After a chain of events that reads like a Hollywood blockbuster script, the case is now on trial with husband and wife team Anton and Kelly Vickerman as the defendants.

As is often the case, the investigation into the alleged pirate site was not started by the police, but by Hollywood. In 2008 and working closely with the MPAA, the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) hired former Dutch policeman Pascal Hetzschold to try and make contact with SurfTheChannel’s owner.

Using the cover “Roger Van Veen,” Hetzschold pretended to represent a venture capitalist who was interested in the site. After a few emails back forth, SurfTheChannel operator “Anton” agreed to meet with him in London.

During that meeting Anton opened up about the site according to Hetzschold. He allegedly explained that the site made $50,000 in revenue each month from an average of 400,000 visitors per day. Anton also admitted that he founded the site which he ran in collaboration with two other people.

After the meeting was over the two parted company. Or at least, that’s what Anton was led to believe. In reality, Hetzschold tailed the SurfTheChannel owner a distance of nearly 250 miles back to his home in Gateshead where he lived with his wife Kelly.

Now that the MPAA and FACT knew where the couple lived, they were ready to carry out the second part of their plan. In preparation for a possible police raid on the premises, they sent over private investigator Paul Varley as a prospective house buyer. Once he had gained access to the family home Varley took a series of pictures, with a special interest in computer equipment.

The MPAA/FACT undercover operation eventually resulted in a raid on the Vickerman’s home. During the raid it became apparent how closely the Hollywood group had been working together with the authorities. Not only were Hollywood representatives taking part in the questioning, they also brought along investigators who were allowed to examine the equipment.

After looking into the case for a few months, UK authorities decided not to start a criminal prosecution. However, that wasn’t the end of the SurfTheChannel case.

Determined to hold the site’s operators responsible for linking to third party streaming sites, the MPAA focused on a programmer from the United States. After teaming up with the US authorities, a criminal investigation was started against Boston resident Brendan DeBeasi in 2011.

DeBeasi had been hired to maintain and code for SurfTheChannel, for which he was paid the sum of $9,850. For his collaboration with the streaming links site he was charged with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, facing up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

However, DeBeasi wasn’t convicted in the United States. Instead, he worked out a deal with the authorities who agreed to dismiss the copyright infringement charge in exchange for a testimony in the UK Vickerman trial. In addition, the programmer agreed to pay the MPAA the $9,850 he made from his work at SurfTheChannel.

In other words, the US authorities agreed to drop copyright charges in the US in exchange for a testimony in a UK fraud case, which to our knowledge is unprecedented.

Possibly because of this fresh witness, the criminal prosecution against the Vickerman couple was started after all. In what Hollywood describes as the largest copyright related fraud case in UK history, their trial started last week at Newcastle Crown Court.

During the court hearings some of the above details were brought up, as the Sunday Times reports.

Prosecutor David Groome argued that SurfTheChannel facilitated mass copyright infringement resulting in massive losses for the movie industry. Defense lawyer David Walbank on the other hand noted that the site’s servers were located in Sweden, which means that the site might have not operated illegally under UK law.

The case is expected to last a month but which way it will go is hard to predict. Both are charged with two counts of conspiracy to defraud and pleaded not guilty.

In 2010, linking website TV-Links was deemed to be a ‘mere conduit’ of information and its admins were acquitted. From a functional viewpoint this site was similar to SurfTheChannel.

However, the TV-Links case was conducted on a question of copyright and the charges against the SurfTheChannel operators are for fraud. Nevertheless, a similar approach failed when tested against the former operator of OiNK, Alan Ellis.

Another interesting angle comes from the case against the operators of BitTorrent tracker FileSoup. They had their case dismissed last year after the court concluded that the criminal investigation was built on evidence solely provided by industry groups. As the cloak-and-dagger behavior detailed above illustrates, there can be little doubt that Hollywood was deeply involved in the criminal investigation against SurfTheChannel.

Update: We deleted the reference to a “lifetime” imprisonment which appeared in the Sunday Times. The maximum term in fraud cases is 10 years.

Source: Undercover MPAA Agents Expose Alleged Movie Pirates

The study’s coverage is broad, but for the purposes of this summary we’ll take a look at the elements relating to unauthorized consumption of digital products.

The first section of the survey covers people’s entertainment activities such as watching TV, listening to music or reading ebooks. Despite the piracy crisis complained about by the entertainment industries, out of a Top 40 most popular activities list, it takes until position 34 for an unauthorized activity to appear.

Just 6% of respondents said they download movies or TV shows from linking and hosting sites. Even less – 5% – said they obtain video from regular file-sharing sites. When it comes to people acquiring unauthorized music online, the figure is a modest 5% of respondents. Just 4% said they obtain eBooks unlawfully.

Zooming in on the various age categories shows that file-sharing is mostly a habit of younger men. Of all men between 15 and 19 years old, 14% admitted downloading movies and TV-shows through file-sharing sites, compared to 2% of women. This percentage drops to 1% for both men and women aged 45 and up.

When it comes to those already consuming media from unauthorized sources, the survey indicates that they aren’t in any hurry to stop soon.

Of those confessing to an existing file-sharing habit, 29% said they would download more eBooks and 28% said they would download more games and software in the next 12 months. When it comes to downloading music from file-sharing sites and cyberlockers, the uptick is 28% and 26% respectively.

But overall respondents say they will use more legal alternatives too. Of those already streaming ad-supported music, 27% said they would do more during the next year. Of music fans already paying for a monthly streaming subscription, 36% said they would consume more music in that way.

Of current unauthorized movie and TV show downloaders, 26% said they would consume more from file-sharing sites during the next year, dropping to 24% for those who prefer cyberlockers. Of those already paying for their movies either from PPV or on-demand services, 34% said they would consume more over the next 12 months.

Interestingly, when it comes to a change of habits during the next year, between 15% and 19% of current downloaders said they would do less, a figure closely matched (18%) by those slowly abandoning DVDs. The good news for the movie industry is that 30% of current movie goers expect to go even more in the year to come.

For those who prefer to do their file-swapping offline with friends using USB sticks and hard drives, 26% said they would be doing more of that during the next 12 months, something that no ISP blockade can do anything about.

The Wiggin law firm counts many big entertainment companies as clients so expect some of the results of this survey to be quoted by the industry at a later date. One that stands out concerns the attributes of an online service that indicates to the user “that a site is legitimate and the content [offered by it] is legal.”

29% of respondents said that a site ranking high in Google’s results would make it stand out as legitimate. Of course, the entertainment industries are trying to pressure Google into downgrading sites like The Pirate Bay so this will add fuel to their fire.

