6 ms·

> The ads were because of legal defence fees, which can be huge. Citation? The ads were making millions(1) to the people behind the TPB, and the legal cost i

> The ads were because of legal defence fees, which can be huge. Citation? The ads were making millions(1) to the people behind the TPB, and the legal cost is several orders of magnitude less. update: (1) http://www.thelocal.se/20100930/29334 http://www.thelocal.se/20100930/29334 "The Pirate Bay earned up to 35 million kronor ($5.2 million) in advertising revenue from the file sharing website" (2010, already)

gcb0 12y ago
> The ads were making millions Citation?
- draugadrotten 12y ago
  http://www.thelocal.se/20100930/29334 http://www.thelocal.se/20100930/29334 "The Pirate Bay earned up to 35 million kronor ($5.2 million) in advertising revenue from the file sharing website" (2010, already)
  - cdevfr 12y ago
    The Pirate Bay earned up to 35 million kronor ($5.2 million) in advertising revenue from the file sharing website, >>>film companies maintained<<< And literally the second paragraph in your link: The claims were dismissed by Jonas Nilsson, legal counsel for one of the defendants, Fredrik Neij. Nilsson argued that instead of being a profits earner most of the work to keep The Pirate Bay running had been undertaken on a voluntary unpaid basis. "The revenues, which were not very large, went to buying new equipment," Nilsson said.
    - draugadrotten 12y ago
      Well, you can say that "the prosecutor said this and the defendant counsel said this", but at the end of the day we know that the four operators of the site were convicted by Stockholm district court on 17 April 2009 and sentenced to one year in jail each and a total of 30 million Swedish kronor (approximately US$3.5 million, €2.7 million) in fines and damages. So I guess the court believed the prosecutor.
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        >So I guess the court believed the prosecutor. How do you figure? Their fine was not based on their advertising revenue was it?
        belorn 12y ago
        The fine was based on what a theoretical license would cost per infringing item, multiplied if I remember correctly by 4. The theoretical license cost was created from estimates by the plaintiffs.
      - deciplex 12y ago
        Well, for one, that the fines and damages were n has no bearing on what profit the site made, if any. And, two, given the current legal environment in most of the West including Sweden, "the court believed the prosecutor" doesn't mean shit, really. Of course the court believed the prosecutor - they are on the same team, after all.
        bjourne 12y ago
        From what I remember the defense never provided any counter-claim about how much money tpb made. All they argued was that the prosecutors claim was ridiculously high. Exactly how much money the ad networks paid out is not publicly known but wire transfers are tracable. So it seems obvious to me that if brokep and anakata during the trial wanted to prove how much or how little the tpb made, then it would have been easy for them to do so.
      - cdevfr 12y ago
        How does that help your point. You still haven't provided any information that would back your claims.
        caractacus 12y ago
        Can you try and persuade me that TPB wasn't making substantial revenue when you have millions of daily visitors and a hell of a lot of ads? It seems a pretty simple assumption to make. What factors were in place that stopped that revenue flow?
  - sebcat 12y ago
    ... according to the prosecution, who pulled those numbers out of thin air, with no actual evidence what so ever. You see parts of that in the TPB - AFK documentary.
    - musername 12y ago
      a vrry impartial source, indeed /s
  - belorn 12y ago
    That number was based on how much advertising space earn on sites with similar unique visitor count, like BBC or NYT. The assumption is that that companies are willing to spend the same amount of money to advertise on a torrent site as a international news paper.
- undefined0 12y ago
  http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/05/pirate-sites-advertising-illegal-music-downloads http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/05/pirate-sites-ad... Another citation: me, but not going to prove it. I am friends with an ad network TPB used. They made $10k daily from adware installers alone in 2013.
  - chriogenix 12y ago
    Exoclick was monetizing their traffic for a bit, not sure if that is still the case.
- caractacus 12y ago
  The site had 50m uniques a month. At least 2-3 ads on every page. Even at a terrible CPM rate or CPC conversion rate, they'd have to be ansolute morons not to be making oodles of cash from that setup.
  - chii 12y ago
    i find that difficult to believe, because almost everyone who would go to the pirate bay would have adblock of some sort no!?
    - zikzak 12y ago
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/21/use-of-ad-blocking-is-on-the-rise/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/21/use-of-ad... Maybe 30%, worst case?
    - Ntrails 12y ago
      I find this entire thread bizarre as I'd always thought pirate bay was ad free (and due to blockers never knew different)
cshimmin 12y ago
Several orders of magnitude? So legal defense costs less than ~tens of dollars?

