The research targeted Internet users over 12 years old with the aim of gathering information on the way they consume movies, music, TV shows, video games, software and books to assist with copyright enforcement policy making. The results are now in and they interesting to say the least.

The researchers split infringers into several categories according to their attitudes and motivations.

So-called ‘Justifying Infringers’ were the group who demonstrated the highest levels of infringing behavior. This group accounted for 9% of all infringers, 24% of total infringed volume and 2% of total digital consumers. They felt that they’d already spent enough on content (the researchers say this was confirmed) but like to try before they buy. They’re also the most receptive group when it comes to considering fairly priced legal alternatives.

The ‘Digital Transgressors’ group (9% of all infringers, 22% of total infringed volume, 2% of total digital consumers) consumed more films and TV shows than the ‘Justifying Infringers’. While they showed the least remorse over their behavior, this group had the highest fear of getting caught and the researchers say they would be the most receptive to warning notices sent by ISPs.

The largest group, the ‘Free Infringers’ (42% of infringers, 35% of infringed volume, 10% of total digital consumers) lived up to their name. They all download content because its free and pay for the lowest proportion of legal content compared to the other infringers.

Ambiguous Infringers (39% of infringers, 20% of infringed volume, 9% of total digital consumers) had the lowest level of digital consumption and the highest proportion of paid and legal content. They made less attempt to justify their infringing.

“Most infringing segments found it easy to find content on the internet for free which would normally be paid, ranging from 45% for the Ambiguous Infringers to 76% for the Top 20% infringers,” the researchers note. “Among non-infringers the figures were notably lower, ranging from 28% to 45%.”

Looking at the infringers overall, the researchers made some very interesting discoveries, particularly among the most prolific.

The top 10% of infringers (who accounted for just 1.6% of all Internet users over 12) were responsible for a massive 79% of all infringed content. Pull in another 10%, to consider the top 20% of all infringers (equal to 3.2% of all Internet users over 12), and this group were responsible for 88% of all infringements.

This means that the other 80% of the total infringers accounted for just 12% of all infringements by volume.

While they are undoubtedly prolific consumers of illicit content, the Top 20% group proves to be of great value to entertainment companies. Not only does the group account for 11% of all legal content consumed, but they also spend the most.

Across all content types, the top 20% of infringers on average not only spend more than the remaining 80% of infringers, but also more than consumers who never infringe. The figures are impressive – the 20% worst infringers spent £168 over the six month monitoring period with the remaining 80% spending £105. Tailing in last place were the ‘honest’ consumers with just £54 spent, three times less than the prolific pirate group.

“For all content types there were differences in terms of payment between the two groups; the large majority (92% overall) of content consumed by the Top 20% Infringers was free. This compared to 76% among the Bottom 80% Infringers,” the researchers write. “However, because they consumed more content in total, the Top 20% purchased more ‘paid for’ digital files in absolute terms than the Bottom 80%.”

Later on in the report the researchers reveal which services – authorized and unauthorized – respondents use to access content. Even for the infringers, authorized sites such as YouTube and BBC iPlayer prove most popular as the table below shows.

Interestingly, despite being blocked in the UK during the research period, The Pirate Bay is still being used by almost a third of the top 20% of infringers. The site was used by just 9% of the bottom 80% of infringers which perhaps suggests that the more hardcore the pirate, the more likely they are to unblock a site.

So what might encourage infringers to stop accessing content illegally? As usual, pricing, availability and convenience top the list. Interestingly, fears over internet disconnections in the Top 20% group trumped fears of being sued.

The research, titled OCI Tracker Benchmark Study ‘Deep Dive’ Analysis Report, was prepared by Kantar Media for Ofcom and is available for download here. (pdf)

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

As the DEA dictates, ISP accounts linked to peer-to-peer infringements will be subject to receiving a series of notifications warning the bill payer that their activities (or those of people in their household) are unacceptable and in need of change.