On the thorny issue of regulating Internet content, 40% either “strongly” or “slightly” disagreed with the notion that the Internet should be regulated in the same way as TV while a total of 58% thought that it should.

When it comes to controlling the Internet in order to police unlawful downloading, a total of 53% said they thought greater regulation is required. Just 18% disagreed, a gift to the lobbyists.

The full report can be downloaded here (pdf).

Source: 30% of UK File-Sharers Intend To Pirate More In The Next 12 Months

The blocks – to be implemented by Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media (BT are still considering their position) – are designed to cut off all but the most determined file-sharers from the world’s most popular torrent site.

On hearing the news a Pirate Bay insider told TorrentFreak that the measure will do very little to stop people accessing the site and predicted that “the free advertising” would only increase traffic levels.

It’s not possible to buy advertising “articles” from leading UK publications such as the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, but yesterday The Pirate Bay news was spread across all of them and dozens beside, for free. The news was repeated around the UK, across Europe and around the world reaching millions of people. The results for the site were dramatic.

“Thanks to the High Court and the fact that the news was on the BBC, we had 12 MILLION more visitors yesterday than we had ever had before,” a Pirate Bay insider informed TorrentFreak today.

“We should write a thank you note to the BPI,” he added.

The blockade, which was not contested by any of the ISPs listed above, will be implemented during the course of the next few weeks. While that time counts down, The Pirate Bay say they are viewing the interim period as an opportunity to educate site visitors on how to deal with censorship by bypassing it.

“Another thing that’s good with the traffic surge is that we now have time to teach even more people how to circumvent Internet censorship,” the insider added.

In court papers released today, Mr Justice Arnold said that since the terms of the court order (how the blocks would be implemented technically) had been agreed to by the ISPs in question, there was no need for him to detail them in his ruling. However, The Pirate Bay told us that by taking a range of measures, any blocking technique employed by any ISP can be overcome.

First off they advise that the most simple solution is to use a VPN, such as iPredator or other similar services that carry no logs.

These VPN providers cost money but there are free solutions too. Companies such as VPNReactor offer a free service that is time limited to around 30 mins per session, but that’s plenty of time for users to get on Pirate Bay and download the torrent files they need. Once users have the torrents in their client, the blocking has been bypassed and even with the VPN turned off, downloads will still complete.

Pirate Bay are also recommending the use of TOR but only for the initial accessing of their website and the downloading of the .torrent files. Torrent clients themselves should never be run over TOR, the system isn’t designed for it and besides, transfers will be pitifully slow. TPB also point to I2P as a further unblocking option.

While the above options will cut straight through any kind of blocking with zero problems, Pirate Bay are also advising people to change their DNS provider. By permanently switching to a DNS offered by the likes of OpenDNS and Google, users of UK ISPs that censor The Pirate Bay purely by DNS will have a free and effective work around.

As readers will recall, there are other simple unblocking solutions where domain names are blocked by ISPs but their related IP addresses remain unfiltered. These include the MAFIAAFire plugin and the simple action of typing a site’s IP address directly into a browser. However, in this UK case there is a problem with these solutions.

According to court papers made available today, it seems that on the advice of an expert and after being agreed to by the ISPs in question, IP address blocking of The Pirate Bay is now part of the injunction. This means that the techniques in the above paragraph simply won’t work.

To circumvent this kind of problem, The Pirate Bay can be accessed via a 3rd party – a so-called ‘proxy’. One of these purely for the job is being operated by the UK Pirate Party.

Quite how long this particular proxy stays up remains to be seen though. The Dutch Pirates tried a similar thing and were quickly pursued by rights holders. Nevertheless, there are countless free proxies online that can do the job just as well.

In just a few weeks the block of The Pirate Bay will be implemented and despite all the coverage and millions of extra visitors to the site, thousands of users will remain unprepared. Those patient enough to type a question into a search engine will regain access to the site in a few minutes.

But will the impatient start pumping more money into the pockets of the BPI? That’s the big question.

Update: Virgin Media just started blocking The Pirate Bay.

Source: Pirate Bay Enjoys 12 Million Traffic Boost, Shares Unblocking Tips

Indeed, after a few weeks a conglomerate of music labels filed a lawsuit against several Internet providers, demanding that they block subscriber access to The Pirate Bay.

Nine labels including EMI, Polydor, Sony, Virgin and Warner said that The Pirate Bay infringes their copyrights and that several ISPs including TalkTalk and Virgin Media should implement a blockade under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

In February the High Court agreed that The Pirate Bay and its users do indeed breach copyright on a major scale, and today this decision was followed by a court order.

ISPs Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must censor The Pirate Bay website in the weeks to come. A sixth ISP, BT, has asked for more time to consider its position.

A Pirate Bay spokesperson told TorrentFreak that this measure is going to do very little to stop people from accessing their site, as there are many ways to circumvent it. “This will just give us more traffic, as always. Thanks for the free advertising.”

The UK Pirate Party is also prepared for the block and is offering a reverse proxy which allows blocked Internet users to access The Pirate Bay.

Virgin Media responded to the BBC by saying that a blockade won’t be very effective unless the entertainment industry works on legal alternatives as well.

“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behavior to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price,” their spokesperson said.

Music industry group BPI, on the other hand, sees today’s verdict as a major victory.

“The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale. Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them,” BPI boss Geoff Taylor said.

The Open Rights Group says the court-ordered block represents the thin end of the wedge.

“Blocking the Pirate Bay is pointless and dangerous. It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for Internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism,” ORG Executive Director Jim Killock said.

“Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes.”

The UK is not the first country in Europe where the Pirate Bay is blocked by court order. Similar verdicts were already handed down in Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Finland previously.

Despite these blockades, The Pirate Bay continues to grow month after month.

Source: UK ISPs Must Censor The Pirate Bay, High Court Rules

The solicitor at the center of that lawfirm, Andrew Crossley, was both fined and suspended from practicing law, which seemed to put a hold on similar cases.

However, it didn’t dissuade everyone. Yesterday, the UK’s High Court approved a case involving UK pornographer Ben Dover (real name Lyndsay Honey) and his company Golden Eye International. Now, ISP O2 will have to release the details of up to 9000+ subscribers listed in the document for Dover and Golden Eye. The precise number is unclear, as other companies that attempted to send letters through Golden Eye were denied the opportunity.

It’s success at last for the pornographer, as he’s had several similar cases thrown out in the past including a partnership with 170-year-old law firm Tilly Baily Irvine which ended in sanctions last year.

