In 2004, MIPI raided the offices and home addresses of people involved with Sharman Networks and Brilliant Digital Entertainment. Two universities and 4 ISPs were also raided during the search for evidence to support their now infamous case against the companies behind file-sharing client KaZaA.

Just two years later in 2006, trained lawyer Sabiene Heindl joined MIPI, a stay that was to last five years. But following an announcement in June and having served 3 months notice, Heindl will leave MIPI anytime now.

After 11 years in the music business, Heindl will head over to NBN Co, the Australian government-owned corporation tasked to design, build and operate Australia’s National Broadband Network. At NBN she will take up the position of its stakeholder manager.

At the time of her resignation, former MIPI general manager Michael Speck said that Heindl’s role was one of the hardest in the music industry. Nevertheless, MIPI think they have found a worthy replacement to oversee their civil and criminal rights enforcement, anti-piracy lobbying and educational programs.

On September 12th, Heindl will be replaced by Vanessa Hutley, ex-senior corporate attorney and director of intellectual property at Microsoft .

“With her previous background and achievements, she is very well-positioned to lead MIPI into the next phase of its development,” says Sony Music Australia CEO Denis Handlin.

Handlin, an industry veteran, also holds the post of chairman at the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), the outfit that provides MIPI with its funding.

Considering MIPI’s vision of reducing online file-sharing to a trickle, the anti-piracy group will be hoping that Hutley joins them with a more positive outlook on dealing with the issue than she held three years ago while working at Microsoft.

In an interview, Hutley conceded that Microsoft would never be able to stop people obtaining pirated copies of its software from file-sharing networks. Instead, she said that Microsoft would concentrate on fighting physical piracy.

But this approach will be no good for MIPI. No-one wants music on CD anymore – not even pirates.

Somehow the pessimism of 2008 will have to change to optimism, but with file-sharing growing every year some will see her challenge quite simply as Mission: Impossible.

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

Last Monday, just a few days after the UN report generated dozens of headlines, Sydney Morning Herald published an article titled ‘Music and film industries split over pirates’.

The parts of that piece that piqued our interest most were the quotes obtained from Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) by SMH Technology Editor Asher Moses, which are reproduced verbatim below:

“Sabiene Heindl, general manager of the music industry’s anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, today said there needed to be “mitigation measures” for those engaged in repeated illegal file sharing but “such measures would not include termination of internet accounts”.”

Considering the worldwide implications of such a statement, TorrentFreak contacted the BPI in the UK for comment since in common with MIPI, the BPI also have the Big Four records labels as paymasters. We wanted to know if this statement by MIPI represented the start of a general softening of attitudes. We received no reply from the BPI.

Now MIPI have issued a press release on the matter. But instead of making things better, by appearing slippery they might have made them worse.

“Music Industry Piracy Investigations, the anti-piracy organisation for the Australian music industry, strongly rejects recent misleading media reports that it is not supportive of a graduated response model to discourage illegal file-sharing,” the release from Sabiene Heindl reads.

“MIPI remains firmly committed to its goal of working with Internet Service Providers to implement an industry led graduated response scheme in Australia that will encourage legal content consumption online.”

First off, SMH did not say that MIPI doesn’t support a graduated response, only that Heindl said, quote, “…such measures [for dealing with infringers] would not include termination of internet accounts.” The reasonable conclusion to be drawn from that comment is that MIPI support “mitigation measures” up to, but not including, Internet disconnections.

So has SMH’s Asher Moses suddenly decided to throw his reputation down the drain by making up quotes?

“The quotes are clear in my original story for anyone to look at,” Asher told TorrentFreak, standing firmly behind his report.

“Also at the time the story went up, and even until this day, MIPI has not once said the story misrepresented their position,” he added.

So MIPI felt strongly enough to issue a press release in which it criticized a “misleading media report”, but didn’t feel the need to contact the publication or writer directly to pursue a clarification or correction? Something doesn’t sit right here, that much is clear.

