Not only yes, but HELL, yes! One of Wikipedias cited links is dead, and the other just goes to a front page, but this one covers the matter well:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.fria.nu/artikel/78204&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

By Pirate Bays own lawyers estimates, site costs in 2009 were a little over $112,500 and ad revenue was a hair over $102,000. On the other hand, a police investigation conducted the same year put their revenue at just under $169,000, and prosecutors at the trial put it close to $1.5 million. They indisputably make money; the only question is whether they make a PROFIT, and unless you believe putting ads on each page and flashing more at people during downloads only pulls in $102,000 per year, even that is not really in question.

Wikipedia also cites this quote from a Pirate Bay co-founder:

"It's not free to operate a Web Site on this scale.... If we were making lots of money I, Svartholm, wouldn't be working late at the office tonight, I'd be sitting on a beach somewhere, working on my tan."

THAT is the crux of the matter: Swapping around copyrighted material between your friends at no cost is no threat to the media industry, because with no profit to be made no one can sit around doing it on a large enough scale to significantly eat into their margins; most people so inclined are too busy putting food on the table. Going after advertisers supporting pirate sites would be another excellent way to attack the problem at its SOURCE (the only place it can be effectively attacked.) No advertising firm, manufacturer or retailer making millions, or billions, of legal dollars will spend hundreds of thousands sponsoring piracy that costs them millions in fines, all in the faint hope people illegally downloading free media will buy their products.


They are NOT giving it away for free, just charging advertisers rather than downloaders. The advertisers only pay so people illegally downloading media WITHOUT paying buy their products (I can only hope that works as badly as it sounds like it should. )

C'mon, man, I know you insist I am uninformed on this issue, but I am not THAT ignorant. Neither is Congress. And neither are you.


ACTUAL PAYING CUSTOMERS are not the problem. And we are still back to speculating what people illegally downloading media for free now WOULD do if given a way to legally download it for a price, which is still the same hypothetical data you so roundly condemned when Big Media used it to estimate revenue they WOULD get if law enforcement reduced piracy. I also still dislike double standards intensely so, no.


How is making an informal request their LOYAL FAN BASE CHOOSES to honor "Phish enforcing their copyright"? That is the fan base enforcing their copyright.


No, they are going after people not simply "begging for other format," but patronizing illegal ones. Huge difference, though I still do not feel anyone not paying or being paid for illegal media is a significant problem, nor that they can be demonstrated to cause any harm, since the only thing Big Media is "losing" is those peoples money, which was not being paid for the product in the first place, and probably never would be.


They do not berate paying customers, they berate non-paying users. Many also pay them for media, but no one is complaining about that (except maybe Pirate Bay,) only the illegal activity. To employ another analogy, that argument is the equivalent of saying, "speeders is not theft, robbery, murder or rape, so laws against speeding unfairly malign and abuse law abiding citizens." "MOSTLY law abiding" is not "law abiding," and "MOSTLY paying customers" are not "paying customers."


No, no; Phish handles the responsibilities of enforcing their copyright themselves, just like Big Media should, remember?


THEY are a bit pissed themselves that other people are making money off their work, and costing them money as a result. To a certain extent that is hypocritical, considering their treatment of artists, but to the extent they are producing and promoting the media at no small expense only to have other people show up at the final stage, steal it, give it away and make money doing it, they have a legitimate complaint.

Big Media is selfishly focused on their own narrow interests, and consumers are selfishly focused on theirs. Guess who has EXISTING law on their side. If you need a hint, Congress will provide one soon. Meanwhile, the ACTUAL pirates (the people illegally providing stolen data, not those receiving it) do not care, because as long as that is the debate no one is interfering with them, even though they are the real problem. Probably the best way for consumers to prevent a cyberpolice state and avoid being targets of Big Medias frustration is to suggest and support laws against pirate sources, and enforcement of same. Regardless, insisting theft prevention infringes on free speech and demanding it all go away is not a realistic option.

We can keep going round and round about this, but telling me I am uninformed then playing dumb about a host of issues well known to ignorant people like me encourages skepticism. It is not negotiating in good faith and thus not to be taken seriously. Once again, you can safely assume Congress feels the same.