoint. (scary tactic wont work anymore?)

  • Pingback: Altay Neldaïnoren » Hado?, ?, ? !

  • Anon

    Enjoy your €30 MAFIAA scumbags. Don’t spend them all at once!

  • Wolfy

    Why is it that judges think its okay to just GUESS how many times the songs were downloaded? I thought courts were about hard evidence!
    Alright, I’m ecstatic that he got away with 30 euros, but still…if it was me, I would have appealled, because who wants a world where judges openly say they’re guessing without proof?

  • DERP

    That probably covered 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003234234 of the court costs.

    Keep at it, guys.

  • Swiss_Pirate

    @59:

    They had to guess. It’s their job. At least they used their brains and came to a reasonable number instead of going with the content mafia’s demands per default. And you’re missing the funny point that in this case the judges used the mafia’s own numbers against them. One song costs 0.15 euros. So if that song got illegally uploaded 200 times then this is the total damage that the industry suffered. This. 30 Euros. And not 30 gazillion billions fantastillions. 30 Euros. This, and not a cent more.

    This is a win.

  • elduka

    ehhh good, but i still dont think it should be more than $20

  • FuzzyX

    The best news is that anyone in Germany only now needs to pay them 15 Euros a song if caught.

    Or more accurately 0.15 Euros per upload which is a value the Copyright side can never know themselves.

  • me

    GrX: “40 bucks is reasonable for 2 songs????”

    Yeah, that’s what I though too! Well, the boiling frog strategy seems to work just fine, which is sad.

  • Truther

    To say each songs are worth ~$20.90 is still “excessive.”

  • l-form

    It’s nice to see real justice for once, unlike the US.

  • Anonymous

    Each song is only worth .99cents in iTune. So for uploading 2 songs, that’s $1.98. Assume the song was leeched by 100,000. That’s $198,000.00 But we can’t use assumption in court. So the actual cost is $1.98 dollar.

  • Johnny

    This fine is not for downloading, it’s for uploading.

    Valued at 0.15 cent per uploaded song. A torrent ratio between 1 and 3 would put a fine for sharing an 8 to 12 song album between 1.20 and 5.50 Euros…

    That’s not going to be worth anyone’s while.

  • whipped

    I thought they had a tax on blank media in Germany, or not at that time.
    That should be the last of those cases now. I know the government collect millions from these taxes.
    Sure makes one glad there are people that share out there.

  • Anonymous

    Dear Authority,

    ‘AV IT!!!!

    Love,

    John Smith

  • Pingback: Dozens of Great Alternatives To LimeWire « ://allthings-bare.rant

  • Anonymous

    Dont forget when calculating the cost to the rights holder to strip out the distribution and publication costs which is where I am assuming they get the 0.15 value per track from. Its all down to the rights holder losses not the retail value… or am i wrong

  • haarspalter

    The song is “Dreh dich nicht um” by Westernhagen. It means “Don’t turn around”, not “Roll over not” :)

  • Ninja

    You can count on MAFIAA to ridicule themselves. Who will respect a group that sues teenagers for an amounts that barely covers any costs (taxi?)?

    Not that they still have any respect left.

    Keyword for this article: ownage.

  • Pingback: Online Global Week in Review 29 October 2010 from IP Think Tank

  • T’Kay

    This appears to set a very, very bad precedent….

  • Billco

    Even their initial claim at 600 Euro seems like a rather small amount to bother suing for. That’s hardly worth 4-5 hours of a lawyer’s time, which we mustn’t forget includes research. Then when you factor the time wasted by court staff on this matter, I’m surprised they didn’t throw it out during the original hearing.

    To end up at $41 dollars though, that seems to me like the judge is telling the MAFIAA to “STFU GTFO”. The fact that they followed a sane, reasonable method to calculate that amount is even more proof that the court intended to humiliate the plaintiff and underline how frivolous and unproductive it is to sue file sharers.

  • Anonymous

    It’s still a victory for the copyright holders. This sets a precedent for future piracy cases where big pirates would be sued to the ground with massive fines.

  • Kaptain Krunch

    That is severe because it’s gonna take that kid six years to pay off that fine if he is working at Walmart.

  • Joshua

    For those people who do not consider this fine reasonable: Remember that it is a fine. A FINE. No matter how ‘noble the cause’, the kid still broke the law. Breaking the speed limit is still much more expensive then this (€50 – €100).

  • Anonymous

    @80
    Sure, he broke the law. And, back in the day, you were breaking American law to help an escaped slave.

    Show that the law is right and we’ll talk.

  • Harry

    The recording company will be very hard pressed to find decent chewing gum for $41.00!!! So all of you seeders (including myself) out there: continue the great work, saving everyone lots of boodle in the process & hopefully limiting the excessive amounts of money these so-called ‘artists’ & their recording companies pilfer from purchasers of their wares.

    The wonderful thing about actions such as this, as well as the shutting down of Limewire, is that humans – being as creative as is our nature – will always find a way around the problem. THIS is one of the things that makes life exciting & worth living. It is NOT simply the cost-saving mechanism of downloading files (or entire folders!) for free that is attractive. It’s the excitement of being able to do so without (usually very much) delay. Yet saving even one Dollar is fun, nonetheless. In this regard it’s not (exclusively) the AMOUNT of money that one saves by employing this method, it’s the fact that it’s free (to any degree).