Asher believes that the MIPI backtracking can be explained by them getting into hot water with their “overseas counterparts” following last week’s Australian government statement which questioned the UN report and indicated continued support for 3 strikes and disconnections.

But even with this latest press release, MIPI still can’t find it in their hearts to use straightforward language detailing their exact stance on disconnections, and have chosen to lean on their interpretation of existing legislation instead.

“While temporary suspension of the internet for repeat infringers is the preferred sanction under an industry led code this does not in any way preclude termination remaining within the current safe harbour provisions of the Australian Copyright Act which deals with copyright infringement more broadly,” they add.

So, is that last paragraph to be interpreted as MIPI support for disconnections or is it an attempt to shift responsibility to the feet of ISPs? Maybe Asher Moses can get another quote from Sabiene Heindl.

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

In his report, Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue said that he considers “cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

La Rue then went on to appeal to countries such as the UK and France who have already adopted legislation with such measures to either repeal or amend their laws.

Now, just a couple of working days on, a surprise statement has been made by MIPI, Australia’s Music Industry Piracy Investigations.

Speaking with SMH, MIPI general manager Sabiene Heindl, today said that while MIPI supports “mitigation measures” for dealing with persistent illegal file-sharers, “such measures would not include termination of Internet accounts.”

Heindl’s statement represents quite a turnaround for the recording industry. MIPI has dozens of member labels on board – including the all-important EMI, Universal, Warner and Sony – and although delivered in Australia, it would be difficult to see how the Big Four could pursue different anti-piracy strategies in major markets elsewhere.

So does this announcement represent the beginning of a wider softening of attitudes, or will a more gentle strategy be pursued in Australia in parallel with tougher ones elsewhere?

We contacted the BPI in the UK, who also have the Big Four on board and have been outspoken supporters of “3 strikes”-style treatment for persistent file-sharers, to find out what the UN report and today’s MIPI statement means for them. At the time of publication we were yet to receive a response.

UK ISP TalkTalk, who together with BT are currently fighting the implementation of the Digital Economy Act, told TorrentFreak this afternoon that they read the UN report with interest and noted its comments on the Digital Economy Act.

“Our views on the Act are well known – we don’t think it’s a workable piece of legislation or a sensible way to tackle the problem of illegal filesharing, and it will simply punish innocent internet users,” said a TalkTalk spokesperson. “That’s why we’re seeking leave to appeal against the High Court’s ruling, handed down in April, on the judicial review into the Act.”

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

In late February the report in question was first mentioned in a speech by Attorney General McClelland, who was speaking at a conference on future directions in copyright law. At the time the public were not yet aware of the report’s existence. Journalists too remained in the dark.

The same could be said for the Australian Content Industry Group. The copyright coalition, which doesn’t have a public website, was virtually unknown at that point also. The group consists of a variety of entertainment industry outfits, most prominently Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI), but until then had only appeared in a few recent government consultations.

That’s some background on the report, now let’s fast forward two weeks.

On March 6th, Australian newspaper The Age published a series of articles on Internet Piracy. Interestingly enough, the aforementioned report was at the center of the series that quickly made headlines. In particular the hit piece “Nation of unrepentant pirates costs $900m”, written by freelance journalist Neil McMahon, was picked up by dozens of other news outlets.

Curious about this seemingly influential report that dominated the headlines last week, we decided to take a good look at the company that conducted the research — Sphere Analysis. However, this was easier said than done.

Like the Australian Content Industry Group, Sphere Analysis doesn’t seem to have a web presence. With no website and no employees, not even a single reference to the company could be found. How could this be? Wouldn’t it be logical that such a big report would be written by a renowned company?

To us it seemed a little suspicious to say the least, so the first question that came to mind was: Who are behind Sphere Analysis?

With help from the Pirate Party, we found that Sphere Analysis is a business name registered to the ‘Sphere Property Corporation’. This company, which again has no web presence, appears to operate in the real-estate business. Not the type of business you’d expect to write an analysis of Internet piracy on the Australian economy.