This claim process started 6 months ago, and with O2 stating they would not contest the case. Chief Master Weingarten, in response,  suggested that Consumer Focus (a government funded body looking after consumer rights) represent the IP addresses – the intended defendants – in court instead, a role Consumer Focus accepted.

Despite a strong defense, including pointing out all the issues with these kinds of actions, Weingarten approved the order, but with conditions. In perhaps a first for this sort of litigation, the court will be supervising the content of letters sent out to the alleged infringers, partly because of the ACS:law debacle.

In particular, the one-sided nature of the letters – only indicating the consequences should the alleged infringer lose – was not deemed appropriate, being indicative of bullying. Instead consequences should they successfully defend themselves should also be included.

Yet the most important part of the ruling is near the end, and might stop this practice once and for all; blanket fees to “make it all go away” are not acceptable.

137.   Fifthly, I think that Mr Becker’s response in his second witness statement to the point made by counsel for Consumer Focus referred to in sub-paragraph 60(v) above is telling:

“… it assumes that £700 will be successfully obtained from each of the 9000, when that is plainly wrong. In fact, it is likely that only a small proportion will result in a successfully obtained payment of any sum.”

This comes quite close to an admission that the figure of £700 has been selected so as to maximise the revenue obtained from the letters of claim, rather than as a realistic estimate of the damages recoverable by the relevant Claimant from each Intended Defendant. In any event, that is the inference I draw in the light of the matters discussed above and in the absence of any disclosure of the information referred to in paragraph 88 above.

138.   Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of £700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants’ copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant.

No more fee demands. Instead they can only state that they will accept a lump sum payment as settlement, to be negotiated if the accused accept liability. Otherwise, it will be down to the courts. It also seems that after many cases, Chief Master Weingarten has understood that these cases are about profits, not protecting rights. Very little money and a lot of grief was the prediction we highlighted earlier this month, and that seems to be the case.

Meanwhile, up to 9124 households are going to get a letter through their door talking about the porn they’ve allegedly downloaded. Let’s just hope that the tracking software, claimed to be ‘forensically accurate’ (huh?) does better than in times past, or there’s going to be a lot of needlessly embarrassed families, and unnecessary family strife when the postman calls.

Source: Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits Return to the UK

Championed by Baron Mandelson after an entirely coincidental holiday meeting with Dreamworks co-founder David Geffin, the Bill has now taken another step in its rush to become law before the end of Parliament, despite all the protests and criticisms.

The Bill, which the UK Pirate Party say “will shape the future of technological and artistic progress” was not important to most MPs. Through the 5 hours of debates, only around 20 MPs were present, including just one from the Liberal Democrat party  - Don Foster (Lib-Dem, Bath) – who had pledged not to vote for the Bill.

The scene at 9:45pm after 5 hours of speeches

Debate was mostly back and forth over the contentious issue of disconnections, but industry figures and unverified estimates were again quoted as fact. Many (including Labour MPs) were outraged at the Government for having left it so late to try and rush through a Bill as complex and controversial as this. It did, however, get passed at this second reading and will be taken to a third tomorrow.

The low turnout didn’t stop the invective, however, or the silly comments, lies, inaccuracies and other miscellaneous statements, all of which were picked up on Twitter (over 16,000 tweets under the #DEB and #DEBill tags), and analyzed a great deal more thoroughly than by these MPs that had apparently read the Bill. Some of the most memorable points include:

• “The creative industries have grown at twice the rate of the economy as a whole over the past 10 years, and they should do so again over the next 10″. Ben Bradshaw MP
• [on Clause 43 - Orphan works] “Let me provide an example of where this is already going wrong. An image of none other than the great Lord Mandelson himself is apparently being used to market a Russian vodka, with the caption, “When only the best is good enough”. If ever we needed proof that captions to pirated images can be misleading, surely that is it.” Jeremy Hunt MP
• “The Government could have brought this Bill before Parliament ages ago, because these issues have been in the public domain for years. The Gowers review of intellectual property is so old it is practically out of copyright.” Jeremy Hunt MP
• “I cannot see how the Bill takes on India or China; I simply cannot see a single provision that does so. They are not going to settle for 2 megabytes; they are going to settle for 100 — and much, much more.” Derek Wyatt MP
• “Listen, if we want the smartest, most creative industry, we have to tackle intellectual property and copyright together. They cannot just be shunted in as a couple of paragraphs; they are so fundamental to the reason why people write music, sing or create whatever they do.” Derek Wyatt MP

And most amusingly:

• “People are not talking about co-operating and sharing their own thoughts and content, but are stealing someone else’s content and sharing that. There is an Armageddon, which has partially arrived in Sweden, where the Pirate Party, whose leader is in jail, won seats in the European Parliament on the basis that everybody’s work—including MP4’s—should be free.” Michael Connarty MP. Rick Falkvinge was quick to point out that he remains a free man.”Despite rumors to the contrary, it is still not illegal in Sweden to hold political opinions that would bring the country into the digital age,” he told TorrentFreak. “Such a  society would be atrocious and far out of line from all Human Rights Conventions. One might also wonder what other facts proponents of the Digital Economy Bill have gotten entirely wrong.”

The Bill passed despite extensive opposition from many MPs present, who had concerns over specific amendments and the breakneck pace the Bill is being forced through with virtually no debate. The sensible suggestion that it be left for the next Government to reintroduce was derided as it is “needed now”, despite the fact that those industries have not only survived, put prospered without the Bill for the last 10 years.

Meanwhile, the MPs were not so much concerned with the public outcry, as the sartorial comments on Twitter. The Bill now gets a total of two hours for Committee, Reports and its third reading later today, after which it will be (probably) passed.

The first two hours of debate can be watched on the BBC website and the transcripts are here. The third reading of the DEB is scheduled for tonight and if the bill passes it will head over to the Lords where it will be signed into law.

Source: Pirate Party Leader Imprisoned During DEB Debate?

This week, the Pirate Party UK, founded last summer, has announced their candidate list. The ten candidates come on the heels of the publication of their manifesto, and cover a broad swathe of the country, from London all the way to Scotland.

As with the Swedish party in last summer’s EU elections, not all the candidates are fresh faced youngsters. Quite a few are definitely middle-aged, including party leader Andrew Robinson (41). Despite characterizations such as ‘kids just out for something for free’, they, like all Pirate Parties, will focus on reforming copyright, privacy and patent laws, while preventing the spread of others.

