Slashdot Mirror


Sweden Launches Criminal Probe of Pirate Bay Sale

uolamer writes with word that the Economic Crimes Bureau in Sweden has opened an investigation into the upcoming purchase of The Pirate Bay by Global Gaming Factory X. Quoting: "The Swedish newspaper SvD reported Saturday that authorities are looking for possible insider trading after Global Gaming's stock jumped a week before they announced plans to acquire The Pirate Bay. Trading of Global Gaming shares was halted by AktieTorget, a Swedish exchange, on Friday after officials there requested proof that Global Gaming had enough money to complete the sale. Global Gaming has yet to produce the required documentation. Until officials get the proof they need, they said they won't allow the stock to be traded again."

48 comments

  1. Stocks ROSE? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Okay, I can believe in insider trading, it happens. But why on Earth would stocks rise on the news of such a numbskulled idea as buying the The Pirate Bay. Are investors that daft that they think this is a good idea? The Pirate Bay made money, not huge amounts but enough to make it worthwhile, by selling advertising without having to charge for product (they co-ordinated the downloading of other people's). How can this potential buyer possibly expect to make money from the site when they're no longer facillitating the downloading of copyrighted material? If they try to charge for their service, which is what elsewhere has been said is the intention, then they'll find the users of the Pirate Bay vanish in short order. People used it because they got stuff for free that they'd otherwise have had to pay for. That's not a market that you can suddenly slap a paid service on top of.

    Buying the Pirate Bay is a terrible business decision. They're better off being blocked from it by the courts if they don't have the sense not to themselves! ;)

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    1. Re:Stocks ROSE? by skangas · · Score: 1

      If you believe themselves more than the music industry, they made square even when you also considered their expenses. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fkulturnoje%2Fnyheter%2Fartikel_827981.svd

    2. Re:Stocks ROSE? by mrbcs · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's the same as the Napster fiasco. They're buying the name in hopes of turning it into a legit operation. Umm.. good luck with that.

      Other people have pointed out that the summary tells us that their stock rose before they actually announced intentions to buy it. That's obviously stock manipulation from my point of view. Get the price high, dump the shit stock, then let the company go broke.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    3. Re:Stocks ROSE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand your point, but what you seem to be ignoring is the fact that piratebay is a BRAND. A few million is pretty cheap to buy a brand known throughout the world, and that is featured in the media daily (at least here in northern Europe). E.g. think about how much sex.com is worth.

    4. Re:Stocks ROSE? by Xemu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Buying the Pirate Bay is a terrible business decision.

      Not so terrible if they bought the Pirate Bay for the purposes of manipulating the share price. The share price went up significantly, and for the "lucky" souls who bought before the announcement and sold on the news, this has been good business.

      However it didn't soar as much as the CEO expected. Part of the payment would be in the company's own stock, and that payment assumed a valuation of the company at 1 billion SEK. It's magnitudes less, around 60 million. And even that valuation is crazy, because the company is so poor that it doesn't even pay its debts.

      The company is very suspicous and the investors are either stupid or blind. At least one of the board members have left GGF since the deal was announced. The last two auditors left a "tainted" audit that they were not satisfied. The auditors also had to go to the government collection agency to even get paid. These are not signs of a healthy company.

      Classic pump and dump scam, I think.

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    5. Re:Stocks ROSE? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I'd probably have bought stock then too if I knew, despite the idea being a complete brainfuck. Why? There's a great many thing that influence stock markets, one of them is how many want to get in on something and how many want to get out. GGF is in essence a very small company, if you manage to get the world's attention about anything, anything at all there's bound to be many idiot investors out there looking to get in on it. Not many compared to all investors, but many relative to the size of the company and that would make the stock rise. Then I could sell out and cash in a nice profit while they're still selling the concept before any actual results arrived to spoil the day.

      You really don't get it. Even spammed stocks make money, and that's from people insane enough to invest based on spam in companies they know nothing about. Here you got serious news reporting saying that the company have an agreement in place to take over a known brand and a business plan, it's a helluva lot more. And GGF is basicly on the size of the same penny stock companies that the spammers use. Stocks are a rather fucked up game that live by plenty other rules than real world results. It can build everything from the dotcom bubble, the investment bank bubble to lord knows what else that are built completely out of psychology, gullability, self-supporting circles and hot air. Trying to understand the stock market with ecnomics is like trying to understand society with a physics degree.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Stocks ROSE? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are investors that daft that they think this is a good idea?

