TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Piracy is Theft? Ridiculous. Lost Sales? They Don’t Exist, Says Minecraft Creator

The “piracy is stealing” argument raises its head in the media every week and is on the lips of anti-piracy outfits and copyright holders every day. To them, every unauthorized copy is a lost sale and another small dent in the company spreadsheet which, when added to a million others, will destroy it bit by bit. To the maker of Minecraft, however, its an opportunity. Piracy is theft? You must be kidding. Lost sales? They don’t exist.

minecraftA quick look at the stats for the still-in-beta PC game Minecraft reveals a very healthy business indeed. At the time of writing the game has 4,880,757 registered users of which 1,469,513 (30.1%) have bought the game. In the last 24 hours alone, 36,618 people registered for Minecraft.

But while virtually all other game developers would be complaining about a near 70% of their market being eaten away by parasites who could not care less about the gaming industry or the fate of those who work so hard for their entertainment, Minecraft creator Markus “Notch” Persson sees the situation rather more optimistically.

Speaking during the closing session yesterday at the Independent Games Summit, Notch dismissed the notion that piracy is the same as stealing, or ‘looting’ as incoming MPAA chief Chris Dodd framed it this week.

“Piracy is not theft,” he said to those gathered in San Francisco. “If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.”

With this kind of reasoning one could be forgiven for thinking that Notch has pirate sympathies but since he’s a self-confessed member of the Pirate Party, that stance comes as no surprise.

“There is no such thing as a ‘lost sale’,” he added with a philosophy so Pirate-aligned it could be happily transcribed directly into any of their press releases. “Is a bad review a lost sale? What about a missed ship date?”

Notch was expected to talk about piracy for 5 minutes at GDC but in the event only managed about 3 minutes, describing the experience as “the scariest thing in a long time.” But while he may have only utilized 60% of his available time, he appears to have packed in value and left people wanting more, which coincidentally is his game developers philosophy too.

“If you just make your game and keep adding to it, the people who copyright infringed would buy it the next week,” he told those in attendance.

While anti-piracy zealots would insist that Minecraft has a 70% piracy or “lost sale” rate, Notch steadfastly sees his cup as rather more full than the raw percentages of his sales data may suggest, particularly by those viewing them from the perspective of an outdated business model. Indeed, despite this ‘pro-piracy’ stance, Minecraft’s position continues to improve.

Back in September last year the game had 658,429 registered players, that’s an increase of 4,222,328 in less than 5 months.

Currently 1,469,513 (30.1%) people have handed over money – in September that was 155,521 (23.62%) so its clear things are headed in the right direction. In the 24 hour period we examined in 2010, 4,910 people had bought Minecraft. Yesterday 10,381 did so.

“Piracy will win in the long run. It has to,” said Notch last year. “The alternative is too scary.”

If making truckloads of money is scary to Notch, he must be terrified right now.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Asba

    The MPAA and RIAA cant win and wont win.

    The problem is the way they throw their dollars at political figures. It doesnt help you have all these pro film and music industry people in Obama’s cabinet either.

    Greedy mother#$@ers

    • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

      Asba, it’s OUR dollars they throw at these politician dummies.
      WE gave the MAFIAA all those dollars in the first place through our grudging purchases because we were held to ransom by their hold on the “creative industry”.

      But now that same “Creative Industry” has created the technology and the means for true freedom from the “Copywrong Cartel”.

      Sharing = Caring.
      Case closed.
      Let’s get on with our life without these copywrong asswipes STEALING our cash.

      • WakuWaku

        We are paying money to the companies to support the artists and a bit for the company too.

        Companies are spending our money to support policemen, lawyers, judges, politicians, detectives and Tim Kuik.

        I buy enough and i am downloading too and therefore also buying more … so who am i supporting now ? The more i buy the more goes to the wrong side ?

        • me

          You have that backwards. We are paying our money to the company. The artists might get some, but most of their revenue comes from concerts, not album sales.

        • FreeYourself

          Right, it’s *us* who are responsible really … it’s *our* money! If we continue to buy and give money to these companies and do not support Creative Commons artist and Libre software (Free Software) we are getting what we deserve … and all this whining it’s just a slave complaining that his master is whiping him too much instead of braking free and be responsible for his actions.

          Since this realization I’m no longer going to the movies or buying any CDs, DVDs etc. it’s giving a donation for them to prosecute my friends, I’m not doing that! No matter how ‘cool’ the movie is … I support CC artists instead because they respect my freedom … I hope more people are going to do that and switch to the model of “I’m not paying because I have to, I’m paying because I *want to*”

  • Asba

    The MPAA and RIAA cant win and wont win.

    The problem is the way they throw their dollars at political figures. It doesnt help you have all these pro film and music industry people in Obama’s cabinet either.

    Greedy mother#$@ers

  • AnonyWaaaaa?

    “If making truckloads of money is scary to Notch, he must be terrified right now.”
    Why am I not surprised to see this written? I thoroughly dislike how Notchs’ words got twisted so hard…

    • BananaJoe

      Theft literally means subtracting ( in a non legit way ) , a copy is not subtracting anything, it is reproducing..

      • Haxor

        and what will happen when we create a food replicator like star trek?
        FOODRIGHT?
        oh da poor farmers

        ya see how stupid copyright is yet?

        • Anonymous

          This is obviously not the same and a ridiculous choice of comparison.

          Nobody holds the copyright on, say, wheat growing or dairy farming. You can do that now if you like.

        • Sarcasm is funny

          Actually I do hold the copyright on almost all food, including the dirt it was grown in. In fact I copyrighted the idea of eating food. Unfortunately i’m having a bit of trouble with pirates right now but i’m working on solutions…

        • Anonymous

          No food or drink can be copyrighted.

          So you can indeed make MacDonalds food at home if you want and to even sell it to others. You cannot however use the word MacDonalds or their golden M which are protected trademarks.

          I cant say lack of copyright has ever hurt their business. All about the taste and experience.

        • Quip

          Actually… Monsanto has a copyright on their Genetically Modified Organism “roundup ready” crops (which account for 80 or so percent of the crops grown in America). They purposefully spread their GMO seeds around so that they would get mixed in with the seeds that the farmers used to use (and had for generations). Once their GMO seeds were mixed into the natural, and diverse assortment of seeds across the US, Monsanto filed a copyright claim against the farmers for using their GMO seeds, which resulted in the farmers being forced to burn their own seeds (which represented most of the natural crop diversity), and replace them with Monsanto’s.

          So don’t spout this “you cant copyright food” crap. You can copyright drugs, food, plants, organisms, songs, games, books, inventions, you name it. It is one of the biggest hindrances to innovation that we have ever seen. Doing away with copyright would unleash an enormous wave of creativity, invention, and innovation. However, as long as it pays more to copyright anything that smells like money, we’re stuck with it. (Unless of course we do what the Arabs did the their dictators to our corporate overlords…)

        • Lindsay

          Quip down there is wrong. Monsanto has patented their scientific research (which is still a retarded thing to allow) You can patent scientific research, but you certainly can’t copyright it. You also can’t copyright facts or just lists of ingredients, which rules out copyrighting recipes.

          http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

        • Meh

          Monsanto patented their own foods, one of them being Soybeans.

        • Bardsidhe

          The Copyrights taken by Monsanto is on GM Food produce, this means that the Carrots they grow originate not from a Naturally Occurring seed, but from a Genetically Modified Seed Product, created a certain way by patented research methods, in this manner it is similar to inventing a new car, the New Car is your’s as is, but it’s still a car. and the Car itself as a car cannot be Copyrighted preventing others from making their own car “EXACTLY” as you made yours.

          The Method and End of Line Product, can be.

        • Boltie

          The US Government wanted to copyright the human genome. It was only because of it being put on the internet and made public that this was made impossible.

          Can you imagine what cures might not have been found if this happened? How much research would not have happened?

        • Igor Alexandre Dutra e Silva

          Actually, with all those transgenics, foods are getting copyrighted…

        • Sesame1

          I would just like to say that YOU CAN copyright recipes otherwise the cocacola recipe would be public knowledge and they would have spent millions keeping it secret…maybe your gran mothers moonshine recipe isnt copyrighted but believe me if a large alco corporation thought it would sell millions of units it soon would be and you wouldnt get a penny as they would have copyrighted it and you wouldn’t and just making it would be classed as here say and not ownership…

        • BOb

          Milk farmers have quotas to follow, and there is a company that has copyrighted a specific mouses DNA that is quite similar to humans.

        • Sarcasm is funny

          Actually I do hold the copyright on almost all food, including the dirt it was grown in. In fact I copyrighted the idea of eating food. Unfortunately i’m having a bit of trouble with pirates right now but i’m working on solutions…

        • Haxor

          no but you can see what i am saying a digital copy is no more different then a replicator form star trek. YET we penalize people for doing such.

          THE USA made the mistake and a big one of betting the farm ( pun included) on controlling patents and copyrights world wide. THEY gave china and india manufacturing which they should never have done.

          and what about when they replicator can make manufactured goods?
          and what about robots doing all the other work?
          ITS NOT as far off as you think….and monsanto does hold control on the very seeds a lot of farmers have to use thus they are using patents in a way LIKE FOODRIGHT….that champion of africa billy gates even gave monsanto some huge amount of cash….GO PATENT TROLL….

        • Anonymous

          One day, somehow, that will maybe happen.

          But before that we’ll see things like reprap com of age and actually start being useful. Personally, I think this is very exciting (although it’s obviously still very limited and has huge restrictions on what it can actually do at the moment).

          It will make the manufacturing industry kick and scream for a while, but the world will change, and with it will come huge opportunities for many people.

          But, to compare a food replicator to copyright is just way off base. Just like comparing reprap to a copyright item such as a piece of music, or a book, or a film, would be.

        • Anonymous

          I am sorry he is NOT comparing a food replicator to copyright. YOU ARE.

          he (and I) am/is comparing a replicator to a CD BURNER or DVD burner and the “act” of “replicating” a song or video.

          they are one and the same. they are PERFECTLY analogous and a valid argument.

          if I Drive by a car dealership and “scan” it with my tricorder. I go home plug the data into my tricorder and instruct the computer “replicate” the car I scanned please (lets assume I REMOVE the “branding”)

          Did I steal anything? the clear answer is NO. therefore copy is not equal to theft. this does not automatically make it RIGHT but it definitively makes it NOT THEFT.

          let me give you another example. I can listen to a radio station for FREE legally.

          I can RECORD off the radio station for FREE and legally.

          I CAN KEEP that recording from the radio station for free and legally.

          I can share a “mix tape” of my favorite songs with you FOR FREE and legally.

          the ONLY difference between recording a song on the radio and downloading a song on the web is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum I use to DO IT.

          so why is one legal and the other not when the action and result are EXACTLY the same?

        • Anonymous

          @ nerys

          Which part of this, from “Haxor” and which I originally replied to, is not comparing a food replicator and copyright?

          “and what will happen when we create a food replicator like star trek?
          FOODRIGHT?
          oh da poor farmers

          ya see how stupid copyright is yet?”

          You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I said somewhere along the line. Nowhere did I say I was against sharing, or that copyright was a good thing, or compare replication to theft.

        • Andydolson

          @ Nerys. Technically recording the radio and sharing a mixtape is also violating copyright. The reason no one made as big of a deal of it as they do with illegal downloading was on the premise that the recording from the radio would be of lesser quality and anyone who wanted a full quality recording would still have to buy it from whoever made it. Also, the medium of magnetic tape was still time consuming and tedious to copy so you could say that the infringement wasn’t a huge impact, but now a digital copy is as good as the first one (in theory), and it can be infinitely copied in seconds.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=613055662 Mark Saint

          OK, so replicating food isn’t like breaking copyright but what if someone caught wind of the Coca-Cola recipe and started distributing the instructions on how to replicate that? I think we are much closer to a good comparison of the two now.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=613055662 Mark Saint

          OK, so replicating food isn’t like breaking copyright but what if someone caught wind of the Coca-Cola recipe and started distributing the instructions on how to replicate that? I think we are much closer to a good comparison of the two now.

        • Kur

          “It will make the manufacturing industry kick and scream for a while, but the world will change, and with it will come huge opportunities for many people.”

          Exactly. The same with the entertainment industry.

          How would it be any different if you replicated a Mercedes S500? Do you think Mercedes would like it that you have a car as good as the ones they manufacture but without paying?!

        • Mollieollieoi

          i think you’re getting your stars mixed up. the replicators are from stargate. not star trek. get it right!
          nerd slam.
          <3

        • Glib

          Replicators ARE from StarTrek: TNG … maybe they’re in Stargate too, but that show came out 7 years later so it doesn’t really matter.

        • trekky

          they both have replicators in star trek a replicator made food and many other thing in stargate a replicator was a robot made of nanomachines that could self replicate

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Chavez/100001381000415 Mark Chavez

          Google the word “replicator” and see what comes up in the top result.

        • Sesame1

          replicators were originally in the 1960′s startrek many decades before stargate plus the replicators in stargate are more like a living nano entity that replicates and not a multi functional food and product replicator….

        • Parry

          Methinks you got nerd slammed back :D
          Newton’s 3rd law? lmao

        • Mollieollieoi

          i think you’re getting your stars mixed up. the replicators are from stargate. not star trek. get it right!
          nerd slam.
          <3

        • me

          “Nobody holds the copyright on, say, wheat growing or dairy farming.”

          *lol* Tell that to Monsanto…

        • Anonymous

          Monsanto hold patents on some specific seeds, that’s true. But nobody holds patents on the process of growing foodstuffs.

          I grow crops (and keep sheep), and I pay nobody for the privilege.

        • Anonymous

          Not the point. And it is not exactly the same. But a food replicator would put you out of business. That was the point. Actually, a replicator could also replicate everything. So people do not need money. So they do not need work. So actually piracy with real life goods would save us all. Or not.

          On topic, he has a point. Getting people hooked on his product will keep them coming back. Where have i seen that business model before…?

        • Anonymous

          patents and copyrights for this discussion are the SAME THING. ie they are analogous.

          patents are for physical things copyright is for ethereal things (IE thoughts and idea’s) they serve the save “effective” function.

        • John

          But if Monsanto moves in next door, and your crops get pollinated by their GMO pollen, and then next year you try to grow your OWN seeds again?

          *LAWSUIT*

          Unless of course you pay them for the privilege.

          So feel lucky, for now. But realize that this is a serious issue and that this IS happening.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=540607845 Steven Rayborn

          Nobody holds the copyright on wheat and milk YET, yeah, but anyone heard of Monsanto? They actually theoretically own ALL soybeans grown in the US because of some legal loophole bullshit, and if you are caught growing any cross-contaminated seeds, you get prison time, fines that are immeasurable to a normal farmer, and then Monsanto owns all of your crops from there on. If they can do it with soybeans, next things to go are things like wheat and dairy.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=540607845 Steven Rayborn

          Nobody holds the copyright on wheat and milk YET, yeah, but anyone heard of Monsanto? They actually theoretically own ALL soybeans grown in the US because of some legal loophole bullshit, and if you are caught growing any cross-contaminated seeds, you get prison time, fines that are immeasurable to a normal farmer, and then Monsanto owns all of your crops from there on. If they can do it with soybeans, next things to go are things like wheat and dairy.

