TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Study Maps the Emerging Ethics of File Sharing and Copyright Enforcement

One of the most comprehensive studies into media sharing and consumption habits in the United States and Germany reveals that nearly half of the populations have copied, shared or downloaded music, movies, and TV shows. Sharing occurs both on- and offline, but the latter is seen as reasonable by most people. The report does, however, reveal that online file-sharers consume more music than their non-file-sharing counterparts.

Today the American Assembly, a non-partisan public policy forum affiliated with Columbia University, published its long-awaited Copy Culture report.

The study is based on thousands of telephone interviews conducted in the United States and Germany and provides a unique insight into copying habits in the two countries.

“The study suggests that most people in the US and Germany recognize the constitutive dilemma of copyright as a set of tradeoffs between rightsholders and the public. And it provides a snapshot of where ‘most’ people are in trying to reconcile these tradeoffs with the digital age,” author Joe Karaganis told TorrentFreak.

“Not surprisingly, it’s a conflicted picture,” he adds.

One of the main conclusions of the report is that sharing and downloading are part of modern culture. Nearly half of the U.S. and German populations have copied, shared or downloaded music, movies, and TV shows.

This “copy culture” is most prevalent among people between the age of 18 and 29, with around 70% for both countries.

copy-culture

The data further shows that most of this copying is casual. Only 3% of the U.S. respondents say they got most of their media collection through copying, and in Germany the figure is even lower at 2%. For simplicity’s sake, the results below are limited to the U.S. sample.

When people are asked about their attitudes toward copying, it appears that most seek a moral balance between “sharing” and “piracy.” Offline swapping with friends and family is seen as reasonable by the majority of the population, but online file-sharing is not.

Among those who own music in the U.S., 80% believe it is reasonable to share it with family members and 60% have no objection to sharing with friends. However, this social acceptance quickly drops for public sharing, with only 15% saying it’s reasonable to upload files to public websites.

Overall we see that compared to older generations, people under 30 believe that copying is more reasonable.

reasonable-music

The report also zooms in on online file-sharing habits and shows that across the whole population, 13% of all people with an Internet connection use P2P-services. Only 3% say they belong to a private P2P community and 2% of all Internet users say they have uploaded or seeded files.

Again, we see that sharing is most common among people under 30, where 20% use P2P-services.

As was revealed in a preview publication, the survey found that the group of self-confessed P2P file-sharers have larger music collections compared to the rest. Interestingly, the data also shows that these file-sharers buy more music legally than their non-sharing peers, about 30% more.

With the six-strikes anti-piracy system coming up it’s interesting to see the general public’s views on punishments for file-sharers, a topic the respondents were also questioned on.

The survey results show that more than half of the population (51%) support warnings. Support drops to 28% when users’ connections are throttled, and to 16% when people are at risk of being disconnected as can happen under the French system.

penalties

Another topic high on the anti-piracy agenda is censorship, something the public is also divided on. The results show that most people are supportive of copyright enforcement in general, but not when it compromises free speech or privacy.

In the U.S. more than half the population supports (61%) piracy filters on services such as Dropbox and Facebook, but only a small minority are in favor of active monitoring of Internet connections (26%).

censor-block

Lastly, the data shows that a small subgroup of the population take measures to hide their IP-addresses online.

In part, this is a reaction to increasing copyright enforcement initiatives. In the U.S., 4% of Internet users use anonymizing services such as VPNs, and this percentage increases to 16% among those who share files online.

The above is just a summary of the findings. The full report is available on the American Assembly website.


Disclosure: TorrentFreak staff contributed to the Copy Culture report.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Titchin

    Conducted over the phone……hmm who’s going to admit to downloading all their media illegally to someone over the phone…

    • Anon220923

      I agree 100% with this statement!!!! Who the hell would admit to anyone that they download/share content on the internet??? Unless TF or “Mike” discloses how they performed this data mining over the phone, I have my doubts…

      • http://geekhideout.net/ The G33K

        In the Methodology section of the report they fully address these concerns and specifically address the “Under-Reporting Of Piracy” as a sub heading. [ http://piracy.americanassembly.org/copy-culture-report/methodology/ ]

        Reading about how they interpret it and how they understand fully the concerns shows that this report is probably more truthful (as far as any statistical analysis can be truthful) than a lot of others that have been done (and/or pulled out of thin air).

    • Guest

      It’s like asking people over the phone “do you masturbate?”. We can easily assume that the total number of people who admit to such will be underestimated.

      Since no one will claim that they infringe on copyrights, if they don’t, and some people will claim they don’t infringe on copyrights, while doing it, we can simply take the results of this study as a “lower bound”: for sure, more than 50% of people (knowingly) infringe on copyrights.

      Of course, if we extend this to include people who unknowingly infringe on copyrights as well, the number would pretty much be 100%.

    • icec0ld

      Fucking this.

      Worth noting also that the file sharing demographics of today don’t have a land line, instead opting for the use of their personnel cell phone.

      Lastly, Response rates to surveys over the phone are incredibly low. typically the older demographics feel any inclination towards responding to them so it’s really no surprise of the attitudes displayed.

    • bumperman

      Have you ever done a scientific study in a peer reviewed journal?

    • Who

      I know a lot that do. and I am like WTF? Y would you openly say that? that’s just stupid as you don’t know who is gona hear ya.

    • bobmail

      Actually, to go further, it’s hard to draw conclusions like “Overall we see that compared to older generations, people under 30 believe that copying is more reasonable.” when the only people you are asking is people who copy files. It’s like asking a drunk if Two Buck Chuck is a good drink. It’s silly to even consider drawing conclusions.

      The blocking question at the end is similar, because the questions are stacked. When the questions are asked without “the government blocks”, the results are positive to remove pirated material, and for search engines to remove it. When you asked the stacked question (like monitoring your internet usage, which people equate to someone reading all their messages) you get a no.

      It’s a flawed methodology to try to get the answers they want, rather than asking neutral questions. The last question could have been replaced by “should ISPs be allowed to block protocols related to pirate activity?”. That likely would have come out a “yes”. But asking it the other way gets you a no.

      Coming to any conclusion from this is pretty much BS end to end.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “… it’s hard to draw conclusions like “Overall we see that compared to older generations, people under 30 believe that copying is more reasonable.” when the only people you are asking is people who copy files.”

        And unless you assume the reseearchers publishing the study were lying through their teeth or that everyone under the age of 30 is a filesharer, or that everyone using the internet is a filesharer that isn’t what they did either.

        Or were you implying everyone in possession of a music file got it off TPB?

        “The blocking question at the end is similar…”

        Because, as everyone knows, the vast majority of people prefer having their access to information restricted by government intervention. Cute. The last time I heard the line “The citizenry feels safer surveilled” was when Erich Honecker, last president of the DDR was trying to defend the STASI.

        “The last question could have been replaced by “should ISPs be allowed to block protocols related to pirate activity?”

        Because everyone would love it if https got blocked, to begin with. Along with the vast majority of game clients. And email. Everyone wants their internet connection to be good only for open webpage viewing and nothing else. Oh good.

        “Coming to any conclusion from this is pretty much BS end to end.”

        Compared to the drivel you just proposed the study looks as solid as Euclid.

        • bobmail

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery: You live up to your name by making some pretty scary jumps in logic. Nobody is saying that everyone who copies files are online pirates or filesharers in the sense of P2P, but clearly they are getting copies from somewhere, or they are copying and giving them to someone. Try not to confuse the method with the action.

          “the vast majority of people prefer having their access to information restricted by government intervention. Cute.”

          Not at all. All I said was the question implies that all of your online activity would be monitored, which nobody wants. I don’t think anyone has that intention either. The question is scare mongering, nothing more and nothing less. Having a network device that detects and damps P2P, as an example, would not require that anyone is specifically monitoring your every move online, rather it would only look at the protocols or methods used to move your traffic and the types of connections made and handle them accordingly. Nobody will be reading your gay porn mail, you are safe for now.

          “Because everyone would love it if https got blocked, to begin with. Along with the vast majority of game clients. And email.”

          Does your world only exist in black and white? Game clients would very easily move to other formats to get their downloads (say like download servers run by the companies, rather than leeching bandwidth off of everyone?). HTTPS wouldn’t be disabled, where do you get that nonsense from?

          Seriously, the world isn’t black and white, Can you expand your horizons a little bit and perhaps move on to the primary colors now?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @bobmail

          “You live up to your name…”

          Actually I do, but not for the reason a computer illiterate with no concept of internet history would assume.