      I'd say investors who engaged in the stock bump are either:
      1. Uninformed suckers who think that this is actually a good idea. (Most likely non-techies, probably older investors)
      2. People who think that they can make a bundle by selling the stock off to people in group 1. (i.e. people who know financial markets well)

      If you don't think that investors aren't often completely daft, I invite you to take a look at the wreckage of the thousands of VC-funded online businesses who never made a dime.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Stocks ROSE? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      People used it because they got stuff for free that they'd otherwise have had to pay for. That's not a market that you can suddenly slap a paid service on top of.

      Where can I buy downloadable hidef copy of movies without DRM so I can play it on my Linux XBMC?

      I would be willing to spend up to the cost of the physical medium in order not to have to worry about that knock on the door.

    8. Re:Stocks ROSE? by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      > think about how much sex.com is worth.

      Depends if you want it to stay the whole night.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    9. Re:Stocks ROSE? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "They're buying the name in hopes of turning it into a legit operation. Umm.. good luck with that."

      Actually, I'm sort of cheering for them. I don't hold out much hope, but I'm cheering all the same. Go ahead, ask me "WHY?" Well, since you asked, I'll tell you!

      Bit Torrent is nothing more, and nothing less, than a protocol. It shouldn't have a legal status, or an illegal status, any more than verbally enunciating ideas should have a legal status. No form of communication should be make illegal.

      If these people can actually make torrents work for a legal, reputable company, then we have less to fear from ISP's throttling or even stopping torrents. We, the WWW of internet users, NEED someone to adopt this technological protocol to lend it credibility. More generally, P2P needs to be recognized as an acceptable means of communications. As things stand right now, if you and your family & freinds are amateur photographers, and you have extensive libraries that you like to share between your households, the ISP can claim that you are all pirates, and shut you down.

      Yes, we need this.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Stocks ROSE? by zcold · · Score: 1

      your right, terrible decision, but read, "are looking for possible insider trading after Global Gaming's stock jumped a >week before they announced plans to acquire The Pirate Bay. " stock rose before the announcement, not when they announced..

      --
      you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
    11. Re:Stocks ROSE? by genner · · Score: 1

      "They're buying the name in hopes of turning it into a legit operation. Umm.. good luck with that."

      Actually, I'm sort of cheering for them. I don't hold out much hope, but I'm cheering all the same. Go ahead, ask me "WHY?" Well, since you asked, I'll tell you!

      Bit Torrent is nothing more, and nothing less, than a protocol. It shouldn't have a legal status, or an illegal status, any more than verbally enunciating ideas should have a legal status. No form of communication should be make illegal.

      If these people can actually make torrents work for a legal, reputable company, then we have less to fear from ISP's throttling or even stopping torrents. We, the WWW of internet users, NEED someone to adopt this technological protocol to lend it credibility. More generally, P2P needs to be recognized as an acceptable means of communications. As things stand right now, if you and your family & freinds are amateur photographers, and you have extensive libraries that you like to share between your households, the ISP can claim that you are all pirates, and shut you down.

      Yes, we need this.

      World of Wacrarft already uses bitorrent to handle updates. No ISP would block it outright so long as that's the case.

    12. Re:Stocks ROSE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying stocks makes them rise.

    13. Re:Stocks ROSE? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Bit Torrent is nothing more, and nothing less, than a protocol. It shouldn't have a legal status, or an illegal status, any more than verbally enunciating ideas should have a legal status.

      Agreed. However, unfortunately, there are specific verbal communications channels that are legally forbidden: alerting people to an imaginary fire, inside a theatre, for instance.

      That said, I wonder what the law would think of a cop suspense movie where the cop had drawn, but was reluctant to fire (on his rogue partner who he was romantically involved with, perhaps), and everyone in the audience starts shouting "fire, fire, dammit, just fire!" whether that would panic people, and if so would be a violation of free speech laws. (I love edge cases, it's like debugging!)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    14. Re:Stocks ROSE? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Novel has torrents of OpenSuSE. Canonical has torrents of Ubuntu and the various other *untus, and there are plenty of other examples.

      Bittorrent is perfectly OK for free distribution of your own stuff. If you want to distribute stuff illegally, there are plenty of better ways to do it where there isn't a single attackable point of failure.

      People generally don't like p2p networks for paid-for content due to higher bandwidth costs.

    15. Re:Stocks ROSE? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "bought on the rumour, sold on the news". The announcement and the news are the same thing.

    16. Re:Stocks ROSE? by Q-Hack! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      World of Wacrarft already uses bitorrent to handle updates. No ISP would block it outright so long as that's the case.

      And yet Comcast did exactly that...

