Australian Idol did not see a cent of estimated $3m profit

Australian Idol winner had Australia's highest selling album of 2007 but got nothing from the estimated $3 million profit. dailytelegraph.com.au. via reddit. Do I have to say it? This is one of the reasons why some people disagree with copyright laws. We are told to buy original because the creator, in this case Damien Leith (and don't tell me the studio is the creator - what would they create if his voice was not part of the album? People buy the album primarily for Damien Leith, not the session players, the recording studio etc). How does buying a record in this case support the artiste?

How 136 people became 7mil illegal file sharers

programmica.info via Reddit.

The Radio 4 show More or Less - which is devoted to the "often abused but ever ubiquitous world of numbers" - decided to examine the Government's claim that 7m people in Britain are engaged in illegal file sharing...

Fudged figures
As if the Government taking official statistics directly from partisan sources wasn't bad enough, the BBC reporter Oliver Hawkins also found that the figures were based on some highly questionable assumptions.

The 7m figure had actually been rounded up from an actual figure of 6.7m. That 6.7m was gleaned from a 2008 survey of 1,176 net-connected households, 11.6% of which admitted to having used file-sharing software - in other words, only 136 people.

It gets worse. That 11.6% of respondents who admitted to file sharing was adjusted upwards to 16.3% "to reflect the assumption that fewer people admit to file sharing than actually do it." The report's author told the BBC that the adjustment "wasn't just pulled out of thin air" but based on unspecified evidence.

The 6.7m figure was then calculated based on the estimated number of people with internet access in the UK. However, Jupiter research was working on the assumption that there were 40m people online in the UK in 2008, whereas the Government's own Office of National Statistics claimed there were only 33.9m people online during that year.

If the BPI-commissioned [BPI is British Phonographic Industry, the British record industry's trade association. Its membership comprises hundreds of music companies] Jupiter research had used the Government's online population figures, the total number of file sharers would be 5.6m. If the researchers hadn't adjusted their figures upwards, the total number of file sharers would be only 3.9m - or just over half the figure being bandied about by the Government.

Good discussion on piracy

"Am I the only one sick of music downloaders acting like they are crusaders for the greater good? I love music. I don't like paying for it. I steal it. Simple as that. I am no hero. Those that want to protect their investments are not Nazis." (Reddit.self.technology) submitted 1 day ago by damron

Good, long, discussion follows:

"ItsAConspiracy 311 points 1 day ago: A lot of people really do feel that the copyright regime has been vastly overextended. It used to be 14 years with an optional 14 year extension. Now it's effectively unlimited, because the Supreme Court said it's ok to extend the term retroactively. It also covers a lot more derivative works than it used to, and has nearly eliminated fair use rights.

Some of us even think copyrights should be done away with entirely. A business model based on limiting the right to copy is simply obsolete in the face of a technology that can copy information without limit, for free, and store it at a cost far lower than the license fee.

There have been several successful experiments already in collecting funds from the public in advance of releasing the work. Even if that didn't work, people make and publish art in all forms for free. People can't help themselves. If all that were available in the public domain, easily accessible on the Internet and legally reusable, we'd see a flowering of art the likes of which the world has never seen.

I don't view the content industry as Nazis. I view them as buggy-whip makers, protecting their investments by getting the government to pass laws against automobiles."

Click on link to read arguments, including this one:

"The problem is not piracy, although as a former musician I have to say it's kind of rude to steal someone's work. However that work is essentially stolen by the labels. If you look at most recordings it says "all rights reserved" What most people don't realize is that those rights are held by the labels and the publishing companies and that the artist get only a tiny fraction of the revenue, by and large. So what we need is a more equitable market, I believe it's coming but the labels and their promotional arms and the publishing houses, the FM radio stations, Live Nation, Ticketmaster, are going to have to die first. They have to be taken out of the equation because they are bad on just about every level. The labels are responsible for all the me too crap and total rubbish that chokes the airwaves right now. So keep up the piracy everyone should do it until these fucks are bankrupted out of existence. Then we can start again."

