You can read a confusing release from the supposed acquirer, Global Gaming Factory X, here, and an equally confusing post from The Pirate Bay’s operators, here. And The Pirate Bay guys, who are supposedly looking at a big fine and a jail term, say they didn’t actually own The Pirate Bay but will get some of the profits from the sale anyway and will use them to finance an “Internet project.” Etc.

Oh! And the Pirate Bay’s new owners say they can’t promise that copyright holders are actually going to get paid. Here’s Global Gaming CEO Hans Pandeya in the Financial Times:

However, Mr Pandeya said the company would not be able to compel any filesharers to pay content owners. “We are trying to create a different model that addresses the needs of the different parties. However, it is up to them if they want to participate,” he said.

So it’s understandable that Hollywood and big music are mute, or close to it, on the deal. Because it’s difficult to say exactly what the deal is. I was able to extract one statement from the IFPI, the international music trade group. Here’s chairman and CEO John Kennedy:

“We don’t know the details and there are many questions to ask about how this will work in practice, but we would be delighted if this resulted in the Pirate Bay turning into a legitimate licensed service.”

But let’s be honest: There’s no way The Pirate Bay is going legit. And if it does, it won’t be The Pirate Bay, but something else.

Instead of being a massive site that attracts a huge audience that wants to devour free content, it will be a small distributor of licensed content, and the masses will flock somewhere else for their free stuff. Because they don’t want licensed content, even if it’s legal and/or better quality. They want free stuff.

The movie studios and the labels should be able to pat themselves on the back, gently and cautiously, for getting The Pirate Bay’s current owners to more or less abandon the site.

The problem, as they’re well aware, is that The Pirate Bay was only a directory that sent users to “torrents” that allowed them to gobble up as much pirated stuff as they want. And shutting down the Bay doesn’t mean the torrents are gone. And it doesn’t prevent other directory sites from popping up, whack-a-mole style, all over the world.

My story about EMI’s lawsuit against Web music start-up Grooveshark elicited this email from Ben Patterson, who runs indie Web music distributor DashGo, about his experience with the service.

I think Patterson’s remarks are useful because they spell out Grooveshark’s business plan, or at least part of it: Charge labels to promote their acts on the service’s search engine. And I think it’s also helpful to hear an obvious but little-voiced argument about the “free Web music = valuable promotion” thesis: It works best when the act or label is playing along. With Ben’s permission, I’m publishing his entire email.

I’ll caveat this by saying they are nice guys and big music fans and I’m always rooting for new music services that work for bands and music fans alike.

Back in 2007 DashGo signed a deal with Grooveshark that basically amounted to a digital download service delivered via P2P. Users who used Grooveshark’s P2P service to search for songs would be presented with a download / buy link and the revenue would be split between fan hosting the file, Grooveshark and the band.

A couple months later we got a nice packet–a t-shirt, letter and wax-sealed, yes, wax-sealed, envelope with a check for $0.59 in royalties. (Coconut Records “West Coast” I think)

Then I didn’t hear much for 6 months. No checks, no real action. At the end of 2008, they reached out and told me about their new music search engine at listen.grooveshark.com–basically Seeqpod / Songza / all other stream song aggregators…not what we licensed for, but not egregious enough to get huffy.

Of course, that was before they offered to sell me advertising for my bands as the default search keyword. For $0.05 per search, I could make the default phrase “DashGo Band Name” instead of “Search here.” I had to ask–am I getting paid per play? No of course not. Because “[they] are not profitable and can’t afford to share that advertising revenue.” So I’m paying, not even for a play, but for a search term on a service where they have users and can sell ads ONLY because people can listen to music, and because it’s free, what incentive is there EVER to buy the song?

So we don’t deliver there anymore.

I’ll tell you why all these free streaming music services are broken–because they rely on music advertising to pay the rent but give away the advertisers product. If I got free McDonald’s and Budweiser by watching the Super Bowl, why would I buy the food? As an advertiser, why would I pay a CPC to advertise streaming music and promote listens when the per stream rate a existing subscription services is AT BEST $0.02 per play?

It sucks to get sued. I’m sorry Grooveshark, but really..what did you expect? You’re soliciting labels and bands to pay your bandwidth, rent and operating costs and giving away the product.

While I’ve got this soapbox out, let me preach one more gospel; offering free music accessible via a search engine is NOT promotional if the band hasn’t opted in.

If a user SEARCHES for the music and listens to it for free in an environment where someone ELSE has posted the music and the band doesn’t have the option to ask for an email address or even pitch a tour or merch or actual album; then the service is just ripping off the band by giving free content to someone who asked for it–not promoting it to a new fan or adding a filter that helps expose and distinguish music.

[Image credit: Mrs. Logic]

Rumor has it there are big games going on this weekend–at least one of which involves football players. The rest involve the usual players, though they might appear in different positions–and on different teams–from week to week. These games, most likely, will continue through Monday and beyond. Scores will be kept on an ongoing basis.

BoomTown wrote this week about a new game of tag taking Facebook by storm. Whether or not you’ve written a list of “25 Random Things” about yourself, you’ve likely read a few. BoomTown only gave up five, but they’re good ones. On defense, AOL announced it would lay off 10 percent of its workforce due to the overall ad meltdown; CEO Randy Falco’s memo to his troops is here. And whether or not AOL has buyer’s remorse over last year’s $850 million acquisition of Bebo, the company is not considering putting the social network up for sale.
BoomTown followed the tough love approach of Yahoo’s (YHOO) new CEO Carol Bartz, and liveblogged the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call, during which Bartz insisted (without mentioning Microsoft) that she wasn’t brought to Yahoo to sell the company. She also shared some canny-folksy wisdom–in the form of a chicken metaphor–about the value of the company as a whole, but it’s still a little early in the game to call that one. Of course, BoomTown had a few opinions about the unspoken Microsoft (MSFT) scenario.