The candidates are:

• Andrew Robinson – Worcester
• Graeme Lambert – Bury North
• Mark Sims – East Ham
• Alexander van Terheyden – Bethnal Green and Bow
• Tim Dobson – Manchester Gorton
• Luke Leighton – South West Surrey
• Shaun Dyer – Leicester West
• Finlay Archibald – Glasgow Central
• David Geraghty – Derby North
• Jack Nunn – constituency to be decided (London area)

TorrentFreak spoke with Bury North candidate Graeme Lambert, who at 18 is the youngest of the party’s candidates and just old enough to vote himself. Bury North’s current MP, Labour’s David Chaytor, made the news recently as he was charged with theft relating to last year’s expenses scandal, which Lambert has seized on in his campaign.

“The Pirate Party UK is a corruption-free political party which the constituents of Bury North deserve after the actions of David Chaytor,” he told us. Lambert is optimistic of a decent showing, although thinks it unlikely that he will win.

“I’m aiming to secure our deposit, which would require 2500 votes, which I am confident that I can achieve. My chances of winning the seat are relative to Ladbrokes odds of 250/1″.

Indeed, bookmakers Ladbrokes have given all the party’s candidates a 250/1 chance of winning, which is worse than most small parties such as the Green, UKIP and Liberal parties, but better than the 500/1 of long-time electoral jokers, the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Lambert is not the only one running for a seat which has strong resonances with the party manifesto. Mark Sims, a 37 year-old IT teacher, is running against Stephen Timms who is responsible for “Digital Britain”. Last year Timms gave the reason for the rushing of Digital Britain as  ”the plans as they stand could delay action, impacting unfairly upon rights holders”, certain to be a key feature of Sims’ campaign.

Of course, all this comes at a price, and the party is looking for donations and ways to raise money to help pay for the campaigns.

“We’d love to give as many people as possible the opportunity to ‘Vote Pirate’ in the election,” says Peter Brett, the Deputy Campaigns Officer. “Unfortunately, this means we need to raise just over £9000 in addition to the funds previously raised through member subscriptions. This will be just enough for all our candidates to pay their deposits and to have a reasonable amount for publicity materials.”

With the Digital Economy Bill about to be rammed through the Commons, despite protests, will this be enough?

Source: UK Pirate Party Announces 2010 Election Lineup

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/uk-pirate-party-announces-2010-election-lineup-100402/feed/ 48 http://torrentfreak.com/uks-terrifying-anti-piracy-plans-leak-091119/ http://torrentfreak.com/uks-terrifying-anti-piracy-plans-leak-091119/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:28:04 +0000 Ernesto http://torrentfreak.com/?p=19055 Source: UK’s Terrifying Anti-Piracy Plans Leak
]]> Over the past months the UK government has tried to tackle the issue of online piracy. This has resulted in a proposal from Lord Mandelson, who plans to disconnect alleged file sharers without any judicial process.

Tomorrow the exact text of the bill is expected to be made public, but according to early reports, the legislation will open all doors for a digital police state where alleged pirates will be crucified by private companies.

Judging from some of the plans that leaked earlier today, the endless lobbying efforts of the entertainment industry by anti-piracy outfits including IFPI and the BPI have definitely paid off.

Cory Doctorow has the scoop on BoingBoing and he told TorrentFreak that the information comes from someone “very close to the Labour government” who he trusts implicitly.

If accurate, the new legislation will be a disaster for the privacy of all Internet users while giving unprecedented powers to the entertainment industry. Under the new bill the Secretary of State would be able to pass secondary legislation without Parliamentary oversight in order to protect rights holders.

Three reasons are given:

1. The Secretary of State would get the power to create new remedies for online infringements. (for example, he could authorize jail terms for file-sharing, or create a “three-strikes” plan that costs entire families their Internet access if any member stands accused of infringement)

2. The Secretary of State would get the power to create procedures to “confer rights” for the purposes of protecting rightsholders from online infringement. (for example, record labels and movie studios can be given investigative and enforcement powers that allow them to compel ISPs, libraries, companies and schools to turn over personal information about Internet users, and to order those companies to disconnect users, remove websites, block URLs, etc)

3. The Secretary of State would get the power to “impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement” (for example, ISPs could be forced to spy on their users, or to have copyright lawyers examine every piece of user-generated content before it goes live; also, copyright “militias” can be formed with the power to police copyright on the web)

The leaked information mainly shows that the Secretary of State will have the power to introduce all kinds of draconian measures without Parliamentary oversight. More details on concrete policy dealing with alleged file-sharers and the proposed three-strikes system have yet to be announced.

Source: UK’s Terrifying Anti-Piracy Plans Leak

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/uks-terrifying-anti-piracy-plans-leak-091119/feed/ 374 http://torrentfreak.com/parliamentary-comms-group-says-no-to-uk-3-strikes-091017/ http://torrentfreak.com/parliamentary-comms-group-says-no-to-uk-3-strikes-091017/#comments Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:25:55 +0000 Ben Jones http://torrentfreak.com/?p=18001 Source: Parliamentary Comms Group Says ‘No’ to UK 3-Strikes
]]> Recently there has been a series of blows against proposals for ‘graduated response’ or ‘three strikes’ measures in the UK for dealing with alleged illicit file-sharers.

This week alone we’ve had an Early Day Motion from a member of Lord Mandelson’s own party, and more recently ISPs have talked about the futility of the suggested legislation.

Mandelson reportedly started pushing it after a meeting with Hollywood mogul David Geffen, and was apparently uninterested in the whole situation prior to the meeting, although that claim was flatly denied.

Now, the All Party Parliamentary Communications Group (apComms) has released its own findings to its more broad consultation, and it’s not good reading for 3-strikes proponents.

There were significantly fewer responses than for other similar consultations, although the scope was much wider. It was also much more open, without assumptions or leading questions. It was, in fact, fairly neutral and seemed to be concerned with gathering information, rather than trying to solicit support for a predetermined policy. Most appropriately, it was titled “Can we keep our hands off the net?”

The topics covered included dealing with ‘bad traffic’ (which includes copyright infringement, P2P and botnets), behavioral advertising (such as Phorm), online privacy and child pornography procedures. Finally it dealt with the issue of who should foot the bill for Internet traffic, and whether network neutrality should be codified. The first and last questions are of particular concern to TorrentFreak, and the conclusions make for interesting reading.

On the subject of P2P and copyright enforcement, they came to the following conclusions;

58. We conclude that much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available.
59. We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered.
60. We think that it is inappropriate to make policy choices in the UK when policy options are still to be agreed by the EU Commission and EU Parliament in their negotiations over the “Telecoms Package”. We recommend that the Government terminate their current policy-making process, and restart it with a new consultation once the EU has made its decisions.

