Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Dirtbag59]

Do Pirate Sites Really Make That Much Money? Um... No | Techdirt

One of the key refrains from the supporters of PIPA and SOPA in pushing for those bills was about how "foreign pirates" were profiting off of American industry. However, as we've suggested plenty of times in the past, there's little evidence that there's really that much money to be made running such sites. Even more amusing, of course, is that the MPAA/RIAA folks have to both argue that "people just want stuff for free," and that these sites are raking in money from subscription fees at the same time -- an internal contradiction they never explain. I've asked MPAA officials directly (including on stage at the Filmmaker's Forum event last year) that if these lockers are really making so much money, why doesn't Hollywood just set up their own and rake in all that cash. The only answer they give, which doesn't actually answer the question, is that it's cheaper for cyberlockers since they don't pay royalties. But that's got nothing to do with why the Hollywood studios don't get this money for themselves. Of course, the real reason -- somewhat implicit from the MPAA's comments -- is that it knows these sites don't make that much money.

Meganomics | Media Piracy | The American Assembly

The Swedish trial of The Pirate Bay trial in 2009 became an occasion for all sorts of competing estimates of revenues. Record industry group IFPI estimated the site’s revenues at $3 million per year. The MPAA described $5 million in revenues. But prosecutors endorsed a much lower number: $170,000 from advertising (against what the defense characterized as $112,000/year in server/bandwidth costs and $100,000 per year in revenue). This is for a site that appears consistently among the top 100 visited sites in the world.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

"The Swedish trial of The Pirate Bay trial in 2009 became an occasion for all sorts of competing estimates of revenues. Record industry group IFPI estimated the site’s revenues at $3 million per year. The MPAA described $5 million in revenues. But prosecutors endorsed a much lower number: $170,000 from advertising (against what the defense characterized as $112,000/year in server/bandwidth costs and $100,000 per year in revenue). This is for a site that appears consistently among the top 100 visited sites in the world."

Meganomics | Media Piracy | The American Assembly

Hollywood: They're making almost 5 mil a year in revenue!
The Court: What are they selling?
Hollywood: Nothing! It's all free!

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Do Pirate Sites Really Make That Much Money? Um... No | Techdirt


Meganomics | Media Piracy | The American Assembly

Well duh, most illegal downloaders (and uploaders) are looking for free, not shelling out their personal income on a subscription, even if the free service is limited servicce. But the MPAA's culture doesn't care about such little details.

It's one thing to say that pirating can cut into sales thus profits. It's another to say that the sites themselves are profitable, especially those torrent sites of a smaller scale who use "Donate to PayPal" rather than charge their userbase for access.

[skinsguy]

83-year-old Gertrude Walton was sued for illegally sharing over 700 songs on peer-to-peer file-sharing networks in early 2005, under the username "smittenedkitten." The problem with the case, was that Gertrude Walton not only did not own a computer, or know how to use one, but had in fact died in December of 2004. The RIAA quickly dismissed the case, after the entire known world laughed them out of court.
The 14 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits Filed by the RIAA and the MPAA

This is just ridiculous! I remember hearing about this before, but stuff like this is idiotic. I think a company should be charged for some type of criminal offense for tying up the legal system with frivolous lawsuits such as suing a dead woman who has never owned a computer. I mean, really??