gcb0 12y ago

> The ads were making millions Citation?

draugadrotten 12y ago
http://www.thelocal.se/20100930/29334 http://www.thelocal.se/20100930/29334 "The Pirate Bay earned up to 35 million kronor ($5.2 million) in advertising revenue from the file sharing website" (2010, already)
- cdevfr 12y ago
  The Pirate Bay earned up to 35 million kronor ($5.2 million) in advertising revenue from the file sharing website, >>>film companies maintained<<< And literally the second paragraph in your link: The claims were dismissed by Jonas Nilsson, legal counsel for one of the defendants, Fredrik Neij. Nilsson argued that instead of being a profits earner most of the work to keep The Pirate Bay running had been undertaken on a voluntary unpaid basis. "The revenues, which were not very large, went to buying new equipment," Nilsson said.
  - draugadrotten 12y ago
    Well, you can say that "the prosecutor said this and the defendant counsel said this", but at the end of the day we know that the four operators of the site were convicted by Stockholm district court on 17 April 2009 and sentenced to one year in jail each and a total of 30 million Swedish kronor (approximately US$3.5 million, €2.7 million) in fines and damages. So I guess the court believed the prosecutor.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      >So I guess the court believed the prosecutor. How do you figure? Their fine was not based on their advertising revenue was it?
      - belorn 12y ago
        The fine was based on what a theoretical license would cost per infringing item, multiplied if I remember correctly by 4. The theoretical license cost was created from estimates by the plaintiffs.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      Well, for one, that the fines and damages were n has no bearing on what profit the site made, if any. And, two, given the current legal environment in most of the West including Sweden, "the court believed the prosecutor" doesn't mean shit, really. Of course the court believed the prosecutor - they are on the same team, after all.
      - bjourne 12y ago
        From what I remember the defense never provided any counter-claim about how much money tpb made. All they argued was that the prosecutors claim was ridiculously high. Exactly how much money the ad networks paid out is not publicly known but wire transfers are tracable. So it seems obvious to me that if brokep and anakata during the trial wanted to prove how much or how little the tpb made, then it would have been easy for them to do so.
    - cdevfr 12y ago
      How does that help your point. You still haven't provided any information that would back your claims.
      - caractacus 12y ago
        Can you try and persuade me that TPB wasn't making substantial revenue when you have millions of daily visitors and a hell of a lot of ads? It seems a pretty simple assumption to make. What factors were in place that stopped that revenue flow?
- sebcat 12y ago
  ... according to the prosecution, who pulled those numbers out of thin air, with no actual evidence what so ever. You see parts of that in the TPB - AFK documentary.
  - musername 12y ago
    a vrry impartial source, indeed /s
- belorn 12y ago
  That number was based on how much advertising space earn on sites with similar unique visitor count, like BBC or NYT. The assumption is that that companies are willing to spend the same amount of money to advertise on a torrent site as a international news paper.
undefined0 12y ago
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/05/pirate-sites-advertising-illegal-music-downloads http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/05/pirate-sites-ad... Another citation: me, but not going to prove it. I am friends with an ad network TPB used. They made $10k daily from adware installers alone in 2013.
- chriogenix 12y ago
  Exoclick was monetizing their traffic for a bit, not sure if that is still the case.
caractacus 12y ago
The site had 50m uniques a month. At least 2-3 ads on every page. Even at a terrible CPM rate or CPC conversion rate, they'd have to be ansolute morons not to be making oodles of cash from that setup.
- chii 12y ago
  i find that difficult to believe, because almost everyone who would go to the pirate bay would have adblock of some sort no!?
  - zikzak 12y ago
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/21/use-of-ad-blocking-is-on-the-rise/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/21/use-of-ad... Maybe 30%, worst case?
  - Ntrails 12y ago
    I find this entire thread bizarre as I'd always thought pirate bay was ad free (and due to blockers never knew different)

cshimmin 12y ago

Several orders of magnitude? So legal defense costs less than ~tens of dollars?