The amendments to the Code, which provides a set of standards and procedures by which the anti-P2P (mainly BitTorrent related) elements of the Act will be governed, are very much a mixed bag.

First, and on the plus side for subscribers, is that evidence collection systems of copyright holders will have to fall into line with OFCOM standards before they can send any CIRs (copyright infringement reports) to ISPs.

Additionally, the Code states that copyright owners may only send a CIR if they have “gathered evidence in accordance with the approved procedures” which lead to the “reasonable” belief that the subscriber has infringed a rightsholder’s copyright or that he has allowed someone else to use his account in order to do so.

In the original version of OFCOM’s Code rightsholders were given 10 days in which to send CIRs to ISPs, but in the updated code they are allowed a month following the time of detection – roughly three times longer than before.

For their part, ISPs were previously allowed 10 days from receipt of a CIR to notify a customer that they had been tracked. That period has now been extended to one month. This means that there could be a 60 day gap between an alleged infringement and a subscriber being notified, up from just 20 days.

On the downside for consumer protection is the complete removal of a clause which allowed ISPs to reject rightholder CIRs if they felt in their “reasonable opinion” they were invalid.

Originally it was envisaged that so-called ‘first and ‘second’ strike warnings would go out via email with only the ‘third’ going out by recorded regular mail. That has now been scrapped. All warnings will now go out by regular first class mail, meaning that there will be absolutely no proof that a subscriber has received his third warning.

In addition to conveying the warning itself, CIRs will now have to show the time and date when any infringement took place (as opposed to simply when the evidence was gathered) and also display the number of previous CIRs sent to the subscriber.

OFCOM reports that it has also introduced a requirement that there be a 20 day gap introduced between the date a previous CIR was sent out to a subscriber and evidence being valid for the creation of a subsequent CIR.

Under the previous iteration of the Code, copyright owners would only be able to request a copyright infringement report from ISPs once every three months, and the service provider would be given 5 days to produce it. That three month period has been reduced to a single month and ISPs will have double the time – 10 days – to produce it.

Under the Code subscribers will be able to lodge an appeal against wrongful accusations of infringement. The time to do so has now been clarified as 20 days from the date of receiving a CIR. It will cost an Internet account holder £20.00 to do so.

Finally, the amended Code ends with notes that the UK Government ordered the removal of two elements, both of which would have given a level of protection to subscribers.

“On the instruction of Government we have removed the ability for subscribers to appeal on any other ground on which they choose to rely,” the report notes, adding:

“On the instruction of Government we have removed the requirement for ISPs and copyright owners to provide a statement showing how their processes and systems are compliant with the Data Protection Act.”

This draft Code is now open for a one month consultation period before being presented to parliament later this year. Letters will start going out in 2014…..maybe.

The full report is available here.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Parts of the report produced by OFCOM were censored by the UK government but those restrictions, ironically, were easily bypassed. The net result is that the uncensored report provides a pretty decent guide on how Internet users are expected to bypass future website blocks and how ‘pirate’ site operators will attempt to help them. We offer a summary below.

What makes the assessment of OFCOM particularly interesting is that it shows how ineffective the anti-piracy plans of the US government are. According to the report, many of the censorship measures that are included in the PROTECT IP Act wont be as effective as advertised.

Measures Users Can Take To Bypass Website Blocking Measures

— Use a Virtual Private Network (VPN)

The key to a VPN is that they hide a user’s traffic from their own ISP. Since ISPs will be the entities required to implement blocks, it necessarily follows that they cannot block VPN’d users accessing blocked sites if they cannot see what they’re doing.

OFCOM notes that any UK-based VPN services which facilitate access to a previously blocked site (say, Newzbin2 to give a current example) may also be required to comply with the terms of a blocking injunction. This means that subscribers to a UK-based VPN service could find that it is rendered useless. In order to avoid such a situation, users would need to subscribe to a non-UK VPN service.