Network Neutrality and actual bandwidth availability was also a concern, with the following recommendations being made;

212. We recommend that Ofcom keep the issue of “network neutrality” under review and include a section in each annual report that indicates whether there are any signs of change.
214. We recommend that Ofcom regulate to require ISPs to advertise a minimum guaranteed speed for broadband connections.

We know that many of our UK readers will be happy with the last recommendation, especially after a study by OFCOM earlier this year found that many subscribers were seeing an average of 40% of their connection’s advertised speed. A more appropriate advertised speed will also prevent many BitTorrent clients from being setup for speeds they can’t actually achieve.

If you thought that such open minded, clearheaded and competent recommendations couldn’t have come from elected officials, well, the good news is they’re not all luddites. ApComms’s Joint-Chairman, Derek Wyatt MP was formerly Head of Programmes at WireTV, before becoming the director of BSkyB’s Computer Channel (later ‘.tv‘), leaving when he was elected to government. Other executives of apComms include a former BT researcher (Chris Mole MP), and Dr Nick Palmer MP, who has studied AI at MIT.

An extremely well-educated and technologically literate group making these recommendations should help carry some weight. Whether or not it will be enough to convince the Peter Mandelson’s and Sion Simon‘s of the government, remains to be seen.

The full report is available here.

Source: Parliamentary Comms Group Says ‘No’ to UK 3-Strikes

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/parliamentary-comms-group-says-no-to-uk-3-strikes-091017/feed/ 51 http://torrentfreak.com/uk-3-strikes-mp-ignorant-on-filesharing-091003/ http://torrentfreak.com/uk-3-strikes-mp-ignorant-on-filesharing-091003/#comments Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:05:43 +0000 Ben Jones http://torrentfreak.com/?p=17634 Source: UK 3-Strikes MP Ignorant on File-Sharing
]]> Sion Simon, a Labour MP from Birmingham and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Creative Industries at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, spoke out earlier this week at the National Labour Party Conference in Brighton on the proposed UK 3-strikes laws.

“The lesson of iTunes and Spotify is that what people want is ease of use and convenience and cheapness. And you only have to look at the decrease there has been in filesharing since the increase in popularity of Spotify.
“You only have to look at the number of people who came off illegal filesharing when iTunes came out to know that filesharing isn’t the answer, it’s not the future, it’s not valuable of itself – it’s a technology that currently is being used to circumvent the law.”

However, his words, as reported by the Birmingham Post, lack a certain ring of truth. For example, let’s take the claim that file-sharing decreased after Spotify gained popularity. While we agree that the service has the potential to convert many music pirates, its effect on the overall volume of file-sharing is simply not there.

The Pirate Bay informed TorrentFreak that traffic from the UK is still growing, at an average of around 1% per month. Mininova likewise has seen a 15% growth, of 7 million unique visitors a month, from 38.6 million in September 2008, to 45.6 million in August of 2009. Clearly Spotify hasn’t decreased much. Strike 1.

More worrying though is the claim that file-sharing technology is not valuable. For one, Spotify itself is based on file-sharing technology, with the brain behind the popular BitTorrent client uTorrent as one of its main developers. That aside, the state-funded BBC is involved in various BitTorrent-based projects, and the technology chiefs there believe that P2P TV has a future, and many independent artists are already putting it to use.

Over the past few years, we’ve brought you dozens of stories about people being enabled by the technology, from independent artists, to filmmakers (large and small) and even large corporations that can now effectively distribute data without incredible bandwidth outlay. File-sharing technology is very valuable to those people, Strike 2 for the MP from Birmingham.

That brings us to another statement Simon made, with Yahoo reporting him as saying that whilst it is illegal, there is currently no anti-piracy legislation. Those that have read our stories about Davenport Lyons, and ACS (and the thousands they have targeted) know there is indeed legislation. So too does Alan Ellis, and the Oink uploaders who were sentenced earlier this year. For Mr Simon, that’s strike 3.

It’s just lucky for him that no-one’s proposed a law where if an MP has gone on the record and made 3 basic factual errors, his parliamentary benefits should be cut off or throttled.

Mr Simon was contacted for comment, but did not reply at time of press

Source: UK 3-Strikes MP Ignorant on File-Sharing

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/uk-3-strikes-mp-ignorant-on-filesharing-091003/feed/ 68 http://torrentfreak.com/musicians-oppose-punishments-for-pirating-fans-090905/ http://torrentfreak.com/musicians-oppose-punishments-for-pirating-fans-090905/#comments Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:17:56 +0000 Ernesto http://torrentfreak.com/?p=16848 Source: Musicians Oppose Punishments for Pirating Fans
]]> While the music industry paints a picture where file-sharers are criminals who refuse to pay for music, the reality is quite the opposite. The people who share music are dedicated music fans who actually buy more music than their non-pirating friends.

True music enthusiasts simply want to consume, sample and discover as much new music as they possibly can, and the most straightforward and convenient way to do this is through file-sharing networks. Music pirates are just regular consumers really, and they love music just as much as anyone else.

The music industry fails to realize this though and has declared war against their main source of revenue, which resulted in UK plans to disconnect alleged file-sharers. Instead of finding ways to please the changing demands of music fans in the digital era, they have chosen to defend their old models and punish the fans instead.

This trend is worrying artists, the people who actually produce the music but who are never heard when new legislative measures are drafted. Unlike the big labels they don’t want their fans to be punished for a ‘problem’ that was created by a lack of innovation from the labels.

The Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (Basca) and the Music Producers Guild (MPG) have joined forces to prevent a three-strikes disconnection regime being implemented.

In a statement the broad alliance of musicians, producers and songwriters criticizes the new UK anti-piracy plans, which they labels as illogical and “extraordinarily negative”. With this move they go directly against the wishes of the major record labels who are represented by the IFPI and BPI.

Unlike the musicians, the labels are advocating stringent measures to prevent the industry from going bankrupt. To back this up they feed the legislators with dizzying numbers. Statistics that have been fabricated by the music industry itself, and blindly accepted by the UK Government.

However, in reality the anti-filesharing antics of the major music labels only continue to further alienate fans from their artists. Most musicians oppose the label’s strategies and rightly so. Music is thriving more than ever before, but now consumers and fans are taking over the distribution role.

Eventually the labels might have to give up the distribution component that has been their core business for years on end. This paints an uncertain future for the labels and that might be one of the main reasons why they are so resistant.

Luckily there are some smaller labels out these that realize that file-sharing should be embraced, not fought.