Seven Crimes That Will Get You a Smaller Fine than File-Sharing

Jammie Thomas was fined $2 million for downloading 24 songs. Thanks to the Mechanics blog at Gapers Block, here are seven crimes that will get you smaller fines than file-sharing:

1. Child abduction: the fine is only like $25000.
2. Stealing the actual CD: the fine is $2,500
3. Rob your neighbor: the fine is $375,000
4. Burn a house down: The fine is just over $375,000
5. Stalk someone: The fine is $175,000
6. Start a dogfighting ring: the fine is $50,000
7. Murder someone: The maximum penalty is only $25,000 and 15 years in jail, and depending on your yearly salary, would probably be far slighter a penalty that $2 million.

prefixmag. Thanks to rabidmonkey1 on reddit.

When was the last time you changed your mind?

I have been thinking about this since university when we would have discussions in class. And it is true most people find it hard to change their minds on their beliefs, despite having evidence to the contrary. Recently I read Why we listen to what we want to hear". It's worth quoting:

"Some people, particularly those with more close-minded personalities, were even more reluctant to expose themselves to differing perspectives.

They tended to opt for information that corresponded to their views nearly three quarters of the time, argued [University of Illinois psychology professor Dolores Albarracín, who led the study, published in July's Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the American Psychological Association, which analysed data from 91 studies involving nearly 8,000 participants].

Perhaps unsurprisingly, people were more resistant to new points of view when their own ideas were associated with political, religious or ethical values. "If the issues concern moral values or politics, about 70 per cent of the time you will choose congenial information, versus about 60 per cent of the time if the issues are not related to values," she added.

Perhaps more surprisingly was the finding that people who have little confidence in their own beliefs were less likely to expose themselves to contrary views than people who were very confident in their own ideas. Certain factors could also induce people to seek out opposing points of view. Those who had publicly defend their ideas publicly, such as politicians, for example, tended to be more motivated to learn about the views of those who opposed them. In the process they sometimes found their own ideas evolving.

The reason why people tended to stay with their own beliefs and attitudes is because for the most part, changing them might prevent them from living the lives they were living, the authors of the study concluded. And that is a big change.

I was thinking about this because of a current exchange with an anonymous poster. I find it especially hard to argue with people who are not trained in clear thinking, people who rely on fallacies to win arguments .

Here is one fallacy at play, which you can read from my previous post Go, Pirates!. The anonymous poster's original argument (if it's even an argument, since the word hypocrisy is misused in this case ) was this: "first of all, it's a little hypocritical to stand up for torrent and free downloads when you've never even used torrent isn't it? (kind of like having a strong opinion on something you don't really have a meaningful relationship with yes?)."

To which I answered, it is hypocritical or strange to have a strong opinion on something you have not personally experienced. You can have an opinion as a matter of principle. So for instance, I am pro-choice on the matter of abortion, despite never having had an abortion. Another way we can arrive at true conclusions is through abstraction, based on first principles. In addition, personal experience may not be the best judge of truth or knowledge, as visual distortion, such as refraction, proves.

This was his response: "missing my point. everybody is entitled to an opinion but they're not necessarily entitled to the facts ;-). in terms of abortion, i happen to think that a man can have an opinion on it, but i'm not sure he's the *best qualified* to make a final judgement about it. i guess from where i stand, i *do* think a woman has more insight to this issue than a man (and i'm a man) and is better *qualified* to actually make the decision."

Here the writer accuses me of missing his point when he has changed the terms of the original argument and his point. The fallacy is known as the Red Herring, which has this form: Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned.

Specifically, his original point was about how it is hypocritical to have a strong opinion about something despite never having first hand experience of the subject matter. Now he introduces a new topic, Topic B, which is about being qualified to comment, which is an entirely different point. As a note to readers, another relevant fallacy here is the Argument from Authority: "Arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."

