4 ms·

What's stunning to me is the $110 million dollar judgment. Did the site really make that much money, or is this a decision designed to condemn the founder to a

by esw 13y ago

What's stunning to me is the $110 million dollar judgment. Did the site really make that much money, or is this a decision designed to condemn the founder to a lifetime of poverty?

jackweirdy 13y ago
It said $150,000 per infringement (!) and I highly doubt the site made anywhere near that amount in revenue, let alone profit
- theperson 13y ago
  > let alone profit I don't understand why people think torrent websites are not profitable. Reddit and TF comments always claim it's not-for-profit. IsoHunt might not have as much profit as TPB due to it's constant lawsuits. However, hosting a website like IsoHunt is fairly lightweight in comparison to hosting YouTube. Torrents are tiny files, $30k server bills per month at most, probably they spend $10k/mo. They have ads and paid membership. I doubt they earn $110 million, but I do believe it's likely that they atleast earn $4 mill per year. Keep in mind there website has a lot of traffic.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    He isn't saying it wasn't profitable.
  - derefr 13y ago
    > Torrents are tiny files ThePirateBay, for one, no longer even stores torrents--only magnet links. I wonder what kind of profit margin their ads pull in...
    - suby 13y ago
      Who would want to advertise on TPB, though? I have to wonder how much those ads could possibly go for considering it's a website focused on giving you something for free which you would ordinarily have to pay for. I am aware that there are legitimate files on TPB, but most people visit for pirated content.
      - benologist 13y ago
        They have no shortage of scummy advertisements and lucrative affiliate shitware. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6193624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6193624
        theperson 13y ago
        > because that's the image their PR machine has very carefully cultivated That's perfectly written. TPB once stood for freedom of the internet, even I don't deny that. However, when the original founders gave the website to an offshore company it became a website purely for profit but continued using the "freedom" excuse to create some kind of moral high ground.
      - ceejayoz 13y ago
        Well, look at the ads and you'll know. They're mostly advertising stuff that's not downloadable - memberships to dating sites, for example.
      - georgemcbay 13y ago
        I've never been a user of TPB so I can't tell you who has advertised there, but there are lots of people out there who will drop $600 on a phone and then jailbreak it so they can pirate 99 cent apps. For a lot of folks there is a clear line between digital content easily gotten and other stuff and they'll pay a lot for the other stuff but will pirate digital content when it is convenient to do so. I'm not saying this is right, but in my experience it is pretty common. I've witnessed multiple instances of people teaching other people how to torrent including once in a jury lounge in a county courthouse and many times at workplaces that produce digital goods (software) and the general idea seemed to be that if they can get whatever digital thing (eg. the latest episode of Game of Thrones) for free, why not? And yet these are people who drive nice cars, wear nice clothes, and buy lots of expensive gadgets, squarely in the demographic of people that advertisers of non-digital goods like to target. OTOH, I would suspect TPB (like 4chan) has a problem where advertisers of "upscale" goods just don't want to be associated with the "brand" of the site, regardless of the demographic match. But I don't think the fact that the users are people who want things "for free" is a disqualifier.
shmerl 13y ago
MPAA admitted that it's a completely out of the blue number, made up to "scare" others. http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-piracy-damages-cant-be-measured-131016/ http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-piracy-damages-cant-be-mea...
NiekvdMaas 13y ago
Note that the amount is 100% the same as TorrentSpy had to pay back in 2008: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/05/torrentspy-ordered-to-pay-110-million-in-damages-to-mpaa/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/05/torrentspy-ordere... I think this is not a coincidence.
_delirium 13y ago
The MPAA estimates [1] that the company has $2-4 million in assets, but seems to be asking for the higher number just to send some kind of a message. If I'm reading correctly, it would be isoHunt, not the founder, responsible for the judgment, so they would just declare bankruptcy, and the MPAA would get whatever assets are left in liquidation. The founder wouldn't be responsible for paying the remainder. [1] http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-piracy-damages-cant-be-measured-131016/ http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-piracy-damages-cant-be-mea...
- esw 13y ago
  >The founder wouldn't be responsible for paying the remainder. I wasn't sure because the article indicates the judgment was against both isoHunt and the founder (Gary Fung).
- benmccann 13y ago
  It appears they were suing the founder, Daniel Fung, personally and in addition to suing the company. The lower-court case is Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. v. Fung, 06-cv-05578, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles). The appeals court case is Columbia Picture Industries v. Fung, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 10-55946 (San Francisco). http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/10-55946/10-55946-2013-03-21.html http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/10-...