        • duke applebottom iii

          correction you do need to pay a license to grow wheat, genetically modified genes in new breeds of wheat and other grains have patents on them. and if you want to grow those breeds you to need to pay a licensing fee.

          furthermore, if these genetically modified (gm) breeds seeds drift to your neighbours lot and the crop insurance inspectors notice, your neighbour also has to pay a licensing fee, for grain he did not want nor buy.

          so you are correct in asserting that their there (grammar police which one is it?) are no copyrights for grains there are patents that need to be paid .

          now how do I find a loophole to patent oxygen and charge people for air?

        • Anonymous

          patent = copyright for this argument.

          its the holding of the right of access by someone else.

          for material things patents for immaterial things copyright.

          they are analogous for this discussion.

        • Faggot

          “so you are correct in asserting that their there (grammar police which one is it?) are no copyrights for grains there are patents that need to be paid .”

          I fucking hate you. Please die.

        • Saxismyaxe47

          Not explicitly, but companies like Monsanto own the copyright on many strains of DNA for a lot of crops.

        • Kur

          Obviously you have not heard of Monsanto. Suing people over using their patented GMO seeds (even unintentionally, through cross-breeding) is their bread-and-butter. They would sure as hell put a great fight before they let a food replicating machine come out in the market.

        • Sesame1

          May i correct you on that and point out that anything that is genetically created such as hybrid wheats, fruit, veg & meat are copyrighted by the company that created them and unless you by some chance have a massive stock of pre-GM seeds or animal embryos you have no choice but to buy their shit…

          Just pointing this fact out to you.

        • Moxfotl88

          Tell that to Monsanto Corporation whose genetic Frankenseeds do NOT create usable new seed so Farmers must purchase their seed base every year.

          Not to mention many countries are up in arms that those deeds are finding their way into the general seed base and replacing honest natural seed.

          To add insult to injury, in The United States Monsanto sues Farmers whose seed they have ruined for stealing their intellectual property.

        • Violated

          I find it funny that the European Union now plans to introduce GM crops following many years of banning them.

          It seems they have much to learn from the reckless approach done within the United States.

        • Diceman

          they obviousy failed to take into account the increasing rates of dna and organ damage from consuming genetically modified crops.

        • Diceman

          they obviousy failed to take into account the increasing rates of dna and organ damage from consuming genetically modified crops.

        • noko

          Eating at home is killing family restaurants, and it’s illegal.

        • noko

          Eating at home is killing family restaurants, and it’s illegal.

        • BananaJoe

          I did not say it is correct, legal or moral, just that that it is not Theft.By the way a food replicator would be very welcome morally.

        • http://crashsuit.blogspot.com crashsuit

          Finally, I’ll be able to download a pizza.

        • Charleswarlock

          We would prob have to jailbreak the damn replicator because some ass has compyrighted a recipe or certain food or product it can produce…

          Replicator burger or a Mc D’s replicated burger ? that will be $10 please….either way it will still taste same but one will leave a more exspensive bad taste in your mouth.

          Probably why the chinese are hoarding as much water as they can if stories are true because when the water powered car is released we will all have to buy the “fuel” from them….

          The creator of Trek did have a point with some of his ideas such as replicators that wipe out world hunger and the abolition of money that wipes out world debt and lets us build, do and produce things because we want to and not be held back because twats in suits stop you using the words “money, finance, loans, bankrupt & reccession” to scare you…

          You may think i’m ranting like a right Charlie but you know it makes sense ;)

          Right i’m off i have a porn star to bang…..

        • Fbfdbf

          that happens in america, the corn seeds have copyrights.

          you buy seeds that last only one crop, they are genetically modified to die after. If you get your own seeds you’ll get billed.

          monsanto corp

      • Andydolson

        correct. it’s not theft, nor is it stealing, it is in fact violating “copyright” it’s an entirely different law. If you make a copy of something that you don’t have the right to copy you are violating “copyright”

  • Bob de zob

    See, I’m sure that if Notch was an utlra anti pirate like these idiots at **AA, his pay up rate would be far lower.

    Give credit to your audience and your audience will do the right thing. Simple as that.

  • Ben Genaaid

    So if piracy is not generating losses, than why are all the anti-piracy institutes putting so much effort in trying to kill piracy. I tell you why: Because fighting piracy can only be done by killing privacy in the the proces, this must be the main goal. So these efforts are well funded by the forces that want to steal all peoples privacy and get into controll of the internet. How does it come that the CIA has statistics about how many Exlporer and how many Firefox users there are (just an example I read today in the newspaper).
    No deal fellow pirates and law obeying people, anti piracy can have only one purpose, domiation and total controll of internet.

    • Anonymous

      “How does it come that the CIA has statistics about how many Exlporer and how many Firefox users there are”

      It’s pretty simple, really.

      Anyone who runs a web server can tell you how many people use each browser when visiting their server. After that it’s just a case of scaling up the ratios (of one browser to another) and applying them to the total number of internet users.

      • Ben Genaaid

        That is not the issue, why would the CIA want / bother to collect / save this data anyway! unless they have a purpose for it, and that won’t be making there own website more fancy looking in all different browsers :)

        • oyashiro

          what does the CIA not record? its important for a intelligence agency to have all intelligence, is it wrong? no since its publicly given and signing the EUA for any browser gives rights to do that.

        • Notsomuch

          To me, you should like a conspiracy theorist who’s looking to point a finger at the Government.

          Money makes the world go round, and nothing else.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

          please learn to understand what happens around you, if possible… money doesn’t spin anything, money is a useless object, which they use in exchange for useful (or useless) objects or services.

        • Diceman

          but the desire for it leads to greed, murder, genocide, and the usa… for example.

        • Diceman

          but the desire for it leads to greed, murder, genocide, and the usa… for example.

        • Anonymous

          The CIA aren’t the only people who collect statistics on browser usage. It’s common knowledge, and lots of organisations collect such data. I imagine the CIA probably don’t even collect it themselves but simply use aggregated statistics from other people.

          Make sure to wear your tinfoil hat and dark glasses when you go out, Ben…

        • Sesame1

          Google holds more data on you than the cia these days i would believe ;)

        • Ben Genaaid

          I just rest my case as stated above, just read the article of today from Rick Falkvinge
          http://torrentfreak.com/the-revolution-will-not-be-properly-licensed-110304/

    • Lindsay

      Actually, the RIAA and MPAA are going after piracy because it gets them more money than actually innovating and updating their business model. They’ve made millions off the backs of millions of consumers just by threatening to file lawsuits.

      They’re trying to protect their dying business models and create more unjustified revenue in the meantime.

      • Ben Genaaid

        Totally correct Lindsay, and why do you think the authorities comply with these actions??….. right!

        It suits their needs.

        And some anonymous adviced me to put on dark sunglasses and a tinfoil hat, well the dark glasses are no luxury because of the sunlight, the tinfoil hat however I don’t need,…I don’t live in USA :D

    • Anonymous

      control. it all comes down to control and revenue. they want to be able to “lock down” content 100% and nickle and dime you to death. to do that they have to eliminate any means of “not paying” for something.

      its all about control.

  • http://twitter.com/yungfreshdotcom ? Addicted-2-Retail

    openness FTW!

  • Mustangx

    The MPAA was smart hiring Chris Dodd for the CEO position, His salary of 1.2 million a year is nothing compared to what they currently spend fighting piracy. As a senior member of the Senate for years he has many that owe him favors and now he will be collecting on those favors as he lobbies for the entertainment industry. Todays his first day on the job and though he is supposed to have a 2 year cooling off period before he can legally solicit his former colleagues we all know how the MPAA and their like counterparts respect laws and rules, Dodd’s name will soon be well known and hated by the file sharing world.

    • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

      So you’re saying the MAFIAA got him cheap because he’s a failed politician and they prefer to spend OUR money from the profits we give them on fighting us.

      Good call ….

  • http://simonwhite.co.uk/ Simon White

    I play Minecraft, and this adds to the respect I already have for Notch. I’m glad I bought the game :)

    • chaos

      agreed 100%, I first downloaded a “pirated” version from isohunt, but wanted to play online and have easy access to all the updates, so I ended up buying it. and honestly, 15€ really isn’t a big deal (compared to the ~60€ that publishers want for new AAA titles…)

      • A1255195

        Same here. I pirated it at first, then convinced someone to let me get it properly.

        All hail Notch amirite?

  • AnarchyNow

    Property is theft, intellectual property is genocide!
    The RIAA/MPAA/etc are worse-than-nazi terrorist organisations.

    • Anonymous

      You Godwin, you lose.

      • Shoggoth

        Hahahaha you knew it had to happen eventually. At least it wasn’t me that invoked that law. Sorry AnarchyNow, he is right… you lose this one…

  • William_avarice

    I’m sorry TorrentFreak, you are guilty.

    Quote – “who could care less about the gaming industry”

    It’s COULDN’T care less.

    Please allow David Mitchell to explain – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

    • http://www.facebook.com/josephstill Joe Still

      Good point, I prefer to read your blog, where mistakes like this are non-existent. Oh wait…

      • Kurru

        Imperfect people can still correct others… If we only let perfect people help others improve, it would never happen :-/

    • Anal Plug

      Did u get the point, no? There are better ways to point an err. Now use myself, you seem to be in need of.

    • http://TorrentFreak.com Enigmax (Andy)

      Thank you :) Added the word ‘not’

    • Unbelieverx

      If you say “Who couldn’t care less?” That means that the “who” you are looking for is one of the very small group of people who don’t care.

      The original question correctly implies that MOST people don’t care and that you would have to look for the “who” that do care”

      You are confusing the statement “I couldn’t care less” with a question form.

      Try applying logic next time rather than using rules that don’t match because you saw it on youtube.

  • William_avarice

    Yes yes, it’s all well and good being snarky, but ‘could care less’ makes no sense when trying to convey that people don’t give a toss.

    I have no issues with grammar, spelliing etc, but really, it’s factually incorrect. You may as well watch Fox news.

    TorrentFreak is an interesting site, this article is an interesting read, this isn’t some lone blogger trying to make an impression, they provide good coverage and journalism and as such shouldn’t fall into the trap of idiocy. If they are trying to be professional (which I believe they are) they need to pay more attention.

    • http://TorrentFreak.com Enigmax (Andy)

      Thank you. Added the word ‘not’ :)

  • http://twitter.com/ZippoS Zippo

    Seeing that Minecraft’s success has been entirely thanks to word-of-mouth (it’s only source of advertising), piracy has likely done nothing but help Minecraft’s popularity and revenue. If no one were to pirate the game, then that’s a lot of people who likely would have passed up on the game. That’s a lot of people not playing the game and not telling their friends about it. One pirate could tell ten friends, three of which might buy. Suddenly, one pirate just led to three sales.

    • chaos

      true that, i got my two cousins completely addicted to this game :D

    • jeff

      “One pirate could tell ten friends, three of which might buy. Suddenly, one pirate just led to three sales. ”

      … one pirate COULD tell ten friends, three of which MIGHT buy. suddenly, one pirate COULD have just led to MAYBE three sales.
      just thought i’d correct you.

      • infini

        this is called Word of Mouth (WOM) marketing. marketing always only leads to ‘maybe’ sales.

        piracy = free WOM (good and bad)

        they hate it cause they have to pay for this kind of marketing. piracy prevents them from creating fake positive WOM about sh*tty movies.

        downloading a copy which i delete later is called borrowing/previewing. if i burn it onto a dvd and charge money for it then THAT can be called copyright infringement.

    • Myles Peterson

      “Seeing that Minecraft’s success has been entirely thanks to word-of-mouth…”

      :(

      some of us reviewers chipped in – http://bit.ly/eVJiZH

      although I admit my tiny readership probably didn’t make much of an impact

      • sh4ktipat20

        FYI you are a mouth that words come out of. Sorry – lmao

        Let me clarify though. reviewers that are not shills for the company are my primary source of information regarding game/movies purchases. Second are the users responding to the review. Why? because the info is more centralized and accessible.

        Point being, you are part of the word of mouth chain-unless you get money/perks from a company to say how great a game/movie is, then you can f-yourself (ain’t it cool news) for being a slimy little maggot. :) peace.

      • sh4ktipat20

        FYI you are a mouth that words come out of. Sorry – lmao

        Let me clarify though. reviewers that are not shills for the company are my primary source of information regarding game/movies purchases. Second are the users responding to the review. Why? because the info is more centralized and accessible.

        Point being, you are part of the word of mouth chain-unless you get money/perks from a company to say how great a game/movie is, then you can f-yourself (ain’t it cool news) for being a slimy little maggot. :) peace.

  • Blue

    There’d be less piracy if companies didn’t charge so much for games these days. £40 for a video game I’ll probably complete in less than a week? Hahaha…no.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe they have to charge £40 to pay the salaries of the developers?

      I do remember when I started PC gaming in the late 80′s/early 90′s a top notch game (such as M1 Tank Platoon at the time) cost me £42 (which was less than the RRP). In the 80′s even a good 8 bit game would go for £15. So with inflation taken into account, surely gaming is cheaper than ever?

      • Anonymous

        Citadel, Cholo and Elite, all on the BBC B, were my proper introduction to the world of gaming.

        Good times.

        • Anonymous

          Don’t forget the classic Exile, now that was a game that was ahead of it’s time, digitised speech :)

        • Anonymous

          I do remember that, but it was several years later (’89?), and on Windows. Citadel and Elite were nearer ’85/’86 I think.

        • Anonymous

          i think you are partially right, it was right at the end of the BBC’s lifetime and it was ported over to C64/Amiga/ST (and more?) I think.

          I guess that’s why it was so good, the developers understood the hardware architecture so well by that point they could do clever tricks.

        • Violated

          It is nice to see someone who remembers CHOLO and the RAT droid.

          Elite, now there is a legend. Space cargo trader.

          I only have yet to find someone who remembers The Lords of Midnight and the sequel Doomdark’s Revenge.

        • Anonymous

          I never played those, I don’t think they were aver on the BBC B.

          Don’t forget the 15939 machine from Cholo though!

        • Anonymous

          Those two were on the ZX Spectrum 48k but excellent games.

        • Sesame1

          Got both of those on original….along with nearly all the original ‘Ultimate’ games

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        TBH, if they lowered the price they might actually get more gross revenue.]

        Look at Capcom when they lowered the price of SFIV. It went from $60 for the original to $40 for Super SFIV.

        The game sales went through the roof!

        Simple economics:
        Cheaper price entry = greater sales.

      • Sesame1

        back in the mid 80′s when codemasters started up they flogged games for £1.99 & £2.99 it was really only big companies like activision, us gold & ocean that flogged million dollar licensed stuff for around £15 – 20 [i know as i still have thousands of the games in my archive, all originals too]

        • Anonymous

          That must be some archive, my parents unfortunately made me sell all my stuff off, I had an absolute goldmine of games, old apps and peripherals.

          It makes me a sad bunny.

      • Anon

        I don’t know what you’re talking about, the developers will get paid either way, the game selling or not.

    • Anonymous

      £40?

      40-hours play?

      £1 per hour?

