What bothered us the most is that the item conveniently mixed file-sharing with commercial piracy, while linking it to organized crime, human trafficking and child prostitution. This setup is a bit misleading to say the least. That aside, the claimed role that piracy plays in organized crime is based on an MPAA-funded study we have previously debunked.

The MPAA’s stance didn’t really surprise us that much though. Their job is to manipulate public opinion in the hope that less people will engage in illicit file-sharing. But it was disappointing to see that CBS didn’t care to bring someone in to counter the arguments of the anti-piracy lobbyists.

No, instead they managed to get director Steven Soderbergh on, who joined the movie industry trade group by providing more twisted facts. Reciting the MPAA’s propaganda, Soderbergh said he wished the Internet was never invented. “Piracy is costing Hollywood $6 billion a year at the box office,” he told the reporter, adding that “as the margins of profit shrink, fewer projects get made, which means fewer people go to work.”

These statements are both inaccurate, or at least highly doubtful. The $6 billion statistic Soderbergh is referring to actually comes from an MPAA-funded report for which the sources were never revealed. In fact, the MPAA itself had to release a statement saying that they “made a mistake” with one of the figures, but they continue to use the report nonetheless.

Similarly, Soderbergh’s claim that “fewer projects get made” was debunked only last week after Sony boss Michael Lynton made a similar statement. The opposite seems to be true. Hollywood is far from bankrupt. In the past decade box office earnings actually increased significantly.

The only piece of the entire item that was pretty accurate and worth watching was the explanation of how BitTorrent works. John Malcolm, a former Director of Worldwide Anti-Piracy Operations for the MPAA shows that his work for the trade group paid off, as it turned him into a BitTorrent expert (video below).

The entire piece is disappointing nevertheless. It fails to ask the questions about why people download movies illegally and acts as if the movie industry is a powerless victim. Perhaps Hollywood should start to see the millions of illegal downloaders as potential customers instead of thieves. There’s a huge demand for online entertainment, so why not compete with piracy instead of spending millions of dollars fighting it?

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Then, a little later, Lynton hit back at his critics. He pointed to the leak of an unfinished copy of Wolverine, which appeared on the Internet (from a movie studio source who has never been identified) a month before its official release. As Techdirt pointed out, none of this hurt the movie.

Despite terrible reviews and this “devastating” leak, Wolverine still did very well at the box office, taking $35 million on its first day, beating both X:Men ($20.8m) and X2: X-Men United ($31.2m).

In a guest piece in The Times today, Lynton is complaining again. “Internet piracy means less money to make movies,” warns the headline.

Lynton begins by plugging Sony’s launch tomorrow of Michael Jackson’s This Is It, noting the importance of releasing it simultaneously worldwide.

“If Sony released it only in the US on Wednesday, by late Thursday it would be camcorded, uploaded on to the internet and available free to anyone with a broadband connection,” he said.

While absolutely correct, everyone also knows that the following is also true. The quality would be absolutely dire, Jackson’s singing would be punctuated by the rattling of candy packets and accompanied by a myriad of noisy cinema-goers singing their own version of his songs, probably all in D-Minor. The video would undoubtedly bring a whole new dimension to Black or White. People download this garbage but no-one enjoys it, and for good movies sales are not affected – but I digress.

“Online theft siphons billions of dollars out of the marketplace. That means less money to make movies. Projects get scaled back and others dropped. Some potential blockbusters won’t get made. Some new writers, actors and film-makers won’t get discovered,” writes Lynton, adding;

“Last year the leading Hollywood studios made 162 films — more than 40 fewer than in 2006, and the lowest number in a decade.”

But of course, just counting the “leading” studios doesn’t give the full picture. Even the MPAA’s own stats reveal a slightly different picture;

“The total number of films released domestically in 2008 was up 1.8%, to 610 films.”

So, if one casts the net slightly wider (yes, there is a world outside Universal, Warner, Paramount, Sony and Twentieth Century Fox), things look slightly different.

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1177 Total Combined Gross: $7,596,626,766
(2009 figures incomplete, total movies scheduled to be released, gross to date)

Admittedly less money seems to be being made per movie, but that hasn’t resulted in less being made – movie releases are set to almost double from 2004 to 2009.

But in the end, Lynton is arguing that more piracy means that less money goes into the studios’ pockets. But in an Ars Technica piece ‘What piracy crisis? MPAA touts record box office for 2007‘, the stats speak for themselves;

“..data that shows the US box office doing its biggest year of business ever in 2007, growing 5.4 percent over 2006 and bringing in $9.63 billion.”

So maybe 2008 was a disaster? Not quite. In another Ars piece ‘What piracy? Movie biz sees record box office in 2008‘, the stats also speak loud and clear;

“Domestic film box offices broke multiple records this year [2008], grossing an estimated $9.78 billion.”

Even the MPAA’s own stats reveal that the “Worldwide box office reached another all-time high in 2008 at $28.1 billion, an increase of 5.2% over 2007.”

I’m absolutely no statistician, but I simply find Lynton’s claims confusing. I can’t imagine that I’m on my own.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Earlier this month, blogger Aldor Nini (who also works for anti-piracy solutions company Easycom) wrote an independent article that was published on BuildBlog.de.

The post titled “UseNeXT: Legitimate downloading of pirated movies” gave a highly detailed account of UseNeXT’s operations, along with information on how the service operates in respect of pirated movie content. For anyone interested in the company or Usenet in general (and can take the anti-piracy objective and language with a pinch of salt), it is a must-read – but not without controversy.

As many people who have written potentially negative pieces or forum posts about UseNeXT will confirm, the company is very quick to notice such items, and in this case the reaction was no different.

Within two days the author and publisher of the post received “pre-litigation” letters from UseNeXT’s lawyers, ordering it to censor certain claims made in the article. UseNeXT says that they received information that the article had been sent to an employee at Warner Bros and are insisting that claims made within are erroneous and will negatively affect UseNeXT’s public image.

Article author Aldor Nini gave TorrentFreak a list of claims made in the article which he says are being disputed by UseNeXT’s lawyers;

The article claims that:

Undeterred, Nini says that he stands by his claims. “The comments are correct and true,” he told TorrentFreak, “and we’re looking forward to proving that!”

Nini also points out a section about free-speech on UseNeXT’s website, translated from German below;

“Everyone has the right to gain knowledge as well as to make public and disseminate, in written and spoken, his word by using the UseNeXT service. Nobody should be afraid to be discriminated due to his religious or political position by using the Usenet.”