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    17. Re:Stocks ROSE? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You kinda miss the point, though. A number of ISP's throttle P2P, and I guess some actually block it. The excuse given is, it's unimportant, and legality is always mentioned. P2P in general, and torrents specifically, shouldn't even be questioned at the ISP level - it is a legitimate protocol with legitimate uses, as you point out.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    18. Re:Stocks ROSE? by genner · · Score: 1

      World of Wacrarft already uses bitorrent to handle updates. No ISP would block it outright so long as that's the case.

      And yet Comcast did exactly that...

      I sorry what I ment to say was no isp would admit to blocking bittorrent.

    19. Re: Stocks ROSE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can this potential buyer possibly expect to make money from the site when they're no longer facillitating the downloading of copyrighted material?

      Is that the only possible use for bitorrent? Or maybe they already had a deal with the RIAA.

      Not that it matters, since someone cloned TPB.

    20. Re:Stocks ROSE? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Agreed. However, unfortunately, there are specific verbal communications channels that are legally forbidden: alerting people to an imaginary fire, inside a theatre, for instance.

      That's communications content, rather than communications channel. The GP is saying that no channel should have a legal status. E.g. in your example, it's not shouting that is an illegal act, but what you are shouting. In short, if action is to be taken against the illegitimate sharing of copyrighted material, then the target should be the content, not the protocol itself.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    21. Re:Stocks ROSE? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Bit Torrent is nothing more, and nothing less, than a protocol. It shouldn't have a legal status, or an illegal status, any more than verbally enunciating ideas should have a legal status. No form of communication should be make illegal.

      I don't think anybody's suggesting that the protocol be made illegal. But if someone started a site called "The Death Bay" and on it people could use random protocol X to share lists of people to kill, I don't think you'd see too many people defending them saying "Ah, but they aren't soliciting people to commit murder... they're simply facilitating communications between two parties using a wonderful protocol. Nothing illegal about what they're doing at all, no sir!"

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  2. It's very possible that it's a crooked deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, just because you like what the pirate bay does, doesn't mean they didn't break the laws (as it applies to stock and trades).

    This is not a **AA issue, or a rights issue.

    1. Re:It's very possible that it's a crooked deal by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      But the imagery is very much "Crimson Mutual Assurance Society". Corporate pirates!

      (Clears throat:) "I'd love to charter an accountant - and sail upon the wide AccountantSea..."

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:It's very possible that it's a crooked deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *The Crimson Permanent Assurance

      +1 python reference
      -1 failed python reference

  3. Plans for profit on Web 3.0 by nostriluu · · Score: 3, Funny

    Their plan is to make money off the residue of what TPB was. Their projection is that bots and spiders alone will generate enough advertising dollars to pay for the sale. Also they are working on a co venture with The Onion to expand on http://thepiratebay.org/legal

    PS why is comment posting so horrible (Using Firefox on Linux). its laggy and loses focus (not me, the comment box). Just give me plain text, please.

  4. So the saga continues... by swinferno · · Score: 1

    From the article on CNET it appears that GGF is about to go out of business. I wonder if TPB will then look for a new buyer.....

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
  5. Always loved Pirate Bay by dan5678 · · Score: 1

    Always loved Pirate Bay, didn't know it was being sold.

    1. Re:Always loved Pirate Bay by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      How's that cave treating ya? ;)

      Supposedly the new owners will make use of a different logo so as not to upset the faithful pirates who got tattoos and such of the current logo.

      I myself have a t-shirt. It was a bit pricy, but it's very high quality.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    2. Re:Always loved Pirate Bay by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      That deserves +1 funny. But, it's terribly unkind, all the same. GP isn't a cave dweller at all. Well, not since he moved here

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  6. RTFA by argent · · Score: 0, Redundant

    RTFA: "authorities are looking for possible insider trading after Global Gaming's jumped a week before Global Gaming announced plans to acquire The Pirate Bay"

    1. Re:RTFA by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try again, this time with the right emphasis.

      "Authorities are looking for possible insider trading after Global Gaming's jumped a week before Global Gaming announced plans to acquire The Pirate Bay"

      Before is implied by insider trading. The point is, someone with that info before the public thought it was a good idea, and was willing to pay more for the company stock based off of -- possibly -- the idea that they were acquiring TPB. The original poster's argument was "WTF? Are they all morons?", and that still stands.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:RTFA by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Insider trading is insiders telling investors about something they (the insiders) are going to do, to give those investors a chance to "get ahead". Generally the insider gets a cut of the profits the investor makes. Nothing in the GP's post indicates that he didn't know this.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    3. Re:RTFA by argent · · Score: 1

      Insider trading is insiders telling investors about something they (the insiders) are going to do, to give those investors a chance to "get ahead".

      And "getting ahead" may mean "getting a better deal on a stock that's going to be valuable long term".

      Or it may mean "getting the stock and selling it when it bounces after the announcement".