          “Nobody is saying that everyone who copies files are online pirates or filesharers…”

          You just did, above. Care to enlighten me how it is a “leap in logic” to assume that you mean exactly what you write?

          “…in the sense of P2P, but clearly they are getting copies from somewhere, or they are copying and giving them to someone.”

          Quoted from the study:
          “Among those who own music in the U.S…”

          Gosh. You forgot the most obvious source of music for anyone who owns “music”: The store. Again, you are still claiming that the people who own music are filesharers. Or are they just, according to you, suspects because they “own music”?

          “Try not to confuse the method with the action.”

          Try not to get confused over the english language. You are telling me I should not confuse what? The study as written or your opinion on what you personally think it ought to say?

          “Not at all. All I said was the question implies that all of your online activity would be monitored, which nobody wants…”

          However, in order to prevent any communication from passing or discovering what said communication was, you must unavoidably monitor and decipher all communication. No exceptions.

          “Having a network device that detects and damps P2P, as an example, would not require that anyone is specifically monitoring your every move online…”

          Such a device becomes useless after the first proxy as the protocol is not discernible as p2p any more by that time. Nor can such a device impact any p2p network utilizing internal encryption – which is rapidly becoming a new standard.

          However, such a device will certainly impact, very negatively, online gaming, youtube streams, any other streaming service, newscast, or other feed utilizing the P2P protocol.

          What you are saying is that in essence you want ISP’s to “detect and damp” the most efficient and ubiquitous file transfer protocol used commercially. Thank you for making that clear.
          Or were you just, once again, blithering away without knowing what you were saying?

          “rather it would only look at the protocols or methods used to move your traffic and the types of connections made and handle them accordingly.”

          How? By using black magic? Because although i realize that traffic shaping is the next desperate hope of the copyright maximalists, I am happy to tell you that, just like DNS blocking, the measure won’t work. There are too many ways to automatically circumvent such shaping.

          “Nobody will be reading your gay porn mail, you are safe for now.”

          Is a limpid and tacky attempt at mudslinging sexual orientations all you can come up with? I guess we can add “bigoted” to our evaluation now. On top of “ignorant, illiterate, and willfully dyslexic”.
          My girlfriend will be amused at your assertion though.

          “Does your world only exist in black and white? Game clients would very easily move to other formats to get their downloads (say like download servers run by the companies, rather than leeching bandwidth off of everyone?).”

          Your answer, in other words, means boosting the costs of the downloads by several orders of magnitude and make them far less efficient? Because the most efficient transfer protocol yet invented is “easily abused”? Do you have any idea of the cost involved to legal business if they are supposed to shift their business models around because hollywood is afraid people will make copies?
          Let me guess, in the early days of the automobile you would be protesting that it should not be allowed to travel at speeds exceeding 3 mph.

          “HTTPS wouldn’t be disabled, where do you get that nonsense from?”

          Because once you tell filesharing clients to start using port 443 for p2p transfers that’s what you will be blocking. A “protocol” is nothing more than a semi-implemented standard on how to conduct certain types of traffic. You can make traffic from or to a p2p filesharing client virtually indistinguishable from traffic coming from or to a web browser or streaming site in all the ways in which you can meaningfully discern it from the ISP side. Unless, of course, you insist on actually try to monitor the entirety of what is being sent. At that point and not before can you begin to infer that the traffic exchanged might be a bit much for simply loading flash animations and facebook gifs.

          Now go back and read a few “Internet For Dummies” guides before you come back here and make an ass of yourself even more thoroughly.

          “Seriously, the world isn’t black and white, Can you expand your horizons a little bit and perhaps move on to the primary colors now?”

          You mean as in inventing new sets of computer science or a model of quantum physics in which your confused imagination has real room to exist?
          This is not an art exercise but one which takes place in the realm of what is possible and not using computers. At the end of that day most of your assumptions are based on belief in what might as well be called “magic”.

        • bobmail

          @scary_devil:

          “ou mean as in inventing new sets of computer science or a model of quantum physics in which your confused imagination has real room to exist?
          This is not an art exercise but one which takes place in the realm of what is possible and not using computers. At the end of that day most of your assumptions are based on belief in what might as well be called “magic”.”

          Honestly, you are just being a big baiting jackass at this point, not worth the time to answer. Clearly you have a very closed mind, limited life experiences, and a limited understanding of the technical side of the internet, routing, and all of those other things that exist.

          “Such a device becomes useless after the first proxy as the protocol is not discernible as p2p any more by that time. Nor can such a device impact any p2p network utilizing internal encryption – which is rapidly becoming a new standard.”

          Again, your lack of understanding is apparent here. Use of a proxy doesn’t stop the traffic from going over your network, and it doesn’t stop the connection requests going out and such. Even totally encrypted file trading traffic still generally looks like file trading traffic. It’s not hard to spot, really.

          Don’t believe the hype. The reality is you are still connected, your traffic (even encrypted) is still traffic, and that is generally enough to make it easy to see what you are up to, in general terms.

          Remember, connecting to a proxy, encrypting your connection, and downloading sizable files is pretty obvious, no matter how you try to hide it. The only system that exists that can hide file sharing properly is one that mixes the file transfers in with regular http style traffic and packet sizes. When you get away from that, you stand out like the proverbial sore thumb.

          You should stop now, you are making yourself look bad.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @bobmail

          “Honestly, you are just being a big baiting jackass at this point, not worth the time to answer. Clearly you have a very closed mind, limited life experiences, and a limited understanding of the technical side of the internet, routing, and all of those other things that exist.”

          Gosh. I guess I need to accept that I’m incapable of doing my job then.

          No, bobmail, I think the shoe is on the other foot. Almost exactly so, from the “baiting jackass” and going forward. And you even kindly prove as much in your later assertions.

          Now given that I appear to be talking to the intellectual equivalent of a midget as far as anything IT-related goes, I’ll talk slowly and use simple words.

          “Again, your lack of understanding is apparent here. Use of a proxy doesn’t stop the traffic from going over your network…”

          No, my little ignoramus. What use of a proxy does is to ensure the protocol and the communication is obfuscated. Hence your traffic is no longer, as far as any monitor is concerned, p2p but falls in the definition of undefined. All you can say in monitoring it is that a certain amount of data is going out to a certain adress and this data is not legible beyond the actual adress layer.

          Which basically means anyone trying to monitor p2p, content of the communication or for that matter, end adress, is screwed.

          There is no one even capable of reading a computer manual who doesn’t get this on the first try. I can only conclude that you are arguing from the manuals of “wishful thinking” and “what some equally ignorant guy with an opinion told me”.

          “Don’t believe the hype. The reality is you are still connected, your traffic (even encrypted) is still traffic, and that is generally enough to make it easy to see what you are up to, in general terms.”

          “In General terms” as in uploading and downloading, yes. With no way to tell at all what you are actually downloading or uploading. Or to whom. For anyone associated with open-source, that would be a choice of distributables.
          For a filesharer that would be media files. But there is no way to see or discern which one is which, assuming the barest one-step encryption and proxy has been utilized.

          I don’t believe “hype”. Hype doesn’t do me very much good in my work. Someone has managed to pull a doozy on you, however.

          “The only system that exists that can hide file sharing properly is one that mixes the file transfers in with regular http style traffic and packet sizes.”

          Don’t even try to sound as if you have a clue because it’s embarrassing to see. “Http style traffic” by it’s very definition is simply traffic assigned to ports 80 and 443. There are no other “fingerprints” to see. And as for packet sizes, the variance is staggering.

          Now, my stubborn little troll, it is not impossible to monitor the usage of a connection and determine that a file transfer is going on.

          But making any sort of guess about what type of file and to whom it is adressed is impossible. In a standard encrypted connection a p2p-user would be sending a mixed bag of files in pieces, all at the same time and in varying pieces and size – adressed to the same recipient.

          And any such analysis once again means you are left monitoring, in real time, every consumer of an ISP and analyzing their traffic habits. Costly, and time-consuming in a way you appear to have no idea of. And with no automation available until we hit the level where we have something resembling an A.I. capable of human “guessing” what traffic patterns appear to look like.

          “You should stop now, you are making yourself look bad.”

          I’m not the one making assumptions about technology you’d need J.K. Rowling to dream up. You are. And I think I’ll leave it to the rest of the TF community – or for that matter, readers in general – to determine the worth of my posting rather than taking the word of someone whose beliefs are right out there with unicorns and wizards.