Interestingly, ‘Sphere Analysis’ was registered less than four months ago, which means that immediately after it was registered they got this major contract. So who are these people?

To find out more about the company, calls were made to several numbers associated with Sphere Property Corporation but again without results. All calls went to so-called ‘virtual offices‘, where either the company name didn’t ring a bell, or where the person who answered the line was not allowed to give out information.

Additional research eventually led us to an alleged employee of Sphere Property Corporation, Phil Nott, who lists himself as a Real Estate Consultant on Linkedin. No other employees were found and Mr. Nott has two Linkedin profiles, each with just one connection.

Aside from dealing with real estate, Sphere Property Corporation also seems to be connected to the investing company Sphere Capital Advisers and the recruitment business Sphere Associates.

None of the above companies has a website of course, so that’s pretty much where our Sphere Analysis trail ended.

Now that our interest in the report had been pushed even higher, we wanted to know how Sphere Analysis concluded that illicit movie, music and games downloads cost the industry $900 million a year as well as 8,000 jobs. Aside from a few key figures quoted in The Age article, the full report was unfortunately nowhere to be seen.

But we were not the only ones left in the dark. The journalist who wrote the original article for The Age confirmed to TorrentFreak that he wasn’t provided with the full report either. His article was based on information he was given by ‘someone’ he didn’t want to name without permission.

In an attempt to get a copy of the report, we then began emailing several outfits that fall under the Australian Content Industry Group, but without a response. In addition the Australian Pirate Party submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Attorney General’s office, but that is still being processed.

So here we are. After a week of sending emails, making phone calls, and digging through all kinds of information we were unable to get our hands on the full report. On the contrary, the mystery surrounding the report is even greater because of the vagueness surrounding Sphere Analysis.

This is worrying, especially when the Attorney General clearly indicates that it influences future legislation. The Pirate Party, who helped us in our quest for information, agrees.

“Where such reports or studies direct the policy direction of our governments, there is a democratic imperative that the information is made available transparently, that the methodologies are sound and adequately reflect reality,” said Pirate Party’s Rodney Serkowski.

“The Age article inferred that the Attorney General was basing the government’s policy direction on these research figures. This is a very, very shaky foundation for public policy — especially when there is a growing consensus that the institution of copyright requires radical structural reform, lest it becomes irrelevant,” he added.

And then there’s the issue with hiring the brand new and unfindable Sphere Analysis to conduct such an important report.

“This study, carried out by a virtually unknown entity with access only being granted to one journalist is highly dubious, even for the copyright lobby. Any study that gets reported as fact should be made available to the general public. The fact that it is not casts a question over its contents,” said Pirate Party’s Simon Frew.

So, will Sphere Analysis step forward immediately with a full copy of this apparent policy-setting report either to us or another news outlet? Is transparency the way forward or are we to blindly accept spoon-fed ‘statistics’ from faceless groups, regurgitate them as fact, help build credibility where none has been earned and then work the whole thing into law? That can’t be the way forward.

Update: Just to illustrate that we’re not the only one who question these practices, here’s a comment from researcher Guy Cranswick.

“In my capacity as a researcher I requested the report from one of the organisations in the so-called copyright alliance but no reply has come which is very suspicious because normally these organisations are very happy to send their expensive studies to known researchers and other media contacts.”

“As no one has see this report it goes to the core of journalistic credibility that a paper such as The Age could have published news about this uncorroborated survey.”

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

Yesterday yet another study was announced, this time by the Australian Content Industry Group, an umbrella organization of pro-copyright groups that conveniently doesn’t have a web presence. According to a news item the report claims that of the 22 million Australians, nearly 5 million are pirates.

Together, these downloaders were responsible for $900 million in losses the games, movies, films, music and software companies suffered in 2010, and that’s just the start. According to the report Australia’s National Broadband Network will cause the losses to rise to $5.2 billion by 2016.