      Not too bad I guess

      • Anonymous

        I have to say that it’s more about the perception of cost than anything. For example, I can buy a CD for £10 and get thousands of hours of listening out of it, but £50 will buy me about 5 hours fun if I go out for a meal and a few drinks.

        I have to say, I like video games, but the problem is the risk factor, paying £40 for a game that ends up being a bit boring…I wouldn’t mind if every game was a winner (as impossible as that is). I tend to buy pre-owned (and exchange unwanted games) as it makes my pastime cheaper.

  • Ninja

    I really felt like trying his game now. I’ll probably buy it just because he is awesome.

    MAFIAA: I’ll be giving this guy money for a game I’ve never played when I could get it for free and I won’t be giving anything for you in the near future because of idiotic DRM, atrocious prices, lack of availability and because I hate you. Got the message?

    • Ninja

      Hmm, as some sort of tip, it’d be nice to have a donation button somewhere. And the price is somewhat high (but that’s for my currency and I haven’t seen the game yet to evaluate if it’s a fair price, maybe it’s worth more). Why not to add a minimum price (ie: $5) and let the users decide if they wanna give more?

    • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

      Once the novelty of “he allows piracy, so we should pay anyway” wears off… people will still pirate and will no longer feel the need to pay the developer for their “forward looking view”. Classic example of self-cannibalization in the form of a one-time marketing ploy.

      • Anonymous

        But the “you can have it free, and then pay if you like it” model has lead me to buy several things I wouldn’t otherwise have bought.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          That’s great, but it doesn’t give you the right to steal (or force a company to let you try before you buy). Would you like it if you were having a yard sale… and 50% of the stuff got stolen.

          Few months later 10% of the customers came back and said something like… “you know what, that lawn mower I stole was great. Here is $50… that is how much I think it’s worth. Sure, I stole more than just this, but I stole a better weed-wacker down the street and paid the other guy for that one so it’s cool.”

        • Violated

          That is a false comparison. To take someone’s lawn mower is directly theft.

          Copyright infringement is more like you took a copy of their lawn mower which still leaves the original available for sale and therefore no monetary loss.

          What usually then happens is they give this copy a try mowing their lawn.

          Either it sucks and soon in dustbin avoiding a bad purchase, or they like it and purchase the original, or it is simply acceptable and spends its life in their shed.

          Then the rare few would indeed use their copy for their monthly lawn mowing but either they would not have purchased it anyway or the manufacturer did try hard enough to make a sale.

          Since anyone who did enjoy can tell their friends then it can be more helpful than harmful.

          The greatest cause of poor sales are those who never heard of it. You cant beat free advertising.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          Still… the owner of product (lawn mower or whatever) is the one with the right to lend out “copies”. Consumers can’t simply demand it, and then steal them when not provided.

          There needs to be a balance here. If innovators/creators of products have zero creative control over their creations… why would they continue to create? At the same time, copyright laws can stifle competition from innovating on top of an idea. So, there needs to be a balance between the two.

          Piracy is putting the control 100% in the hands of consumers They can choose to pay for what they like, pay for everything, or… pay for NOTHING. This is not balance. This is taking all control away from the company that put in 100% of the investment/innovation/creativity to create it. You might choose to pay for a fair amount of stuff, but not everyone will.

          Piracy is stealing – it really is that simple. It is stealing from the developers, but more importantly, from society as a whole. The fact is, if everyone pirated – developers would no longer have the motivation to innovate. While some companies may choose to use a business model of “free” – customers do not have a right to force this model on developers. If a business is selling something that you want, and you cannot afford it – that isn’t the developers fault.

          It is this desire for the unattainable that drives innovation, competition, and the free market as a whole. Embrace the fact you cannot afford everything you want, and use that desire to fuel your own motivation and innovation. It will make the world a better place.

        • Aussie

          Change your argument from lawnmowers to the Mona Lisa. Mona Lisa is a tiny little picture sitting in the Louvre, you might have heard of it. Is it theft to take a snapshot of it?

          This is the debatable point. You havent touched the original, its still on the same wall as it was before you looked at it. The Louvre charges money for copies of that picture, so if you take your own picture, you’re denying them the right of profit.

          But you havent taken the original, and you havent stolen one of their copies. You’ve simply replicated the image with your own equipment. Or better yet, what if I grab a copy of the Mona Lisa online from a legitimate source?

          Most people (the sane ones at least) wouldnt consider that copyright infringement, and the same argument can be levelled at sharing ANY electronic files. If you do something with that copy, like onsell it for profit, thats a different thing alltogether.

          As I said, this is the debatable point. I personally see both sides of the argument, and really dont have an opinion one way or the other, but the “piracy is theft” side of the debate tends to be zero tolerance, and never entertains the thought of negotiation.

          Your argument about stealing a lawnmower isnt fair or valid. Its a physical object thats been taken, thus removing your opportunity to sell that specific object. Thats not the case if you COPY something.

        • Violated

          Piracy/file sharing is NOT stealing. You should know better than to say that when it is correctly classed as infringement.

          I would agree companies should have some control over their creations but for a LONG time rights were 100% to the owner creating monopolies and abusing end user rights and freedoms.

          So a large swing in the opposite direction is not such a bad thing to achieve some balance.

          Clearly their needs to be a viable online market and we are slowly getting there.

          Their needs to be a large drop in the lifespan of copyright protection where 5 to 10 years is ideal.

          And there does need to be suitable review before purchase.

          Let me put it this way. Would you buy a car you had never seen, limited to be driven not beyond your own local region, limited to who you can carry, and then you dont own the car only the right to drive it?

          If I buy a movie or software I should have the right to use it on any suitable device in my home.

        • Kur

          “Piracy is putting the control 100% in the hands of consumers They can choose to pay for what they like, pay for everything, or… pay for NOTHING.”

          WOW! God forbid the consumers get to have the final say!!! Who will then buy those 98% of crap movies and music albums that we produce?!

        • Kur

          “Piracy is putting the control 100% in the hands of consumers They can choose to pay for what they like, pay for everything, or… pay for NOTHING.”

          WOW! God forbid the consumers get to have the final say!!! Who will then buy those 98% of crap movies and music albums that we produce?!

        • Genetix

          My Image is copyrighted so any cctv cameras take my image they owe me money, anyone in the street takes my image they owe me money, anyone online records my image they owe me money…i also copyrighted my DNA so any databases holding it are infringing the copyright and dont have my permission thus they will be legally sued for damages and have to destroy all images and all DNA they have…

          You too can do this…

        • Genetix

          My Image is copyrighted so any cctv cameras take my image they owe me money, anyone in the street takes my image they owe me money, anyone online records my image they owe me money…i also copyrighted my DNA so any databases holding it are infringing the copyright and dont have my permission thus they will be legally sued for damages and have to destroy all images and all DNA they have…

          You too can do this…

        • Anonymous

          “That’s great, but it doesn’t give you the right to steal”

          I never said it did.

          “Would you like it if you were having a yard sale… and 50% of the stuff got stolen.”

          No, but I probably wouldn’t mind if they copied it.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          Still… the owner of product (lawn mower or whatever) is the one with the right to lend out “copies”. Consumers can’t simply demand it, and then steal them when not provided.

          There needs to be a balance here. If innovators/creators of products have zero creative control over their creations… why would they continue to create? At the same time, copyright laws can stifle competition from innovating on top of an idea. So, there needs to be a balance between the two.

          Piracy is putting the control 100% in the hands of consumers They can choose to pay for what they like, pay for everything, or… pay for NOTHING. This is not balance. This is taking all control away from the company that put in 100% of the investment/innovation/creativity to create it. You might choose to pay for a fair amount of stuff, but not everyone will.

          Piracy is stealing – it really is that simple. It is stealing from the developers, but more importantly, from society as a whole. The fact is, if everyone pirated – developers would no longer have the motivation to innovate. While some companies may choose to use a business model of “free” – customers do not have a right to force this model on developers. If a business is selling something that you want, and you cannot afford it – that isn’t the developers fault.

          It is this desire for the unattainable that drives innovation, competition, and the free market as a whole. Embrace the fact you cannot afford everything you want, and use that desire to fuel your own motivation and innovation. It will make the world a better place.

        • warla

          Nothing stifles creativity more than the “market forces” that seek to make a commodity out of it.

          Try to stop thinking of end-users as JUST consumers and customers. Many of us have ourselves contributed to the pool of knowledge and creativity that the artists, developers, etc have drawn from.

          If piracy is about stealing from those who actually create music or software or ideas, then everyone is a pirate. The British should charge Americans for speaking English.

          The thing about copyright laws, is that they create ownership where there should be none.

          I think that laws should address piracy as an industry (as in the mass-produced illegal copies of movies they sell for as low as P35 each here in the Philippines), but downloading it for yourself and not making any money out of it should not be seen as a crime against creativity.

        • Anonymous

          Oh hi there, copyright troll. Let me quote the article that you didn’t read:

          “Piracy is not theft,” he said to those gathered in San Francisco. “If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.”

          Your yardsale analogy fails completely because it’s based on the fallacy that piracy is theft. You lose.

          Also, “novelty”? Well, I guess considering how you don’t have a soul charity is a pretty alien concept to you. But you know what? To normal people who, you know, aren’t sociopathic hellspawn, it isn’t a novelty. Just an FYI for you there.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          Already addressed that a few comments back. Welcome to the party… please try to keep up. As I said…

          Unfortunately, it isn’t this simple. The business model used by most software, music, and video companies is based around volume. This is what allows a product, that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in development costs, to be sold at lost cost to consumers. When someone pirates a copy – it affects two groups. First, it results in real customers having to pay more (especially if they want the company to stick around and continue to innovate). Second, it results in the developer/artist making less money – providing less incentive/motivation for them to innovate or create a new product. In some cases, they simply go out of business because it wasn’t profitable for them to create the product (even if it was so popular that people were willing to steal it).

          Just because something can be “copied” doesn’t mean it’s distribute doesn’t water down value or hurt the person that created it. The notion that something can be copied doesn’t make it valueless.

          I like to ask people this question… “If there was a machine capable of “copying” a Lamborghini, would you think it’s ok to pirate one?”

          “Of course!” they say, “why wouldn’t I?” Well, unfortunately, nobody will ever spend millions or billions of dollars creating and innovating to build that machine… because there is no money in it. If you were willing to even pay $5,000 for your new Lambo, maybe they would. This is a simple example of how piracy holds back innovation and subtly scares entrepreneurs away from creating new technologies and solutions.

          Piracy is stealing – it really is that simple. It is stealing from the developers, but more importantly, from society as a whole. The fact is, if everyone pirated – developers would no longer have the motivation to innovate. While some companies may choose to use a business model of “free” – customers do not have a right to force this model on developers. If a business is selling something that you want, and you cannot afford it – that isn’t the developers fault.

          It is this desire for the unattainable that drives innovation, competition, and the free market as a whole. Embrace the fact you cannot afford everything you want, and use that desire to fuel your own motivation and innovation. It will make the world a better place.

        • lol

          you sir, are retarded

        • Anonymous

          @Prick Trollner
          “Already addressed that a few comments back.”

          You “addressed that a few comments back” by lying through your teeth, Rick. That doesn’t really count.

          I see you’re repeating yourself like a broken record, though! Nothing can keep you down, eh, Champ? Just keep copy & pasting those lies… Do it enough times and they’ll come true. Like magic.

          @Prick Trollner
          “Piracy is stealing – it really is that simple.”

          That’s right. Even though piracy isn’t stealing, it… IS. I mean just because it ISN’T stealing doesn’t stop it from BEING stealing, you know? It’s, like… Metaphysical, man. You wouldn’t know unless you EXPANDED your mind beyond the… the… the… BOUNDRIES OF THE UNIVERSE like I have, man! You gotta rip the caps offa them Sharpies and you gotta INHALE, man!

        • Progman32

          Rick, you seem to be of the opinion that a company has a right to force the world to bend to its business model.

          Replace Lamborghini with a horse breeding company. Did we cry when technology (i.e., the automobile) came around and destroyed the horse breeder’s business model? Did we make ridiculous laws saying we can’t buy cars because it would put the poor horse breeders out of a job? Did the cops bust down the doors of Ford’s workshop for “creating a device for circumventing horse transportation”?

          No! We went ahead with cars and let the horse breeders figure something out. Society had a large net benefit. If physical object replicators became reality tomorrow, yes, Lambo would likely go out of business. That would be too bad, but other companies would take their place. Maybe company X will spring up to help manage your replicator collection, and charge you for it. Maybe Lambo itself will contract itself out to take your scanned Lambo and modify it to your exact specs, using its specialist knowledge. Point is, enforcing artificial scarcity via copyright and patents might create monetary incentives for people to innovate, and that’s great. However, as digital tech removes physical boundaries (the inability to make perfect copies at negligible cost), we need to reexamine those artificial incentives. We’re moving away from a final-product-based economy (i.e., photo-management software) towards a service-based economy (i.e., Flickr or Facebook). Think of it this way – it doesn’t cost me a damn thing to read how to tune up my car. Does this put a tuning shop out of a job, or at least a sale? Absolutely not, because there is inherent value in having an expert perform a service I’m not good at or simply don’t want to do. There will always be limited resources in the world – removing one limitation does not make taking advantage of the new resource a crime (morally, at least).

          All that said, I’m actually slightly against piracy at the moment, simply because we haven’t figured out the propert business/societal models yet, and society is currently reacting dangerously to piracy (gov’t privacy violations, ridiculous laws, more corporate control, etc). Something has to give though, and I’d rather the anti-pirates win. “The alternative is too scary.”

        • Sesame1

          You are of course WRONG as people would still wish to create and develop that is the human condition…Artists would still write and perform songs, coders would still write and release games…

          The only ones that wouldn’t are the money grabbing barstewards that only got into it because of the money and when the money dries up they move onto ‘the next big thing’ and then only the people who do it for the passion would be left and as the money grabbing barstewards wouldnt be around they would get their fair share of the pie instead of being pushed out of the way by some tosser in a suit signing up another justin beiberlike [?]

          I would soon give a pound to that guy standing in the pissing rain til all hours in the city centre singing doing it for the passion than some tosser in a suit screaming in a music video showing everyone his/her cash, gold, house, car, boat & whoares putting his finger up and telling us “look at me i have this and you are poor” any day…

          Same goes for the little guy in his bedroom spending months perfecting a game or app and putting it up on a site saying “if you like then donate” they get my money as opposed to some global software company that churns out shite that is either bug infested after being in development for years with an army of millions coding it where you cant get your money back if its shite or if it does work they may just drop the whole console a month later or the console you paid hundreds for gets disco lights flashing on it and they just say “tough, not our problem but you can buy the new version for X amount”

          The guys in suits who run large global corporations killed music & video games along with the movie industry due to their never ending obsession with money…if every music act started their own website and told the music company to take a hike they would all suddenly be quite a bit richer…

          Anyway my meds are wearing off as i suddenly get the urge to buy apple products…and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth :(

      • Ninja

        Woah! Hold your horses. In reply to Guest: actually that is the reason I was looking for a donation button (to support his pro-sharing stance). The game is too expensive for me to buy it out of a simple wish to support the “file sharing is fine” stance the developer has adopted and his work.

        The novelty that will wear off is the game itself if he doesn’t refresh it regularly.