Source: Musicians Oppose Punishments for Pirating Fans

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/musicians-oppose-punishments-for-pirating-fans-090905/feed/ 184 http://torrentfreak.com/uk-censors-responses-to-piracy-consultation-090115/ http://torrentfreak.com/uk-censors-responses-to-piracy-consultation-090115/#comments Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:20:13 +0000 Ben Jones http://torrentfreak.com/?p=7966 Source: UK Censors Responses to Piracy Consultation
]]> A few months back, we reported on the opening of the Department for Business, Education and Regulatory Reform (BERR) public piracy consultation, and suggested it would be your chance to “get a say”. There has now been some debate about some of the responses, which were requested to be kept confidential. At the start of December, the BERR received a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request from a journalist, requesting all the consultation responses be made public.

This cuts to the crux of public consultations. Conclusions can only be as good as the data these consultations receive. We have seen many times how companies are willing to lie repeatedly when it comes to P2P, in order to maintain their positions. From Comcast and their ‘Sandvining’, the incorrect accusations of lawyers, MediaDefender and their entire business model, to anti-piracy agencies pushing their unique version of events to get the police to conduct raids. In an area where the people with the money and influence are well known for avoiding the truth on occasion, will the BERR release all documents to allow public scrutiny and thus ensure accuracy?

The answer, in a nutshell, is no. TorrentFreak contacted the BERR and pointed out that confidential submissions are as likely to be marked as such to cover lies and diversions from the truth as confidential business practices, and wondered how this was going to be handled. Also, as the BERR likely doesn’t contain experts that have the depth in knowledge of this subject as our readers, will they be able to spot errors without the public assistance that publishing would bring? Clare Keen at the BERR press office responded saying:

On the issue of standards of evidence, all responses received are considered on their merit. We expect there to be differences in opinions and in information respondents choose to submit in support of their position. However we do not rely solely on such submissions or a single information source when deciding policy. We use a range of sources to enable us to cross check and investigate claims to develop our own understanding and arrive at our own conclusions.

On your second point, in our experience the main reason why a company requests that their response be kept confidential is because their submission has included details of their own commercial business/contracts or operations – information they do not wish their rivals and competitors to have access to.

We would always seek to collaborate or cross-check key points of information. Additionally if a party deliberately provided false information they would risk losing all credibility within Government on future consultations or discussions.

However, it may be a moot point. The Guardian newspaper reported on the consultation saying that a proposal by Ingenious Media was getting serious consideration. The company, a London based consulting and venture capital firm, has reportedly proposed making broadband providers legally liable for copyright infringement by their customers. In return they get a small sum every time a legal download of a song or film happens. Where the money for this will come from, or what will qualify (such as Jamendo or other CC music tracks) for the payment isn’t mentioned. Also not mentioned is how an ISP is supposed to be able to regulate the actions of their customers, without using highly invasive methods, worse than the DPI methods that have already been protested.

The BERR finally published the non-confidential recommendations today, and the BERR has told TorrentFreak that the number of confidential and partially confidential responses were ‘a small number’. In a nutshell, though, the only respondents that wanted a co-regulatory approach, were rights holders. Everyone else expressed no desire for it, and significant concerns were raised over transparency and privacy issues. We’ll have a more detailed look at responses later.

Source: UK Censors Responses to Piracy Consultation

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/uk-censors-responses-to-piracy-consultation-090115/feed/ 34 http://torrentfreak.com/uk-tvfilm-stars-urge-isps-to-stop-piracy-081216/ http://torrentfreak.com/uk-tvfilm-stars-urge-isps-to-stop-piracy-081216/#comments Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:35:54 +0000 Ben Jones http://torrentfreak.com/?p=7668 Source: UK TV/Film Stars Urge ISPs to Stop Piracy
]]> The UK is a major player in the TV and film industry. While only a few films are made in the UK, British actors and directors have a major place in the world entertainment business. Now, a number of British writers, directors and producers have sent an open letter to The Times, asking that something be done about TV and film downloads.

While some producers, directors and actors actually believe that BitTorrent and other filesharing tools help to boost the fanbase of films and TV-shows, this group disagrees. Signed by a staggering 116 names including the likes of directors Sir Alan Parker, Mike Leigh and supported by several entertainment industry groups, the letter claims:

At a time when so many jobs are being lost in the wider economy, it is especially important that this issue be taken seriously by the Government and that it devotes the resources necessary to enforce the law.

Ignoring for a moment that notably they make no mention of job losses in their sector, one of the problems with their demands is that the law they seek to enforce is civil law, not criminal.

Beyond employing judges there is nothing more that the government can do to enforce it. That is the problem with copyright law, it’s hard to know what’s legitimate and what’s not, what can be copied and what can’t, without checking with the rights holders first. This was exemplified perfectly earlier this year, when the IFPI sent out takedown notices for Travis tracks, despite the actual copyright holders, Travis, having already given permission to distribute.

The bigger problem comes from their data, the 98 million illegal downloads and streams. While we know TV shows are popular, our own data shows that British TV rarely features in the top 10. Movie downloads are more fleeting, with a certain bias towards the newest films, with a few exceptions. Their figures are also questionable; while we count downloads, we can’t quantify them with a figure for the UK.

Yet, if their stats on downloads are of questionable accuracy, it’s nothing compared to the power they ascribe to the ‘almighty ISP’. They believe that ISPs have the power to stamp out file sharing, stopping people from downloading TV shows and movies; they just need a prod. In this belief they are sadly mistaken.

Again, recent news has shown how hard it is to control access to even one image in the UK, on a cut-and-dried subject like child pornography. Being able to determine if something is infringing copyright or not would require huge lists of content, and real-time examination of all Internet traffic. Not just deep packet inspection, but an all-invasive Big Brother monitoring system, beyond the dreams of even the most totalitarian dictator.

Of course, those that bother to check facts know that not only is such a thing illegal (criminally illegal, not just civil) but that the tools they’ll want to use just don’t work. The problem is highlighted by Michael Malone, CEO of ISP iiNet, currently under attack from various movie studios, “I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it.”

And, when just this year it was reported that UK commercial TV broadcasters “enjoyed a bumper April with the highest viewing figures in five years”, that total TV viewing was up 10% year-on-year, and “the valuable yet hard-to-reach 16 to 24-year-old demographic [i.e the typical file-sharer] watched 4.9% more commercial TV in April year-on-year and saw 12% more ads,” you have to wonder exactly what the problem is.

Source: UK TV/Film Stars Urge ISPs to Stop Piracy

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/uk-tvfilm-stars-urge-isps-to-stop-piracy-081216/feed/ 57 http://torrentfreak.com/uk-government-opens-p2p-consultation-080729/ http://torrentfreak.com/uk-government-opens-p2p-consultation-080729/#comments Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:31:30 +0000 Ben Jones http://torrentfreak.com/?p=3297 Source: UK Government Opens Filesharing Consultation
]]> Copyright is a hot-button topic in the UK right now. Between the proposed EU copyright extension and the anti-piracy agreement between the BPI and ISPs, it has been all over newspapers in the UK.