As is often the case, the study itself is not available online, neither are the publishers responding to any requests to get a review copy. This makes it impossible to point out where the flaws are, but anyone with a calculator and some sense of economic reality will realize that the numbers are bogus.

If we believe the researchers, 6.5 million pirating Australians will be responsible for $5.2 billion in losses by 2016. This means that without piracy those people – including children and the unemployed – would spend an extra $800 per year, on average. Right.

Even if we assume that this would be even remotely possible, why would it go to $800 per head from the $187 they estimate now?

We suspect of course that the report makes some wild claims, such as arguing that every download is a lost sale. So with more and better broadband connections people will download more, and so cause more losses. Of course, this type of reasoning lies far from reality.

Insane, yes, but we’ve seen it before. A similar report published last year had a trend line where the ‘lost’ revenue because of piracy would actually exceed the actual revenue. Not impossible by definition, but highly unlikely. We expect that the Aussie report is based on a similar faulty trend.

Although the above suggests that even without seeing the full report, it’s not that hard to cast doubt on the validity of the claims, journalists simply pass it on without a critical note. This resulted in a fair bit of criticism in the comment section of the SMH article.

SMH wasn’t too happy with the critical readers and instead of addressing the concerns and valid commentary, they decided to close the comments section. How convenient.

Luckily there are still independent journalists who are rather more skeptical, and favor some analysis over a scoop, but they are in the minority. Most news outlets simply republished the industry-fed numbers without a critical comment.

This makes it easy for the entertainment industry outfits to influence public opinion with their fear-mongering propaganda. But even more importantly, these flawed and delusional reports are used as leverage to convince politicians to put the industry’s revenues before the rights of citizens and implement harsher anti-piracy legislation.

This time it will not be different. If only the industry representatives would get their heads out of the sand and address the gap between consumer demands in the digital age, and their offerings. That would really make a lasting impact.

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

Other artists supporting the project include Powderfinger, Silverchair, Jimmy Barnes, Operator Please, Gyroscope, Dawn Collective and punk band, Frenzal Rhomb.

Actually, to say that Frenzal Rhomb support the video is not exactly true. Their guitarist, Lindsay McDougall, is not a happy man this morning as he tears into the music industry, claiming he was “duped” into appearing in the video.

McDougall, who is also a presenter on radio station Triple J, told SMH that he was furious at being “lumped in with this witch hunt” and that he had been “completely taken out of context and defamed” by the Australian music industry. McDougall was told that the video was all about surviving as an Australian artist and no-one told him it was part of an anti-piracy drive.

He said: “I have never come out against Internet piracy and illegal downloading and I wouldn’t do that – I would never put my name to something that is against downloading and is against piracy and stuff, it’s something that I believe is a personal thing from artist to artist.”

McDougall goes on, stating: “I would never be part of this big record industry funded campaign to crush illegal downloads, I’m not like [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich. I think it’s bullshit, I think it’s record companies crying poor and I don’t agree with it.”

Echoing the words of many artists in recent times, McDougall decries the methods of the record labels, in that they are the ones making all the money and still complain about what they see as a lack of revenue, even though they failed to adapt to the digital age:

“I’m from a punk rock band, it’s all about getting your music out any way you can – you don’t make money from the record, the record companies make the money from the record. If they can’t make money these days because they haven’t come onside with the way the world is going, it’s their own problem.”

Sabiene Heindl, general manager at MIPI said they were very clear in indicating where the video originated and that it would be distributed to schools, but clearly McDougall is still concerned about his image being sullied by association.

“I don’t think i’m going to sue anyone but I would say that already this morning people’s opinion of me has been lowered,” he said. Not now you’ve set the record straight Mr McDougall.