        As for the stealing arguments, we have heard before. I won’t buy if I can’t try. Simple as that. So if I don’t download it’s a certain “lost sale” while if I do download then there is a possibility of a sale. Note that “lost sale” should be used with caution. A “lost sale” implies that the sale would take place if the conditions were different. Which means that “lost sales” may occur either with the file sharing or without it.

        In this sense, you cannot take a money from a “lost sale” for granted as MAFIAA does. Auto makers had a bunch of “lost sales” since 2007 because of the subprime crisis. If there was no crisis they’d have sold more cars. If we take the “downloading is stealing” reasoning to the extreme then the customers that decided not to buy the cars because they had to focus on other priorities are thieves since they deprived the auto makers of the money he was going to spend on the car before the environment changed and made the financial situation deteriorate. And yet it’s not a good example because you can’t “try” a car for an unlimited time (which would be awesome since today some cars lack endurance/resilience in the long term) but you can watch a copy of a movie twice or three times (as I did with God of War II by playing through 3 times before being able to buy).

        In the end what’s the point here? Sharing is not stealing because you can’t state that the one that didn’t download will surely buy and that the ones that downloaded certainly won’t buy. The point here is how to quantify and improve the buy rates in the downloading population and how to make money out of free. If you ask me, the minecraft guy succeeded in it for the short term. I mean, even if he’s working with a small crew, $200k per head in an year is plenty of money. What we need to address now is the long term.

        Copywrong morons can say whatever they want. Either they failed to grasp what is the challenge now or they are blatantly ignoring it simply because it’ll need effort and it’ll wield less profitable margins.

  • sh4ktipat20

    a strategy for the film industry is to cobble uncreative duds, market the hell out of them and bank on opening weekend draw. In other words, they know they’re shoveling crap but they don’t want the consumer to know that till money has changed hands. In games I see creative content constantly being scarified for release dates to start raking in money. Games that I see promise in end up junk, unfinished. flip side, if they are good, there are games I still go back to that are 20 years old. My point is, I agree with Notch.

    Piracy makes developers more accountable for content in our digital age and word of mouth is a double edge. People pushing crap don’t want word of mouth, they want to ‘sell’ the movie. They have marketing firms, that’s the industry inside the industry that these piracy laws are looking to defend. I look for word of mouth on just about everything I buy. The comments about respecting the audiences and word of mouth advertising is spot on. Has anyone done an analysis of Notch’s numbers against a game with a full load marketing campaign? that would be interesting to me.

    • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

      Aye, what s/he ^ said was spot-on.
      Thanks for that one :)

      The industry markets are changing but the industry aint changing with it, so yet again they’re squealing to their bought politicians to protect them (yep, the ones WE vote for).

      The people however, know better that that – and NO AMOUNT of threat or penalties or Courts will stop us or put us down.

    • Ninja

      Couldn’t agree more. If anything, file sharing has prevented me from buying at least 30 games that were crap. The media I used to burn those are where those games deserve to be: trash. On the other hand there are the ones that I had to re-download the torrents because the DVD-Rs got worn out from the usage (mainly PS2 games) and even after burning them TWICE I bought the original in the end.

      I’m interested in the numbers too. Actually, for a game with no ads to have 30% of it’s registered audience buying is damn awesome. If u think about it he made over a million euro already!! WELL DESERVED if u ask me. Unlike MAFIAA.

    • sh4ktipat20

      thx rob8urcake and ninja. I’m not trying to suggest that everything under the traditional market channels is crap, but it does allow studios to become creatively lazy and in some (many) cases completely ripoff the consumer. At that point, they stole from me and they know it and there’s very little I can do to recoup my losses. When it comes down to entertainment dollars, it’s buyer beware and it’s total BS.

      Games like Super Mario 3 have a life to them, they’ll be remodeled and replayed forever. It makes me feel good to even think about that game right now. That’s what I’m looking for in a game, something that can’t be measured on a spreadsheet. You know there’s love and intelligence and joy in that game (sorry that sounds a little dirty).

      For me it’s pretty obvious when I’m playing a game to say – “Oh, these guys are out to make money first, this game was just a product.” and its forgettable and I’m resentful. and I can tell when a game has a great development crew but it had to get out the door without 100% of the polish (Borderlands I saw a few rough unfinished edges but overall great fun) but I can forgive that.

      So the question is, why not make products that have a life? Because there are short sighted profit margins and pressures from people who could give a f about the content. Anyway, great discussion.

    • Sesame1

      I solved my movie piracy addiction and that was to buy a 3D bluray player and just invest in those movies. That way i maybe ‘preview’ a great movie on xvid and if it is a good one and it becomes available on Bluray 3D i go buy it. Now some trolls might argue ‘But you should buy it on normal dvd first then if you like it buy it on bluray then buy it on 3D bluray when that comes out’ seriously, do you think i’m a friggin idiot ? we all know that these days when it gets a 3D release it comes with a 2D, 3D & digital copy all in one box so the kids can play it on their dvd player in 2D, i can play it in 3D and all the family can access it digitally via the computer…all other formats get downloaded as standard dvd is dead so why buy 3-4 different copies just to finally achieve a 3 disc 3D multipack ? i have better things to do with my money than keep some overpaid n underworked movie distributer in tropical hollidays and sports cars…infact if i could get the damn movies online in 3D i wouldn’t even have to buy the discs just buy them online and store them on a drive then plug that into the player which saves have millions of decomposing carbon rich plastic discs around…

  • CorpDev

    copyright is not a property, it is a monopoly over the sale of a certain product. With this in mind it is completely irrational to compare it to theft.
    On the other hand game developers need to adapt to the situation of the market. Piracy is here to stay and the vast majority of people have no problem doing it. Rather than whining about it like little babies maybe its time to change their approach and find new and innovative way to generate income. I know my software company have done so, and we are doing great.

    • I Am The Law

      Isn’t copyright just no more than a rule / law that tells what I write or create cannot be copied by someone else and then published / sold. So if you don’t sell or publish it, it is legal to copy anything, therefor downloading is legal, you don’t pay for the content (otherwise it WOULD be illegal). At least this is to Dutch law.

    • Ninja

      Precisely. If you don’t agree with the price of a car you have the competitor to offer you alternatives. What would be the alternative company for content “copyrighted” by Fox? Or Sony? BANG, copyright fails.

    • No

      Copyright is property. It’s not physical, like a car but it is property. Just like the money in your bank account is your property. Or even your identity is your property. Identity theft is still theft.

      • Lindsay

        Copyright is NOT property. There are legal definitions of property, and “intellectual property” is a misnomer if there ever was one.

        Please do research before spouting retarded opinions.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property

        • sh4ktipat20

          Yes, I agree it’s not property. It’s more of a ownership of future earnings of a reproducible product or idea. If you break down the word it’s fairly straight forward. Who owns the “rights” to “copy.” These days big corporations have managed to twist the laws to steal the rights from many of true artists and creators, but that’s a different discussion.

      • Sesame1

        the money in your account doesnt actually belong to you, originally it was just a receipt to say that you would receive X by the bearer upon presentation etc etc…like anything else the producer of the money can withdraw it at anytime with or without notice or it can be devalued and become useless…

    • Anonymous

      “the vast majority of people have no problem doing it [piracy]”

      References?

      • Donotreply

        A recent article here on TF for starters.

        http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-socially-acceptable-110228/

        Note: Be careful which studies/surveys you find though as a few are naturally funded by certain special interest groups [cough MAFIAA cough] which naturally creates some bias in their results.

    • sh4ktipat20

      I think the spirit of copyright is intended as a legal effort to recognize the artist or creator of a work for the patrons (consumers). In other words, Shakespeare didn’t operate under copyright laws, but he had rich patrons of the arts that gave him money so he could keep doing his work. People that recognized his genius and said, “We like what you’re doing, it gives us great joy in life. Here is some cash, don’t worry about money, keep doing what you’re doing. We love it.”

      I think that’s more along the lines of Notch’s path. He’s the guy that I passed in the street playing a violin for everyone for free. All of a sudden I feel better and if I have $2 in my pocket I’ll give him one. Then he’s encouraged to continue his work. To me that’s the core and foundation of whole communal experience. People supporting the things that lift our spirits. It really can’t be defined in laws or policies of the market place. But basically that’s what the laws are trying to harness.

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

    TF/Andy/enigmax – sometimes I simply LOVE you guys. Great article.

    Thanks for raising our awareness of this excellent change to “marketing” guys <3

  • Anonymous

    Minecraft does microtransactions, doesn’t it?

    If so the situation is a little different. The developer can still directly make money off the people pirating the game.

    For RIAA/MPAA it’s not so clear. People who pirate their products may or may not buy more concert tickets/merchandise/etc, but it’s not clear if at aggregate that compensates for loss of music/movie sales even when not all pirated cds/dvds actually lost them a sale (and they don’t…most pirates would never buy the original anyway).

    So I can understand why RIAA/MPAA would take a difference stance on this than a developer of a game that does microtransactions. They simply have no idea whether piracy costs or benefits them (and they’re unwilling to even look into it).

    • Anonymous

      Minecraft, as of yet, does not do any sort of microtransactions. As far as I know, there are none planned for the future either. Expansions/Addons/DLC perhaps, but this isn’t a Korean/Chinese MMO style f2p game at all.

      Right now you get the beta client (and server) for a one time purchase. Once the game goes into retail phase, you will be able to download the full retail of it, for free. Buyers who have bought the game in alpha phase will not only get the retail version for free, but also all Expansions/Addons/DLC to come. Furthermore there are a lot of third party addons/servers, to make the current game even more enjoyable. All for free.

      Notch took an idea that some people had (infiniminer), let that idea “inspire” him, and made a great game that’s easy to get into, addicting and fun. The fact that he’s so close to his audience (which also are his customers) helped him become a rich man.

      He gives people good value for their hard earned money, without plaguing the customers with invasive DRM. Some developers/publishers really can learn from that.

      • A1255195

        Anyone can get the server. You don’t need to pay to get that.

    • Ninja

      That’s the point. They couldn’t care less about the relations. File sharers are just filthy pirate scum that don’t give them their money in a bovine passivity regardless of commercial practices should be purged with inquisition (laws).

      Well, the mighty Church couldn’t stop information from spreading why should a bunch of idiotic morons succeed?

  • Nonesuch

    Notch I am so happy with the 30 Euros I paid for my two copies of Minecraft. Money well spent not just for a fun game but the pleasure of giving it to somone who not only talks the talk but also walks the walk.

  • wildfire

    finally a guy who understands what is going on, hope people buy his games by the bunches as he is counting on people who play his game to get hooked and want the extra stuff. so support him gammers and do it.

    • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

      Once the novelty of “he allows piracy, so we should pay anyway” wears off… people will still pirate and will no longer feel the need to pay the developer for their “forward looking view”. Classic example of self-cannibalization in the form of a one-time marketing ploy.

      • Anonymous

        You’re repeating yourself, so I wll too.

        But the “you can have it free, and then pay if you like it” model has lead me to buy several things I wouldn’t otherwise have bought.

      • sh4ktipat20

        To some extent I agree with you here. If the developer rests on his laurels and just expects to milk one effort forever, I agree. However Notch seems to be moving onto new projects which people are going to be interested in and they will want to check it out, and the whole thing starts again. It’s also an intelligent use of user test groups that are more organic and real.

        So as his business grows so will his business model, but God, what an awesome way to launch a company. I don’t agree at all it’s a “one-time marketing ploy.” This guy doesn’t strike me as marketing manipulator. More a passionate intelligent developer who’s getting some due. I say good for him.

  • Karl Fogel

    Couldn’t agree more; let’s spread the “copying is not theft” meme. Nina Paley says it best in this 1-minute video:

    http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft

  • Karl Fogel

    Couldn’t agree more; let’s spread the “copying is not theft” meme. Nina Paley says it best in this 1-minute video:

    http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft

  • http://www.devside.net/ Wamp Developer

    Tell that to software shops that see a 30-70% drop in sales the day the crack comes out.

    Minecraft is not the industry. There are some that see little effect from piracy, there are others who see significant “lost sales”.

    The current trend for a buyer is:

    1. Go to software’s website.
    2. Before clicking the buy button, exit and go to Google.
    3. Search ‘software-name crack’.
    4. If crack works use it, if not return to #1 and buy.

    Don’t confuse “easy to do” with “must not be the wrong thing to do”.

    • A1255195

      ‘Sup troll?

    • Anonymous

      You’re missing the point.

      As I understand it, there is no crack needed for Minecraft, and it can be played without paying.

      Yet it still makes money.

      • A1255195

        Classic can be played without paying. Alpha you either need to pay for or have someone send you a gift code which they can buy.

      • Wamp Developer

        I’m not sure how I’m missing the point here. As I’ve stated, Minecraft is not the entire software industry. Minecraft is just 1 example. There are cases where piracy does affect sales to a great degree.

        • zippy

          Yeah but to what degree are sales affected, and how exactly? I think that it comes down to greed. Let us assume that Rockstar’s sales of GTA IV were significantly affected by piracy- They still made millions and millions of dollars, far covering the cost of the game and showing profits that only the fashion industry enjoys with any regularity. So it kinda sucks to be laughing all the way to the bank but still stop on your way to pick up every penny you see on the floor (and at 60 bucks a go I would argue that some of those pennies are coming from people who can’t afford them).

          also in your first post you say that sales drop by 30-40% after the crack comes out- what is your source for this information? Has this been studied? Has the possibility that 60% of the people who will by the game have done so by the time the crack comes out (usually within the 5 days of release)?

          It’s very easy to make sweeping blanket statements in a blog post, but I think if you needed references and citations for you post suddenly the ‘facts’ would disappear.

        • Shoggoth

          FTW

        • Sesame1

          Hasn’t anyone figured out that the games companies lose a lot of sales not by piracy but by the game shops actually reslling the games for near enough the full price each time it is traded in during the first few weeks ?

          first days sale could be 100,000 copies of game X by the following weekend maybe 50,000 of that game has been traded in for a third the price they paid new and the game shop has resold it for maybe 6 quid less than a new copy….and this goes on for weeks while the game is in demand thus the game shop may only have to buy a few new copies to keep those first time new game only buyers happy.

          Soooo, at which point during the maybe 15+ resales does the software industry get a cut of that money the game shop is making ? is that ZERO !!! i hear you shout ? so from 1 game such as black ops a game store may have made over £1000 from reselling it….

          So when the industry quotes figure such as 3/10 or 4/10 games are lost to piracy quite honestly its BOLLOX more like 1 in 20 because the other 6-8 are game stores reselling them.

          I hear this might be stopping soon and although it would stop some people buying cheap games it may also stop the falsification of games sales data vs piracy…

          I am surprised we dont hear more about this actually but then again they wouldnt want us to know the truth when they can just blame EVERYTHING in the world on piracy would they…

          — End —

        • zippy

          Yeah but to what degree are sales affected, and how exactly? I think that it comes down to greed. Let us assume that Rockstar’s sales of GTA IV were significantly affected by piracy- They still made millions and millions of dollars, far covering the cost of the game and showing profits that only the fashion industry enjoys with any regularity. So it kinda sucks to be laughing all the way to the bank but still stop on your way to pick up every penny you see on the floor (and at 60 bucks a go I would argue that some of those pennies are coming from people who can’t afford them).

          also in your first post you say that sales drop by 30-40% after the crack comes out- what is your source for this information? Has this been studied? Has the possibility that 60% of the people who will by the game have done so by the time the crack comes out (usually within the 5 days of release)?