Anyway, let's humour the writer. So now my response has to be on my qualifications. So here it is. The writer thinks a bag is a bag is a bag, so a plastic bag serves the same function as a backpack: "most bags are basically bags as are most clothes clothes. i imagine you see most people in cambodia using plastic bags or paper bags not bloom bags. Why? b/c it serves the same exact purpose your bag does at the right price. Basically, a bag is a bag."

Well, as a maker of bags I can say bag is not a bag is not a bag. A backpack, a shoulder bag, a tote bag makes your hands free, which adds a different function to a plastic bag, which is why people choose these other bags over a plastic bag.

So what makes me qualified to talk about piracy and copyright? Well, the writer may think bag design is of an inferior work to that of "real artists", whatever that means, but there is a lot of thought and work that goes into designing a bag. Bloom products, too, get copied, which is to say I have first hand experience in the matter of copyright.

Which brings me to another point: that a bag is different from content, or concept. I admit yesterday I did not explain clearly what I meant. This was what I wrote yesterday: "A bag is a discrete object. Once someone takes it away, it is gone. Contrast this with a song, a photograph or a movie. You're not going to lose your original song, movie or image when someone downloads it. Multiple entities originate from that one song, movie, image. A bag, on the other hand, can't reproduce itself."

What I was trying to say is that a song, movie etc can be copied with much greater ease and speed compared with a bag or article of clothing. You may even say it spreads virally, which a bag or item of clothing cannot do. One obvious reason is because it costs much more to replicate a bag than a song. This is why the writer's analogy of someone downloading a song and someone stealing a Bloom bag is not a good one.

A better analogy would be: someone buys a Bloom Bag (someone buys the original version of a song) then make copies of the bag (enables downloads, i.e, copies of the song), then never pays me for copies of the original design (never pays the original producer of the song). But then this is exactly what I experience with Bloom; I don't have to imagine it happening, thank you very much. And this is the reason Louis Vuitton and Prada and what have you go after pirates. Copyright issues do impact product design as well as concepts and content, but they do so in different degrees and ways. This is why it is much harder to go after cyber pirates than a bag pirate.

We can be charitable and say the writer is not very good with analogies or we can say he has employed yet another fallacy - The Strawman. Here is a perfect example from the writer: "answer me one simple question: would it be ok for you if 9 out of every 10 bags that left your premises (whether they were ordered online or someone walked into your store is irrelevant) weren't paid for while the price remained the same? think about that for awhile and report back"

The Strawman works by misrepresenting an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

So in this example, the writer imagines he has destroyed my position with his simple (simpleton is the better word I think!) question about people walking in the shop and stealing our bags. The reality is with the poor analogy, he has set up a man of straw (easy to attack) that does not reflect the genuine situation facing Bloom in the matter of copyright. Simply put, the strawman works by oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Enough of his fallacies. Let's get to the issue of copyright, innovation, the welfare of the creator and societal benefits which is what policies governing copyright should focus on.

As I have said before, the copying of Bloom bags does not doesn't bother me much. Here I think it's insightful what another poster, someone who did identify himself (thanks, feddabonn) wrote: "i believe we may have gone too far on the 'individual as the final measure' and 'financial profit as the standard' ways of thinking. (do i have an immediately viable alternative? no.)"

I think if we are honest, as feddabonn, himself an artist, is, we can ask why we are so aggressive about protecting copyright. It's because we want as much money as possible for our ideas, our designs. The anonymous writer argues he wants to be compensated for his time and effort. He says "my main focus of this whole discussion is really about *just* compensation. a fair wage for a fair days work. that's all."

Fair enough, but what is fair compensation? How would you determine this? How much is enough compensation? How far into the future should one be compensated for copyright? Obviously, fair compensation differ for different products.

What I can talk about is Bloom. In the case of our bags, I think we are fairly compensated when customers purchase even just one of our bag, because there is a profit margin, a mark-up, which takes into account the time and effort to make the bag. You can be greedy and say, wait a minute, I should be compensated much, much more. Not just for that one Bloom bag, but for as many of it as possible, including the copies that are floating about in the market. But what would benefit society more? Going after these pirates in an effort to line Bloom's pockets, or concentrating on new product development and educating consumers on the merits of owning a fair-trade Bloom bag versus a copy bag? For me the answer is obvious.