Many have condemned these actions, others have supported them. The depth of public feeling in this is great, as are the potential risks and rewards from these actions , both directly, and indirectly through function-creep and precedent.

The ISP/BPI deal has been characterized as being ‘forced” onto the ISPs by the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR). Now, in what could be a classic example of ‘closing the stable door after the horse has bolted’, the government has opened a public consultation on file-sharing.

The government wants to know from the public how it should deal with illicit file-sharing. Is it really that big of a threat to the entertainment industry? Should ISPs be obligated to police the Internet? Is it a good option to block P2P traffic, or install piracy filters? Answers to these and more questions will help to shape future anti-piracy legislation.

Perhaps most critically, the documentation does state that any proposals for government intervention should be “evidence based”. Queries to the BERR asking if claims cited as evidence need to be substantiated had not been returned at press time. Unlike many consultations, this is open to the public, so if you posted one of the 200+ comments we’ve had on this topic, perhaps submitting your thoughts to the BERR would be something to think about.

It is consultation season though, so if you’re more interested in television than file-sharing, there’s always the Public Consultation on Implementing the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which could impact how many British programs appear on our weekly Top10 lists.

The deadline for responses is October 30, 2008. For those that have yet to see the memorandum signed by the 6 ISPs, it’s included in annex D of the PDF.

Source: UK Government Opens Filesharing Consultation

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/uk-government-opens-p2p-consultation-080729/feed/ 51 http://torrentfreak.com/on-file-sharers-080726/ http://torrentfreak.com/on-file-sharers-080726/#comments Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:06:05 +0000 enigmax http://torrentfreak.com/?p=3236 Source: UK “MP3 Police” Evidence Unchallenged, Not For Public Consumption
]]> On Thursday, every type of media outlet in the UK – newspapers, Internet, radio shows, TV and teletext all bristled with the same news. Six major ISPs had agreed to start sending out warning letters to alleged file-sharers after the government ordered action to decrease online piracy.

Most people seem to be interested in what happens after a letter is received, but who decides who gets a letter in the first place? Well, that’s the self-appointed job of the BPI (the British Phonographic Industry), a completely commercial organization set up to serve the interests of the music business and they don’t want you to know (in any detail) how their file-sharing tracking systems work. The same systems would’ve been used should they have been successful in their demands for “3 strikes and you’re out” yet there is zero transparency – everyone is supposed to blindly accept what they say as truth and that simply can’t be healthy.

In recent comments, a Carphone Warehouse spokesman further indicated that it is expected to take action against its customers based purely on the ‘evidence’ provided by the BPI. “What we have agreed to do is to write to our customers and advise them there’s been an alleged infringement,” he said. “We’re very clear that we don’t know if that’s the case or not, we’ve just been told there has been and we want to advise them of that.”

So in a nutshell, the BPI provide all the ‘evidence’, and the ISPs have to blindly believe it and take action against their own customers. To think that a commercial organization like the BPI is allowed to provide its own unchallenged allegations in such a completely non-transparent manner is the real outrage in all of this. If the BPI is to be trusted with such power, it has to be held accountable. If it is to remain credible in its role as the “UK MP3 Police” its systems must be opened up to public scrutiny. Once they are proved to be accurate by a panel of independent experts, then all well and good, but the fact remains that the BPI only give a vague indication of how they operate and have no intentions of elaborating.

Matt Philips, Director of Communications at the BPI refused to tell TorrentFreak how they gather their evidence, so any right-minded individual with an interest in this issue might find themselves asking: “What exactly are they afraid of?”

Clearly, it should be possible from their detailed records for an ISP to confirm or deny the technical evidence provided by the BPI. However, they aren’t in a position to do this since it would be a massive breach of customer privacy. Instead, the word of the BPI is taken at face value.

In a response, some Swedish ISPs have voiced their opinions too. “We don’t want to act like police and feel that a system similar to that in the UK is a deep invasion of privacy,” said Annika Kristersson of Tele2, adding: “It would entail us having to spy on our customers.”

Everyone makes mistakes and no system is flawless so it’s essential to have a verification process before throwing accusations around. Until then, take comfort in knowing that the file-sharing equivalent of home-made, untested, uncalibrated police speed cameras of unknown design and ability are operated by people with a vested interest and are passing judgment on you, your children and potentially (should the BPI get its way) your whole Internet future. A little transparency to inspire confidence isn’t too much to ask.

Source: UK “MP3 Police” Evidence Unchallenged, Not For Public Consumption

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/on-file-sharers-080726/feed/ 102 http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-caused-by-poor-choice-080305/ http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-caused-by-poor-choice-080305/#comments Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:08:06 +0000 Ben Jones http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-caused-by-poor-choice-080305/ Source: Study: Piracy is Caused by Poor Choice
]]> This claim, published in the 2008 Digital Entertainment Survey (pdf), is only reiterating what has been said many times before , that trying to promote the artificial scarcity is what is fueling piracy.

In total, 70% of those who admitted to piracy agreed that “legal sites just don’t have the range of illegal ones” (try looking for Beatles tracks) whilst almost as many said they would pay for downloads, if what they wanted was available. This is probably also one of the main reasons why half of the BitTorrent downloads are TV-shows.

The fact that one third of the UK citizens can be labeled as a pirate is thus a signal that these customers want something that is not available through other channels. It’s more about availability than the fact that it’s free.

On top of the availability issue, 68% of the respondents who have downloaded copyrighted content indicate that the illegal alternatives are more convenient, because they can get what they want much faster.

In addition, the report shows that anti-piracy campaigns are not very effective. To the possible despair of industry bodies, however, 68% believed that that are very unlikely to be caught downloading, showing that slogans such as ‘You can click but you can’t hide‘ are understood as intimidation rather than a promise.

With a motion having being put forward, requesting the information being used to identify and prosecute filesharers, and judges getting annoyed with the methods used in these cases, the chances of being caught are steadily declining.

If there is anything the Entertainment Industry should take from this report, it’s that they should move with the times, and start releasing their back catalogs for sale, rather than let someone else do it for free.