          It’s very easy to make sweeping blanket statements in a blog post, but I think if you needed references and citations for you post suddenly the ‘facts’ would disappear.

        • Anonymous

          I agree that Minecraft is not the entire software industry.

          But maybe there’s something in their model that the rest of the industry could benefit from by adopting?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=677742135 Leonardo Alonzo

      Or, you know, most people only buy one copy for themselves. It’s not like a consumable item that you have to keep buying to replenish. At some point, sales of a game have to drop off.

    • fordskydog

      Antiquated model. Are you kidding me? Brick and Mortar selling digital content?? The only titles that get bought there are the ones with too much money tied up in marketing to let them go to the various online markets. Really. I’d prefer to cut out the middle man and just download it every time. It SHOULD cost less money that way. If content publishers were honest with themselves and us, and just honest in general they would STOP MIND FING US!! Hell, they are the middle men too, and we are witnessing their death spasm.

      One of these days, and soon, we’ll be able to get content straight from the creators, who will make more money for themselves. This happens once, then the licensed content hardware makers will see the light.

      It does not take a mega corp anymore, or even a small corp, to create content, be it movies, music, or games/software. We can all do that in our bedrooms now.

      Now lets band together and put corporate providers out of business. Corp content providers are in it for the money. Content creators are in it for the value.

      • Anonymous

        ” I’d prefer to cut out the middle man and just download it every time. It SHOULD cost less money that way.”

        Maybe it should, but with the usual “the cost of a game/movie/album is only the cost of the disk” argument then I wouldn’t expect a huge reduction.

        I know that the ‘cost’ statement above fallacious, but it’s mentioned a lot around here as a justification for why things should be (almost) zero-cost.

  • Anonymous

    This article is silly, very silly. Notch isn’t “pro-piracy” as you seem to imply, who would be pro-piracy? He’s simply saying piracy happens and you have to deal with, you have to understand that wasting money trying to stop it is… wasting money and it’ll happen regardless.

    This doesn’t mean that piracy is good, or that you should all be proud that you take peoples work without paying for it. Who cares if you’re stealing or not, isn’t the problem you’re taking something someone worked on and wants paying for a refusing to pay?

  • Some Guy

    lol stuff like this makes me want to buy the game wether i play or not :P

    • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

      Yeah, maybe this one time… because it’s still a unique marketing angle. However, if this becomes the norm… people will just expect to be able to pirate something and will no longer have the feeling of needing to pay for it.

      • Tater Salad

        There will always be people who prefer to pay over pirating. Hell, there will always be people who don’t know HOW to pirate, and will always pay.

        The idea that everyone will eventually just pirate everything if it’s out there, is idiotic, and I dare you to show one real-world example of a business failing strictly due to piracy.

      • Tater Salad

        There will always be people who prefer to pay over pirating. Hell, there will always be people who don’t know HOW to pirate, and will always pay.

        The idea that everyone will eventually just pirate everything if it’s out there, is idiotic, and I dare you to show one real-world example of a business failing strictly due to piracy.

        • Sesame1

          prob the last business to fail was during the age of high seas piracy where capt. jack sparrow knicked a mainbrace and had a good old jolly roger ;) east india co possibly! but thats just a guess lol

          I guess back then capt. pugwash was to piracy what the MPAA is to the internet ha ha ha

      • Sesame1

        There are 3 groups of people:

        1/ those that will buy anyway.
        2/ those that will buy if they think it is value for money.
        3/ those that will never buy and never had any intention of buying to begin with.

        You seem to be confusing no 3 with no’s 1 & 2 and as no 3 never had the intention to begin with they would still just do what they do and no’s 1 & 2 would do what they do as that is how they do things.

        Just because some people would never buy something no matter how cheap it was it really wouldnt matter if it was free because it wouldnt matter to them. But the others would feel compelled to either buy it anyway or if value for money buy it later at a reduced price…

        So your argument fails by trying to brand everyone the same.

  • Etorimarinello

    “A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”

    If you copy you don’t deprive the other person of ‘it’. ‘it’ being the object (cd/dvd).

    • Hung_jurist

      Bogus definition.

    • Hung_jurist

      Bogus definition.

    • Hung_jurist

      Bogus definition.

  • stinkpipe

    im off to download minecraft 200,00 times and then delete it, just because i can!
    that should skew his figures a bit

    • Anonymous

      Good luck with wasting your life. LOL

  • hisham_hm

    I wonder what’s his stance on open source.

  • Anonymous

    Oh wow, OK that really makes a lot of sense dude. Seriously.

    http://www.Privacy-Web.tk

    • We Hate Spame

      More copy/paste spam, with another slight change of name.

      Why not rent some ad space from TF instead?

  • Anonymous

    It is nice to see someone handling the market correctly in this world now filled with file sharing.

    Yes file sharers are only the market needing to be tapped and exploited. Many will indeed buy a production they like when their download is like a demonstration and review. So artists/producers/publishers do need to interface with them and to tempt them with the official product, extras, upgrade and expansion.

    All about hitting that one key point when it makes sense to buy. Here is one example by a rather wise man.

  • Anonymous

    It is nice to see someone handling the market correctly in this world now filled with file sharing.

    Yes file sharers are only the market needing to be tapped and exploited. Many will indeed buy a production they like when their download is like a demonstration and review. So artists/producers/publishers do need to interface with them and to tempt them with the official product, extras, upgrade and expansion.

    All about hitting that one key point when it makes sense to buy. Here is one example by a rather wise man.

  • Pingback: My respect for Notch just went up a notch by Jasper - TribalWar Forums

  • SergeDavid

    I have to say, I myself pirated Mine Craft for a week before I purchased the game. Why did I pirate it? I wanted to play the fabled survival mode. Why did I buy it? I wanted to play that mode with others online and enjoy the ability to change my skin.

    The key is to offer stuff not obtainable via piracy, online play and things unlocked online are good reasons to desire to buy the game.

    • Guest

      The way of the future IMO is exactly what your talking about. Pay for a service not a product.

  • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

    The fact is, if everyone pirated – developers would no longer have the motivation to innovate. They didn’t put in all their time and energy to sell ONE copy, and then have it replicated (at no cost) to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people. The argument that replicating costs nothing misses the point, and shows a distinct lack of critical thinking. I don’t care if in some rare examples, a company benefits from the piracy. That is mistaking a unique marketing ploy as a sustainable business model… when it isn’t.

    The business model of most software/music/video is based around volume… which allows something that can costs thousands or millions of dollars in development – to be sold at low cost to consumers. So, every time someone pirates a copy – that makes everyone else have to pay more (essentially stealing money from other paying customers), or the developer to make less (resulting in less motivation for future innovation, or potential loss of money – closing down a business that provided something customers clearly wanted and were willing to steal).

    • http://twitter.com/dogheart Nick Medlin

      The shit doesn’t cost that much to produce… It’s just that there’s a lot of counterproductive overhead bogging everything down. Eliminate marketing, lawyer-ing, public relations, human resources, management in general, etc and the stuff all happens much much more smoothly…with the actual creative people driving the process. We gotta start recognizing that the Internet way–that of free(dom) and open(ness)–should be used as a model the “real world” should be striving for and not the other way around. The profit-driven motive is entirely destructive. And it poisons absolutely.

      • Anonymous

        “The shit doesn’t cost that much to produce”

        I’m all for sharing, but by that statement it appears that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • http://twitter.com/dogheart Nick Medlin

          It only costs as much as it does to produce because the visionless people who really make the decisions in ALL industries are super-protective of the few patches of vision they inadvertently wander onto.

      • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

        “The profit-driven motive is entirely destructive.”

        You have such a warped view of business… there is little point in explaining much to you. Widen your view beyond that of a consumer, and you will start to understand that ALL innovation and creativity is driven by the profit motive directly or in-directly. It’s that simple.

        • Anonymous

          “ALL innovation and creativity is driven by the profit motive”

          Maybe this is the thing which needs changing then? How about doing things because they are good for humanity and society, instead of profit?

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          That is the nice thing about the profit motive. If people are willing to pay for something, it IS good for humanity and society (it pushes us forward, even if through a minor step backwards that leads to a lesson learned). Literally EVER innovation that exists today was driven by some form of greed. In fact, wanting something better for humanity and society is also greed. It is what YOU want, and therefore it is a selfish motive. There is nothing wrong with being driven to innovate in order to make life better for yourself and those around you… and that is essentially what the profit motive is.

          People that suggest otherwise clearly are not contributing to society, and have little understanding as to what actually goes into innovation and actually delivering a product of value. It’s easy to demand more from companies in the name of “humanity and society” when you aren’t doing so yourself. Look around you and try to point out a single thing that is benefiting humanity and society that wasn’t driven by some form of greed in the part of the creator (wanting recognition, a better world for their family, a better income, etc.).

          At the end of the day, until we actually have a realistic and proven system that is more efficient and effective than capitalism – consumers don’t have a right to simply steal whatever they want.

        • Anonymous

          “consumers don’t have a right to simply steal whatever they want.”

          I agree.

          But consumers should have the right to trial an item or to return it if it doesn’t live up to expectation. That’s what needs to be addressed.

          How about this as a starting point for the film industry:

          I go to a movie and I pay full price. If I decide, for whatever reason and in my sole judgment, before the midpoint of said film that it’s “not worth it”, I can leave and get my money back.

          That seems fair to me. I get a chance to sample the goods without getting everything for nothing, and they get a chance to engage my interest and make me want to stay until the end.

          That seems a more honest option than having to make my decision on the basis of a 30-second trailer and a few printed reviews, and it would provide the “industry” with an incentive to make quality content.

          What do you reckon, Rick?

          After all, the industry have nothing to lose, and they may gain some customers.

        • http://twitter.com/dogheart Nick Medlin

          What you call “warped”, I call “evolved”.

          Look, there’s very litte point in arguing with you as I sense that you’re pretty well entrenched and thus, unable to have any perspective on the matter. But yeah, everything you’ve been told is wrong. This “competition” we hear so much about isn’t what drives the true creators and innovators and artists and cooks and so on amongst us. They pursue their interests and goals because…they’re their interests and goals. This profit motive is a construction of those who have nothing to offer… but really really want to anyway. It’s an evolutionary holdover from a time when it made sense to be insecure. Now however, it’s just a framework under which the unimaginative, extra-scared among us perpetuate the 0′s in their increasingly irrelevant pocketbooks, abstracting all worth, unbound by the forces of nature and the material world. Sitting in their offices, chatting with their buddies…meanwhile, those of us “working” busy hoping that they’ll at least stay in their offices with the door closed.

          The truth is, the thing humanity excels at is cooperation and sharing of information. Putting informed people in contact with one another and letting them share information openly–two actions not at all conducive to success in the business world. But that is what drives innovation. ANY influence by the forces of finance and beancounter-y on this process is a bad thing. And we’ve let them influence this whole thing to the very core. Fortunately for the rest of humanity (something like 98% of the whole), the Internet is allowing us to slowly unravel this ball of absurdity, one encryption scheme after the other.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          I can tell you this with utmost honesty. I used to think like you… I have since learned a lot. It’s easy to dwell in theory and idealistic concepts, but it is something entirely different to make something work in the real world.

          Can you provide a specific example of an innovation or a revolutionary product or service that was created without the assistance of competition or greed? Anything at all?

          Absolutely everything in the world (from basic animal instinct, to evolution, and human behaviour) is driven by competition and greed. That greed might simply be wanting a better life for yourself, your family, and your community. It can also be wanting to earn way more than is needed. There are extremes to everything, but this does not mean competition is bad (or that it isn’t important). This concept has held true forever. You might attribute it to different things, or create a semantics issue… but when it comes right down to it – this is what drives the economy and virtually all positive change.

          I am not “well entrenched” and am open to perspectives. It’s just that your specific perspective is something I have since graduated out of, and I can assure you that it is a very limited and idealistic perspective that has little basis in reality.

          I strongly recommend books like “The Undercover Economist”, “The Rational Optimist”, and “Atlas Shrugged” if you are interested in widening your perspective on this. If you have books or resources to recommend back to me, I’ll gladly look into them… if they are grounded in rational thinking and practical application – I’d be happy to learn more.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pa-Ngo/100001153632870 Pa Ngo

          “If people are willing to pay for something, it IS good for humanity and society”

          - People pay for illegal drugs, weapons, and other nasty stuff, too.

          “There is nothing wrong with being driven to innovate in order to make life better for yourself and those around you… and that is essentially what the profit motive is.”

          - Profit motive is also about making money out of anything, whether or not it is good for yourself and those around you. If you’ve heard of those babies who died from ingesting milk with melamine, those who made that milk were driven by–guess what?

    • zippy

      That is a very nice description of the business models used to distribute games/music/movies. However it leaves out the part where the consumer is manipulated through marketing into buying something that is crap, and didn’t cost much money to make at all.

      For example I will never ever buy a call of duty game, because I do not play online games. But I love the campaigns of COD. But instead of giving me the option of buying the campaign only for $10 (it simply isn’t worth more than that at less than 16 hours of gameplay), they make me buy the whole game for $60, or wait a year for it to trickle into bargain bins. So I pirate it, and give my money to Bethesda and Rockstar who make games that are worth $60.

      As for movies, I cannot trust a trailer or advert to acurrately tell me whether I will enjoy the film or not. So I reserve the right (illegally) to watch thefilm and make my own mind up. I still own $100s of dollars of dvds and vhs cassettes even though I download all my movies in a try before you buy methodology. If you are arguing that this business model is unsustainable because people will eventually become socialised not to need to pay for stuff then I am proof that that’s not true.

      As for music I will go and watch the band live, but I will not buy their music online or on cd, because they don’t get enough of that money and neither I nor the band have the power to change that, so I say Sony can suck it.

      At the end of the day piracy is about consumers taking their power back. The consumerism that the West has enjoyed since industrialization has led us to this point and it is well past time that we started understanding that none of these fuckers get fed if we don’t pay ‘em. So I am getting up and going to work everyday and deciding powerfully what to do with my hard earned cash.

      The onus is on YOU to make your business model compatible with my lifestyle, not the other way around.

      • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

        So, because YOU the consumer don’t actually know what you want… you think it’s fair to punish companies by pirating everything and paying for the odd thing in an attempt to feel ok about it?

        The real solution to these types of problems is an honest feedback system. Similar to what Amazon and iTunes are doing with their customer reviews. As these systems continue to refine the process of providing honest and clear feedback to new potential customers – you will have all the information you need.

        The point is… just because a few companies have tricked you into buying things doesn’t give you the right to pirate whatever you want. Do you go into the mall and steal clothes to see if they last as long as you would expect, or steal a car to make sure it lasts for 10 years before paying? No… companies shouldn’t be forced to give you a trial copy or allow full piracy just because you want it. You can ask for it, or even demand it… but they aren’t required to comply (even though some may choose to). Piracy ignores the rights of companies, and kills innovation… stopping many ideas from even being started, based on a realistic fear of piracy killing profits.