Over at Digital Daily, there was a lot to be said about smartphones. Apple’s (AAPL) so-called “iPhone patent,” which would cover much of the Palm (PALM) Pre’s multitouch and gesture interface, has the potential to be a huge game changer in that race, if it’s upheld. And as if Palm doesn’t have enough to worry about, Sprint (S)–its exclusive carrier for the Pre–is rumored to be preparing to lay off 14 percent of its workforce in March, when the phone is expected to launch. Elsewhere in that contest, it turns out that Research in Motion’s (RIMM) BlackBerry Storm, which was largely panned by critics, is actually selling at a decent clip–one million so far in the U.S. No iPhone, but still, it could be worse. As Digital Daily noted, Dell (DELL) is said to be readying two phones to enter the market dominated by the iPhone, BlackBerry, and soon the Pre: one an iPhone-like Windows Mobile device, and the other a Pre-like Android device. Both could launch as soon as February, but greatness is not anticipated. Digital Daily also kept the tech job-cut score, which increased 74.2 percent from 2007 to 2008. Here’s a roundup of some of those affected.

MediaMemo had some interesting numbers to share: While Obama’s Inauguration was indeed a big day for Web video, it wasn’t as huge as some estimated. Exact numbers are impossible to measure, of course, but roughly 13 million people watched the ceremony online, while roughly 38 million watched on television. On an ongoing (and presumably growing) basis, though, numbers suggest that almost 20 percent of Netflix’s (NFLX) subscribers are using the company’s streaming service to watch movies online. That should increasingly morph back into the world of television as the company’s technology makes it simpler to stream directly to a set-linked device. In the world of print, things continue to look grim. Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc., in a standoff with its distributor, which upped its price by seven cents per magazine–has announced it will take its business elsewhere as of Feb. 1. If this is a game of chicken, it’s anybody’s guess who’ll win. And Time Inc.’s Ann Moore received a lifetime achievement award from the magazine industry’s trade group on Thursday. In her acceptance speech, she expressed her belief in the power of magazines and print advertising and her gratitude in the fact that she’s not in the newspaper business.

In Personal Technology this week, Walt Mossberg reviewed iLife ’09–specifically iPhoto, GarageBand and iMovie, with mixed results. In Mossberg’s Mailbox, it was all about Windows 7: Whether it requires new drivers, how it stacks up to XP, and how upgrades from XP and Vista compare with each another. Katherine Boehret reviewed the BlackBerry Curve 8900 in the Mossberg Solution, and liked it.

More next week.

In recent days the commission has subpoenaed Intel, AMD and a number of their PC-maker customers as part of a probe into Intel’s pricing policies, which some claim are engineered to maintain a near-monopoly on the chip market. Intel, which has long claimed that its business practices are well within U.S. law, did so again today in a statement announcing its cooperation with the FTC investigation. “The evidence that this industry is fiercely competitive and working is compelling,” it said. “For example, prices for microprocessors declined by 42.4% from 2000 to the end of 2007. When competitors perform and execute, the market rewards them. When they falter and under-perform, the market responds accordingly.”

But what if a competitor, say AMD, falters and underperforms because a rival is threatening its customers? What if it falters because a rival is using illegal inducements to dissuade PC-makers from buying AMD processors and “knee-capping” those who do? Which is what AMD accused Intel of in its 2005 antitrust lawsuit. In 2000, for example, Michael Capellas, then chief executive of Compaq Computer, allegedly told AMD that Intel had withheld the delivery of some microprocessors he needed for servers because of Compaq’s relationship with AMD. He told AMD he would stop buying from it, saying he “had a gun to his head.” And in 2004, Gateway officials are alleged to have told AMD that Intel “beat them into guacamole” in retaliation for their limited dealings with its rival. And these are but two incidents in a list that includes similar alleged acts of coercion by Intel involving 38 other computer makers, distributors and retailers.

At the Music Matters confab in Hong Kong, McGuinness slagged broadband Internet service providers, accusing them of aiding and abetting music piracy while CD sales and royalty payments to musicians plunge. “The recorded music industry is in a crisis, and there is crucial help available but not being provided by companies who should be providing that help–not just because it is morally right, but because it is in their commercial interest,” said McGuinness, adding that Internet service providers have been “turning their heads” away from the music industry’s troubles. “One way or another, ISPs and mobile operators are the business partners of the future for the recorded-music business. But they are going to have to share the money in a way that reflects what music is doing for their business. The music business once had to bear the accusation that it was full of dinosaurs who looked back to an old business model rather than embracing a new one,” McGuinness said. “Today, though, it is the music business that is charting the way to the future. If there are dinosaurs around today, I think they are the Internet free-thinkers of the past who believe that copyright is the great obstacle to progress, that the distributors of content should enjoy profits without responsibilities and that the creators and producers of music should simply subordinate their rights to the rights of everyone else.”

By Internet free-thinkers, McGuinness presumably means those crazy longhairs in Silicon Valley whom he accused of destroying the recorded music industry in another keynote address back in January. “Embedded deep down in the brilliance of those entrepreneurial, hippy values seems to be a disregard for the true value of music,” he said at the time. “I suggest we shift the focus of moral pressure away from the individual P2P file thief and on to the multibillion dollar industries that benefit from these countless tiny crimes: the ISPs [internet service providers] the telcos [telecom companies], the device-makers. … We must shame them into wanting to help us. Their snouts have been at our trough feeding free for too long.”

Out of the car, longhair …