      • Anon

        >Coming to any conclusion from this is pretty much BS end to end.

        The general public feels this way about all of your comments

        • CanadianEh?

          zing!

        • Anon

          Hey buddy, that’s MY name. How can I post about the extensive punishments pirates are about to receive while I watch and enjoy if you use my name to point out Bobmail’s obvious flaws?

          Bobmail will not face any punishments or spankings. His punishment is that he takes pride in his flaws – he posts on a techie message board to let us know he does not understand the tech. The rest of us take pride in our accomplishments, and maybe someday he will experience that.

      • icec0ld

        I think we’ve proved before you don’t even try to demonstrate a level of reading comprehension before jumping on the copyright apologists bandwagon.

        “The last question could have been replaced by “should ISPs be allowed to block protocols related to pirate activity?”. That likely would have come out a “yes”. But asking it the other way gets you a no.”

        That’s a weighted question to get the response you want.

        “Overall we see that compared to older generations, people under 30 believe that copying is more reasonable.” when the only people you are asking is people who copy files.”

        When you ask the people who engage in an activity if they find that activity acceptable, they’ll tell you they find it acceptable. Go figure.

        If one engages in the act of file sharing we can assume they find it reasonable. Ergo, I look to the activity of the net as my metric of what people find acceptable.

        “The blocking question at the end is similar, because the questions are stacked. When the questions are asked without “the government blocks”, the results are positive to remove pirated material, and for search engines to remove it. When you asked the stacked question (like monitoring your internet usage, which people equate to someone reading all their messages) you get a no.”

        I don’t know how you could word “do you want the government and any corporate body with enough money to know what you do on the internet?” could be phrased to give you the result you want.

      • Guest

        “when the only people you are asking is people who copy files.”

        YOU ARE LYING. The researchers did not only ask people who copy files. Who are you trying to fool? Anybody who can read can tell that you’re lying just by reading the article or the research paper, so you must be targeting illiterates. But then, how can illiterates read your comment?

        Holy shit, you did not think this through, did you?

        “The blocking question at the end is similar, because the questions are stacked.”

        Sorry, but the questions aren’t stacked just because you don’t like the answers.

        “It’s a flawed methodology “

        Which you can determine thanks to your imaginary credentials as a researcher and analyst.

        ” The last question could have been replaced by “should ISPs be allowed to block protocols related to pirate activity?”

        Yes. Why be honest and call it the active monitoring of internet connections, when you could simply be dishonest and call it “blocking protocals related to piracy”? That sweeps the nasty old truth under the rug and sounds much, much nicer.

        ” Nobody is saying that everyone who copies files are online pirates or filesharers in the sense of P2P”

        Nobody including Scary_Devil_Monastery, so you’re arguing against something he never said. Are you drunk?

        “All I said was the question implies that all of your online activity would be monitored, which nobody wants. “

        Except for the MAFIAA.

        “Having a network device that detects and damps P2P, as an example, would not require that anyone is specifically monitoring your every move online,”

        Your connection would have to be monitored 24/7 and every single packet would have to be sniffed to test whether or not it it had anything to do with a copyright-infringing file transfer via P2P. And to achieve any level of accuracy, it would have to be conducted to some extent by humans.

        “HTTPS wouldn’t be disabled, where do you get that nonsense from?”

        He gets it from you. If ISPs blocked protocols related to piracy, they would most definitely have to block HTTP. He’s throwing your own faulty logic back at you, and it’s absolutely hilarious that you’re calling bullshit on it. Because it’s yours’.

        • bobmail

          @guest: “YOU ARE LYING. The researchers did not only ask people who copy files. Who are you trying to fool?” – perhaps you should read the top of the first graph. They specifically asked those who trade files.

          I’ll forgive you for being an idiot this time.

          “Sorry, but the questions aren’t stacked just because you don’t like the answers.”

          It’s not a question of not liking the answers, the thought is that the answers come out because the question is stacked up to lead people to say “hell no!”.

          ..I snipped out most of your garbage, I wanted to move to the end before I go for dinner…

          “He gets it from you. If ISPs blocked protocols related to piracy, they would most definitely have to block HTTP”

          Not at all. If you think it’s only a question of protocol alone, then you really don’t understand how the internet works. The traffic pattern regardless of protocol, is very different for file sharing compared to web browsing. You can write software to try and disguise it, but in the end, you either slow your transfers to a crawl to mix it into your existing traffic, or you end up downloading from a single point source, which will likely be shut down quickly enough if public.

          I would say that you might want to take a few remedial classes in networking and network traffic patterns before you make any more of ass of yourself.

        • Guest

          “perhaps you should read the top of the first graph. They specifically asked those who trade files.”

          Jesus fucking Christ, bobmail. Do you actually have literacy problems?

          It’s the second graph where the researchers ask different age brackets whether they think various types of filesharing are reasonable. The first one has nothing to do with that. And this second graph clearly states that the people being asked are the 50% of U.S. adults who have music files.

          Not 50% of adults who fileshare. 50% of adults who have music files. That includes legal iTunes/Amazon/whatever purchases.

          In otherwords, you are 100% wrong that the researchers only asked filesharers if they think filesharing is reasonable. This is stated, in no uncertain terms, by both the paper and the graph itself. You are seriously fucking detatched from reality.

          “the thought is that the answers come out because the question is stacked up to lead people to say “hell no!”.”

          Asking an honest question is not stacking the answer. Once again, you want the researchers to ask a dishonest question that hides the fact that the MAFIAA is asking for 24/7 connection monitoring. You want sugercoated, industry-flattering bullshit. You don’t like the questions asked by the researchers because they’re too real for you.

          “Not at all.”

          You’re denying the the HTTP protocol is related to piracy? You’re denying that the fucking HTTP protocol is related to piracy?

          what is this i dont even

          “really don’t understand how the internet works.”

          Yeah, I’m the one who doesn’t have a clue how the internet works. Please enlighten me, Mr.HTTP-Serves-Up-The-Goddamn-Pirate-Bay-But-It-Isn’t-a-Protocol-Related-To-Piracy.

          ” The traffic pattern regardless of protocol, is very different for file sharing compared to web browsing.”

          Yes it is, and that fact is completely irrelevent to anything we’re discussing.

          “You can write software to try and disguise it, but in the end, you either slow your transfers to a crawl to mix it into your existing traffic”

          Oh my god. Filesharing protocols use the same bandwidth as the rest of your internet connection, so when you fileshare it’s always “mixed in to your existing traffic” without exception. You have absolutely no fucking clue in hell what you’re talking about, but you try to act as if you’re a knowledgeable authority.

          That is hilarious.

          “I would say that you might want to take a few remedial classes in networking and network traffic patterns before you make any more of ass of yourself.”

          hahahahahahahahahaha

        • bobmail

          @Guest:

          “Oh my god. Filesharing protocols use the same bandwidth as the rest of your internet connection, so when you fileshare it’s always “mixed in to your existing traffic” without exception. You have absolutely no fucking clue in hell what you’re talking about, but you try to act as if you’re a knowledgeable authority.”

          wow. Sort of shows how little you know or understand about networking. Again, you are doing what most ignorant people here do, you focus on one thing (all 1s and 0s are the same!) and forget that your traffic has all sorts of different attributes based on what you are doing.

          After all, if it was all that mixed up, it could be routed. Yes, it does go on the same line, yes, it does use 1s and 0s, and so on. But you have everything from different port connections, different protocol formats (such as how many packets sent before ack, etc), as well as of course your destinations. Ask any network engineer, your actions as a file sharing git looks way different from someone just surfing the web.

          “Your connection would have to be monitored 24/7 and every single packet would have to be sniffed to test whether or not it it had anything to do with a copyright-infringing file transfer via P2P. And to achieve any level of accuracy, it would have to be conducted to some extent by humans.”

          You are failing to think rationally here. Remember that P2P only works properly when people are not only downloading, but also uploading and yes, advertising availability and accepting connections for packets. Your P2P activity stands out like a sort thumb.

          This also goes back to that stupid black and white absolute view of the world. Criminal charges require beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute certainty. Knowing that you are a high level P2P downloader and file trader, and knowing that your IP on a given date and time requested part of a copyrighted work will almost certainly be enough to get a warrant in the future, as the courts deal with the legalities of such things. Having your computer seized and scanned would likely turn up plenty of pirated gay porn, which would land you in a fair bit of trouble, especially if you were making money posting the files up on Mega to get referral payments.