        I like to ask people this question… “If there was a machine capable of “copying” a Lamborghini, would you think it’s ok to pirate one?”

        “Of course!” they say, “why wouldn’t I?” Well, unfortunately, nobody will ever spend millions or billions of dollars creating and innovating to build that machine… because there is no money in it. If you were willing to even pay $5,000 for your new Lambo, maybe they would. This is a simple example of how piracy holds back innovation and subtly scares entrepreneurs away from creating new technologies and solutions.

        • zippy

          Actually my comment was about me knowing exactly what I want, and choosing to only to pay for that. The fact that that is not an option for me is the problem of the developer/supplier/manufacturer. what I am talking about is already owning my lambo, but I need a new door, but Lambo says I have to buy a new lambo, so I go and get a door from an unauthorized dealer…. If you want to use that analogy then that is how it is applied to what I am saying. And if I continue to do that and everyone else does and lambo ends up ceasing to develop or innovate (in other words go shit out of business) then whose fault is that. In the free market economy of the west you cannot blame the consumer for going out of business. If people aren’t buying your stuff they aren’t buying your stuff, whether because of piracy or because your stuff is shit, they aren’t buying it. It’s YOUR problem that people aren’t buying your stuff.

          At the end of the day when it comes to digital media the business model used to distribute it and profit from it in the past has become bankrupt- it just isn’t going to keep working the way it should. and like a drought in Africa where only the strongest and best animals find water, only the best developers and businessmen will find ways to get my dollars.

          You’re a business man Rick, why can’t you see the goldmine that is waiting in front of you (i.e. think of a new model for the distribution of media)? Maybe its because you’re looking behind you defending the died up gold mine that is behind you?

          I dunno, all I know is people have to work damn hard to pry the dollars out of my hands and that ain’t about to change.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          At the end of the day, if a business makes a decision that sets it on a path to destruction (doesn’t deliver what the customer wants)… yes, they deserve to fail. However, that doesn’t give the customer the right to steal from them to fast-track that process. Because, in many cases, the customers don’t have a clue what they are talking about… and don’t understand that their decisions to steal are shooting themselves in the foot (hurting the company and hurting society as a whole).

          Again, just because you want something a company isn’t providing… that doesn’t give you the right to steal from them. You may disagree with their decisions, or think they are wrong… but it is still THEIR choice. YOUR choice is to not reward them for that, and to simply not partake in their products. Getting the best of both worlds (stealing and not paying) is where a line is crossed.

        • in.cog.nito

          I thin you are on the wrong god damn website Rick.

          Piracy is the freedom of information, and the freedom of information breeds innovation. If you can’t grasp this, then all of your arguments are invalid.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          Piracy is not freedom of information . There has to be a balance between copyrights (to protect and motivate innovation) and open source models (where ideas can then be innovated upon). Yes, freedom of information breeds innovation… I agree. However if everything is free, why what motivates anyone to do anything?

          I understand and appreciate the forward looking vision of the concepts… but in a practical sense, you can’t simply steal from other people and claim it benefits them and society. Innovation would simply stop without the innovators having some level of creative control over how their creations are used. It’s a balance that piracy is breaking.

        • Anonymous

          “So, because YOU the consumer don’t actually know what you want… you think it’s fair to punish companies by pirating everything and paying for the odd thing in an attempt to feel ok about it?

          The real solution to these types of problems is an honest feedback system”

          Here’s what I think might be an honest and fair idea, which I’ve also stated above (hey, you repeat yourself so I may as well too):

          How about this as a starting point for the film industry:

          I go to a movie and I pay full price. If I decide, for whatever reason and in my sole judgment, before the midpoint of said film that it’s “not worth it”, I can leave and get my money back.

          That seems fair to me. I get a chance to sample the goods without getting everything for nothing, and they get a chance to engage my interest and make me want to stay until the end.

          That seems a more honest option than having to make my decision on the basis of a 30-second trailer and a few printed reviews, and it would provide the “industry” with an incentive to make quality content.

          What do you reckon, Rick?

          After all, the industry have nothing to lose, and they may gain some customers.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          Your idea is fine. It’s one among many solutions for this kind of problem, and companies should “consider” that approach.

          The point I am trying to make is… you, as a consumer, don’t have the option to demand this kind of pay/refund type of preview. You can ask for it, or support the companies that implement it… but you cannot hold companies ransom through piracy saying “do it like this, or we will just steal it”.

          That is the problem with piracy… it just removes all creative control or business options from the company. Consumers should vote with their wallets by buying what they want, not stealing what isn’t exactly what they want. That is the difference.

        • Anonymous

          “Consumers should vote with their wallets by buying what they want”

          The problem is, consumers don’t know whether the product is worth the asking price. Expecting them to assume all burden of risk is unfair and, in my opinion, wrong.

          “you, as a consumer, don’t have the option to demand this kind of pay/refund type of preview”

          Why not? For most tangible goods we do (at least in the UK, anyway), especially if sold ‘at a distance’. We have the right to return most things within a set time period, even if it’s simply because “I don’t like it”. This doesn’t apply to some items though, and for some reason most ‘media’ is excluded. Why is that?

          If “the industry” address these issues and implements a similar policy, preferably voluntarily and generously, then they may find that things change considerably.

          If they are confident in their product then they should have no problem with this. The only reason I can see for them resisting this idea is a fear of people returning product which they (the consumer) feels does not live up to expectation. But that, in itself, should lead to a desire for more genuine innovation and creativity, and hopefully better quality product.

          If they don’t go down this route then I feel that it’s very unlikely that the ‘piracy problem’ will ever be effectively combated, and that they will fail to appease aggrieved consumers, who often feel cheated and, quite understandably I think, take the stance they do.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          You’re right… countries have laws to protect consumers. THAT is how you protect yourself from bad products… not by pirating/stealing them, because that creates a massive opportunity for people to take advantage of the situation (they don’t have to “return it” to keep their money).

          You asked a good question… why don’t these same laws cover media and most digital good? The answer is kind of ironic… piracy. If it is possible to buy a CD, copy it’s contents, and then return it… many people WILL steal and not pay (taking advantage of the situation). Society seems to have reached this conclusion as a whole… hence the difference between how these goods are sold and their return policies.

          If everyone one would actually stop pirating, more trials/return-policies would likely crop up. Instead people think shorter term, and pirate everything… weakening the economy as a whole (as many people take advantage of this hugely flawed “solution”, and don’t even come remotely close to paying for the stuff they pirate – even if they do enjoy/consume it). YOU might pay for the “good” things you find, but you can’t honestly say that most pirates do. If you believe that, you are fooling yourself :).

        • fordskydog

          Playing devil’s advocate here, but in the USA, the customer does not have a right to a refund. The vast majority of businesses still grant refunds BECAUSE ITS GOOD FOR BUSINESS to keep the customer happy.

    • fordskydog

      Volume. Yes, exactly. Volume, not value.

      This is the real problem. I want valuable content. I will not pay for it until the seller proves the value in it. I have to have that mindset because the vast majority of the digital content that is pumped out is crap. Do that to your market for a few tens of years and see what happens. The people bitching have only killed their own cash cow.

      It does not take an industry to produce content anymore.

      Antiquated business model.

      • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

        It seems you think volume and value are somehow opposing ideas. Something can be sold in volume and still be extremely valuable. They are not mutually exclusive. Without volume, you would literally have to pay the $300,000 it can cost to record/produce/distribute an album. Is that what you want?

        I agree, you don’t have to pay for something until it proves its value. However, you also can’t simply steal it to find out if it is valuable. The company selling it can choose to offer a trial or free preview if they want, but consumers don’t have a right to simply steal something and choose to possibly pay later.

        Do you go to the grocery store and steal a bunch of food… maybe pay later for the 50% that tasted good? That isn’t how life works. It may seem “idealistic” from a purely consumer viewpoint… but it ignores the fact that all food costs would then have to go up as a direct impact (the business still needs to make a profit or it will simply disappear).

        • fordskydog

          1st point, partly valid, but doesn’t address my argument. I don’t think volume and value are mutually exclusive and that was not my argument. I simply stated that in this case we are being fed volumes of valueless content and are being treated as criminals for using current technology to wade through it all to find the goods. So your point is valid but does not address my argument. Conversely to your argument, if the content’s value warranted the price then the provider would make more than enough to cover the “$300,000″ and a sizable profit. If you don’t agree because people would never pay, then the antiquated system is broken and defending the old one will make things worse, weather or not there are dishonest people in this world.

          Furthermore, it does not cost that much anymore to make content. We all have the technology to do it in our own homes, available at consumer level prices. Notch is proof of that. Therefore we don’t need the industry. The industry fights to keep their content in front of us by controlling every avenue possible. TV, news, internet…

          2nd point: Hypothetically, if I try it, decide I don’t like it, discard it, then I have stolen it by taking away a sale that wouldn’t have happened in the first place? I think you may mean “…, but consumers don’t have a right to simply [try] something and possibly pay later.” If you grant me that edit, I’ll grant you the second point. You revise your definition of steal.

          3rd point: As has been stated in here before, the content we’re talking about does not get consumed, as in no longer exists, when it is used. Your argument doesn’t apply, and frankly we aren’t arguing over that situation here.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          You can vote over the “volumes of valueless content” with your wallet. This system is both fair and efficient. As outlined in books like “The Rational Optimist”, the things we buy today are almost always worth dramatically more than we pay for them. Even if we are slightly unhappy with a product, we are getting such an incredible deal on virtually everything… that we can afford to make the odd mistake when some things aren’t quite what we expected. Thankfully, we have laws around return policies for most things… unfortunately, primarily due to concerns over piracy, these laws don’t always apply to digital goods (kind of ironic).

          You said: “Furthermore, it does not cost that much anymore to make content. We all have the technology to do it in our own homes, available at consumer level prices. Notch is proof of that. Therefore we don’t need the industry. The industry fights to keep their content in front of us by controlling every avenue possible. TV, news, internet…”

          We aren’t making this debate in a vacuum. Digital goods are no different than tangible goods in how they are innovated/created/funded/attempted. The “technology in our homes” that you are referring to would not be here today if not funded by early adopters and others that may not have always been 100% satisfied with their initial purchase. Yet, their money was not wasted… because society now, as a whole, is benefiting from the many innovations created within that industry and other affected markets.

          Reverse the equation, with many consumers outright stealing early versions of a product, while some honest folks “preview” and pay for a decent share . It would take significantly longer to fund the dramatically better v2.0 of the products, and to ultimately achieve the progress and innovation we now see today… assuming entrepreneurs were willing to take the risk at all.

        • fordskydog

          I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree about whom is stealing from whom, would be consumers or creators.

          If and when I can buy my favorite artists music straight from them from their website directly or at a concert, I do. Otherwise I won’t buy it at all these days. That means I am willing to deprive myself of either convenience or quality, or all together.

          What I hope we can agree on is that content providers are not creators. I hope we could also agree, or at least argue that the content stream is being monopolized by content providers. I don’t have much choice when it comes to internet or tv, hell record companies, as to which provider I choose and how much I pay for it. When I make a choice, service is on their terms, be that bandwith limiting or package channel deals or privacy, etc.

          So in the end, the content providers are stealing from the creators and the consumers.

          I think creators need to step up and stop supplying the stream. Go around the stream, which is what Notch is doing. Consumers are already looking for ways around the stream.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          In many situations, providers are innovating in their own unique way. I realize from a consumer view point – it is the “creators” that are providing all the value… but often times it is the providers that are enabling the entire transaction to take place (through their own creations).

          Look at the App Store for example. Would you classify Apple as a creator or a provider? Well, in many ways they fit into both… as have TV/Cable/Bookstores, etc. of the past. Innovation happens in many ways. Again, I would argue that without the providers… we wouldn’t be where we are today.

          This “Internet”, which is being used to drive the vast majority of piracy, was built by “providers” and their ability to fund technological innovations.

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          In many situations, providers are innovating in their own unique way. I realize from a consumer view point – it is the “creators” that are providing all the value… but often times it is the providers that are enabling the entire transaction to take place (through their own creations).

          Look at the App Store for example. Would you classify Apple as a creator or a provider? Well, in many ways they fit into both… as have TV/Cable/Bookstores, etc. of the past. Innovation happens in many ways. Again, I would argue that without the providers… we wouldn’t be where we are today.

          This “Internet”, which is being used to drive the vast majority of piracy, was built by “providers” and their ability to fund technological innovations.

        • fordskydog

          I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree about whom is stealing from whom, would be consumers or creators.

          If and when I can buy my favorite artists music straight from them from their website directly or at a concert, I do. Otherwise I won’t buy it at all these days. That means I am willing to deprive myself of either convenience or quality, or all together.

          What I hope we can agree on is that content providers are not creators. I hope we could also agree, or at least argue that the content stream is being monopolized by content providers. I don’t have much choice when it comes to internet or tv, hell record companies, as to which provider I choose and how much I pay for it. When I make a choice, service is on their terms, be that bandwith limiting or package channel deals or privacy, etc.

          So in the end, the content providers are stealing from the creators and the consumers.

          I think creators need to step up and stop supplying the stream. Go around the stream, which is what Notch is doing. Consumers are already looking for ways around the stream.

        • fordskydog

          I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree about whom is stealing from whom, would be consumers or creators.

          If and when I can buy my favorite artists music straight from them from their website directly or at a concert, I do. Otherwise I won’t buy it at all these days. That means I am willing to deprive myself of either convenience or quality, or all together.

          What I hope we can agree on is that content providers are not creators. I hope we could also agree, or at least argue that the content stream is being monopolized by content providers. I don’t have much choice when it comes to internet or tv, hell record companies, as to which provider I choose and how much I pay for it. When I make a choice, service is on their terms, be that bandwith limiting or package channel deals or privacy, etc.

          So in the end, the content providers are stealing from the creators and the consumers.

          I think creators need to step up and stop supplying the stream. Go around the stream, which is what Notch is doing. Consumers are already looking for ways around the stream.

        • fordskydog

          I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree about whom is stealing from whom, would be consumers or creators.

          If and when I can buy my favorite artists music straight from them from their website directly or at a concert, I do. Otherwise I won’t buy it at all these days. That means I am willing to deprive myself of either convenience or quality, or all together.

          What I hope we can agree on is that content providers are not creators. I hope we could also agree, or at least argue that the content stream is being monopolized by content providers. I don’t have much choice when it comes to internet or tv, hell record companies, as to which provider I choose and how much I pay for it. When I make a choice, service is on their terms, be that bandwith limiting or package channel deals or privacy, etc.

          So in the end, the content providers are stealing from the creators and the consumers.

          I think creators need to step up and stop supplying the stream. Go around the stream, which is what Notch is doing. Consumers are already looking for ways around the stream.

        • fordskydog

          I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree about whom is stealing from whom, would be consumers or creators.

          If and when I can buy my favorite artists music straight from them from their website directly or at a concert, I do. Otherwise I won’t buy it at all these days. That means I am willing to deprive myself of either convenience or quality, or all together.