— Change their DNS servers to those offered by 3rd parties

OFCOM states that in the event that a DNS block of a site is ordered, users can circumvent their own ISP’s blockade simply by changing to a DNS server operated by 3rd parties outside the UK.

Helpfully they also provide two examples – Google Public DNS and OpenDNS – both of which come with detailed instructions to get them working.

— Use an anonymous web proxy which is not reliant on UK ISP DNS servers

Foreign web proxy sites such as Kproxy and HideMyAss both offer free services which can be used to bypass DNS blocks.

OFCOM also says that the use of TOR (The Onion Router) would also prove effective.

— Don’t use a remote DNS at all

Windows users can add IP address entries to their ‘hosts file’ which means that external DNS systems won’t even be consulted. Further information on the technicalities, provided by critics of US blocking, can be found here.

Another often-effective option is for a user to enter the IP address of a site directly into the URL bar of their browser.

Measures Site Operators Can Take To Bypass Bans

— Change the site’s IP address by moving host and manipulating TTL

In respect of IP address cycling, OFCOM also explain how TTL can be manipulated to assist with domain unblocking.

“When moving to a new IP address a site operator may register multiple IP addresses for a given site in order to maintain service in the event that some of those individual IP addresses are blocked,” OFCOM writes.

“Furthermore, Domain Name System (DNS) record value, determining the length of time that the IP address for a particular domain (expressed in seconds) remains in remote name server caches, it is easier for a site operator to move IP addresses without end users losing access. Where a low TTL is expressed the ISP DNS name server resolution cache is purged quickly thereby ensuring that newly assigned site IP addresses are retrieved from the authoritative name server and site accessibility is maintained.”

— Change domains and IP addresses

“Similarly, site operators may quickly mirror or make copies of a blocked site on new top level or country code domains pointing towards new IP addresses e.g. www.blockedsite.cc; www.blockedsite.ru; www.blockedsite.vn; www.blockedsite.net,” OFCOM explains.

— Facilitate user access to blocked site via Virtual Private Network (VPN)

Sites could offer an in-house VPN service to offer access to blocked users. However, in keeping with the VPN item in the section above, if they are deemed to be too closely associated with the blocked site in question, they too could be blocked via UK injunction. See the Pirate Bay and BTjunkie proxy-blocking cases in Italy for a practical example of how that can happen.

— Operate a so-called Fast Flux network

Fast Flux systems are often associated with malware, but can also be used to facilitate access to blocked sites. In very shallow detail, users of a blocked site could choose to operate a piece of software which would associate hundreds or thousands of IP addresses with a blocked site which could change as often as every few minutes. More technical detail here.

— Possible site operator counter-measures specific to URL blocking

OFCOM list a number of techniques operators can use to circumvent blocks which target a site’s URL (i.e Newzbin.com, ThePirateBay.org)

- Provide encrypted access via SSL/TLS, i.e via HTTPS rather than simple HTTP.

- Running a website on a port other than the standard port 80

- Reorganizing site structure if blocking is directed only at specific URLs

- Encoding URLs to evade blocking

Blocking techniques and OFCOM’s assessment of how difficult they are to circumvent

IP address blocking – Easy by site operator & various ways by end-user

DNS blocking – Easy. Use of 3rd party UK or overseas DNS, new domain registration, end-user bypass, mirroring to new domains.

Shallow Packet Inspection (SPI) – Easy by site operator and various ways by end-user e.g encryption, anonymity-networks.

Deep Packet Inspection – Evade by use of encryption, anonymity networks.

URL Blocking – Site operator can reorganize site with ease thereby creating new URLS. Evade by use of encryption, anonymity networks.

Hybrid DNS and DPI – Evasion by use of encryption, anonymity networks.

Hybrid DNS and URL – Evasion by use of encryption, anonymity networks – new domain registration, mirroring.