          You act like your are invincible. You aren’t. You are just ignorant, you don’t feel the risk / reward factors well.

          So please, join scary devil and a few others, and stop making a fool of yourself.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @bobmail

          “wow. Sort of shows how little you know or understand about networking. Again, you are doing what most ignorant people here do, you focus on one thing (all 1s and 0s are the same!) and forget that your traffic has all sorts of different attributes based on what you are doing.”

          Actually it would appear “Guest” here seems to know a bit more than you do about networking. Most obviously what “traffic” is, and what “attributes” it has.

          You just fell off “Nejtillpiraters” horse of faking knowledge you got from a quick googling with no further understanding, did you? And bad googling at that.

          The rest of us actually know the standard OSI model of networking – or at least many of us do – and rest assured when it comes to judging the flow of traffic, the knowledge of the average readership here on TF trumps yours.

          You see, if all there was to see was 1 and 0 we pirates would be worse off. As traffic actually varies in packet size, depending not on the protocol but on the individual request and response you can not determine what is in the transmission as a whole just by looking at the shape.

          “After all, if it was all that mixed up, it could be routed. Yes, it does go on the same line, yes, it does use 1s and 0s, and so on. But you have everything from different port connections, different protocol formats (such as how many packets sent before ack, etc), as well as of course your destinations. Ask any network engineer, your actions as a file sharing git looks way different from someone just surfing the web.”

          Assuming no one proxies or uses a VPN, yes. Because if one does, he traffic to four or five end adresses turns into one big stream going to just one adress, as far as anyone monitoring it is concerned.

          By all means, bobmail, go on. You are so far into La-la land by now you need to say “hi” to Anon. Not because much of what you say can not be true in some contexts. Just that you obviously don’t understand it.

          To begin with, “ordinary” web surfing is the least of internet traffic, if you want to use “filesharer”-like patterns as a concluder then the first thing you hit is companies, and next up anyone whose terminal outlet is shared. I get, in real practice, better results by pointing at a busy street going “Someone there deals dope, because they’re carrying paper bags”.

          And that assumes you can even determine the traffic pattern in the first place which you can not under normal circumstances do.

          “You are failing to think rationally here. Remember that P2P only works properly when people are not only downloading, but also uploading and yes, advertising availability and accepting connections for packets. Your P2P activity stands out like a sort thumb.”

          Assuming everyone is going without a VPN, proxy, or anything similar, then yes. Congratulations, you just got hold of the entire open-source community and the online gaming crowd. Also the PS3 and windows Live network and Tor. Should we applaud you now?

          If people use a VPN, proxy, or makes use of internalized ad-hoc darknet generation such as I2P/F2F clients, Tribler, Stealthnet then no.

          “Criminal charges require beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute certainty.”

          And when you can show beyond reasonable doubt that one of this crowd of ten to a thousand individuals is guilty, that doesn’t mean the police gets a search warrant for each of them. Look up the legal definition of “Fishing Expedition” for details.

          Knowing that you are a high level P2P downloader and file trader…”

          You mean like owning a computer and using it? Being a programmer or network tech? Being a company, owning a games console or spending a lot of time in an online gaming environment will implicate you? Nice.

          “and knowing that your IP on a given date and time requested part of a copyrighted work will almost certainly be enough to get a warrant in the future.”

          On the contrary, because “your IP” asks no such thing. A request may travel through your IP, as in the case of onion routing, but anyone looking at a US ISP’s traffic will, assuming basic routing, never be privy to such an exchange.

          Hence even noticing that the requester and a person performing downloading or uploading are one and the same is a herculean task which requires an extensive law enforcement effort spanning three continents.

          Not even the initial version of ACTA would have provided the necessary groundwork required. And as we’ve seen, the ramifications of such acts are so odious even the US congress swore they’d never sign it.

          After which ACTA, SOPA and PIPA got dropped permanently.

          What I can not understand is how you can blither on the way you do when in France, where HADOPI provides everything a copyright maximalist could ask for short of the step of abolishing burden of proof entirely, enforcement still does not work. Indeed, the only thing such legislation provides is to bring the odium of it into the eye and backyard of the common man.

          You may believe six strikes is a step forward? It’s not. If it has any effect at all noticeable to John Q Doe, then John Q Doe develops more pirate sympathy.

          “Having your computer seized and scanned would likely turn up plenty of pirated gay porn…”

          This fascination of yours with gay porn seems unhealthy. Are pirates, according to you, all gay men or straight females? That’s the only target group I can envision for such consumption.

          But no, seize the computer of any filesharer savvy enough to actually use TrueCrypt and the seizure will turn up absolutely nothing at all. Even if the NSA itself were to lend a hand. Hell, many OS distros today use whole-disk encryption as default.

          “You act like your are invincible. You aren’t. You are just ignorant, you don’t feel the risk / reward factors well.”

          And now you’re outright just quoting “Anon” and his assertions that pirates will all march in chains down the boulevard, driven by the horde of the righteous. If nothing else it’s amusing seeing you reduced to sputtering venomous gibberish.

          The HADOPI regime in France has generated a whopping total of less than a dozen cases in the entirety of it’s existence. That pegs the “risk” you refer to as being in the neighborhood of the risk in getting struck by a bolt of lightning.

          It’s not a good sign for your side that the “Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt” model is all you have remaining in your arsenal.

          “So please, join scary devil and a few others, and stop making a fool of yourself.”

          I’d say we were making a fool out of you, but really, you do such a good job of that in this recent spate of posts I don’t think we’d know where to start…

      • bobmail

        @Scary_Devil_Monastery: Generally anyone who feels the need to bold their comments isn’t worth the time to answer. I didn’t say the things you think I said, it’s you internal filter changing the words to suit your feeling about me.

        …and oh, I was around BEFORE the internet. It’s not knowing the history, it’s being part of it. Sitting around with Kevin Mitnick was interesting. But clearly you don’t care about the real world. Now run along and take your bold text with you.

        • UraPhake

          What a total ass.

        • Liam Jh

          The words are there for all too see Bob, you used them, cant deny them now.

          (you could do an edit, but you are ‘quoted’)

        • G2G cat on fire

          “I was around BEFORE the internet”

          that explains a lot

          fucken old fart hippy who barely knows how to turn a computer on let alone use a toaster

        • bobmail

          @G2G cat on fire: I guess you have the same opinion about everyone over 20, right?

        • bobmail

          @liam jh: “The words are there for all too see Bob, you used them, cant deny them now.

          (you could do an edit, but you are ‘quoted’) ”

          Umm, what? The only thing that jackoff did was quote my words, and then add his own meaning to them. Basically, he made it all up. Please point me to where I said HTTP would be blocked. I didn’t. He’s full of shit, playing a game of “taken to the extreme”, trying to discredit my opinions by turning them into absolutes, which they are not.

          Again, is there anything except black and white here? Why is it everything must be a total solution or it fails absolutely? I makes not sense to try to have a discussion where you are going to focus on the 1% of the time something might not work or might not be the best, and then throw the rest away because of it. It’s mindless. You can find fault in anything in the world under those rules.

        • Guest

          “Please point me to where I said HTTP would be blocked.”

          You implied that internet protocols related to pirate activity should be blocked. The problem with that, Captain Caveman, is that every single protocol the internet runs on is directly related to pirate activity. This includes HTTP.

          Your problem with Scary_Devil is that he does understand what you’re saying and you do not.

        • bobmail

          @Guest: I implied nothing of the sort. I stated only that the question asked was slanted, and when put another way, the answer would be different.

          That is what some other paranoid git decided to add to the discussion, trying to paint my opinion as a bizarre absolute. It’s Scary Devil saying “Because everyone would love it if https got blocked, to begin with”. that’s his (warped) opinion, and nothing I said.

          You can chew his demented ass out now. He’s the one scare mongering.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Generally anyone who feels the need to bold their comments isn’t worth the time to answer. I didn’t say the things you think I said, it’s you internal filter changing the words to suit your feeling about me.”

          Actually, you did say the things I bolded. It’s just that you don’t have a clue what it was you said. If it wasn’t what you meant then by all means feel free to clarify it.

          As for bolding text it’s my own particular way of writing. Your idea that your personal opinion on someone else’s style of prose is what determines the worth of what they say is duly noted.

          However, I am not writing this to convince an unusually strident and factually ignorant troll that his sacred dogma is wrong. I’m writing this for the benefit of anyone else who reads this so your opinion on my text is rather irrelevant compared to the importance that you are seen publicly countered where you are hideously wrong.