    4. Re:RTFA by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is knowing that the company is about to blow however many millions of Krona on a domain name that has nothing to do with your business really inside information that could cause the share price to rise.

      If I had that information, I would probably think about shorting the shares rather than buying them. And seemingly I would have made a loss on the deal.

  7. Stockholm Syndrome by thygate · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I also have a very hard time imagining that the new owners will be able to make a deal with the big studios to legally distribute their content. TPB has repeatedly mocked and humiliated them by publicly posting their legal claims and laughing in their faces. Do they really think Hollywood would want to associate with an entity that sodomized them in the past ? They must really believe in the Stockholm Syndrome

  8. When I first heard about the deal by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    I assumed it was a way of shutting down TPB by buying it.

    1. Re:When I first heard about the deal by genner · · Score: 1

      I assumed it was a way of shutting down TPB by buying it.

      That's not the intention but it is the result,

  9. RTFOP by argent · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The OP wrote "But why on Earth would stocks rise on the news of..."

    I'm pointing out that the rise was BEFORE the news. Which is, as you say, an indication of possible insider training. If insider trading was involved, it merely means that the insiders were expecting the stocks to rise even higher on the announcement. Betting on "greater fools" isn't a sure thing, but it's successful often enough to be worthwhile for someone riding the ragged edge of the law anyway.

  10. Funny, Sweden did not investigate the judge... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

    ...who was a member of local MPAA/RIAA, had a vested interest in the judgement and possibly a financial stake in the outcome.
    So, in short, a large corporate buys up a judge, gets custom judgement, makes donations to the politicians, and everything is A OK.
    But when a poor company buys a bankrupt company, that is criminally investigated since the bankrupt company went bankrupt without paying the large rich corporate....
    Wow!

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Funny, Sweden did not investigate the judge... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      WTF. Why TF didn't the authorities investigate the obviously crooked judge? I mean, I'm in another country and I can smell the corruption.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:Funny, Sweden did not investigate the judge... by itsanx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, they did investigate it. The investigation resulted in a 14 page document practically redefining the very meaning of "jÃv" (conflict of interest). The verdict is that there are several minor reasons to doubt the judge's neutrality but no single large enough reason. I think this type of reasoning proves that juridics is, at its worst, nothing more than word bending - building a seemingly coherent chain of logic, stating the severity for a set of non-absolute definitions, sum things up in a way that's favorable to your position while possibly excluding the opposing side's likewise arbitrary set of non-absolute definitions. In the end, it seems like it's mostly about making a convincing presentation?

    3. Re:Funny, Sweden did not investigate the judge... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      ...yes, when it comes to protecting its own, the Govt exceeds the expectations.
      Surprising.
      The same thing happened in Francea few centuries ago and resulted in the Monarchy being booted out to the Guillotine.
      The same thing happened in Russia in 1917.
      And we wonder why...

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  11. Truth stranger than fiction by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The story as I understand it:

    Business model: Arrange the free distribution of other people's intellectual property.

    Company name: Don't hide the business model. Call it "Pirate" Bay.

    Operation: Facilitate the distribution of pirated software, for years.

    Income: Sell advertising to companies that are not concerned about the business model. Make $3,000,000 U.S. per year.

    Arrange a sale of the company: Sale of what?

    The story today: The Swedish government investigates possible illegal activity by the buyer.

    The discussion today: We're discussing possible illegal activity by the buyer.

    1. Re:Truth stranger than fiction by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      "Authorities are looking for possible insider trading after Global Gaming's jumped a week before Global Gaming announced plans to acquire The Brooklyn Bridge from a trenchcoated man who lives beneath it"

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  12. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way I see it, there are four possibilities:

    1) This is all as they say it is and TPB is sold off and going to go legit.

    2) TPB has no insider knowledge or influence at GGF, and are pulling an elaborate "bait-and-switch" with this sale, selling the media companies a domain that is effectively worthless and the short-lived illusion that of having destroyed their most hated enemy. This make TPB guilty of selling by deception, but that's hardly a crime. ;-)

    3) TPB is on the inside at GGF (which would explain the insider trading), in which case they are committing fraud in addition to the above, and they had better pray nobody talks.

    4) This is all an elaborate double-bluff by the media companies, in which case we're all screwed.

    Case 1, TPB makes a hefty profit, but loses their site. Cases 2 & 3, TPB makes a profit and loses nothing; the media companies are left several million dollars out of pocket and with a sinking ship. Case 4, we all lose.

    Take your pick. 5 days to go; within a month we'll know for sure. :-)

  13. i really don't understand by shnull · · Score: 1

    is this a controlled model of a free market ... :?

    --
    beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)