To what extent should current and future revenue from a product or idea determine policies governing copyright? At all costs? Surely that does not bode well for society or for the advancement of technology and other products and ideas.

In the Businessweek article I mentioned in the previous post, a computer scientist at Princeton University took part in a contest sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America to test technology for guarding music against piracy.

"He and his students quickly found flaws in the new antipiracy software and prepared to publish their results. But when the RIAA learned of the plan, it threatened to sue under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Congress passed it back in 1998 to block hackers from breaking copy protection. And they wisely included a provision designed to let researchers such as Felten carry out their important work...Ultimately, faced with the professor's countersuit, the RIAA backed off. "The legal tools that are being used to rein in bad behavior are so blunt that they block a lot of perfectly benign behavior," Felten says. "That worries me."

Finally, what the anonymous writer thinks is the thrust of his argument: "but here's the kicker (again no malice.. are you with me?). cite me *one* example that you know of where a downloaded song, image or movie was morphed into another *meaningful* entity that is somehow making the world better for it? you made a pretty blanket statement there about the benefits of downloading stuff so i think you should back it up with some proof."

It is meaningless to talk about a "better" song, movie or image that was made better with filesharing, since we can hardly agree on what is "better" in matters of taste. A better example to use is technology, since most people can agree on what is "better" technology. And here there are obvious examples: Linux, the free operating system, and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, are examples of what has been achieved through collaboration on the Internet (filesharing included), even though the trend is still in its infancy.

One has to remember the issue with copyright protection in the music and movie industry is not new, as is noted in the Harvard study I pointed readers to:

"Music companies fought the introduction of radio in the 1920s, fearing the new medium would provide close substitutes to buying records. Since that time, the numerous attempts to bribe radio stations in the hopes of influencing playlists suggest the industry has come to see radio as an important complement to recordings (Coase, 1979). Similarly, the entertainment industry battled home taping and the introduction of the VCR, arguing the new technology “is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone” (Valenti, 1982). Once the Supreme Court decided to protect technologies like the VCR, it did not take the industry long to discover that selling videotapes (and now DVDs) presents a major business opportunity."

Most people are resistant to change. Not only to changing their beliefs, as noted in the opening paragraphs of this post, but also to changing technology and their environment (especially when there is money at stake). But history has shown that people can and do adapt to change. Often when this happens, especially with technology, there is progress and the betterment of society.

On a final note, this is the last of me entertaining this anonymous writer. Some people may wonder why I bother to reply to someone who hides behind anonymity ( I do know he is from Massachusetts in the US and I have a pretty good idea who he is). Singapore newspapers stopped publishing anonymous letters to the editors decades ago because it was decided anonymous writers firstly, show a lack of conviction and secondly, writers have to take responsibility for their claims. This is the policy of all major newspapers and magazines.

I bother to respond because I am interested in ideas and not in the person. However, my courtesy is not reciprocated by this particular writer. He writes about feddabonn, the other commentator: "when you as a lover or words have loved those words so much that you've *personally* invested your soul and time to write a 500 page novel that knocks my socks off with vivid, interesting characters, rich dialogue and description that can transport me to another world, report back to me. only then will i consider you to have some idea about what an artist is. heck, if you have enough commitment to knock out a short story, that would make me happy.

until then, posting a comment on a blog doesn't make you an artist (not in my eyes and hopefully after reading what i've posted not in your own either)"

Shameful. And revealing in how the writer again relies on another fallacy, the ad hominem which is Latin for "argument to the man", "argument against the man". It is a common tactic poor thinkers resort to when they are unable to attack the substance of the argument, and so attack the person making the argument.

In a way I am glad for this writer- he has demonstrated so many uses of fallacies that he has provided us with a case study of how not to argue.

For other readers who are serious on the search for knowledge and truth on the issue of copyright and innovation, again I encourage you to read the Businessweek and Harvard studies linked above. And do let me know when was the last time you changed one or more of your beliefs.