Hybrid DNS and SPI – Evasion by use of encryption, anonymity networks – new domain registration, mirroring on new site/domain.

OFCOM final conclusion on DNS blocking effectiveness from a technical stance

“For site operators and end users with a sufficient incentive to engage in circumvention DNS blocking is technically relatively straightforward to bypass,” OFCOM notes.

Another paragraph sums up their technical assessment clearly.

“Circumvention of a block is technically a relatively trivial matter irrespective of which of the techniques used. Knowledge of how site operators and end users can work around blocks is widely distributed and easily accessible on the internet.”

“It is not technically challenging and does not require a particularly high level of skill or expertise.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

OFCOM also released a second report titled Digital Economy Act, Online Copyright Infringement Appeals Process: Options for reducing costs.

On the front page of the report there is a note that redactions have taken place to censor sections relating to “on-going policy development” of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

The DCMS did a better job of hiding the blacked-out text than earlier in the week but not so good as to keep out TorrentFreak and our X-ray specs.

The first redaction on Page 3 says simply “Revisit the grounds for appeal set out in Ofcom’s draft Initial Obligations Code” but two pages later things start to get much more interesting. It seems the government (or more likely their friends in the copyright lobby) doesn’t want talk of an error-prone system becoming public.

Page 5 – OFCOM wants rights holders’ accusations to be ‘quality assured’

Ofcom has also sought to ensure efficiency by introducing into the Code a requirement that Copyright Owners take part in a quality assurance process with the aim of minimising errors. This should help to reduce the number of wrongly identified infringements and subscribers. (ISPs can also have some impact here by ensuring that the letters they send to subscribers make clear the implications of receiving a notification).

A “quality assurance process” sounds like a great idea, but who could be trusted to implement such a regime and ensure independent scrutiny? Anti-piracy tracking companies are notoriously secretive and unlikely to be open about the short-comings of their “proprietary systems”.

Page 11 – Government rejects OFCOM suggestion of subscriber appeal “on any reasonable grounds”

The grounds set out in the Act are non-exhaustive and we reflected this in our drafted Code by including an option to appeal on “any other reasonable ground”. This was intended to provide an efficient mechanism through which to avoid a lengthy revision of the Code should subscribers find additional, but reasonable, grounds for appeal as technologies and consumer behaviours evolve.

We understand that Government believes we should not include this mechanism in the final Code

It is far from clear why the government wishes to remove the right for a citizen to appeal a wrongful accusation on “any reasonable ground”. What is clear, however, is why the government might wish to redact this statement from the report – it looks very bad indeed.

Page 11 – ISP IP address matching to be “quality assured”

We have also introduced into the Code a requirement that Copyright Owners take part in a quality assurance process with the aim of minimising errors. We are proposing to sponsor a similar standard for the IP address matching processes of the ISPs, although participation will be voluntary. This should help to reduce the number of wrongly identified infringements and subscribers (appeal grounds (a) and (b)). We anticipate that the majority of appeals will rely on ground (c) in the absence of systematic failures by a Copyright Owner or ISP under the Code.

When it comes to copyright infringement cases ISPs make errors so it is good they will be required to adopt similar “quality assurance” processes as rights holders. However, how many will choose to do so when participation is voluntary remains to be seen.

Redactions on page 17 merely repeat details covered in earlier redactions. Redactions on page 19 likewise, save a comment that a rightsholder “quality assurance” process

….does not create a rebuttable presumption in favour of the rights holder but should help bring down the proportion of incorrect CIRs [Copyright Infringement Reports] and therefore appeals costs since there are likely to be fewer meritorious appeals in this respect. This quality assurance is also intended to make sure that the number of CIRs rejected by ISPs for process reasons is minimised

The full but redacted document can be downloaded here.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In reality the MPAA’s steps against Usenet indexing site Newzbin had begun much earlier, first with prolonged action through the civil legal system and then a reassessment once it had become apparent that the site, now called Newzbin2, had been resurrected against all odds.