Nini says that he believes that this is a great statement that should apply to everyone. Therefore his article will stand uncensored on both Usenet and the web.

TorrentFreak will monitor the situation closely and report on further developments and (possible) threats against ourselves.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Yesterday the court heard from iiNet barrister Richard Cobden, who described how
several of the plaintiffs and members of the MPAA had previously entered into contracts with BitTorrent Inc, the source of the official BitTorrent software.

He said that the logos of these studios appeared on BitTorrent.com (placed directly under the ‘free download’ link for the official BitTorrent client) and also on Mininova.

This lead Cobden to declare that the studios “….have engaged, at least from the logos on BitTorrent Inc, in the promotion of BitTorrent, the vehicle for all infringement in this case.”

Today AFACT barrister Tony Bannon criticized iiNet for these claims, describing them as “an excellent example of iiNet’s intent to focus not on legally relevant and factually indisputable matters but to focus on the legally irrelevant.”

Bannon said that the claims show that iiNet wishes to give the court the impression that his clients encouraged the exact same copyright infringement they now complain about in this case, going on to call the claims “legally irrelevant” and noting that the contacts with BitTorrent.com were terminated last year.

While Bannon insisted the details of those contracts are confidential, he was prepared to reveal that they included terms which required BitTorrent Inc to filter out torrents from their search engine which linked to illicit copies of the studios’ movies. He also said that iiNet knew that the contracts had been terminated but had not relayed that fact to the court, or when it spoke to members of the media.

However, an iiNet spokesperson seemed unrepentant. “The fact is the logos are still on the BitTorrent sites and serves the argument we are making, which is a couple of clicks away from where the logos are, you can download things. Part of the argument we are making in relation to all that is when it comes to what are ‘reasonable steps’ for iiNet to take about illegal downloading when they are not even asking BitTorrent to do the same thing?”

Earlier this week, iiNet had presented information to the court which showed that its competitors – other ISPs operating in a similar manner – also did not give in to AFACT demands that they should disconnect their copyright-infringing customers, backing up claims that iiNet had been singled out by the movie industry.

Tony Bannon criticized iiNet for producing this evidence, describing it as meaningless and “….an attempt to take the case outside of the real issues.”

AFACT boss Neil Gane briefly appeared on the witness stand and was questioned by iiNet barrister Richard Cobden. The exchange ended in a dispute over what confidential material can or cannot be used in the case.

Judge Cowdroy will decide on the issue by next Monday when Neil Gane retakes the stand.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The studios – Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network (all under the umbrella of AFACT) – claim that iiNet knew about the copyright infringements of its subscribers, yet did nothing about them.

The case, officially known as Roadshow Films Pty Ltd ACN 100 746 870 & Ors v iiNet Ltd ACN 068 628 937, is particularly serious, since its outcome could determine if ISPs can be held liable for the infringing actions of its customers.

Earlier, AFACT investigators claimed to have recorded around 100,000 copyright infringements carried out by iiNet’s customers using BitTorrent.

For the benefit of the court proceedings, AFACT presented just under 30,000 sample infringements covering 86 copyright works, including two Batman movies, Spiderman 3, Happy Feet, Pirates of the Caribbean and TV shows The Simpsons, Family Guy, Bones and Heroes.

The Angelina Jolie movie Wanted was the title claimed to be most infringed by iiNet’s subscribers, with Will Smith’s Hancock coming in second place. Both clocked up more than 1,000 instances of alleged infringement.

“By making those films available in those 29,914 instances, iiNet customers invited any and every user of the freely available BitTorrent software program to download any and every part of those infringing copies,” said an AFACT lawyer. He then went on to speculate that the 29,914 figure would have to be multiplied many times to get the overall picture of the making available carried out by iiNet’s customers.

AFACT claimed that it had sent information about these infringements to the ISP and demanded that iiNet disconnect the culprits, but the ISP did nothing.

AFACT barrister Tony Bannon also said that iiNet failed to enforce its own user agreement, which includes a clause prohibiting its users from using the service for illegal activities.

Bannon went on to argue that iiNet benefits from piracy since illegal downloaders use a lot of bandwidth and the more they use, the more the ISP makes. He said that disconnecting them would mean that iiNet would lose a customer, something the ISP wishes to avoid, hence the lack of action.

It’s always been somewhat of a mystery why AFACT chose to single out iiNet for legal action, particularly since all other ISPs in Australia have been operating on a similar basis. However, when iiNet made an earlier request to include as evidence how other ISPs responded to AFACT complaints, it was denied.

However, after Bannon gave a video presentation of AFACT’s investigator downloading Batman Begins using BitTorrent, Justice Cowdroy then asked if he could be shown other ISPs said to be facilitating file-sharing.

“Can you show me, Mr Bannon, how many other internet providers are providing the same sorts of information? What other ones right now are doing this?” he said, noting that that iiNet had appeared just four times.

Bannon could not recall the names of the other ISPs and the judge indicated he would be keen to see a live BitTorrent demonstration, rather than just a recorded demo.

The case continues. The defense will present its case later this week.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

BitTorrent: Attacked by Copyright Holders, Crushed by Courts, but Needed for Innovation.

The Pirate Bay and other P2P sites continually find themselves on the defensive. Copyright holders repeatedly threaten and sue them. Courts zealously document their contribution to copyright infringement. But copyright holders and courts ignore P2P’s vital role in fostering innovation. I would like to change that.

In my book, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, I examine (1) why copyright holders continually seek to quash new technologies, (2) why courts fail to appreciate P2P, and (3) why we should lament these developments.

First, I trace the long history of copyright holders reacting with alarm to new technologies that threaten their business models. John Philip Sousa bemoaned the introduction of the player piano, which would lead to “a marked deterioration in American music.” Jack Valenti warned that the market for copyrighted movies would be “decimated, shrunken [and] collapsed” by the VCR. And the recording industry, lamenting a decline in CD sales, has sued numerous P2P services.

In fearing the potential of the new business models, copyright holders offer a classic example of market leaders that fail to appreciate disruptive innovation. A decade ago, the recording industry responded to Napster, which was striving to be “the online distribution channel for the record labels,” not by striking a deal that would have seamlessly transported the industry into the digital era, but by suing it. While the record labels may have won the battle in shutting down Napster, they began to lose the war, as former users migrated to other P2P networks.