Socratic Method

Woo! My last post on piracy ruffled some feathers. I think it's great to have feedback and I do appreciate the anonymous writer posting his comments. I welcome arguments from readers as long as they are serious and well thought out. In this case, the writer makes some good points, like how piracy affects products and content (photos, movies, music) differently, for instance. But I disagree with many of his arguments and I will go into it in another post.

First a quick note to the anonymous poster who writes:

"first of all, it's a little hypocritical to stand up for torrent and free downloads when you've never even used torrent isn't it? (kind of like having a strong opinion on something you don't really have a meaningful relationship with yes?)."

It's strange to think one cannot have a strong opinion on a subject unless you've had a "meaningful relationship" with that subject matter. Unless you think one cannot have a view on abortion unless you've personally "tried it out", so to speak. How can one allow men to have an opinion on abortion in that case? Another example: many people (me included) have admiration for the technology that has put men on the moon, despite never having been in a space shuttle.

That's the thing about being human and why we have opinions on things even though we have never personally experienced them: we have imagination which allows us not just to imagine but also sometimes, to empathise.

The second thing just off the top of my head. What seems to be the writer's central argument is people taking Bloom bags to use (sampling) and then never paying for it or giving it back:

"i hope the analogy to strangers taking your bags for free makes it clear that when people download free music, that's essentially what they're doing... stealing it just as you would call it if someone came into your store and never paid for a bag."

But this analogy doesn't work. This is where the distinction between product and content is relevant.

A bag is a discrete object. Once someone takes it away, it is gone. Contrast this with a song, a photograph or a movie. You're not going to lose your original song, movie or image when someone downloads it. Multiple entities originate from that one song, movie, image. A bag, on the other hand, can't reproduce itself.

As mentioned I am interested in this topic and have been doing some research. Yesterday I read this Businessweek Commentary: Are The Copyright Wars Chilling Innovation? and also this one by Harvard Business School, which argues that weak (weak, not zero) copyright benefits society.

The point I am trying to make in welcoming feedback is the same as Stephen Fry's - let's get a discussion going. Most of us have only heard the established line "copyright promotes innovation" but hardly hear arguments to the contrary, and there are plenty of these, even research and statistical evidence.

I will go into the topic further some time later but right now want to say that discussions like these are great in general, as they force, all of us, to think better. It's called the Socratic Method. From wikipedia:

The Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate rational thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point.

So I welcome any reasoned arguments in the interest of promoting better thinking. Thanks again anon, you've brought up some good points and I'll think what my response to those are so I am clearer about my position on the matter of piracy. I hope you'll be clearer on your position too.

Go Pirates!

We live in exciting times. Followers of this blog will know I am a fan of The Pirate Bay even though I have never used BitTorrent--what can I say, I like mavericks. I must point out the reason I don't use BitTorrent is not because of principle, but because of laziness - there are other ways to get what I want online :)

We now have the world's first democratically elected Internet pirate, and the leader of a growing international movement that seeks to deregulate copyright, abolish the patent system and decrease online surveillance.

Christian Engstrom is a 49-year old Swede and a former computer software programmer. He represents the Pirate Party (no relation to The Pirate Bay), whose membership tripled, from 14,000 to 42,000 thanks in large part to the resulting publicity from the Pirate Bay trial.

According to Engstrom, who is the party's deputy leader, their goal in Brussels is now to "ensure that Europe chooses a better road into the information society." The message is especially resonant with the younger generation. In Sweden, one in five under the age of 30 voted for The Pirate Party.

The Swedish Pirate Party has inspired officially registered sister parties in six countries including Austria, the Czech Republic, France and Spain. Germany's "Piratenpartei" is the second largest, having snared nearly one percent of the German vote during the European elections.

Cool. I wonder if we can register a sister party here in Cambodia? Talk to me Anakata!

If you have not yet listened to Stephen Fry's talk on misguided copyright laws at UK's iTunes Festival, you must. It's an entertaining and eloquent attack, and I highly recommend it. You can find the iTunes link on Reddit (super sound quality) or can watch excerpts on Youtube (poor sound quality but with motion).