Coincidentally, TorrentFreak has recently been in touch with a punk outfit who are embracing the power of the digital revolution and BitTorrent in particular. CEO Nick Vivid of MegaPlatinum.net said of their fledgling “Spread This!” BitTorrent network : “We are really enjoying the ability to embrace the punk aesthetics of ‘Do it yourself’ and ‘Call for Change’ – our aesthetics – with this system. There’s an amazing amount of chaos in the record industry. This total deconstruction of the system is exactly what helps us thrive. Our bands feed off of that energy, just as we do.”

Commenting on this situation, Nick told us: “It’s funny how organizations with intimidating names and non menacing acronyms will use deceptive means to warp the words and ruin the reputations of people like Lindsay McDougall – people who have a certain amount of credibility they’ve worked hard to get – in any way possible so that it fits their agenda. More sad proof that a large part of the music industry doesn’t care about the artists or the fans. It’s something else entirely they’re after. I’m surprised Australia let such propaganda in the schools. Microsoft recently proposed something similar in the USA. Thankfully enough people in our educational system saw the ridiculousness of the idea and squashed it.”

Stay tuned for an interview soon.

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

The Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) in conjunction with the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) have been pressurizing Australian Internet Service Providers to take action against those it accuses of infringing its copyrights.

They have informed ISPs that they require them to send warning notices to their customers informing them of their infringing behavior and warning of the likely consequences. They have also issued demands that ISPs disconnect their customers from the internet, should they be accused of sharing copyright works.

According to The Age, Sabiene Heindl – General Manager of MIPI – is signaling a new strategy after Australian ISPs dug their heels in and refused to co-operate with MIPI’s demands. The Internet Industry Association (IIA) wrote to MIPI and explained that they felt they weren’t responsible for the actions of its customers and should not be required to monitor them, effectively refusing to become the industry’s copyright police.

In a letter, the IIA suggested that copyright holders should look for their rights to be enforced by using the existing tools provided by the Australian courts and copyright law.

The IIA quite rightly believes that the labeling of someone as an infringer should only be done by the courts, not by an organization such as MIPI or AFACT, a point outlined in its letter: “The distinction between an infringer and an alleged infringer has been raised as an important legal standard which ought not be undermined by us.”

In response, Heindl explained: “We would hope that the ISPs and the record companies could come up with an alternative solution. That said, if that solution cannot be reached, and at this stage it’s because of the ISPs refusing to play ball, then we may have no alternative other than to take legal action.”

Originally created to curtail physical piracy, 2004 saw MIPI involved in high drama when it raided the offices and home addresses of people involved with Sharman Networks and Brilliant Digital Entertainment. Two universities and 4 ISPs were also raided during the search for evidence to support their case against KaZaA.

In 2005, MIPI was restructured to concentrate on educating the public about file-sharing, although this didn’t stop them raiding an ISP in their quest to get a BitTorrent hub shut down.

It’s likely that 2007/8 will see MIPI ‘educating’ file-sharers with the threat of lawsuits which are hugely expensive, have been tried extensively in the United States and generally, do not work.

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

The Business Software Association, an international software body, claimed that in the year 2005 piracy in Australia cost them $361 million. The draft says these figures are “unverified and epistemologically unreliable.” It even goes so far as to call some of the stats used by copyright holders “absurd,” and adds that “of greatest concern is the potentially unqualified use of these statistics in courts of law.”

According to the draft, the RIAA’s Australian arm, the MIPI did not know how they calculated piracy stats, because the IPFI never told them. Strange? Maybe that’s just how things work with international organisations.

The reasoning behind the statements in the draft is that anti-piracy organisations calculate losses by counting each pirated good that is sold. They are making the assumption that each person who buys a pirated CD, for example, would have bought an original one instead. This cannot be backed up, as many of those people might not have been able to buy, or might not have bought the original CD.

The draft concluded with a statement asking for statistics that cannot be verified to be withdrawn. “Either these statistics must be withdrawn or the purveyors of these statistics must supply valid and transparent substantiation.”

The truth on the other hand: Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy!

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