    In addition, very few people around the world actually know about P-2-P filesharing, torrents & related things – even today. Only a very small portion of the entire music- listening & movie-watching population actually download in the afore-mentioned (illegal) methods.

    But, for example, for those folks who have access to a free internet connection & cannot afford to purchase the items from the retailers (or suppliers of any kind) for their kids, THIS is a wonderful mechanism by which the kids can be given something that only wealthier parents can normally buy.

  • magellan

    @Joshua
    “For those people who do not consider this fine reasonable: Remember that it is a fine. A FINE.”

    Nope, not a fine. Damages.
    Copyright infringement isnt breaking a law, it’s infringing on anothers rights.
    Private people can’t fine. Thats reserved for governments.

  • Anonymous

    Hopefully it sends a message to the extreme copyright lobby,: “Stop wasting everyone’s time with this nonsense, face up to the realities of modern technology”.

  • Anonymous

    The song name is actually ‘Engel’, not ‘Angel’, as it is German.

  • krneki

    In EU share a song and pay a fine of 30E.

    In the US, do the same and pay 10.000$.

    Ou yeah, the country of the free.

  • mike

    it really bugs me that these people ask for huge sums of money for an mp3 file, which is rubbish quality to vinyl or wav or aiff files.

    the same goes for movies, a 700mb movie will be full of blocking artifacts, mp3 VBR audio, nothing like the dvd release.

    its time for courts to recognise this basic fact of quality. why should anyone pay for a crap mp3 @ 128mbps.

    introduce sliding scales for files if people are going to be fined, that will introduce so much paperwork it will clog up the courts for years and years while they sift thro the files allegedly downloaded.

    Im F******ed if i would pay a huge fine for a shitty old 700mb movie, with no extras, no subs, no directors soundtrack, etc etc

  • joro

    fuck that.freedom of speach,freedom of information. pirate 4 ever.

  • Anonymous

    Anyone have the kid’s details? So i can pay the fine for him?

  • MAFIAA

    I think we did pretty well.

    What do you guys think? LMFAOOO

  • yaza

    will the german kid appeal the verdict?

  • Wat

    They forgot to factor in the hundreds of people who downloaded the track, liked it, consequently told their mates about it and inadvertently gave the two tracks infinitely more exposure than they would otherwise receive (they were old tracks, after all). Profits all round chaps.

  • Mr. Briggs

    At least it’s a fair price… >_>

  • Mr. Briggs

    @87 (mike):

    its time for courts to recognise this basic fact of quality. why should anyone pay for a crap mp3 @ 128mbps.

    You show me a file that’s that high quality. I bet an audiophile would pay $50 for it.

  • Jerry Lee Lewis

    Cheers

  • Gravy

    All those people spouting that this is a “victory” for sharing…you are idiots. The kid lost in court. He got fined. The small cost is only the tip of the iceburg. If you lose a court case, then guess what? The plantiff ca nnow sue you for the court costs too. So the kid likely has another action on the way for the 10′s of thousands of dollars in legal fees, plus his own lawyer to pay for. To assume a lawyer takes a percentage is rediculous. No lawyer is going to take on a case for a percentage of a small proposed damage. Hourly rates apply…

    Back to the original thought though…the product was shared, and the kid had no licence to distribute the songs. It is illegal. No amount of personal belief comes into play in the law. So all the proponants of file sharing…you are idiots. The law cares not of your personal feelings. The law cares for the law as it is written and interpreted.

  • Music exec

    People are enraged against us because of all the lawsuit and shutdown.

    I am fearing that soon the people are going to kill us all.

  • Pingback: Morning Coffee with David Farrell, Nov. 1

  • 80s Pornstar

    This just made my day

  • meeee

    this is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    Fu<K u MAFIAA, don't spend it all in one shop!!

  • Pingback: Giovane condannato a pagare 30 euro per due brani condivisi « YBlog

  • Pingback: Engagement and Community Accolades for Oct 29 - Nov 5 » Blog | NetShelter Technology Media

  • Pingback: RIAA Wins Big Against File-Sharer, $1.5M for 24 Songs | We R Pirates

  • Pingback: RIAA Wins Big Against File-Sharer, $1.5M for 24 Songs | Links Daily

  • Pingback: RIAA Wins Big Against File-Sharer, $1.5M for 24 Songs | Systema

  • Pingback: How Reasonable: German Court Fines Convicted File-Sharer €30

  • Pingback: Riaa Wins Big Against File Sharer 1 5m For 24 Songs | IDTorrent Blog

  • Pingback: P2PTalk » RIAA Wins Big Against File-Sharer, $1.5M for 24 Songs

  • Anonymous

    He should file a counterclaim for emotional distress alone. 5 years of waiting for the court to come to a decision? That’s ridiculous.

  • Pingback: $42 German P2P fine stark contrast to seven-figure US judgments « Technology

  • Pingback: Multa di 30 Euro per il download di due brani musicali » Italia SW

  • Pingback: RIAA Wins Big Against File-Sharer, $1.5M for 24 Songs RapidShare, MegaUpload, HotFile Free Full Version Warez Download with Crack, Serial, Keygen | Downloads and News

  • Pingback: USA: $1.5mil fine for 24 songs-TorrentFreak « FACT – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand

  • Fuck the MPAA

    Now that’s something reasonable

  • Pingback: How Reasonable: German Court Fines Convicted File-Sharer €30 « The Technology World of David S. Pan

  • Pingback: Répressible de 15 à 45290 euros par titre téléchargé » GanoWorld

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.