          What I hope we can agree on is that content providers are not creators. I hope we could also agree, or at least argue that the content stream is being monopolized by content providers. I don’t have much choice when it comes to internet or tv, hell record companies, as to which provider I choose and how much I pay for it. When I make a choice, service is on their terms, be that bandwith limiting or package channel deals or privacy, etc.

          So in the end, the content providers are stealing from the creators and the consumers.

          I think creators need to step up and stop supplying the stream. Go around the stream, which is what Notch is doing. Consumers are already looking for ways around the stream.

      • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

        It seems you think volume and value are somehow opposing ideas. Something can be sold in volume and still be extremely valuable. They are not mutually exclusive. Without volume, you would literally have to pay the $300,000 it can cost to record/produce/distribute an album. Is that what you want?

        I agree, you don’t have to pay for something until it proves its value. However, you also can’t simply steal it to find out if it is valuable. The company selling it can choose to offer a trial or free preview if they want, but consumers don’t have a right to simply steal something and choose to possibly pay later.

        Do you go to the grocery store and steal a bunch of food… maybe pay later for the 50% that tasted good? That isn’t how life works. It may seem “idealistic” from a purely consumer viewpoint… but it ignores the fact that all food costs would then have to go up as a direct impact (the business still needs to make a profit or it will simply disappear).

    • Violated

      A system being compromised and their monopoly income affected is the number one reason to innovate.

      Major changes cost major money. So they are happy to do nothing all the time the money flows in. Only when compromised do they upgrade to close this door.

      It seems clear enough we now have digital cinema and 3D due to piracy in a “you cant copy this” way.

      Maybe when we can do 3D piracy will they innovate to the next level.

      I am also happy piracy has helped to create a cheap DVD market where new titles come out very quickly. It sure beats having to wait years as they go through rental/PPV, movie stations, main station showing before you could even buy it.

      • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

        Sorry, but that argument is HUGELY flawed. Yes, some innovation is pushed by format changes, but you can’t actually attribute it as a significant motivator. That’s like saying the old western bandits improved the railway and transportation as a whole.

        Innovation is driven by many things. Look at Apple. Their innovative way to deliver goods is digitally, with NO DRM or anti-piracy measures. Was that driven by piracy? They decided to make it EASIER to copy and send files in an effort to make it harder to pirate? Do you see the contradiction?

        Competition drives innovation. Companies want to be the first to be in HD, 3D, or in digital delivery. I would agree that some pressure comes from piracy, but your conclusions are vastly exaggerating the impact and minimize the many things that factor in.

      • fordskydog

        Best Argument On This Page!

    • Anonymous

      It wouldn’t be a problem if everyone pirated, because pirates support the artists and developers they like. That’s the whole point, Rick. Good job missing it.

      You’re also pretending that there’s no such thing as freeware, I’m guessing since its existence destroys your whole bogus argument. Even if profit is taken entirely out of the equation plenty of people are still willing develop innovative software because, oh hey, they have a passion for it and are not merely whores doing it for profit like you assume everybody is.

      That says a lot about you.

      “The business model of most software/music/video” rests upon the backs of middlemen, who are now being cut out of the picture thanks to the Internet. Their wailing a gnashing of teeth falls on deaf ears, as it should. We now live in an age where we can compensate the artists directly. The middlemen aren’t needed anymore – let the “business model of most software/music/video” burn to the ground.

      BTW, it’s obvious you’re getting paid to write all this BS. Besides it just being a pack of lies in general, your own stated philosophy simply wouldn’t allow you to write it for free.

      @Prick Trollner
      “ALL innovation and creativity is driven by the profit motive directly or in-directly.”

      lol. Again, freeware. Charity. Non-profit work. Copyleft. These things obviously don’t exist in Rick Kettner Land, do they?

      @Prick Trollner
      “If people are willing to pay for something, it IS good for humanity and society”

      So crack, heroin, and contract killing are good for society? Darn, I’m trying to expose holes in your logic but I just can’t. It’s air tight.

      @Prick Trollner
      “Literally EVER innovation that exists today was driven by some form of greed. In fact, wanting something better for humanity and society is also greed. It is what YOU want, and therefore it is a selfish motive.”

      You’re a filthy whore trying desparately to rationalize being a filthy whore by latching on to a delusion that everybody in the whole entire world is a whore too and that all goodness springs from whoredom, so it’s totally cool for you to be one. Hint: it isn’t.

      @Prick Trollner
      “consumers don’t have a right to simply steal whatever they want.”

      You’d have a point there if you weren’t implying that piracy is stealing. But you are, so the only point you’re making with that little gem of “wisdom” is that you’re a dishonest troll.

      @Prick Trollner
      “Piracy ignores the rights of companies …”

      Companies don’t have rights. They only have the privileges we give them. And if they’re going to trick us into parting with our money in exchange for bad products, then we’re going to revoke some of those privileges. We ignore the “rights of companies” to rip us off because they don’t exist, at least not outside the fantasies of egomaniacal CEOs with entitlement complexes.

      @Prick Trollner
      “that doesn’t give you the right to steal from them. ”

      What gives you the right to come here and lie repeatedly to all of our faces that is filesharing is theft? What gives you the right to play the role of Morality Police when you’re a lying scumbucket? What gives you any credibility here? Come on, tell me, I’m curious if only to laugh at whatever BS you answer with.

      • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

        I’ve already addressed all these points several times. It’s getting exhausting, but I’ll quickly review once more (even though you are clearly unwilling to actually read the conversation up until this point).

        There is nothing wrong with freeware, charity, etc… as long as it is the creator that is choosing to do it… rather than consumers simply stealing the content. If you can’t understand that fundamental difference… sorry.

        • Anonymous

          Freeware, charity, etc. flushes your whole argument down the toilet. If everything is driven by profit like you imagine, then things like freeware and charity can’t exist. But they sure do exist, so wave bye-bye to your bullshit as it swirls bowl.

          The real reason you’re only doing a “quick review” is because I massacred your comments like a tigerblooded warlock. My points destroy you so hard you can’t even answer them.

          Take your hilarious greed-fantasy that “if people are willing to pay for something, it IS good for humanity and society”. I countered that by pointing out that alot of things people are willing to pay for are bad or lethal to humanity and society, but where’s your rebuttal to that one, Rick? You’re giving me silence.

          I’m still waiting for you to explain what right you have to come here and lie to all of our faces, or how sleaze like you is anything but laughable while attempting to ride around on a moral high-horse.

          Oh, how about the fact that pirates gladly SUPPORT their favourite artists and developers? As in, with money? That’s a real doozy. I wonder why you aren’t countering it Mr. Troll? Wait that’s right, you can’t. Boom. Winning.

          THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU STEP INTO MY OCTAGON.

          And I dare you, I dare you to lie that filesharing is theft one more time, bro, because I will deploy my ordnance to your loser life on the ground.

        • Ahoy

          “because I will deploy my ordnance to your loser life on the ground”

          PLEASE tell me this is a Charlie Sheen reference

        • Jake101091

          Yes, there is freeware, but how much of the media that you consume was produced for free? Freeware is not a valid example of how the creation of for-profit games can work. Freeware is usually done either as a hobby or for charity. The only problem is that if we want professionals working on games, they need to be able to earn money off of it.

          I also object to the way you respond to the comment where it was stated that if people are willing to pay for things, it is good for society. Your response was not as witty as you think. It falls under the logical fallacy of the strawman. The point that the writer was attempting to make is that having a system of payment is good because people can reward innovators and good developers by paying for their products. You can’t just point to a bad thing and say that because people pay for it, his argument is invalid. You have to argue with relation to what he is actually talking about, not just take it to an illogical extreme.

          You also say that pirates gladly support their favorite artists. I have 2 problems with this. First of all, you take YOUR experience and use it to define pirates. You may support them, but then again, I know people who always pirate and pay for nothing (with the exception of Nirvana. That always seems to get their money). You can’t take your experience and just claim that it is representative of all pirates. Be aware that many will pay for nothing. Secondly, you say that you support you FAVORITE artists, but how much media do you consume that you do not pay for? Few people would have a problem paying for their favorites, but what about something you like but don’t necessarily love? Does that deserve money? What about something short that you beat on the pirated version? Would you buy it knowing that it would not be played?

          Piracy is an illegal effort by the consumer to define how artists and producers should distribute their work. You don’t have the right to decide that. You have the right to PAY and support the people who do things the way you like, but you do not have the right to define how other people give you content. If you don’t like the deals presented, don’t buy. It’s as simple as that. You don’t need it, so don’t get it if you can’t handle the way they package it.

          Also, be polite. None of us are impressed that you can copy insults from ED. It reflects much better on your argument if you show even a small level of class while debating. Unless you were referencing Charlie Sheen like Ahoy suggested, in which case, congratulations on a job well done.

  • Gman

    Funny thing is eventually, if this anti Piracy goes hardcore, People will stop buying 90% of games, or music, or films, that they only listen to, play or watch cos they can get free, and will only pay for the things they feel are worth the money.

    Think about it, I will only buy a video game If its really good, but will borow it from a friend if I dont think its good eanough to spend my money on…

    This is gonna be a problem for the entertainment industry because if a recording artist makes some amazing songs in his second album, and noone bought his first album cos it was not good enough for the money noone is gonna buy the second album sa they dont know who the hell he is…

    On the other hand if they heard the first album cos they copied it, they just might buy the second because they like the first…

    The entertainment industry is playing a Loosing game, the only way they can play nice and earn money is if they allow copying of games…

    • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

      While that may in fact be what the future holds… where companies release free copies of albums to draw in potential customers to other albums… it should NOT be forced on companies.

      They should get to choose how to sell/promote their own products. Piracy ignores the rights of companies to determine how they want to sell things. Even if you would consider their decisions as being bad for their business… it is still their right.

      Do you go into malls and steal clothes to make sure they last as long as you would expect? Do you steal cars to see if they will last 5-10 years before paying for them? No, because that isn’t acceptable in the real world. You can’t just choose to steal certain things and pay for others. That isn’t sustainable.

      Just because something can be copied doesn’t mean a company isn’t losing money when they expected to sell copies instead of having them stolen. This is an incredibly short sighted view driven by a motivation defend the action of stealing someone elses work.

      • Anonymous

        “Do you go into malls and steal clothes to make sure they last as long as you would expect? Do you steal cars to see if they will last 5-10 years before paying for them?”

        Obviously not. But we have rights to return them if they do not perform as expected, or turn out to be other than as advertised.

      • biebel

        When I go to buy clothes I make my first selection based on how it looks on the rack. Then I try them on to feel if they are comfortable, if they are I have a good look in the mirror to check if they look ok on me. Before I actually buy a piece I usually ask my gf if she thinks it looks ok too.

        What the “film/music/software industry” does is show you the zipper and expect you to buy a cat in a bag.

        It’s not even actually the film/music/software industry really or copyright issues it’s all about distribution rights. Since the introduction of the internet and P2P the distribution industry is doomed to peter out. The very existence of P2P technology can only end up in customers of digital media taking care of the distribution themselves so the creator won’t have that cost. The future of creativity will be in the hands of the creative and not the middlemen and all thanks to the P2P users. You WILL thank us later if you are not one of the current middle men. On some private bittorrent (those with strict ratio rules) trackers you can either buy or upload your right to download. As soon as you panicking middlemen finally give up your pointless battle against social and technological evolution I am quite sure a fully fledged commercial system based on sharing could be viable.

        Wake up, smell the digital age and, if you must, make a huge profit off it…

        • http://www.RickKettner.com/ Rick Kettner

          I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying. In fact, my business takes advantage of all of those things and more. You’ve made many assumptions about me that are simply not relevant and are missing the point.

          The key point I am making is… companies should have a choice how they want to sell and promote their own goods.

          If they want to make horrible decisions, drive customers away, provide horrible service, limit previews, etc… that is their choice. Consumers can vote with their wallets. It doesn’t matter if you can’t preview before buying… that simply makes your vote “I won’t buy until I can preview”. However, you can’t choose to steal their content and use that as ransom to get free previews, etc… because the vast majority of pirates will take advantage of the system, consume without paying, and cause innovation to slow dramatically.

          I’m all for more power and choice for consumers, but that has to come through a balanced approach. Not one that opens the floodgates for blatant theft and abuse of the system. YOU might pay your fair share, but the vast majority won’t… not because they aren’t happy with the content, but because they simply don’t care.

        • Anonymous

          “companies should have a choice how they want to sell and promote their own goods.”

          They don’t have one. Companies proved too tyranical and arbitrary to be allowed a choice, so consumers took it away from them. Too many shenanigans, too many pissed off people. Tough shit. Now deal with it.

      • fordskydog

        Divorce creators from providers.

        At least until providers screw the creators until they can’t stand it just as much as the consumers.

        At any rate, providers have no right change laws to their favor.

        Don’t believe for a minute that the mpiaa or whatever their name is, is in this for justice. They’re in it for the money. Money don’t make the world go ’round. Value makes the world go ’round.

  • Radz_the_hedgehog

    Totally agree with Notch and I respect him more than just about any other person in the industry. Piracy is going to happen, but if you make a good product and design it in such a way that you benefit from buying, you make the sale even if they pirate. Most pirate a game as a sort of demo and buy if they like thbe game. I did it with Batman Arkham Asylum Minecraft and Team Fortress 2.

  • Davidbrookesuk

    It’s pretty fucking simple and I’m angry at how many people can’t seem to wrap their heads around it.

    If you HAD to buy it and you WOULD have, but you copy it instead, that’s stealing. I’m not anti-piracy per se but you’d have to be stupid to disagree with me there (big arrows pointing at “had to” and “would have”).

    If you would rather have not played it than paid for it, but you play on a copy, then the company has not lost money. This isn’t stealing by any definition. But there’s still an argument against you paying something, because you’re using a product without paying for it.

    I sometimes download a music album. That’s not legal but, if I listen to it once and think “I’m glad I didn’t pay money for this”, then I delete it. No harm done. If I think I’ll listen to it again, even once, then I buy it, because that’s only fair.

    Anyone who does otherwise is stealing.

    Notch’s car analogy makes no sense. Yes, if you duplicate something, you aren’t stealing the original, but that’s not the POINT. The copying is not the issue – it’s the using. If you’re using it without paying for it, you’re taking company off the money that you should have handed over for the privelage of playing the game, and if you do that, you’re stealing.

    I can only say that everything I read online suggests that about 50% of people commenting in forums etc. seem to be stupid or illiterate. His being successful or rich or a great programmer has no bearing on the fact that he has clearly missed the point.

    • Amusement

      I agree, for the most part.

      If all of us pirates were honest enough to say “I downloaded ____ game, and I loved it, so I’m going to go buy a retail copy.” then the model of downloading for free as sort of a “test trial” would work.

      I’m the same way with my downloads, in that if I get something I like, I’m more than happy to purchase the retail version. If I download a music album and I like the songs, I’ll go buy the CD so I can copy it to iTunes and upload it onto my iPod. If I download a game I like, I’ll go buy the retail version so I can get patches and updates and play legitimate games with other users. Unfortunately, this is the internet, and the ‘honor’ system is nothing but a joke.