Nor are copyright holders the only ones that fail to appreciate the new technologies. Courts also do. Why? Because of an innovation asymmetry. Courts downplay the future benefits of new technologies and overemphasize copyright owners’ present losses. Copyright owners offer evidence of losses from infringement on a silver platter.

In contrast, non-infringing uses are less tangible. It is difficult to put a dollar figure on the benefits of enhanced communication and interaction. And when a new technology is introduced, no one knows all of the beneficial uses to which it will eventually be put. I offer numerous examples of this (including, just to pick two, the telephone, which Alexander Graham Bell thought would be used to broadcast the daily news, and the phonograph, which Thomas Edison thought would “record the wishes of old men on their death beds”). This asymmetry, combined with costly litigation (which ensnares small technology makers in a web of complex tests and unaffordable lawsuits) explains why courts do not sufficiently appreciate P2P.

This lack of appreciation threatens innovation. As this site’s readers are well aware, BitTorrent and other P2P protocols offer revolutionary forms of interaction and distribution. By breaking up large files into many small pieces, BitTorrent speeds up transfer, allowing the distribution of numerous works, such as home movies, independent films, TV shows, video games, educational videos, computer software, and high-resolution images. Just a few of many examples discussed on this site that have utilized BitTorrent include (1) computer manufacturer Asus, which offers fast, cheap software updates, (2) the airing of a high-definition movie in Norway, and (3) FrostWire’s offering of a service that promotes music of new artists.

Courts’ failure to appreciate P2P and BitTorrent threatens to stifle the development of new business models that attempt to free participants from the shackles of traditional distribution methods. Independent artists would find it much more difficult to break away from mainstream record labels if they lacked an inexpensive method of rapidly and widely distributing their work. Independent filmmakers would no longer be able to reach the masses, instead having to rely on boutique movie theaters or direct DVD mailings.

And of course, we can only see the tip of the P2P innovation iceberg. To pick two of countless examples, in my book I explore potential P2P benefits in providing alternatives to the Google search engine and cloud computing.

In short, the trend—as typified by developments such as the Pirate Bay decision, Malaysia’s order to shut down the tracker LeechersLair, exorbitant statutory damage awards, and various “three strikes” legislative proposals—is to clamp down ever harder on any technology that could contribute in any way to copyright infringement. But in squeezing technologies in this infringement vise, courts and copyright holders threaten to suffocate P2P innovation.

Michael’s book ‘Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law’ is available on Amazon.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Meanwhile, a report from a political advisory committee in The Netherlands is calling for harsher copyright legislation. Presently, downloading movies and music for personal use in The Netherlands is seen as “fair use” and not punishable by law. In their advice to the government, the committee suggests changing this position in order to reduce the mass downloading that they say has become a national sport in the country.

Interestingly, the committee recognizes that the entertainment industry caused the piracy problem themselves, at least in part. They therefore say that tougher anti-piracy legislation should only be implemented if there are enough legal alternatives, something that’s lacking in The Netherlands at the moment. This all sounds very reasonable compared to what is being proposed in the UK.

The long awaited Digital Britain report was published this week, a road map of how the entertainment industries and ISPs should tackle online piracy. In short, the government proposes to track down and warn people who share copyrighted content. The personal details of repeated copyright infringers will be handed over to the entertainment industry, if they have a court order.

In reality this means that everything stays pretty much the same. UK ISPs have already started warning their copyright infringing customers last year, and the details of many alleged downloaders have been given out to the rights holders represented by law firms such as Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law. However, if the warning letters fail to decrease the piracy rate dramatically, things may get very nasty in the UK.

The report points out that when the warning letters fail, ISPs may be forced to reduce the connection speeds and download limits of individual customers, block access to sites such as The Pirate Bay or pull a Comcast and block BitTorrent traffic altogether. In addition, ISPs may block specific ports if needed and spy on their customers download habits though DPI techniques.

Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse we stumbled upon some worrying news surfacing in Lithuania this week. The local anti-piracy body LANVA has proposed a rather far reaching agreement to the country’s ISPs. LANVA suggests that the ISPs start monitoring their customers’ browsing and downloading habits and report any suspect behavior back to them.

In addition, the anti-piracy group wants access to the ISP’s servers within 24 hours if needed, and the personal details of any of the ISP’s customers who are suspected of copyright infringement. The content creators on the other hand will have to equip all their products with DRM to “minimize” the piracy rate.

Not only do these proposals violate several human rights, the proposal to add DRM to all products will only have the opposite effect when it comes to reducing piracy. LANVA’s boss has previously received death threats for going after pirates and we’re beginning to suspect that this has seriously impacted his sanity.

It’s doubtful that these proposals throughout Europe will have the desired effect. If anything, it will encourage those who use file-sharing networks to share copyrighted works to become more cautious. Indeed, less then a week after the anonymous BitTorrent download application BitBlinder launched they already have 30,000 users, and The Pirate Bay’s VPN service currently has close to 200,000 people on the waiting list.

If people don’t like these laws, they will find a way to neutralize them. There is no technical solution to the piracy ‘problem’.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

In film circles, Pallotta is known for his outstanding animation work that defines most of his work thus far. His last film, A Scanner Darkly starred Keanu Reeves and was a smash hit on BitTorrent. With more than a million downloads, the movie earned a place in our list of Top 10 most downloaded movies four weeks in a row.

Pallotta’s latest work is something totally different though. It’s a follow up documentary to film legend Martin Scorsese’s cult-classic American Boy that was shot more than thirty years ago. In American Boy Scorsese documented the life of his friend Steven Prince, who was also the inspiration for one of the best known scene’s in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. With American Prince Pallotta continues the saga.

Since Scorsese’s original documentary is a rarity nowadays, Pallotta had to ‘pirate’ much of his material on BitTorrent sites and YouTube. In return, Pallotta is giving the film away for free on BitTorrent. This of course caught our attention and we decided to catch up with the director to lear a little more about his motivation to embrace BitTorrent.

TF: First off, A Scanner Darkly – which you produced – became quite successful on BitTorrent and was downloaded by hundreds of thousands of people. Were you aware of that at the time? What do you think of people who use BitTorrent to download the film?