          “…and oh, I was around BEFORE the internet. It’s not knowing the history, it’s being part of it. Sitting around with Kevin Mitnick was interesting. But clearly you don’t care about the real world. Now run along and take your bold text with you.”

          Then what you are saying is that you have no excuse for putting blistering nonsense in your posts? You were around before the internet? So was I. Of the two of us however, one actually learned how it works as well. Judging by your posts recently you appear to think it runs by harnessed unicorns driven by fairy teamsters.

          I have a hint for you. Trying to belatedly claim a pedestal of credibility in any field is not going to work well when you have half a year’s worth of posts in which you haven’t once managed to get anything right at all when commenting on said area.

          It’s as self-destructive as when “Anon” goes ape and decides to pitch in support for fascism and prison rape in what he may very well believe to be a reasoned post about the preferred punishment for making a copy of a media file.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “The only thing that jackoff did was quote my words, and then add his own meaning to them. Basically, he made it all up. Please point me to where I said HTTP would be blocked. I didn’t.”

          You made a wild claim, to which I responded with the logical extension of what your words would actually by necessity mean.

          The sad part is simply that you do not have a frigging clue as to what you are actually saying because it’s obvious you don’t know the most basic facts about how the internet works. You would be to networking technology what a badly concussed caveman would be to astrophysics.

          Now let’s get back to where you suddenly decided to lose it and start pulling the “set-upon martyr act” because you got caught trying to bluff people with no cards.

          To me that just means that every argument of yours countered with facts, you were left with nothing else in your bag of tricks but name-calling in the hopes it’ll stick.

          Let’s take that one further shall we?

          “That is what some other paranoid git decided to add to the discussion, trying to paint my opinion as a bizarre absolute. “

          Nothing of the sort. You made a wild claim about piracy-associated protocols being blocked. Since you are a complete ignoramus at internet technology you failed to see what you were saying. I lifted one specific example and could add more.

          At which point you get your knickers in a twist and start mumbling abouit traffic analysis – which is similar nonsense.

          At the end of THAT particular debate, you are looking like a prize-winning village idiot and are left with the one and only way out to point an irate finger and call some names in the hope that people conveniently forget that you’ve been making a total ass out of yourself in most of the posts around.

          Even that failing you try to recover credibility by claiming long long association with the internet and dropping a name you lifted off Google. By which time you’ve dropped so far off the point of absurdity you make even Anon look like a sane man.

          In the other forums I visit we call that “making a Nejtillpirater”.

          “You can chew his demented ass out now. He’s the one scare mongering.”

          Given that your initial ill-conceived comment was about how pirates are so easily discerned and caught in the prevailing legal paradigm, “scare mongering” isn’t even a slur you are in a position to make about anyone else.

          Neither is “demented” after the flaming logical wrecks of your other commentaries.

    • http://twitter.com/MidoThePirate Ahmed Omar

      TF is making efforts to defend our freedom ….if you don’t like the way they collected those information …don’t say that they are liars …don’t let them down…at least they are making efforts to defend the idea of file-sharing …we have to respect their effort

  • madman

    Box office.takings in the USA are record high same as the UK. Also sales of music is on the increase. So why be greedy media moguls.

    • bobmail

      yes, and ticket sales (number of people attending) continues to fall.

      How do you explain that?

      • 2013sUxAlready

        ^ I’m with dumbass!

        Higher ticket prizes maybe ? _ ? VOD services. Shorter delays between releasing movies on DVD… higher licensing fees. Whatever. More Asians watching Hollywood flicks :D

        More movies released than last year?

        How about the movie theatre shootings?
        People got scared and don’t want to attend movies anymore?
        (Shootings are not limited to USA only. There were a couple of incidents around the world where people pulled the gun on other movie goers because of fucking pet peves; one police officer from an eastern european country comes to mind. Killed a guy during the credit scene because he dared to berate him on not being a fkin jerk at the begining of the movie… unfuckingbelievable)

        Forget about scared. Have you seen what movie theatres offer nowadays? Most of the new cinemas are located downtown or pretty much near crowded areas. Parking lots charge you 10% of what you would spend on the cinema. Drinks and Popcorn is expensive as fudge.

        Furthermore: the audience changed too. Loud ass ignorant fools bringing their chillin or retarded old people with them just because they are oblivious to the fact that they annoy the living turdcake out of everybody else. <- Movie employees have to come in and drag these bitches out by their hair. Again expenses on security workforce etc. which then get transfered into ticket prizes.

        Last but not least: People can't afford the frecking theatre experience anymore? There must be a correlation between nowadays movie going demographics and the garbage that gets churned out. Can't have a Dark Knight movie paired with a Marvel Universe movie in one blockbuster season every year. Plus the goddamn Paranormal Fucktivity movies are startign to drag. Hope they fucking die in the 5th movie so we don't get another SAW franchise about ridiculous ass ghosts.

      • Guest

        Allow me to explain.

        Ticket sales are up and you’re a lying piece of shit.

        http://www.the-numbers dot com/market/

        Also, fun fact: ticket sales are higher today than they were back when online movie piracy didn’t even exist.

        • bobmail

          I guess you need to learn to read. The last line is 2013 forecast, using the short number of days so far this year. It won’t run out like that.

          You need only look at 2012 action: 1.37 billion tickets, and 2002, 1.58 billion tickets. 2002 would be about the time that piracy started to play into the game.

          Even short run, the difference 2011 to 2012 (1.30 to 1.37 billion tickets) is still not recovering where things were in 2009 even. The only difference is that ticket price, now $10.71, compared to $9.19 in 2002. That is the only way records are set, by charging more.

          Now, let’s play a little game, called world population:

          2002: 6,234,277,496
          2012: 6,991,800,919

          Look, the world population went up 12% in that time frame. All things being equal, movie ticket sales in equal markets should be up at least 10%, if not more (depending on age and location of the population).

          Let’s play another game: Domestic versus international:

          2002: top movie: Spiderman:

          Domestic Box Office $403,706,375
          International Box Office $417,859,000
          Worldwide Box Office $821,565,375

          2012: Marvel’s The Avengers:

          Domestic Box Office $623,279,547
          International Box Office $891,000,000
          Worldwide Box Office $1,514,279,547

          If you pay attention, you would see that international is what is really growing here… much of it related to China.

          2011: Harry Potter II:

          Domestic Box Office $381,011,219
          International Box Office $947,100,000
          Worldwide Box Office $1,328,111,219

          Again, pay attention, it’s the international that is dragging things up. Domestic is actually pretty much flat even for the best movies… even with population increases… even with increases in number of screens… even with increases in ticket prices.

          So, now you can apologize. I will forgive you again for being an idiot.

        • Guest

          You said ticket sales continue to fall. Which is a lie because ticket sales experienced an upswing in 2012 and stopped falling.

          You utterly lied. Full stop.

          Nice job posting a wall of text trying to weasel out of this, but I don’t think it’s going to work.

        • bobmail

          @guest:

          “You said ticket sales continue to fall. Which is a lie because ticket sales experienced an upswing in 2012 and stopped falling.

          You utterly lied. Full stop”

          Are you kidding me? You look at a single small uptick against a sea of decreases and you go “it’s better now!”. Are you kidding? The record sales (dollars) for 2012 are entirely based on continued increases in ticket prices. The minor single year uptick in ticket sales isn’t enough to change the overall trend.

          Perhaps when you get to university (after high school) you can take a stats course and understand why you don’t read too much into single ticks.

          If you want to feel that “you lied asshole!” as you answer, that’s fine. In your shortsighted view of the world, perhaps. But even a dumbass like you can figure out that 1.37 billion is less than 1.58 billion. Although, it involves decimals and things… can you handle it?

      • http://twitter.com/MidoThePirate Ahmed Omar

        and if they continue to restrict our freedom …we will simply boycott movies and going to cinemas for long …and we won’t die if we don’t watch movies or listen to music for a while ….don’t be a fool …keep in mind that the more they restrict people freedom the more they will hate them and all their works

  • http://twitter.com/CheapassFiction AeliusBlythe

    UM, not that all of this data isn’t fascinating, but:

    “…….In the U.S., 4% of Internet users use anonymizing services such as VPNs…..”

    4%?? Four. Percent. Really?

    That’s a depressing number. And the 16% of file-sharers is worse. Can it really be that 84% of file-sharers, and 96% of Americans don’t make any effort to protect their own privacy? Wow. :-(

    • UraPhake

      Personally, I prefer to torrent in the open. Why should I cower like a dog simply because some copyright dick is going to send my ISP a DMCA notice to forward on to me?