      One thing that I think would help the market is if game companies and movie industries allowed you to ‘test’ the product. That is, a sort of trial version. That is, offer up free demos of popular games for download so that users can try the game to see if they like it. If they do, they can purchase the real game. There’s also movies; let a user watch the first 20 minutes of a movie. If they like it, they can purchase the full version. This wont stop pirating entirely by any means, and in reality would probably only target the people who would be willing to purchase it anyway, but it would be incentive for people who would normally pirate the full copy to try it out, to just download the demo or watch the short rather than ‘stealing’ a sale.

    • Bridgehampton

      If i HAD to buy it then I WOULDN’T therefore no sale anyway. Most people have priorities and the fact that they can copy and game just enables them to be able to play that game they Wouldn’t have bought in the first place.

    • Anonymous

      @davidbrookesuk
      “Notch’s car analogy makes no sense. Yes, if you duplicate something, you aren’t stealing the original, but that’s not the POINT.”

      No, actually that is the point. It’s the entire point of the car anology. Reading comprehension: maybe you should try it?

      @avidbrookesuk
      “If you HAD to buy it and you WOULD have, but you copy it instead, that’s stealing.”

      Stealing what? If I was going to buy GTA5 or whatever, but decide not to and download it instead, then what did I steal from Rockstar? It can’t be the $60 I was going to give them, because that was never theirs to begin with. It can’t be GTA5, because I only copied it. It’s not like I swiped a box off of a store shelf. So what did I steal? Nothing. At worst all I did was cause a lost sale. And if that’s stealing, then oh my god. It’s stealing when I decide to rent something instead of buying it. It’s stealing when I was going to buy something, but read a negative review and decided no to. Deciding to buy something and then just changing my mind arbitrarily would be stealing.

      See, when you accuse things that aren’t stealing of being stealing, logic kind of falls apart in a like that. Domino effect FTW.

    • Anonymous

      @davidbrookesuk
      “Notch’s car analogy makes no sense. Yes, if you duplicate something, you aren’t stealing the original, but that’s not the POINT.”

      No, actually that is the point. It’s the entire point of the car anology. Reading comprehension: maybe you should try it?

      @avidbrookesuk
      “If you HAD to buy it and you WOULD have, but you copy it instead, that’s stealing.”

      Stealing what? If I was going to buy GTA5 or whatever, but decide not to and download it instead, then what did I steal from Rockstar? It can’t be the $60 I was going to give them, because that was never theirs to begin with. It can’t be GTA5, because I only copied it. It’s not like I swiped a box off of a store shelf. So what did I steal? Nothing. At worst all I did was cause a lost sale. And if that’s stealing, then oh my god. It’s stealing when I decide to rent something instead of buying it. It’s stealing when I was going to buy something, but read a negative review and decided no to. Deciding to buy something and then just changing my mind arbitrarily would be stealing.

      See, when you accuse things that aren’t stealing of being stealing, logic kind of falls apart in a like that. Domino effect FTW.

      • Ahoy

        OK, loved the Sheenage up there, and love a healthy debate and a good bit of analysis on the ins and outs of what we do and how it is viewed, and combatted (big subscriber to knowing my enemy!), but this is getting out of hand.

        I guess in today’s world I’m getting on towards middle age, I was already a young man when digital piracy first broke through and I’ve downloaded more music, games, films and TV than most people could shake a hefty rack of drives at. And you know what? I was NEVER going to pay for any of it. Because I’m a pirate. Eye patch, peg leg, parrot, hook, the whole nine frickin’ yards. Yeah, I stole your stuff Media Industry. Wah wah waaaah. Bite me. Sometimes I give back or go honest (especially with games I love – they look nicer on the shelf in a shiny box – or bands I’m fanatic about, because there are genuinely some people I just WON’T pirate on principle), but mostly… nah. I’ll save that money and put it towards buying a house with special lady. Or saving towards my kids futures.

        But what I don’t do is sit on a message board arguing the semantics of it, splitting hairds that it isn’t actually theft, it’s copying; that it’s an idealogy beneficial to mankind; that I’m sticking it to Big Government. I’m not. I’m just getting stuff that I otherwise wouldn’t have had for free… Because I CAN, goddammit.I have no problems with it being seen as ‘theft’.

        I’ve got no problem admitting that I’m a pirate – I LIKE being a pirate – I make no apologies or excuses for it. I do what I do. I know what I do is, in the eyes of some (and unfortunately those ‘some’ are the lawmakers… for now), unlawful and wrong.

        Make no apologies for who we are, Anonymous.

  • http://twitter.com/bidoof_king Sean Strand

    This article is highly misleading. There isn’t a 70% pirate rate among minecraft users. Most of the people regersiting are playing the current outdated free version that’s called “Minecraft Classic”. His sales figures show that a decent amount of players do go on to buy the game afterwards.

  • sli

    70% of registered accounts haven’t bought the game, and that means that 70% of users have pirated the game? Come on, TorrentFreak. You guys are smarter than that.

  • ENViED

    Piracy shouldn’t count as lost sales.. if someone is pirating games than maybe they can simply not afford it in the first place.

  • 1neb

    You all lost your collective mind? He is correct, it doesnt exsist.

  • fordskydog

    The pace of progress is growing at a geometric rate. Therefore the time limit of a copyright should decrease, not be static. We need to revisit the original idea, which was to spur the creative process TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR EVERYONE. Or you could argue the purpose is just to make money for the inventor. There is a balance to be reached here somewhere. If the industry cant see that…

    The reason we base our economy on a free market is because it adds more value to society than a state run economy. More VALUE, not money.

    the industry currently makes money by pumping as much crap into the market as they can, so they have more opportunities to take you money without giving you value. Profit is the monetary margin between the price you charge and the value of the goods you provide.

    The free market works because we the consumers recognize that simply providing us with value merits a bit extra for you to make a living for providing us with value.

    Now when you try to rape the system by pushing a less and less valuable product in higher and higher volumes just for monetary gain beyond what you need to provide true value, and when the leaches suck onto you to get what they can, and your industry becomes bloated with open mouths that provide no value to the end consumer (marketing)…you wrecked it yourself.

    As the end consumer, I’ll buy whatever you can DEMONSTRATE the value in at a FAIR price. Fair price is not necessarily what it costs you to support the bloated antiquated industry.

  • Pingback: Piratear != Robar | Un Mundo Libre

  • Anonymous

    I won’t lie, I had a pirated version of Minecraft before. Notch added the halloween update, couldn’t get that version pirated, so I bought it.

  • Pingback: Super.licio.us | Superlevel

  • jimbo

    I am one of the few that have purchased the game and did so for one reason. The price is right. If they were asking $65 for the game I would probably not have done so and would have pirated it to see if I liked the game. I know that many people feel the same way. The way you win over piracy is make your margins reasonable. $20 to go see a movie? No thanks, I’ll download it for the price of my monthly internet costs. $5-$10 and I would be filling the seats.

    • jimbo

      And a second thought here as well. To the argument regarding the lost sale, and is it stealing vs not stealing: I think the definition of piracy needs to change. If I download a game and play it myself the argument of is it a lost sale or not is completely arbitrary. Now if I took that download, made copies of it and sold it at some news stand for 80% of the original price, THAT is a lost sale, THAT is piracy. As said above, people who download it most likely wouldn’t have bought it in the first place, but if the price was fair you would most likely sell more of your product.

  • Ilovepiracy

    I am a HUGE pirate, games, complete tv series and movies, about 100GB a month and I think that piracy is stealing, what I’m doing is Illegal and should be illegal, this guy is a fool if he doesn’t equate it to going into a shop and stealing a dvd(albeit with a little less revenue lost because stealing from a shop is a finished product with disc, case and the cost to ship the product to the store).

  • gordon

    I pirate lots of music and movies, the fact is that if I enjoy it enough I will go out and buy it.
    I would estimate that at least half of the pirate copies out there belong to people who would not have bought it either way and only bother because it was free, if they had to pay they would not have got it at all

  • Bardsidhe

    Electronic Piracy, is theft, Notch is wrong, the Artists make a product, for intention of sale, if the item is copied, and that copy is unauthorized, it is theft of the product.
    That said, this is the best manner in which to distribute an electronic product,
    and Sales of Products (Music, Video, Software) continue to grow, most people do not pirate their software, more people pirate their music and video’s.
    Yet it is so often claimed by highly successful Corporations that they have lost 70% of their sales, despite recording massive sales and profits.
    They base their 70% of Actual Loss of Sales and Projected Sales, not made. eg, Half Truth/Half Lie.
    Screw the Parent Corporations by all means, but if you like the product, buy it, direct from the Company who made it if you must (or can).
    the only problem doing that is that local stores loose out on potential sales.
    unfortunaly someone losses no matter what the End User does.

    • Guest

      The artists make a product, for the intention of sale, if the item is copied, and that copy is unauthorized, it is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. It isn’t theft of the product because no theft of the product occurred. Stealing without stealing is impossible.

    • Guest

      The artists make a product, for the intention of sale, if the item is copied, and that copy is unauthorized, it is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. It isn’t theft of the product because no theft of the product occurred. Stealing without stealing is impossible.

    • Guest

      The artists make a product, for the intention of sale, if the item is copied, and that copy is unauthorized, it is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. It isn’t theft of the product because no theft of the product occurred. Stealing without stealing is impossible.

  • Just this guy

    I freely admit, I pirated Minecraft. I meant to play for a short time, and decide whether or not I liked it quickly. Usually I either buy or delete downloaded games inside of six hours. I lost a Saturday. Yeah, I bought it. I treated Minecraft like I treat other downloaded games: as a single player demo.

    Lost sale? I wouldn’t have bought it otherwise, or without a demo. So no.

  • jeff

    don’t get your hopes up, people. pirating is still wrong, no matter how many excuses you can come up with to do it.

  • Hopeful for middle ground

    One of the problems with the pro-piracy argument is that while benefit is derived from word of mouth etc if piracy were no longer “bad” and held no barriers would sufficient people still spend.

    Free riders would become an issue and there would be a need for consumers to truly put their money where their mouth is when supporting products that they like.

    Basically I am suggesting that the benefit of piracy if it is acceptable would be less than the benefit of piracy if it was not. It is something of a catch-22.

    How many people would have to voluntarily pay for a service which is available free for that service to be provided? This is the question that I have not yet had answered when reading pro-privacy statements. Even in the Minecraft scenario my understanding is that by paying you receive additional benefit in updates etc – this model would not necessarily be possible for all things in a world where piracy was unnecessary.

    I am not sure if I have conveyed this correctly but my argument boils down to, Piracy has greater benefit than a free distribution model as there is more incentive to pay.

  • Narcato

    Piracy traditionally refers to acts intentionally committed for financial gain. Now I have read few comments here and some people here are saying that piracy is a theft. Now thats true, it is theft, but not FILE SHARING. File sharing trough BitTorrent protocol is not piracy because nobody doesn’t gain personal profit. Now I can’t say that some people don’t use it to make profit but that usually doesn’t happen in western world.

    Now when law says that it isn’t illegal and it isn’t theft, so what’s the problem? Morally, it’s personal question.

    Talking about lost sales, thats just wrong. I mean what the corporations are saying is that if my friend shares his movie DVD with me, I’m stealing and it’s one less sold DVD.
    Where’s the logic in that? I mean are they some kinda oracles that know how many each movie is gonna sell and how much profit it’s gonna gain and we so called ”pirates” are devils and make millions of people jobless and so on. Millions of people share music trough BitTorrent but still you gain billions of dollars profit? So your actually greedy bastards. If I wanna support the artist I’m gonna go and see his/her concert where they actually get their pay. I’m not gonna give my money to some guy in a Armani suit and 100 square meter office. I have never heard that any artist is complaining about lost sales or that their music is shared by fans, true fans.

    About the game. Gonna go and check it out, if I like it I’m gonna pay for it because the money goes directly to the developer.

    Hope, that you comment readers get my point.

    Remember Sharing Is Caring.

    Peace.

  • Pingback: Najwa?niejsze korzy?ci piractwa internetowego

  • Ano

    “anti-piracy zealots would insist that Minecraft has a 70% piracy or “lost sale” rate”

    funny thing is they instantly think that 70% piracy = 70% lost sales
    which isn’t the same. assuming this game could never be pirated, it doesn’t mean that those 70% would buy the game. maybe only 40% would, or less.

    in fact, if I were an avid pirate, I would never buy ANY game. even if they couldn’t be pirated anymore. and maybe so would the rest of 30% out of 70%.

    but they try to attribute a sens of value loss to piracy because this adds drama to their bullshit, and this is more reaching to the public. fucking peasants.

  • Anubarak

    Minecraft creator is my IDOL ;D

  • Anubarak

    Minecraft creator is my IDOL ;D

  • Pingback: Le créateur de Minecraft s’exprime à propos du piratage

  • http://twitter.com/BestWorldArch Best World Arch

    “Piracy will win in the long run”

  • Pingback: Minecraft Creator Believes Piracy Is Not Theft | It's The Lingo

  • WeTheSheeple

    The term Piracy was created by the organizations and corporations. It isn’t called Piracy, its called Sharing. They use these labels to implant a sub conscious feeling that you are doing something wrong…. Only the most corupt people on earth can associate Sharing with Piracy..

  • Pingback: viaSQUARED » minecraft creator looks at piracy rather optimistically

  • Pingback: Engagements and Accolades Feb 25 - Mar 4 » Blog | NetShelter Technology Media

  • Pingback: Minecraft Creator Notch Says “Lost Sales” Are a Lie, Piracy Will Win

  • Guest

    i know if i would pirate a game it wouldnt be a lost sale, because if i wasnt pirating i wouldnt have bought the game anyway because im not a fan of the computer gaming

  • Anon

    You wouldn’t download a car!
    Can’t believe this wasn’t posted yet.

    • Fred

      Hell yea I’d download a car.

  • Annie Moose

    I love Notch so much. He’s got a point–you can’t say “lost sales means stealing”, because there’s many factors that contribute to lost sales, and a pirated copy does not necessarily mean a lost sale. The two are related, obviously, but not necessarily directly.

    And, hey, even if the guy does have a 70% piracy rate, he’s still doing pretty good for himself! How much has he (or, rather, his company) made off Minecraft by now? A million copies at at least ten bucks apiece… even after taxes, that’s still quite a lot!

  • trololo

    fake and gay

  • Pingback: web-crap » Post Topic » Zitat des Tages

  • Pingback: Upphovsrättsintrång i vardagen – farligt eller harmlöst? – Anton Nordenfur

  • Pingback: Engagements and Accolades Mar 4 -11 » Blog | NetShelter Technology Media

  • noncompliance

    I want to point out this:

    What is a game intended to do? To entertain the masses. True, the companies need to make their money on games that they develop. True, game sales are their source of income.

    What I want to point out is this:

    The people that buy the games, or other forms of media, have the money to do so. Whereas at least some of the “pirates” out there, don’t have the necessary source of income to purchase the entertainment they would like to have. Granted, that does mean that there are those pirates that do have the necessary source of income who still pirate media. Statistically, I don’t know what the percentage is, but I can guess that probably a good majority of the pirates do have the money. The main point is: When something gets “pirated,” there are more (key word) copies of that product out in the world for others to see and possibly buy in the future.

    Solution?

    Let the economy run as it is.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • 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...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

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.