Fry said while downloading on an "industrial scale" is not defensible, making examples of ordinary people is the stupidest thing the record industry can do. Not only does this alienate its audience, it's stupid to put the average downloader in the same moral category as a person who steals and old lady's handbag (in the UK, copyright ads used to draw this comparison - this has been dropped in favour of more pandering ads - "Thank you for buying original - your purchase helps fund the movie industry").

Fry admitted he used BitTorrent to watch Hugh Laurie in the season finale of House when he did not have the bandwidth to watch the episode as he was in filming in Indonesia. Laurie is Fry's former comedy partner in Blackadder and Jeeves and Wooster) .

He noted many people (like students) who download music and movies through P2P networks do so because they love music and may be too poor to buy. They also like to sample music, to try out different things. But if they really like the product, they will buy when and if they are able to. A good example is Michael Jackson's music. After his death, many many people bought the "real thing" because they think it is worth paying for.

I totally agree. Very early on when I set up Bloom, I wrote as part of The Bloom Manifesto: "We believe intellectual property is only for those who can afford it."

I am interested in copyright, piracy and how it affects innovation because it affects me personally. As readers know, Bloom bags get copied all the time. But I have to let you know, rather than stifle innovation or make us give up, the copying simply forces us to be more creative, not just with designs, but also with marketing, how we position ourselves and get our message across. And that is a good thing, no?

Overall, I have to say I am not bothered much by the copying - ultimately it gives people choice, and that too is a good thing, no?

This is why I laugh when I read Hollywood lamenting how piracy affects their business. "Employment is affected, people who are actually making movies are affected, and in the long term the consumer will suffer because we won't have the high-quality content in the future that we have come to expect," said a spokeswoman representing UK's campaign group Respect for Film.

Yeah right. This is why Hollywood had its best year in 2008, taking in USD 9.78 billion. 2007 was also a record year for profits, growing 5.4 percent over 2006 by grossing $9.63 billion.

As MP Engstrom told CNN: "That's the way life is when you're running a business. Things change, technology changes and the business environment changes. Successful businesses adapt rather than whine."

Yeah Hollywood and record labels, the sooner you get used to disruptive technology the better, cos you can bet there will be more to come.

Vote of the day.com: the Future of Pirate Bay

Someone just left a comment on my post pirate bay sold to software company . Now, you can tell the founders what you think. One of the founders, I have learnt, is indeed in Cambodia. I can't give details but I am excited to have an accomplished pirate in our midst, kekekekeke.

The argument against the sale seems to be this:

[M]illions of users see this takeover as a death of the Pirate Bay they loved and adored. In blogs and websites all over the world they are crying that this is a clear sellout and the future of TPB is the commercialized site nobody will like. Capitalism won over ideals, they claim. They are sad, frustrated and disappointed. Users fought so much for the TPB - both directly and indirectly. This website was a symbol of freedom. They uploaded files, helped the site to become what it is today and now are dumped for cash. Finally, they will have to witness the deterioration of The Pirate Bay with their own eyes.

Personally, I think TPB had no choice. Either it goes legit or gets shut down. GGF, the software company that acquired TPB obviously thought it would be a shame to shut it down since there is a potential money in TPB. As for the users who are now crying foul, well, you're not the ones facing jail time and fines, are you?

But don't let me influence your decision. Cast your vote here.

Cambodia to go legal with HBO?

From the Phnom Penh Post, "Royal Group in HBO rights agreement":

"THE Royal Group's Cambodia Entertainment Production Co Ltd (CEPCO) said Thursday it had obtained the exclusive rights to distribute American cable network HBO channels to nearly 100 cable operators in Cambodia."

Wow, there are 100 cable operators in Cambodia--every town must have one, and every hotel group too.