      In ten years, I’ve been sent one notice — for downloading an episode of “Heroes.” I ignored it. I will ignore any and all of them until the day they want to take me to court.

      Am I acting stupidly? Perhaps. But it’s my right as an American to be stupid — just as everyone in the rest of the world says we are.

      I don’t encourage torrenting in the open any more than I would encourage the use of drugs — it’s a personal choice and I’ve made mine. Oh, I do use drugs — I smoke pot and see it in the same light as file sharing. Both are harmless. I don’t smoke pot and drive and I certainly don’t file share while driving. That would be bad. :)

      Using a VPN is something I know how to do but I would prefer spending my money on something else, thank you.

      For the record, I’m 62-years-old and file sharing is something I enjoy more than almost anything else I do on the computer.

      I wish that study had called me on the phone. I’d give ‘em an ear full.

      • Guest

        I’ve been longing to see commercial: “P2P may cause death if you’re driving – be sure to never share more that 3 files before you go behind the wheel”

        • Facefuck

          GENIUS

      • Liam Jh

        I like your style, ‘I am doing nothing wrong, why should I hide’

        Hippy FTW

      • Michael

        ((I’m 62-years-old and file sharing is something I enjoy more than almost anything else I do on the computer.))

        I’m 63 and I agree 100% thank’s for your post.

        • Ophelia Millais

          It’s great to hear from the older file-sharing fans!

          I was just thinking about how the study lumps all the 40-somethings in with the 30-somethings. In my experience, among the general public, there’s a big difference in Internet usage patterns between these groups. I would like to see the study split up the age groups a little better.

          [update: I hear they're working on it]

        • Michael

          @Ophelia Millais

          (there’s a big difference in Internet usage patterns between these groups. I would like to see the study split up the age groups a little better.)

          So would I,but I am aware there are a lot of my age group out there,but they are not as vocal as the younger groups,and tend to slide under the radar.

      • Rain Day

        @UraPhake , You are only a year older than me. It seems funny that us so-called “old people” (I’m a lot younger at 61 than I ever thought I’d be) are seen as unable to understand sharing or Internet Freedoms.

        What I don’t understand (apparently due to being a clueless old fart) is how people can “consume” music. I keep seeing that phrase about consuming digital media. Unless someone eats CDs or old records or cassettes, I don’t see how LISTENING or WATCHING something is consuming it.

        If music and movies could fill people’s bellies, then Pirate Bay could feed the world.

        • UraPhake

          Rain Day –

          I agree with what you said and I’d like to add that I look at file sharing as “sampling” for the most part.

          As many articles on TF have repeatedly pointed out (through various studies and reports), people who engage in file sharing consume (okay, I meant to say “buy”) more media than people who do not. While I listen to most of my music collection on a computer and with a Walkman, I still have 6 to 7 hundred CDs that I have purchased over the years. Before that it was cassette tapes and vinyl.

          A lot of stuff that I bought on cassette or vinyl was eventually replaced with digital files found online — both purchased and through file sharing. Mostly the latter. I don’t like having to buy the same thing multiple times. I think doing so is just plain crazy.

          Now, to the sampling. There isn’t a heck of a lot of new music which my 62-year-old ears care all that much about — but I still torrent various things on a weekly basis simply to find new stuff that I might like. When I do find it, I will buy it. The rest of it gets listened to for a bit and then dumped.

          Movies and TV shows are different. I refuse to pay Comcast’s exorbitant fees for a hundred channels (or more) of complete drivel. I can’t afford to pay for something that I’m not going to watch in the first place (I wish they’d give an “a la cart” type of subscription, but they’d lose money, I guess).

          The XBMC app highlighted here on TF is great for curmudgeons and old hippies.

          I will download a movie that interests me and as in the times before P2P, if it’s something that I really like, then I will buy the DVD or BD of that movie. Someone else here pointed out how much the theater experience costs these days, the parking fees, the tickets and then the drinks and popcorn for a family of four has turned into what it once cost to visit Disneyland (looking at the price of it today — most people will have to save for a long time in order to go there.)

          We are still in a recession and the movie industry needs to thank their lucky stars that revenues continue to set new records year after year, after year.

          Bottom line, there is a lot of material that I would never have set eyes or ears upon if it wasn’t for file sharing. It’s a form of advertising yet the MAFIAA can’t seem to grasp that concept.

          Anyway, my life has been a good one and the older I get, the less I care about what some bean counter imagines he’s losing via file sharing. It’s just that — “imaginary.” I will continue to torrent in the open and seed for days on end until they forcibly restrain me from doing so. I just barely make a living as it is, so if they want to try and get blood from an old turnip, they’re welcome to try.

          I’m looking forward to the 6 Strikes bullshit.

    • DXT

      Don’t know why you think it’s a big deal, if they’re not using VPNs,
      they’re not planning homicides or anything bad they must hide.

      Actually, this attitude that some people loves to brag,
      it’s just making those oppressive laws gain more terrain.
      They don’t let you download files today, they won’t let breathe tomorrow.

      That government and its unofficial colonies are just ruining the internet
      and their reason for that, it’s all about money and power.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “Don’t know why you think it’s a big deal, if they’re not using VPNs,
        they’re not planning homicides or anything bad they must hide.”

        The argument that “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” is the oldest fallacy in the book. It’s what the citizens of east germany thought as well.

        First of all what is legal today may not be so tomorrow. The stuff you do today can tomorrow make you a pariah. Lastly, even being in the pot of surveilance ensures you run the risk of being one of the “false positives” drawn in a fishing expedition.

        Remember the no-fly lists created during the GWB regime? Remember how many people got singled out as terrorists because of unfortunate circumstances?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation

        Lastly, there’s the privacy aspect, notably the most important one. How many people do you personally consider OK to watch that racy picture your girlfriend sent you in assumed confidentiality?

        • DXT

          I know and I agree with what you said,
          if they go after you, you probably won’t have anybody at your side to save you.

          My point was about doing things that if you’re accepting file-sharing
          as a big crime, then it probably will become that for the whole society.
          That’s one of the plans that government is using to indoctrinate its people.
          I love when somebody says:

          “Oh, that’s illegal and you’re trying to defend something illegal”.

          You just need to know what they did towards the marijuana,
          how the thing started with speculations, misconceptions,
          scaring people with fake stories and rumors, etc.
          BTW, I don’t care about drugs, I even don’t drink alcohol,
          the thing is, people was manipulated to reject it.

          You should also read this:
          When All Drugs Were Legal (in USA)
          http://www.lewrockwell.com/huebert/huebert35.1.html

          All these government came with the argument: “We are your saviours”
          sadly, many people believe it, but all these filters and restrictions,
          it’s not to prevent real crimes, I don’t know what the hell is happening
          in the world today, but if you see the situation of different countries,
          their authorities are looking for new ways of mass surveillance,
          political control and enrichment.
          USA gov. is using the excuse of Terrorism and Copyright,
          others, like Europe, use pornography as a flag.

          In my country they said they want to create filters,
          because some people use to talk bad about the president,
          being he’s popular, they believed this plan would be supported,
          they just received critics and their supporters didn’t know what to say,
          a fail, anyway, they’re still expanding their political power in other aspects
          and the country is turning from the label democratic to feudal,
          but most people hardly notice that.

      • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

        http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/

        Once the invasive surveillance is in place to enforce rules that you agree with, the ruleset that is being enforced could change in ways that you don’t agree with at all – but then, it is too late to protest the surveillance.

        You may consider yourself law-abidingly white as snow, and it won’t matter a bit. What does matter is whether you set off the red flags in the mostly-automated surveillance, where bureaucrats look at your life in microscopic detail through a long paper tube to search for patterns. People will stop thinking in terms of what is legal, and start acting in self-censorship to avoid being red-flagged, out of pure self-preservation.

        A society which can enforce all of its laws will stop dead in its tracks. The mindset of “rounding up criminals is good for society” is a very dangerous one, for in hindsight, it may turn out that the criminals were the ones in the moral right. Less than a human lifetime ago, if you were born a homosexual, you were criminal from birth. If today’s surveillance level had existed in the 1950s and 60s, the lobby groups for sexual equality could never have formed; it would have been just a matter of rounding up the organized criminals (“and who could possibly object to fighting organized crime?”). If today’s surveillance level had existed in the 1950s and 60s, homosexuality would still be illegal and homosexual people would be criminals by birth. It is an absolute necessity to be able to break unjust laws for society to progress and question its own values, in order to learn from mistakes and move on as a society.