Source: Study: Piracy is Caused by Poor Choice

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-caused-by-poor-choice-080305/feed/ 102 http://torrentfreak.com/illegal-downloaders-will-not-face-uk-ban-080212/ http://torrentfreak.com/illegal-downloaders-will-not-face-uk-ban-080212/#comments Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:04:41 +0000 Matt Mason http://torrentfreak.com/illegal-downloaders-will-not-face-uk-ban-080212/ Internet users could be banned over illegal downloads," which also appeared on the BBC website under the even more alarming headline "Illegal downloaders 'face UK ban." Time to get a couple of things straight.

Source: 5 Reasons Why Illegal Downloaders Will Not Face a UK Ban

]]> The Times says “people who illegally download films and music will be cut off from the internet under new legislative proposals to be unveiled next week.” Actually, this story is complete balderdash. But the fact that this nutty proposal is getting anywhere at all illustrates how ignorant the powers that be are about downloading.

Let’s get a couple of things straight ,

1. This proposal was a draft consultation green paper, defined as “a proposal without any commitment to action.” The government receives many of these on a daily basis. They are like junk mail at Number 10 Downing Street. The Prime Minister’s toilet paper is more important than most green papers, and both are usually filed in the same place.

2. This proposal is totally and completely unworkable in the real world. ISPs will not accept liability for the contents of packets (nor should they), and it would be impossible for them to open and check if every single download and upload was legal or not without the entire Internet grinding to halt. This isn’t in the best interests of the government, the ISPs or the voters. Banning customers and exposing yourself to billions in liability isn’t a good business strategy. Criminalizing six million citizens and inconveniencing the rest is not a vote winner.

3. It would be impossible to tell the difference between illegal downloading and legal activities such as downloading software patches, using torrents to share stuff legally, playing online video games, using VoIP, photo sharing, telecommuting, and many others. The resistance from the private sector would be as strong as it would from the general public.

4. The very idea of this goes against the ruling of the European Court, which says EU member states are not obligated to disclose personal information about suspected file sharers. It would also fly in the face of Article 10 of the European freedom of expression laws, which gives every European the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

5. WiFi piggybacking and encrypted packets make it impossible to tell who is downloading what in the first place. These techniques are only getting more sophisticated, while for the most part, the content industries collectively remain as dumb as a box of hair.

So in summary:

Insert Toilet Flushing Sound FX Here

This idea makes as much sense as trying to ban people from singing ‘Happy Birthday’ to each other over the telephone network, or burning down libraries to protect the publishing industry. But what’s frightening about such ideas is that they are still taken seriously all over the world by powerful decision makers in government and industry who have absolutely no clue about how the Internet actually works, or the damage such laws could do to democracy.

Before there is any more discussion about this, the music and film companies need to definitively prove illegal downloads cost them millions of dollars in lost revenues. CD sales are falling because nobody uses them anymore, and Hollywood is in rude health despite the pirates. There should be no more talk about changing laws and spending tax payer’s money on this ‘problem’ until someone proves there really is one.

Furthermore, if there is a problem, tax payers shouldn’t have to pony up in the first place. The content industries need to stop braying at governments to protect inefficient business models and look at the real solution that’s been staring them in the face for ten years.

For those who are interested, my book: “The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism” is out now through Free Press, , and probably soon on a BitTorrent tracker near you ;).

Source: 5 Reasons Why Illegal Downloaders Will Not Face a UK Ban

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/illegal-downloaders-will-not-face-uk-ban-080212/feed/ 152 http://torrentfreak.com/uk-conservatives-plan-to-extend-copyright/ http://torrentfreak.com/uk-conservatives-plan-to-extend-copyright/#comments Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:05:39 +0000 Ben Jones http://torrentfreak.com/uk-conservatives-plan-to-extend-copyright/ speech before the UK record industry, the head of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, pledged to increase copyright terms for music, as well as shift the focus for enforcing copyright onto the ISP, echoing the recent decision by a Belgian court.

Source: UK Conservatives Plan to Extend Copyright

]]> Mr Cameron stated during the speech, that it will be Conservative policy to increase copyright terms from 50 years, to 70, echoing the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extention Act of 1998, which increased US copyright terms by 20 years. The reasoning behind this new policy seems bizarre in the least, however.

“Extending copyright term is good for musicians and consumers too. It’s good for musicians because it would reduce the disparity between the length given to composers and that granted to producers and performers.” Cameron stated, “and extending copyright term will also be good for consumers. If we increase the copyright term, so the incentive is there for you working in the industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which more people can enjoy at no extra cost.”

Clearly, Mr Cameron has not thought this through, since he appears to be oblivious to the fact that when it falls into the public domain, anyone can digitise the old media, at no cost, not just no-extra cost, if the record company decides to.

Mr Cameron also makes the case for the poor performers, saying some 7,000 of them will lose royalties to their songs over the next ten years. How or why these 7,000 are more important than the 7,000 or so that have lost their royalties in the last ten years was not something that was commented on. Nor was it stated why these people, who have known about the impending end of their royalty payments for some time now, suddenly need an extra hand, an extra twenty years of income. If any other group of workers squandered away their wages, would they be getting government promises to make things better?

Finally, in his push to secure the support of the British Phonographic Institute (BPI), the honourable member of Parliament for Witney showed his lack of knowledge. “Let me also speak about one final responsibility too: that of Internet Service Providers. They are the gatekeepers of the internet. Some ISPs claim there is nothing they can do to stop illegal downloading of music. But last month alone, there were eight sites that hosted more than 25,000 illegal downloads. That is clear and visible internet traffic. ISPs can block access and indeed close down offending file-sharing sites. They have already established the Internet Watch Foundation to monitor child abuse and incitement to racial hatred on the internet. They should be doing the same when it comes to digital piracy.”

The problem is one of degree , whilst racial hatred is always illegal, as is child abuse, is all music you can download infringing copyright? How can an ISP determine if that song you’re getting is licensed to you, or to its distributor or not. How can they tell if it even requires a license or not. The short answer is, they can’t, unless Mr Cameron is promoting an agenda by which all music file transfers are blocked by ISPs , a move the music industry would love. Preventing people using the internet for distributing their own works, and forcing them to use the music industry would resuscitate the flagging business models of the record industry.

Statements by politicians supporting the BPI and its ilk are not uncommon, unfortunately. In 2005, Arlene McCarthy (MEP for North West England) claimed sales of pirate DVDs in European cities financed the World Trade Center bombings in 1993. She subsequently blamed it on ‘the data she was given’. Of course, the only politicians not likely to pander to these special interest groups, will be those elected from the various Pirate Parties around the world.

Mr Cameron MP was contacted but had not responded at the time of press

Source: UK Conservatives Plan to Extend Copyright

]]> http://torrentfreak.com/uk-conservatives-plan-to-extend-copyright/feed/ 9