Tommy: Really, A Scanner Darkly was successful on BitTorrent? GREAT! I wish it was more so, I have to admit, I get jealous when I look at the top 100 downloads on the trackers and I don’t see my movies. In fact, part of the reason I am releasing American Prince on BitTorrent is for the hope that it breaks the top 100. I live in Amsterdam now, so the only way I can keep up with some of my favorite shows, events, and films is to download. I think it is great, especially for filmmakers of niche movies. My movies tend to get limited releases and are more of the cult film status, so the initial release is often overlooked or simply the movie is unavailable in many areas. For me as a filmmaker it is most important that the work I make get seen. I feel for many people and places, downloading is the only way they will get to see my movies. Waking Life is a movie that I produced that is a pretty interesting example of that. It seems more popular today that when it came out in 2001. I think BitTorrent and steaming sites like YouTube are completely responsible for that phenomena. Since I use BitTorrent, I wanted to give back to the community, that was part of the motivation is releasing American Prince via BitTorrent.

TF: The MPAA has often argued that the movie industry loses billions of dollars through piracy. Others think that it has close to no impact. What’s your position in the ongoing ‘piracy debate’?

Tommy: Well, everyone has a different opinion. It is pretty simple to me: The exact same thing that happened to the music industry will happen to the film industry. I suspect the film industry knows that and is trying to hold off the inevitable as long as they can. My guess is that they will try to make as much money as long as they can until they have to change or someone comes in and organizes and unifies the industry in the way Apple did for music. But even that is tricky because obviously Apple benefited more than the music industry. So they should be looking at alternative revenue streams, I find it hard to believe that many DVDs will be sold a few years from now. I would rather embrace new technologies and distribution methods, I feel this gives me greater and more immediate access to an audience.

TF: For American Prince you’ve used material from BitTorrent and YouTube, which is great. Did you license all these clips, or are they pirated copies?

Tommy: Yes we used material from BitTorrent and YouTube for American Prince and no, we did not license them. I did receive the Master copy of American Boy from Steven Prince himself, but we found a copy via BitTorrent that was better than that copy, so we used that! Plus, there is some confusion as to who actually owns the rights to American Boy. Part of the motivation of this film was to get a proper release for Scorsese’s American Boy. I felt this film would help uncover who has the rights and hopefully get it in front of a larger audience.

TF: Why did you decide to release American Prince for free on BitTorrent and what do you expect from it?

Tommy: Scorsese’s American Boy has been and is still generally unavailable for over 30 years, yet so many filmmakers have been influenced by it. The way we saw it is through multi-generational VHS tapes. Now with BitTorrent, there is a whole new audience and generation ready to be influenced by that film and I hope mine. Steven Prince is a gold mine of future cinema scenes and I hope a whole new generation of filmmakers will understand how he has influenced American Cinema. My biggest expectation is that the most people possible will watch my film! Also, I would really like to encourage people to talk about the film, with each other as well as on the Internet. It would make me happy to see Wikipedia entries and IMDB boards as well as Internet sites. I would love for people to get together and have screenings of it with their friends, or for universities to suggest to their class for the students to watch it. I look at American Prince as the film school I never had, what I always imagined film school to be.

TF: Do you think that the Internet and file-sharing technology will play an important role in shaping the future of film distribution?

Tommy: I absolutely believe how we watch and share movies will shape the future of film distribution. I believe it will have such a profound influence that it will even change how movies are made. I think it is a win-win for the filmmakers and the viewers. Filmmakers will have a more direct reach with audience and viewers have more to choose from. I wanted to release this film in support of file sharing and to prove to myself and others that it can have a profoundly positive effect.

TF: Amen.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The current wording of the proposals have strong opposition in Brazil and an online petition against the legislation has more than 148,000 signatures. There has even been opposition from other politicians, with the secretary of legislative affairs Peter Abramovay commenting, “This surveillance could turn everyone on the Internet into a criminal. The Internet is a space of freedom par excellence, and should not be a place of fear,” he said.

However, the senator pushing for the legislation should look closer to home, since an investigation by Congressoemfoco has turned up something of significant interest on the Brazilian senate’s intranet, which runs counter to their mission statement shown below;

To provide and manage solutions for information technology and communications for the Senate, and improve work processes, contributing to the excellence and ethics fulfillment of its institutional role for the benefit of Brazilian society

To Congressoemfoco’s surprise, what they discovered on the government servers was a small mountain of copyrighted movies, music and games in several folders. These folders are available to the Senate’s staff and the senators themselves, including Eduardo Azeredo, the senator pushing for tough legislation against pirates.

Accessing the material proved easy enough. Anyone on the network could make a few clicks to get access to the folders. One of them around 6.4Gb in size contained music from Nelly Furtado through to albums by Megadeth, along with Brazilian acts and more well known groups such as Pink Floyd. Other folders included many top-rated PC games. Movies didn’t escape either, with Hollywood movies such as Iron Man, a DVD screener copy of Gran Torino and Happy Feet, all available for download by those running the country.

Once the government found out about this situation, they took steps to remedy it, promising an ‘internal investigation’ although sources suggest that this will likely amount to little more than a quick band-aid application.

“A network with more than ten thousand users is not easy [to monitor],” they said.

Thanks Luiz

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

So Tuesday last week, May 26th, the Russian Federation Ministry of Internal Affairs Investigation Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs conducted a raid against the founders the Interfilm BitTorrent tracker.

During the raid on the site’s Moscow headquarters, the police arrested the founders of Interfilm, a married couple known online as ‘Ripper’ and ‘Nadezhda’ and several site staff. The authorities claim that the Interfilm tracker is a major source of cammed movies and also has an arrangement with piracy groups outside the country to exchange the latest releases.

Russian anti-piracy group RAPO (a founder member of the MPA) claims that the site carried advertising and although users had free access to the site, higher download speeds could be achieved by making a payment to the site’s owners.

Although Interfilm reportedly went down after the raid, it is now apparently fully operational, hosted by LeaseWeb in The Netherlands.

Russian media is speculating that the owners of Interfilm are facing up to six years in jail and a fine of 500,000 rubles (approx $16,200) if convicted under Part 3 of Article 146 of the Criminal Code.

According to lawyer Victor Naumov, a legal loophole which saved the owners of AllofMP3 is unlikely to help the operators of Interfilm. “In the past there were different interpretations of legislation in the field of copyright, but now if a distributor of films or music is not in a licensing agreement with the rights holders, the violation is right there,” he said.

Following the arrests, the Producers Guild of Russia says it intends to push for changes in the law which would force ISPs to prevent illegal file-sharing.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The judge acknowledged that the man indeed downloaded the files “without consent of the copyright holders” in 2003 and 2004, but ruled that he only did so for for “private use or sharing with other Internet users.” There was no financial gain, so no crime has been committed and the defendant walked free.