by esw 13y ago

What's stunning to me is the $110 million dollar judgment. Did the site really make that much money, or is this a decision designed to condemn the founder to a lifetime of poverty?

jackweirdy 13y ago

It said $150,000 per infringement (!) and I highly doubt the site made anywhere near that amount in revenue, let alone profit

theperson 13y ago
> let alone profit I don't understand why people think torrent websites are not profitable. Reddit and TF comments always claim it's not-for-profit. IsoHunt might not have as much profit as TPB due to it's constant lawsuits. However, hosting a website like IsoHunt is fairly lightweight in comparison to hosting YouTube. Torrents are tiny files, $30k server bills per month at most, probably they spend $10k/mo. They have ads and paid membership. I doubt they earn $110 million, but I do believe it's likely that they atleast earn $4 mill per year. Keep in mind there website has a lot of traffic.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  He isn't saying it wasn't profitable.
- derefr 13y ago
  > Torrents are tiny files ThePirateBay, for one, no longer even stores torrents--only magnet links. I wonder what kind of profit margin their ads pull in...
  - suby 13y ago
    Who would want to advertise on TPB, though? I have to wonder how much those ads could possibly go for considering it's a website focused on giving you something for free which you would ordinarily have to pay for. I am aware that there are legitimate files on TPB, but most people visit for pirated content.
    - benologist 13y ago
      They have no shortage of scummy advertisements and lucrative affiliate shitware. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6193624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6193624
      - theperson 13y ago
        > because that's the image their PR machine has very carefully cultivated That's perfectly written. TPB once stood for freedom of the internet, even I don't deny that. However, when the original founders gave the website to an offshore company it became a website purely for profit but continued using the "freedom" excuse to create some kind of moral high ground.
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      Well, look at the ads and you'll know. They're mostly advertising stuff that's not downloadable - memberships to dating sites, for example.
    - georgemcbay 13y ago
      I've never been a user of TPB so I can't tell you who has advertised there, but there are lots of people out there who will drop $600 on a phone and then jailbreak it so they can pirate 99 cent apps. For a lot of folks there is a clear line between digital content easily gotten and other stuff and they'll pay a lot for the other stuff but will pirate digital content when it is convenient to do so. I'm not saying this is right, but in my experience it is pretty common. I've witnessed multiple instances of people teaching other people how to torrent including once in a jury lounge in a county courthouse and many times at workplaces that produce digital goods (software) and the general idea seemed to be that if they can get whatever digital thing (eg. the latest episode of Game of Thrones) for free, why not? And yet these are people who drive nice cars, wear nice clothes, and buy lots of expensive gadgets, squarely in the demographic of people that advertisers of non-digital goods like to target. OTOH, I would suspect TPB (like 4chan) has a problem where advertisers of "upscale" goods just don't want to be associated with the "brand" of the site, regardless of the demographic match. But I don't think the fact that the users are people who want things "for free" is a disqualifier.

shmerl 13y ago

MPAA admitted that it's a completely out of the blue number, made up to "scare" others. http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-piracy-damages-cant-be-measured-131016/ http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-piracy-damages-cant-be-mea...

NiekvdMaas 13y ago

Note that the amount is 100% the same as TorrentSpy had to pay back in 2008: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/05/torrentspy-ordered-to-pay-110-million-in-damages-to-mpaa/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/05/torrentspy-ordere... I think this is not a coincidence.

_delirium 13y ago

The MPAA estimates [1] that the company has $2-4 million in assets, but seems to be asking for the higher number just to send some kind of a message. If I'm reading correctly, it would be isoHunt, not the founder, responsible for the judgment, so they would just declare bankruptcy, and the MPAA would get whatever assets are left in liquidation. The founder wouldn't be responsible for paying the remainder. [1] http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-piracy-damages-cant-be-measured-131016/ http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-says-piracy-damages-cant-be-mea...

esw 13y ago
>The founder wouldn't be responsible for paying the remainder. I wasn't sure because the article indicates the judgment was against both isoHunt and the founder (Gary Fung).
benmccann 13y ago
It appears they were suing the founder, Daniel Fung, personally and in addition to suing the company. The lower-court case is Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. v. Fung, 06-cv-05578, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles). The appeals court case is Columbia Picture Industries v. Fung, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 10-55946 (San Francisco). http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/10-55946/10-55946-2013-03-21.html http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/10-...