The GM of CEPCO says there are 1.5 million potential viewers of HBO programming, but many cable operators illegally redirect network signals from neighbouring countries. Well, we have been getting HBO since moving to Cambodia in 2006. Right now in Siem Reap, we get it through an analogue wire from the TV company. How the company gets the images from Thailand I have no idea (I do know it is from Thailand because sometimes you see some messages giving instructions). I don't know if they use a satellite dish and pretend to be a Thai customer or do they get it through a cable to Thailand (unlikely).

The article continues:

"Cambodia currently has no legal access to the five channels operated by HBO, and the cost of accessing the channel - and any potential future channels - is likely to be passed onto the consumer, Ouk Vora said. He added that cable operators would have to upgrade to digital technology before they could start charging customers for separate channel packages - the cost of HBO's channels, based on experiences elsewhere, would set users back between US$7 and $10 per month."

Right now we pay USD5 a month for some 80 channels, so I already knew the channels are pirated. In Singapore, we paid at least 20 times more for far fewer channels. According to Mr Ouk Vora quoted above, legal set up would cost you USD7-US10 just for HBO's channels (and extra for Star World, BBC etc etc)

Anyway, I expect it will be some time before the Royal Group can start charging for their services, since the infrastructure has to be in place. Digital TV is a ways away for Cambodia, except maybe for the cities. There is no digital cable where we live, for instance, so the analogue cable has to be upgraded. And the better ones are fibre optic cables, not copper ones which is costly. Then you need the decoder or set-top box, which I expect will be beyond the average Cambodian (the Royal Group may give it free but you can bet they will get the cost back in subscription fees).

Still, it is good to see there are plans for Cambodia to upgrade its technology. Just last month, on the 12th June, television stations in the US completed the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting. This deadline was pushed back several times in the last few years because of both broadcasters' and consumers' inability to meet the FCC's [Federal Communications Commission, not the restaurant group in Cambodia!] criteria for a successful transition to digital broadcasting. The UK will start soon. We have been receiving digital cable in Singapore for a few years now. It is much better technology, clearer reception and you get additional features such as programme synopses.

If you want to learn more about digital cable, you can read the entry on wikipedia.

Pirate Bay sold to software company

Interesting. I wrote previously about Pirate Bay getting its 22 million users to pay a buck each for its legal fees and how one of the co-founders, Anakata, was rumoured to be in Cambodia. Well, here's the latest.

From torrentfreak.com:

The Pirate Bay Sold To Software Company, Goes Legal
Written by enigmax on June 30, 2009

According to gaming company Global Gaming Factory X (GGF) , it is in the the process of acquiring The Pirate Bay for $7.8m (SEK or Swedish Krona 60 million). The acquisition is scheduled to be completed by August and will see the site launch new business models to compensate content providers and copyright owners...GGF claims to have the biggest network of internet cafés and gaming centers in the world.

The changeover of ownership is scheduled for August 2009, whereby GGF will take over the operation of the site...

“The Pirate Bay is a site that is among the top 100 most visited Internet sites in the world. However, in order to live on, The Pirate Bay requires a new business model, which satisfies the requirements and needs of all parties, content providers, broadband operators, end users, and the judiciary,” said Hans Pandeya CEO.

Pirate Bay's co-founder in Cambodia?

A talented photographer tumnei (which means "having spare time" in Khmer) left a message on my post on Pirate Bay to tell me Britain's channel 4 news reported that one of Pirate Bay's four founders is in Cambodia.

That co-founder is Gottfrid Svartholm aka Anakata and the news was probably based on this torrentfreak.com interview with Peter Sunde, another co-founder.:

TF: We’ve heard rumors that Anakata traveled to Cambodia after the trial. Is he meeting King Kong there or is there another explanation?

Peter: I’m not sure if he’s in Cambodia - he travels a bit for a customer that he’s working with. But, I think he’s in Asia at least. And yeah, he’s probably drinking cider with King Kong one of these days.

Who is this client "King Kong" and where is he? Certainly not in the "jungles of Cambodia"! (People are often surprised when I tell them Cambodia is technologically quite sophisticated -- we have our own satellite dish for broadband internet, for instance, an option not available in Singapore).