This is not the first time a Spanish court has ruled in favor of a file-sharer. In 2006, a man was similarly acquitted, and more recently it was ruled that websites linking to p2p downloads (torrents for example) operate within the law. Spanish law dictates that there has to be “an intent to profit” for someone to be held liable for copyright infringement.

Not everyone agrees with Spain’s liberal view on copyright infringement. According to the US, the Spanish government has done little “to change the widespread misperception in Spain that peer-to-peer file-sharing is legal.” However, as the courts show time and time again, this is no misperception – it is how the law spells it out.

Since sharing files on BitTorrent and other file-sharing networks is legal, it is no surprise that Spain tops the list of countries with the most recorded copyright infringements. Close to 25 million were counted by the piracy tracking company BayTSP in 2008, mostly on BitTorrent.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Blue Gold : World Water Wars from director Sam Bozzo is a movie about one of planet earth’s most precious resources – water. It examines the ‘future’ for water and how various corporations are plotting to control its supply, how governments use water for political gain and how the control of this essential liquid could be the source of future military conflicts.

Of course, when anyone uploads a movie to the Internet in breach of copyright, there is always the chance of a different type of conflict – one with the entertainment companies and their anti-piracy allies. However, this particular movie is independent and less likely to attract that type of attention. Perhaps because of this and a warmth towards independent creators, the movie’s BitTorrent uploader godcanjudgeme added a note to his release on The Pirate Bay, encouraging people to financially support the movie by giving donations to the creators via their website.

Then something surprising happened. “A message was sent to a third party ‘acquaintance’ of mine, from the film’s producer Sam Bozzo,” godcanjudgeme told TorrentFreak.

Dear Torrent users,

I thank all of you for your interest in my film. When I read the book Blue Gold, I knew immediately I must utilize my film talents to relay the urgency of prioritizing our fresh water management for the survival of our race. I had no idea of the financial and physical risks that making this film would entail at the time, and if I did I honestly would not have made the film. Luckily for the world, the film exists, and so it is my goal to follow the advise of the first press review which proclaimed “Every person on the planet must see this film”. In this respect I thank godcanjudgeme for uploading this torrent and bringing a new audience to the film.

I have seen film festival audiences around the world transformed by the stories of the heroes of the water wars. I am thrilled that in the US and Canada the DVD is available via shoppbs.org and amazon.ca respectively. I respect the internet community that chooses to view films through torrents like this for whatever reason. In fact my first documentary, Hackers Wanted, focuses on the philosophy of true hackers and their journeys exploring cyberspace.

It is important to understand that independent films costs a great deal of personal finances to create, in this case over $100,000. In order that I may make other films in the future, I must at least make my money back. I respectfully ask that if you download the film you consider donating $5-$10 to the further publicity of the film via PayPal on my site www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com. Also consider reviewing the film favorably on IMDB and recommending that others buy the DVD.

To be honest, at first I was upset to see this torrent, this film ‘leak’, but some good hacker friends have suggested I embrace the opportunity to reach a new audience, and I feel honored to be doing so!

So what inspired godcanjudgeme to upload the torrent in the first instance?

“I had received a number of requests for “Blue Gold : World Water Wars” after uploading another documentary entitled “Flow : The Love Of Water” which runs along similar lines,” he told TorrentFreak. “It is a topic which should be close to everyone’s hearts. The main reason for uploading “Blue Gold” was that it simply wasn’t available outside America, and so many people were wanting to see it,” he added.

Godcanjudgeme explained that he firmly believes that the downloaders of this particular documentary are not the average ‘hit and run’ movie grabber.

“I felt that in this case these are people that would have gone to a screening or purchased a copy if it was an option,” he told TorrentFeak. “Therefore I truly hope people will realize that independent filmmakers do need our support. If this were a multi million dollar production I could expect no consideration for the producers of the film, but in this case however it was decided to ask that people give something in return to the persons responsible for providing not only entertainment but insight.”

“We all have movies that we have downloaded for free,” he added, “probably large numbers of them, in this case I think it’s time to show our support.”

Since Sam Bozzo is embracing BitTorrent, it seems appropriate to add links where people can download the movie. And in the spirit in which godcanjudgeme uploaded the movie, please consider donating.

The DVDRip can be downloaded from OneBigTorrent or The Pirate Bay .

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

But what if a throwaway comment about torrents via Twitter was enough to put a movie studio in direct contact with you in a matter of minutes? This is what happened to photographer, writer and Twitter user Amanda Music, as she wondered;

Ugh WHY IS ADVENTURELAND NOT ON TORRENTS YET?

Amanda told TorrentFreak, “My friends and I usually wait to download cams of movies. We have yet to find one for Adventureland. So I was Tweeting about it. My friends were too though, but I guess they didn’t put torrent & Adventureland in the same sentence.”

It seems these keywords were being monitored by Hollywood studio Miramax, presumably to find out quickly when their movie hits the web. But instead, Miramax actually responded to Amanda and asked her not to use BitTorrent to get the movie;

Cmon Amanda, don’t do it. #adventureland #fbi

“Miramax found my Tweet through a search and told me not to do it. In a nice way,” Amanda told TorrentFreak. “I had already looked for the torrent and didn’t find one so I decided to reply and say that I wouldn’t download it. I was joking in a way.”

Amanda replied to Miramax, “Okay I won’t, JUST FOR YOU,” but to her surprise they responded again.

And Miramax were true to their word – almost. They provided Amanda with a code for a single free ticket and since Amanda is currently in New York City, she will go see Adventureland today.

“I was pretty surprised about it,” explained Amanda. “I couldn’t find a working Adventureland torrent anyway.”

thanks to iheartmovies

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The studios stated that they were suing iiNet for “failing to take reasonable steps, including enforcing its own terms and conditions, to prevent known unauthorized use of copies of the companies’ films and TV programs by iiNet’s customers via its network.” The studios had demanded that iiNet disconnect alleged infringers based on the evidence collected when they spied on iiNet’s subscribers, but the ISP refused, hence the legal action.

The case, officially known as Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Ltd (but commonly referred to as AFACT v iiNet Ltd) was filed on 20 November 2008 and the parties were in federal court today. During a previous hearing in February, iiNet vigorously denied it had ever authorized its subscribers to commit copyright infringement using BitTorrent, but had not yet come to a decision over whether it was prepared to admit its customers engaged in copyright infringement at all. In part, today’s motion was intended to get iiNet to make a decision.