        Implying that only the dishonest people have need of any privacy ignores a basic property of the human psyche, and sends a creepy message of strong discomfort. We have a fundamental need for privacy. I lock the door when I go to the men’s room, despite the fact that nothing secret happens in there: I just want to keep that activity to myself, I have a fundamental need to do so, and any society must respect that fundamental need for privacy. In every society that doesn’t, citizens have responded with subterfuge and created their own private areas out of reach of the governmental surveillance, not because they are criminal, but because doing so is a fundamental human need.

        Finally, it could be noted that this argument is also commonly used by the authorities themselves to promote surveillance and censorship, while rejecting transparency and free speech.

        • bobmail

          Rick twists things so hard, it’s surprising he didn’t end up in traction. He’s very good at scare mongering, that is for sure.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          That may in fact be true, I have no way to measure his abilities at scare mongering personally. I do know that there are reasoned arguments against surveillance and monitoring, and note that I have never really seen any arguments in favour of monitoring, short of “we need to watch everybody so that we can stop the bad guys from doing bad things.” …which doesn’t seem to be a fair balance, in my own humble opinion.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @bobmail

          “Rick twists things so hard, it’s surprising he didn’t end up in traction. He’s very good at scare mongering, that is for sure.”

          Actually most of what he says can be lifted from books on social science and were keywords of everyone objecting against the totalitarian rule of the Sovjet Union and the DDR.

          But fair enough, you agree with China’s position on this and call it “scare mongering” when the need for common privacy is defended. Duly noted.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Especially that whole “going to the bathroom behind a closed door” bullshit. Guy could be building a bomb in there!

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      In Sweden right before the acts mandating government surveillance of internet activities (FRA) and the IPRED directive, the number of entities using anonymizing services in 2006 was 20,000. That included corporate use.

      In 2009 the number of entities regularly using anonymization was estimated at 400,000.

      Now if the US ever gets the same draconian internet surveillance regimes prevalent in european countries, rest assured. Anonymization will surge.

      • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

        BS

        The growing use of VPN services is about breaking copyright laws and minimizing the risk of getting caught. FRA has nothing to do with copyright.

        We can’t accept a growing number of people committing crimes under disguise.

        • DXT

          Yes, people should start to say, “hey, your laws are completely incorrect,
          change it, please! I don’t want to spend extra money in VPNs”.

        • Guest

          “We can’t accept a growing number of people committing crimes under disguise.”

          Copyright infringement is a civil offense at worst, not a crime. You get an F- for honesty.

          Oh, also, it doesn’t matter what you do or do not accept. We don’t give a shit about your opinion.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Strange that the explosive surge of VPN’s coincided with the FRA law then, and NOT with the spate of actual arrests and the media circus surrounding filesharing.

          “We can’t accept a growing number of people committing crimes under disguise.”

          As in “no person may walk without identifying himself at every corner because he may commit a crime”. We’ve seen your argument before. It ended with you tacitly saying that civil rights were a luxury society could not afford.

          And despite having been corrected for the last four years you are still unable to discern the difference between a “crime” and “unlawful behavior”. Even jaywalking trumps filesharing in that regard. By your argument that means we should not allow people to have free use of their legs.

          I’d say that’s about par on the course for your typical rhetoric.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Okay, can you seriously do me a favour and clear that up for me?? I’m stymied on this.

          What exactly is the difference between a crime and unlawful behaviour?

        • 7th_Guest

          @Gene Pool: The distinction between a crime and a civil offense is pretty simple. The former is treated as an act perpetrated against more than just another person on principle (i.e. against society itself and its operation), is covered by a Land’s criminal law and usually will involve a permanent entry into the adult guilty party’s criminal record, statutory fines and/or a prison sentence (or worse, if you live in a country where the death penalty still exists). You can often find the State itself being the plaintiff when crimes are tried and the criteria for admissible evidence is substantially high (“beyond reasonable doubt”). The latter merely involves interpersonal disputes, regardless of whether those persons/entities are natural or legal, is covered by civil law and is mostly about estimating the magnitude of tort done to the plaintiff and the damages that should be awarded for it. The evidential criteria here is lower, to the tune of “preponderance of evidence” that will tend to put the defendant in a position where they’ll have to disprove an allegation instead of the opposite. Losing a civil case will only ever set you back some cash, or perhaps strap you with some restraining terms if business actions (say, contracts) entered the feud.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

      last I checked it wasn’t legal to invade anyone’s privacy without prior knowladge of crime, and then, only by police. I would never personally care to take extra precasions because someone else might break the law. it’s like using a military armored car because someone else might be driving drunk and slam into you.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Last you checked, yes.

        Now go back and study ACTA, SOPA and PIPA.

        As you will quickly note one reason these acts got sunk was because as far as online privacy was concerned, was the practical effect of lowering the bar you describe.

        ACTA, for instance, would have equated an illegally made copy of a file to a hazardous chemical. Making any suspected possession of a filesharing library equal to a suspicion that you had ten kg’s of meth stashed under your bed.

        “prior knowledge” of crime would not have been needed anymore, as it would be up to the person accused to prove innocence, not the other way around. “Presumed Innocence” would be gone, circumvented neatly.

        In europe the data retention directive alone turns the paradigm you describe around – everyone is expected not to have any privacy online according to law. Hence the explosive surge of VPN services there.

        In the US you dodged that bullet by a whisker.

    • Ophelia Millais

      The data was collected in 2011. Now that it’s 2013, maybe the numbers are getting better? Probably not by much, though.

  • KrakOrJak

    “In part, this is a reaction to increasing copyright enforcement initiatives. In the U.S., 4% of Internet users use anonymizing services such as VPNs, and this percentage increases to 16% among those who share files online. “…

    Oldest story in the Government VS. Private Citizen playbook:

    If the government wants more law enforcement jobs for the books… make something illegal, force it underground, then petition congress asking for more money to enforce.

  • SaveTheInternet

    There was a time when the internet was a beautiful place much like the pristine earth was before industrialization. Now the internet has regulatory blemishes from governments. Agents of Hollywood are backed with tons of money so that the fat cats can get their way. Meanwhile its us the average working poor people who have to deal with this jack-assery, and things like paying, to a rich man, to make the RICH man see your message on Facebook

    • Guest

      screw Zuckenberg maaan

  • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

    There is a sense in which administrative actions are harder to fight.

    If two years ago, ten Senators had sponsored a bill to submit effectively all American ISP Customers to a system of alerts and punishments predicated on unlitigated alegation based on unvetted evidence collected on behalf of private party Copyright Holders, there would have been political mayhem.

    Today, Six Strikes has no legal foundations whatsoever, precisely because the American People refused resoundingly (with the defeats of PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, CISPA, and TPP), to submit Americans to the extra-Constitutional waivers of rights imposed by Six Strikes.

    Yet, Six Strikes threatens credibly to become the immediate future’s new normal.

    How can that be?

    It is a purely administrative action.

    Nobody notices. It happens slowly. The officials involved don’t ruffle feathers.

    “No big deal!” we hear, “It’s just an administrative action!”

    If you’re wealthy enough; careful enough; determined enough; politicly powerful enough; patient enough; smooth enough; you can enslave a whole country using purely administrative actions.

    How can that be?

    Nobody notices.

    It’s just one more administrative action.

    • Anon1

      Here, take my like.

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        I say thanks for that like……

    • Anon

      “If you’re wealthy enough; careful enough; determined enough; politicly powerful enough; patient enough; smooth enough; you can enslave a whole country using purely administrative actions. ”

      fixed:
      If you’re wealthy enough; careful enough; determined enough; politicly powerful enough; patient enough; smooth enough; you can enslave whole countrys using purely administrative actions. (see mafiaa’s track record)

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        I am more horrified by your claim to have “fixed” anything with your prescient and hopeful assessment of their track record; than I am by all the discredited Corporate prattle of Anon or BobMail……

        Why?

        Because, if you’re wrong about the implications of that “track record” there won’t any hidden place on planet earth for us to hide in……

    • bobmail

      “If you’re wealthy enough; careful enough; determined enough; politicly powerful enough; patient enough; smooth enough; you can enslave a whole country using purely administrative actions.”