Far from the jungles, I bet it is someone in the capital city, Phnom Penh. Is he Khmer or a foreigner and what does he want Anakata to do for him (I bet it's a him, too!). If anyone knows, please tell me! I am so curious...!

Anyway, here is the quote by the defense attorney, but no doubt he was being facetious

Day 3: The day began with the presenting of the amended charges. The prosecution then explained their damages claim. They reasoned that every download was a lost sale, and that’s where some of the charges come from. However, in the case where material was made available before official release, or in cases where there was no official release, they charged up to 10x as much. The defense argued that The Pirate Bay only offers a service, and some users use the service to break copyright. However, it’s perfectly legal (as per specific European Union law) to still provide that service. Per Samuelsson, one of the defense attorneys, spoke at length that the IFPI should be trying to find the users that made the copyright material available – users with such names as King Kong. He suggested searching the jungle of Cambodia for such a user.

From technews.iit.edu, the student paper of Illinois Institute of Technology, since 1897.

Pirate Bay - get 22 million users to pay your legal fees!

Cambodia, like much of Asia, is a playground for pirates. Of the cyberspace kind, not the deep sea kind. Not only can you get pirated DVDs and software for less than USD2 each, Cambodia even has its own national pirated TV channel.

When I first arrived in Phnom Penh in 2006, I was amazed at the TV channel that would play the latest Hollywood flick, complete with bobbing heads in a cinema, laughter from the movie audience and poor sound quality. Even more amazing: mangled English subtitles, Cambodian-style, which means someone took the time to sub the movie before playing it to Cambodian audiences. Perhaps it is Cambodia's version of public (i.e., government-sponsored) TV to teach Khmers English!

In between movies you would see "Sony DVD Player" as someone would change movie discs.

I grew to love that channel, my companion in insomnia. I remember re-watching "Fight Club" at 3am one morning and how happy I was. Alas, there is no such TV channel in Siem Reap. We also get different TV channels (no Star World, for instance) in Siem Reap, although we do get more than 80 channels. All for USD5 a month. How can cable TV be dirt cheap and Internet so expensive? It must be that all the cable TV channels we get are pirated too...

Today I read in The Local, Sweden's news in English, that the judge who sentenced the four guys behind Pirate Bay to one year in jail and US$3.6 million in damages is a member of the same copyright protection organisations as several of the main entertainment industry representatives.

I love the message the founders left on the Pirate Bay Web site after last Friday's sentence:

“Don’t worry - we’re from the internets. It’s going to be alright. :-)”

One writer, on inquisitr.com, observed there is a fine line between Pirate Bay and search engines like Google. Pirate Bay, like Google, does not host any of the files they are accused of sharing. It is just a search engine, like Google, except that Pirate Bay looks for torrent sites that contain both legal and illegal content.

"While using torrents actually is more difficult until you get use to downloading them both Google and Microsoft through their respective search engines provide direct links to easily downloadable files. so what is the difference here? Why is it okay for Microsoft or Google to use the exact same excuse that the guys running Pirate Bay used and yet while they go to jail, Google and Microsoft get a free pass."

So why go after Pirate Bay and not Google or Microsoft?

If the issue is Pirate Bay is small fry compared with the deep pockets of Google, well, they do have 22 million users . If each user were to stump up USD1, Pirate Bay will be able to hire the best lawyers money can buy.

I think the issue revolves around this: Google and MSN and what not can claim their searches are primarily not used for piracy. Only a fraction of Google searches are for pirated MP3 downloads; the bulk, they will claim, is legitimate searches. Whereas, I believe, most of Pirate Bay's searches are for illegal downloads.

To me, the case is like this: There's a hole in a bookshop and someone (Pirate Bay) found the hole and pointed people (Pirate Bay users) to it, whereupon they help themselves to the books. Can the person who pointed out the hole be held legally and financially responsible for the crime of the actual thieves? It's like the law cannot catch the 22 million thieves, so they are making a scapegoat of the four young men who found the hole.