However, iiNet still refused to admit that its users engaged in illicit file-sharing, even in the face of evidence provided by Danish anti-piracy tracking company DtecNet. The studios say that the DtecNet evidence, when cross-referenced with the ISPs own logs, will prove infringement took place.

“How you [iiNet] can not admit that films are being made available online [by iiNet users] is, quite frankly, beyond us,” said AFACT counsel Tony Bannon. “As soon as they [iiiNet] admit there are infringements going on in their system and they do nothing, the authorization case is almost a shut door,” he added.

iiNet’s counsel Richard Cobden said that he had only recently received required additional information but now the defense has that, iiNet would make a decision on admitting infringement – or not, on April 1st 2009. iiNet does not have to admit that its users infringed and if it takes this track AFACT will have to prove as much instead.

One interesting line of discussion leading up to the admission (or otherwise) on April 1st, involves some of the mechanics of BitTorrent. The defense is questioning if transferring files via BitTorrent is equivalent to “making available to the public”, since BitTorrent transfers take place on a one-to-one, individual-to-individual basis.

The defense is also querying that since BitTorrent transfers are made by breaking up files into thousands of pieces when uploaded, this may not be enough to prove that any subscriber uploaded a substantial part of a file, which is required for ascertaining infringement under the law. For their part, the studios say these two issues are irrelevant.

One seemingly ridiculous claim from the studios is that iiNet’s customers not only illegally downloaded and distributed copyright movies, but also burned them onto DVD in order to share them with their friends, or even sell them. Good luck with getting DtecNet to prove that, it’s impossible, particularly since the studios have already admitted they don’t know who the alleged infringers are.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the case is that according to the studios, as soon as they report an alleged infringement to the ISP, the ISP is now aware that infringement is taking place and is obliged to take action under the law. If it fails to take action the ISP is breaking the law by effectively authorizing the infringement, opening itself up to damages claims. One strike and you’re out?

The full case will be heard in October.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

A recent post by isoHunt founder Gary Fung inspired us to run a poll. We know that TorrentFreak readers might not be representative of the average file sharer, but we would love to find out why you use BitTorrent. The following poll has four answer options, based on the four types file-sharer, as described by Lawrence Lessig in his book Free Culture.

The options are as follows.

1. Because it’s free

Some use BitTorrent to download music, movies and software so they don’t have to pay for them. Instead of purchasing a CD or buying a DVD, they prefer to download it for free on BitTorrent.

2. To ‘try before I buy

The second type uses BitTorrent mainly to sample content and try before they buy. They download music to discover new artists and might end up buying the album if they like it. Similarly, they try software or download movies but buy them when they live up to their expectations.

3. Because I can’t get it elsewhere

The third group mainly downloads content they can’t get elsewhere. The TV-show that it not on TV in your country yet, or that song you can’t buy easily online without having to deal with all kinds of digital restrictions.

4. To download ‘legal’ torrents

The last type of file-sharer mainly downloads content that the creator wants to share for free, often indicated by the misleading term ‘legal torrents’. Music from Jamendo for example, or films that are ok to share.

So where do you fit in? Let us know.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Tobias Andersson was briefly questioned about the speech Fredrik Neij (TiAMO) gave after the TPB raid in 2006. Andersson told the court that he wrote the speech for Neij, since speech writing isn’t Neij’s thing. Andersson’s appearance was over in a few minutes and by 9:15 John Kennedy was testifying in English, through a Swedish translator.

IFPI’s John Kennedy confirmed he was the CEO of IFPI and summarized his duties there, noting the group has 1500 members worldwide and it’s main aims were to ‘improve’ copyright laws through government lobbying and fight piracy around the world since “piracy has done immense damage to the music industry.” Kennedy says that IFPI takes up strategic litigation against various targets worldwide.

Kennedy said that for a long time the industry sold its product in physical form (and experienced a limited piracy problem) but with the advent of digital music this situation has grown worse, with some claiming that copyright didn’t even exist in the digital world. He noted that the main sets of previous litigation were in the US (Grokster) and Australia (Kazaa).

Kennedy then said how pleased the music industry was with the legal wins against these two companies and in the wake of their demise, The Pirate Bay took their chance to develop their business. Kennedy said he first heard of TPB in 2004 and it was quickly becoming the #1 source of illegal music and this was damaging to the industry.

Kennedy noted the transition to digital music was a great threat to them, and although more music is currently being consumed than ever before, “less is being paid for than ever before.” If music is available for free, says Kennedy, many people find that temptation too much to resist and new business models can’t flourish.

The discussion then moved to the claim for damages. Kennedy said the claims were “justified and maybe even conservative, since the damage is immense.” Talk moved to the link between the cost of downloading legally and the claim for damages. Kennedy said that for the industry, CDs were more profitable than digital downloads are today.

He said that artists, studio producers, songwriters, music publishers, studio staff and the marketing and promotion people all have get paid and the music industry spends more money than most other industries on R&D. It invests 20% of its revenue on finding new artists and although some suggest that this isn’t needed in the Internet age, they are wrong said Kennedy.

Kennedy went on to explain that music marketing is designed to take effect in “Week One” of an album’s release and in an ideal world a new release would chart at #1 and would reach its sales targets in that first week. But if products are made available on Pirate Bay during that time he said, “then purchases are taken out of the market and because of the illegal use of music, the legal use of music under-performs and in some countries that can have a dramatic effect.”

Kennedy was asked about CD sales in the last 10 years. He said they dropped from $27 billion to $18 billion. He said that the Top 10 CDs in 2001 sold 69 million units and the Top 10 CDs in 2008 sold 46 million units. 9 years ago the #1 record sold 13 million units but in 2008, Coldplay sold half of that.

Kennedy was asked what impact legal downloads have on these figures, but he denied they made up the difference. The music industry has always relied on young people for sales he said, and these same people have got used to using illegal sites. “Many legitimate sites have struggled to compete with free. It’s impossible to compete with free,” said Kennedy.

When put to him that some claim that illegal downloading promotes sales, Kennedy labeled this as old-fashioned thinking and said that people don’t think this way anymore. When asked about P2P providing live performance promotion, Kennedy said that every single live performance success is linked to a previously successful recording career/sales.