      If you stopped trying to take everyone else’s stuff, and instead made your own, you wouldn’t be a slave to anyone. You are a “slave” because you want what they are offering. Stop calling them the MAFIAA and then slobbering at the trough to be the first to download their latest work. It makes you look two faced.

      If you don’t want to be a slave, just don’t deal with them. END OF PROBLEM.

      • Guest

        No, because you still have to pay blank media levies, otherwise known as “You must be a pirate” tax. You still have to pay for congressmen who accept bribes from Hollywood and establish laws that no one requested but we all paid for. And we have to sit while assholes like you call us pirates anyway.

        How’s that campaign for Evan Stone working out?

        • ClueCluster

          @bobmail
          I don’t download Hollywood movies, they don’t deserve my bandwidth,
          anyway, I still don’t like them, because they’re ruining the internet
          and affecting other countries with those actions.

          They want more money? Good, they should invest in something else,
          for diversification strategies, if it’s true their actual business model is failing.

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        The Corporate Answer to 350 Million American Citizens whose nominally democratic government has consigned them to second class citizenship under the tutelege of Corporate Monopolies?

        You must pay what we demand because you are weak, disorganized, and stupid!

        You are Criminals for all of the Rights that you demand!

        You must be controlled to prevent anarchy!

        The law WE make IS the law YOU must obey!

        Wake up BOB! Your children too will face those implications!!

        • G2G cat on fire

          “Wake up BOB! Your children too will face those implications!!”

          bob likes the idea just as anon does, both of these sick fucks love their BDSM relation of punishment and slavery to corporations

      • G2G cat on fire

        “If you stopped trying to take everyone else’s stuff”

        i’m not “taking” anything, i’m copying it, moron

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Good point. We begin, I think, by abolishing the various kinds of “media levies” and “culture taxation” which means we as taxpayers have to spend through our noses in the generation of that crap.

        After that, we can start talking.

  • Ichbin

    Where is the survey that states how many file-sharers got fucked with a virus in a cracked app? LOL.

    • guest

      Perhaps, instead of being snarky, you might share a solution for those who are still using Windows.

      • Guest

        Okay. Solution: stop using Windows.

  • Wallace

    I wonder if the respondents understood that downloading an unauthorized song or movie is what happens when you watch YouTube.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      They probably didn’t.

    • ClueCluster

      I suppose they don’t, some months ago, somebody commented on Youtube:
      “I downloaded this anime movie”, then another person replied to him/her:
      “stop, do not download files, you’re hurting the artist”.
      Then I had the urge to say something about that conversation and I did it.

  • http://www.frontier-space.com/ Lethn

    “The study is based on thousands of telephone interviews conducted in the United States and Germany and provides a unique insight into copying habits in the two countries. ”

    How many thousands exactly? Why only the U.S and Germany? Ever since the Newtown shooting I have become entirely paranoid and questioning about statistics spouted by insane looking angry people. While I know torrentfreak is being honest about its pro-filesharing agenda I am rather tired of just about every politically inclined organisation out there entirely manipulating the statistics they show to prove whatever daft point the have about the world when you can just as easily find statistics that disprove whatever they have to say.

    • icec0ld

      2300 in USA

      1000 in Germany

      At least that’s their chosen sample. They may well of had a larger number of respondents but chose to limit the sample size for sanitys sake.

      Connivance and comparison are the most likely choice. USA for it’s consideration as one of the heavy weights of opposition to file sharing. Germany because they needed a comparison.

      Yeah, I wouldn’t exactly lord this as incredibly valid research given the limitations they list.

      Kudos for them trying and acknowledging their limitations. It’s allot better than the “because we said so” style of research coming out of the pro copyright lobby

  • Who

    the problem is what it actually does say in the copyright laws vary.

    for example: in the US, the MPAA/RIAA and other copyright holders completely disregard what it really does say in the US copyright law. they are ONLY interested in what it does for them and don’t care how it applies to the USERS.
    there IS actually a fair amount of stuff that us users DO that IS with in the LEGAL limits of the copyright law. BUT they ignore it. IF you really look @ US copyright law you WILL find out JUST how much THEY actually BREAK IT and how file sharing is actually LEGAL with in the copyright law, its part of the fair use that IS listed but not directly. *you MUST read the fine print to figure it out*

    BUT because some one has pointed out that they WILL STILL do as they please regardless, its almost pointless to even bother pointing anything out.

  • ndmushroom

    Could you explain the difference between “ISPs screening user activity and removing infringing files” and “internet use being monitored in order to prevent infringing”? Given that the answers to the relevant questions are more or less opposite (58/36 vs 26/69), these seem to be two very different things. US big government paranoia aside, what could explain these very different answers to what is more or less the same question?

  • Uffda

    That’s the bummer with the downfall of Napster, we let it get killed. Thankfully I think more people are aware of the tyranny that is out there trying to destroy the internet.

    • Poorfag

      When Napster got killed my friends and I had soooo many MP3s saved up, ripped onto tapes and burned by that time. It didn’t really phase us.

      Same goes for Movies now. I’m sure if they really shut it down there would be enough to go round for a while.

      - poorfag

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        You think that’s what’s at stake?

        Whether we’ve accumulated enough media?

  • http://jasonlcurby.com/ JC

    While I find a lot of this info. interesting, the phone issue does degrade the reliability a little.

  • FreeBSD

    wonder how many didn’t answer truthfully.

  • Anonymous

    regardless of how the answers were collected and how accurate they are, no one in government, law enforcement and certainly not at the labels/entertainment industries is gonna take the slightest bit of notice of this report, just as they have taken no notice of any of the other independent reports. the only ones they take notice of are the ones they paid for themselves that say what they want to be said, that paint a dark picture, that is total lies, so they can continue to con politicians into ramping up copyright protections and threaten their customers with enormous fines and jail time! until the, mainly, politicians change their attitude, nothing else will change!!

  • Daniel

    “Offline swapping with friends and family is seen as reasonable by the majority of the population, but online file-sharing is not.” dat hypocrisy.

  • Whatever

    Some observations (and comment):

    “Nearly half of the U.S. and German populations have copied, shared or downloaded music, movies, and TV shows.” & “with only 15% saying it’s reasonable to upload files to public websites.”

    There seems to be a complete disrespect to uploaders in these figures. Or do most think the files they download just magically appeared on the internet ?

    “(51%) support warnings”
    The 51% that support penalties is probably exactly the part that doesn’t share. I can also think of a few things i don’t use i might want others to get a penalty for.

    “The blocking graphic”
    The general conclusion seems to be that “pirated” files should stay and be accessible on the internet but not too easy to be found, people want to work for it. Then there is a paradox where 32% of the population support and don’t support 2 similar questions. The screening or monitoring a users internet connection is basically the same using other words but the results are totally different.

  • Andrew Lee

    I would have liked to seen the report get a little deeper into fines when asking people the question.. Because the industries idea of a fine is over 100 grand which is more like a death sentence to a blue collar American income.
    A fine should NEVER go past the price of the goddamn product lol..

    Then you see these morons accusing people of costing them a few hundred trillion dollars a day. Then it happens to turn out they’ve not even seeded the file back to a ratio of 1:1

    My favorite part is how people see this “Offline swapping with friends and family is seen as reasonable by the majority of the population, but online file-sharing is not.” as somehow not the same thing when it is in fact the same fucking thing.
    I’m not bitching about people sharing shit because I’m all for it 100 percent. However I’m against people doing something in a different way then bitching about it because it’s being done online. Fucking hypocrites if you ask me…

    People need to pick a side and stick to their damn guns before it ends up illegal to play music with your car windows down. I don’t need a 250 grand ticket for playing music on the way to work. Don’t fool yourselves either if they could get away with that you can bet your asses they would be doing it right now.

  • rmstallman

    Nobody “consumes” digital music. One of the virtues of digital media
    formats is that using a work does not consume it. So what is this
    nonsense about “consuming music”? Is that meant to symbolize
    endorsement of the narrow-minded economistic outlook on the subject?

    Karaganis said, “The study suggests that most people in the US and
    Germany recognize the constitutive dilemma of copyright as a set
    of tradeoffs between rightsholders and the public…

    This is widely repeated, but it is a mistake. See
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html.

  • Donsan

    I find it horrendous that people who file share are having a bad conscious for doing so -The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml) article 19 states – and I quote:
    “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
    Whereas the keywords for file sharers are: seek, receive and impart information – which is exactly what file sharers do

    My conclusion is that file sharers only conduct their human right and in fact copyright is violating the publics human rights as is expressed in article 19

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.