Earlier this month it was revealed that Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt had asked communications watchdog Ofcom to look at whether website blocking in general, as allowed in theory by last year’s passing of the Digital Economy Act, could actually work.

Ofcom is expected to report back during the spring, but in the meantime The Guardian is reporting today that the entertainment industries are revving up their blocking preparations in advance of a favorable outcome.

Rightsholders from the music and movie industries are said to have identified 100 websites which they would like blocked, including The Pirate Bay and file-hosting or so-called ‘cyberlocker’ sites. Perhaps predictably Newzbin2 is also on the list along with the lesser-known Movieberry and Free Movies Online 4 You.

Acceptance of a voluntary code under discussion would mean that ISPs would receive evidence of unauthorized file-sharing from rightsholders and then take action to block the sites in question.

A source at government meetings told The Guardian that site-blocking is preferable to sending out infringement notices to subscribers since that process is likely to be laborious and expensive.

“We’re more interested in site blocking. We don’t want to target end users, [the mass notification system] is long winded – we want something now,” said the source.

So which of these 100 proposed sites will we be familiar with? While there will be some surprises, it seems likely that those that have appeared on the recent “most notorious pirate markets” will be at the forefront.

Undoubtedly some of the Russian AllofMP3 replacement pay-to-download portals will be high on the list as these have long been a thorn in the music industry’s side. On the BitTorrent indexing front we already know about The Pirate Bay and it’s likely they will be joined isoHunt, BTjunkie, Kickasstorrents and Torrentz.

Sites with trackers such as Demonoid, RUTracker and Zamunda will also make an appearance. However, getting authorization to block pure trackers such as OpenBitTorrent and PublicBT may prove a step too far, since these sites have no search engines, no readable filenames and no torrents.

Nevertheless, even Ofcom says that site blocking is feasible, it’s unlikely any steps taken by ISPs will stop the really determined from accessing illicit music and movies. But crucially it may stop the casual downloader in his tracks – which is admittedly a sizeable proportion of file-sharers – so this may prove enough for the entertainment industries. For now at least.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

At the Intellect Conference 2008, the head of Ofcom, Ed Richards, made a speech. In it he touched on many issues but in an unusual move for Ofcom, towards the end of the speech he made some comments about file-sharing in the UK. In a section entitled “Sticking To Principles Of Good Regulation”, Richards stresses that Ofcom must not “duck difficult questions” where doing so would impact the long term success of the communications market. Of course, the question of online piracy is one such ‘difficult question’ in what Richards describes as a “complex digital environment”.

Richards notes that just because Ofcom has not been overly vocal on the subject of file-sharing, that shouldn’t be interpreted as disinterest: “To date, Ofcom has not made a lot of public noise about the piracy issue. But that should not be mistaken for a lack of interest or concern. Our formal locus may be limited. But this sort of piracy is something that affects network operators, ISPs, content creators and consumers , and as the converged regulator we have of course been keeping a watchful eye on developments.”

Going on to speak about the need for ISPs and telecoms companies to invest in improved systems for a developing Internet, Richards notes that these businesses need to be assured that they can return profit on their investments:

“An operator investing in next generation networks will not want it clogged up with illegal peer-to-peer content if that means no-one will pay to ensure a return on the investment, as we have seen in some Asia Pacific markets. And content providers, self evidently, do not want illegal traffic undermining their investment in IPR.”

Richards feels that the issue of piracy is important for network providers and creators of content alike, and says that he hopes business agreements can be reached to find a solution, presumably as an alternative to a government implemented strategy such as the controversial “3 strikes” idea.

ISPs make a lot of money from their subscribers, with media-hungry file-sharers investing in high-bandwidth premium packages more often than regular users. With around 6 million file-sharers in the UK, these customers are a significant driving force behind the need to create the next generation Internet Richards mentioned earlier.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.