When asked about the differences between TPB and Google, Kennedy said there is no comparison. “We talk to Google all the time about preventing piracy. If you go to Google and type in Coldplay you get 40 million results – press stories, legal Coldplay music, review, appraisals of concerts/records. If you go to Pirate Bay you will get less than 1000 results, all of which give you access to illegal music or videos. Unfortunately The Pirate Bay does what it says in its description and its main aim is to make available unauthorized material. It filters fake material, it authorizes, it induces.”

Kennedy says TPB threat is growing all the time. “They are proud of this with their statistics – there are 22 million users, 1 million visitors each day, 1.6 million .torrent files and they say they are responsible for 55% of BitTorrent traffic. They pride themselves on the quality of what they deliver.”

When questioned about the IFPI’s 10X damages multiplier for pre-release material, Kennedy felt this was fair considering the damage it does to the launch of a product. Kennedy says they have teams of experts monitoring the Internet everyday for piracy.

He went on to say that people who download music from TPB spend much less on music than they would otherwise and if they didn’t get it for free they would buy it. “It is common sense, if they couldn’t get it for free they would buy it and when we ask them, they confirm that.”

When asked if downloaders have less money than others, Kennedy said that younger people have the money but just don’t spend it on music anymore. Kennedy said that the reduction in sales in the music industry is directly attributable to illegal downloading.

When asked about scientific research on the issue, Kennedy said that of several reports, only one said there was no causal link between file-sharing and lost sales – all the rest say there is. Discussion of certain reports on the issue took place, with defense lawyers questioning Kennedy on the details of the reports.

The defense lawyers pointed out that in one of the reports Kennedy refers to, lesser known artists appear to be downloaded a lot on TPB but Kennedy said although he is 56 years old, he recognizes nearly all of the artists in the TPB Top 100 list.

Carl Lundstrom’s lawyer asked about the profit on the industry’s $18bn turnover from 2008. “Terrible,” Kennedy replied. Of the big players “..only one company is making a profit.” Kennedy was pushed, if he knows the turnover, why doesn’t he know the profit. He said it was difficult to say.

He was also asked how much of this $18bn turnover is used to fight piracy, Kennedy said there are three main areas of expenditure. Funding the RIAA in US, IFPI globally and more local groups such as IFPI (Sweden). They all have budgets and a large proportion of this is used to fight piracy.

The global amount used by IFPI on lobbying and fighting piracy is £75 million.

Kennedy said he qualified as a lawyer since the 70’s but hasn’t practiced recently. He was asked if he understood BitTorrent. Kennedy said he did, but in “very vague terms.” When the defense lawyers asked more detailed questions, about uTorrent for instance, Kennedy said he’d heard of it but had no idea of the details. It was very clear he knew nothing about any remotely technical issues.

Kennedy was asked if IFPI has taken any action against the actual sharers of the music made available via TPB, as detailed in this case. He said he couldn’t say and didn’t know who these individuals are. He then admitted to not knowing how The Pirate Bay works so the defense lawyers put it to him – if you don’t understand how TPB works, how can you say they are to blame? Again he was pressed why he took no action against the actual sharers but he said he didn’t know and admitted “It’s probably unlikely we took action.”

Kennedy was asked why they haven’t sued Google the same way as TPB. He said that Google said they would partner IFPI in fighting piracy and he has a team of 10 people working with Google every day, and if Google hadn’t announced they were a partner, IFPI would have sued them too.

When pressed on the earlier reports that Kennedy referred to, the defense lawyers wanted to know if IFPI had commissioned any of them. Kennedy said he didn’t know.

The court then took a morning break.

After the break the hearings continued as Bertil Sandgren, a board member of the Swedish film institute took the stand. He was asked to explain what he knows about file-sharing, and told the court that he knew that some movies leak on filesharing networks before they premiere, that there is no copy protection on these files and that there are even subtitles available.

The court then asked to keep the questions relevant to the damages that are claimed. Sandgren went on to say that he believes that the impact of file-sharing on the movie industry started in 2002/2003. He claimed that there is statistical evidence that illegal file-sharing has affected the number of seats sold per film. In Sweden, the ticket sales between 2002-2006 have fallen by 31%, Sandgren explained.

“The reason for this drop is that the number of premieres have increased but sales have decreased. File-sharing has somewhat made the market thinner. The difference between number of sold tickets on average has dropped 10,000 per film per year. That equals between 800,000 and 1,000,000 SEK per film,” Sandgren said.

Sandgren further told that the damages they claim are based on a fictitious license fee. They have calculated the total number of movie downloads in a year, and use the film’s market share (4% for the movie “Mastermind”) to come up with the total number of downloaders . “If there were 1 million downloaders in total, it’s probable that 4% downloaded Mastermind,” Sandgren said. “Of those, 28,5% were downloaded from TPB. That gives 12000.”

After his explanation of how the damages are calculated, the defense lawyers questioned Sandgren. Most of their questions focused on the link between downloading and the decline in ticket sales. According to the defense lawyers there is research showing this link is not that straightforward, while stressing that 2008 has been the best year for the Swedish movie industry ever. Sandgren said that he didn’t want to comment on factors underlying the success year.

Around noon the court took a lunch break.

After lunch Per Sundin, CEO of Universal Music and Louis Werner of IFPI Sweden were questioned. Again, most questions dealt with the amount of damages the entertainment industry suffered, with the defense questioning whether the figures presented by the entertainment industry are justified. Werner told how music sales declined in 2002 and 2003, but as blogger Anna Troberg points out, IFPI’s own data seems to contradict this statement. Illegal file-sharing was the main reason of the loss in sales in recent years Werner stated.

When Per Sundin was asked whether the decline is sales could be fully attributed to illegal filesharing, he said yes. Sundin went even further and claimed that 50% of the loss in sales the music industry has suffered can be linked to The Pirate Bay. He had to admit, however, that he has no evidence to back these claims up. “It is what they see and experience every day,” Sundin said.

Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde and Universal Music CEO Per Sundin bumped into each other after the hearings. Peter just Twittered “I just played the angry game with Per Sundin, Universal. Always fun at #spectrial! Oh, and I won of course.”

At 16:00 the court decided to end the hearings for today.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

“My friend Monique Wadsted, who represents the movie and gaming industry in the trial against The Pirate Bay, needs comments from creators and authors on these issues. She is currently preparing her closing arguments and would like to end it with a message from Swedish authors. It can’t be long – only 30 seconds – so we’re talking one-liners here.”

“Since I know that we the authors are affected by file-sharing, I think this is an excellent chance to take a stand. […] I’ll try to write something and would like to encourage members to do the same. […] Furthermore, Monique would love to see us coming to the court in person. As things look now, the whole situation is dominated by the pirates,” Carina added.

Now, perhaps this is nothing unusual. As the digital society has progressed, not all authors have recognized the marketing opportunities of file-sharing. What is interesting, however, is that Carina Rydberg’s real stance on file-sharing differs dramatically from her Facebook post. Swedish blogger projO published postings from Carina Rydberg from earlier discussions in the same Facebook group, where she confessed that she was a registered user at The Pirate Bay. So why is she a member there?

“Because I want to watch movies that can neither be rented anymore nor bought on the Internet. I want to read books that are out of print and will cost you 750 British pounds on eBay. For that reason, I want The Pirate Bay to stay. At the moment, I’m trying to download John Schlesinger’s ‘The Day of the Locust’; it takes time and it’s not even certain I’ll get a copy that is watchable – but at the same time I have no idea how to get the damn flick any another way…”

Further on in the same discussion thread, she doesn’t spare her praise:

“The Pirate Bay is an invaluable source for content that publishers, record labels and movie studios for some reason can’t or won’t offer. If someone on The Pirate Bay chose to download the book I wrote in 1989 I would have no objection to that. That novel is practically impossible to get hold of and as an author I want to be read.”

As panic over her hypocrisy increased, Carina Rydberg quickly edited the posts on Facebook to cover her tracks. However, she made a comment to a torrent on The Pirate Bay in November where she repeated a similar statement, that she encouraged the making available of her out-of-print novels.

In recent posts to the authors’ Facebook group, several enraged members have demanded that the person who leaked this information from the group be expelled. However, the founder of the group stated that there are no rules about the contents having to be kept private, and that leaks like this are something you must take into account when posting to a Facebook group.

He added: “I think Carina’s post was somewhat offensive since it presupposes that all authors agree on what is obviously a subjective opinion.”

Meanwhile, Carina Rydberg has come out all guns blazing in running errands for her friend Monique. Despite her earlier support for The Pirate Bay she has forwarded the request to The Swedish Writer’s Union. “They absolutely don’t want to support the pirates,” she wrote in a another Facebook post.

At the time of writing, it is unclear whether the authors were to be paid for their work, or if Monique Wadsted expected to get user generated content for free. One thing is sure though, an anti-Pirate Bay quote from Carina and friends wont be worth much in court now.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Among the early adopters of the BitTorrent protocol were several Linux projects, saving thousands of dollars in bandwidth costs. In 2005, Linuxtracker started to aggregate these Linux distributions, and it has been growing steadily over the years, racking up more than 130,000 unique visitors each month.

The site’s server currently tracks more than 40,000 peers and in the past 12 months it coordinated the distribution of 180 terabytes worth of Linux software. TorrentFreak caught up with Mark Angeli, the founder of the site, and we asked him what motivated him to create Linuxtracker.

“I was getting into the BitTorrent ‘movement’ downloading the shows I missed at night while at work. At this time I was also trying out new Linux distributions on a fairly regular basis and while I had decent download speeds, I wanted to find a better way to download and share Linux,” Mark told us.

“Some of the bigger distributions were beginning to use BitTorrent as a means of distribution, but the smaller ones were having a hard time. I wanted to make it easy for them, so I put up a site and a tracker,” he added.

The first Linux torrent Mark uploaded was for Slax 4.2.0. but it was only the beginning. Soon dozen of torrents followed, and with it their community of Linux enthusiasts started to expand. Mark told us that they have some exciting plans for the future, but these remain between him and the other admins of the site for now. One thing he did reveal is that they are looking to add a “lighter” version of the site for those on smaller devices like netbooks and smartphones.

One of the great advantages of the Linuxtracker community is that the seed/leech ratios are extremely good, even though the site doesn’t require users to register. The site is currently celebrating the month of February with some giveaways from their sponsors, so for all the Linux fans who haven’t discovered the site already, it’s well worth checking out.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

For the 2009 Oscars, 26 movies were nominated. In alphabetical order they are: Australia, Bolt, Changeling, Defiance, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, Frozen River, Happy-Go-Lucky, In Bruges, Hellboy II, Iron Man, Kung Fu Panda, Milk, Rachel Getting Married, Revolutionary Road, Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Dark Knight, The Duchess, The Reader, The Visitor, The Wrestler, Tropic Thunder, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Wall-E and Wanted.

Of these 26 movies, 25 were available online by yesterday’s nomination day – only Rachel Getting Married made the date piracy-free. An MPAA-worrying 23 of these were downloadable in either DVD Screener or Retail DVD format (Region 5 included). In the past months many of the nominees appeared in our weekly download charts, with The Dark Knight as the absolute winner topping 7 million downloads in 2008.

Of course, the MPAA is always keen to point to the ‘evils’ of camcorder piracy and has clamped down heavily on this in recent years. However, it doesn’t seem able to deal effectively with its own internal issues. Of the 26 nominated films, 20 were distributed to Oscar voters in DVD Screener format. Many of them leaked onto the web, with the exceptions countable on one hand.

In 2003 the MPAA temporarily banned Oscar screeners to prevent them from leaking, but this decision was eventually reversed. Since then, the industry has touted technical solutions such as Cinea to protect their content, but for various reasons it hasn’t stopped the leaks. This year the average time from DVD Screeners being delivered to voters and subsequently leaking out to the web, was just 6 days.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The film, produced by Hiroyuki Kobayashi, is set for a Sony Pictures DVD release in the USA on December 30. A few days ago it leaked onto the Internet and since then it has already been downloaded a million times via BitTorrent.

This is not the first time that a movie quickly became popular online due to the release of a pirated copy. “The Man from Earth” is another example of a film that became immensely popular due to its distribution on BitTorrent. Contrary to the opinion of the big studios, many independent filmmakers see piracy as free promotion instead of a threat.

We doubt that Sony Pictures will respond similarly to the leak of ‘Resident Evil: Degeneration’, which tops our weekly download chart. Below is the full list of this week’s most downloaded movies on BitTorrent. The Dark Knight, which led the chart three weeks in a row, has dropped to third place. Later this week and following on from our top 10 most downloaded games chart, we will publish the top 10 most downloaded movies in 2008.

The data for our weekly download chart is collected by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. Currently both DVDrips, DVD Screeners and R5 rips are counted.

RSS feed for the weekly DVDrip chart.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.