This has resulted in arrangements with Internet providers in several countries including the United States and the UK, where unauthorized file-sharers are monitored and warned.

The Dutch movie industry is now calling for a similar scheme. Traditionally the Netherlands has been one of the countries with the highest piracy rates, and without any sign of improvement the movie industry wants to take action.

“Consumers should be educated. They must understand that it’s not allowed,” says René van Turnhout, director of film distributor Dutch Filmworks and chairman of trade association NVPI Video.

The Dutch film industry is calling for a warning system modeled after the British VCAP initiative. This means that accused pirates are sent a series of warning letters, but without any punishments.

While an agreement with ISPs is still miles away Van Turnhout already has a suggestion for what the letters should look like. Aside from alerting pirates to their unauthorized behavior, the notice should include links to legal alternatives.

“We’ve found that you have tried to view films from illegal sources. Filmmakers also have to earn money to make a living. We refer you to the following legal alternatives,” is what the letter could read, according to Van Turnhout.

Just how popular movie piracy is in the Netherlands became apparent last week when Popcorn Time revealed that its application is installed on 1.3 million devices there, trailing only behind the United States but with a population of less than 17 million people.

Convincing Dutch ISPs to participate is going to be quite a challenge though. Traditionally they have been very cautious when it comes to anti-piracy measures. Earlier this year ISPs successfully appealed the local Pirate Bay blockade, which they deemed to be ineffective and in violation the their customers’ rights.

The Dutch proposal is in line with increased calls for warning systems around the globe. Among other countries, Australia is also looking into it. Last week local ISPs said there’s no evidence that these schemes are effective, but that they would be willing to consider one if the Government desires.

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

Contrary to most other countries, however, downloading and copying movies and music for personal use is not punishable by law. In return, the Dutch compensate rightsholders through a “piracy levy” on writable media, hard drives and electronic devices with storage capacity, including smartphones.

In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Justice has declared this system unlawful. The case was brought by several electronics stores and manufacturers, whose products were made more expensive because of the levy.

In its judgment the Court held that the levy system is a threat to the internal market and that it puts copyright holders at an unfair disadvantage.

“If Member States were free to adopt legislation permitting, inter alia, reproductions for private use to be made from an unlawful source, the result of that would clearly be detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal market,” the Court noted in a briefing on the verdict today.

“Similarly, the objective of proper support for the dissemination of culture may not be achieved by sacrificing strict protection of copyright or by tolerating illegal forms of distribution of counterfeited or pirated works.”

As a result the Court ruled that the Dutch system, in which people are permitted to copy files from pirated sources, can not be tolerated.

The Court believes that “legalizing” file-sharing encourages the distribution of counterfeit and pirated works. In addition, it explains that the system poses “an unfair disadvantage to the copyright holders.”

The Court further notes that the Dutch system also punishes those who buy their digital movies and music from authorized sources, as they also pay the piracy levy on the devices and media they record them to.

“All users are indirectly penalized since they necessarily contribute towards the compensation payable for the harm caused by private reproductions made from an unlawful source. Users consequently find themselves required to bear an additional, non-negligible cost in order to be able to make private copies,” the Court notes.

Today’s judgment is also likely to affect other European countries with similar systems, such as Switzerland where downloading pirated works for personal use is also permitted.

Ironically, copyright holders may be worse off if the Netherlands does indeed outlaw downloading pirated material. This would result in millions of euros in lost revenue through the piracy levy, which may be hard to match by an increase in legal sales, if there’s any increase at all.

Update: The Dutch Government confirmed to Tweakers that downloading copyrighted material for personal use is no longer allowed, effective immediately.

The Government also clarified that in general offenses will be prosecuted through civil cases, not criminal ones. We have updated this article accordingly.

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

In the first criminal case against a BitTorrent uploader in the Netherlands, Stefan K was accused of uploading 5,000 e-books.

While the man admitted doing so, his attorney argued that the public prosecutor had no right to go after his client because file-sharing lawsuits belong in civil court.

In other words, the copyright holders should file a lawsuit themselves, and not leave this up to the authorities. The lawyer’s argument is based on a policy rule where it’s stated that in general Internet piracy should not fall under criminal law.

“This rule prescribes that in principle intellectual property infringement should be handled under civil law. Only in exceptional cases is the public prosecutor allowed to prosecute,” the uploader’s attorney told Tweakers in a comment.

For online piracy these exceptions are when the defendant is part of a criminal organization, or when the infringements are carried out as business activities.

The Rotterdam court agreed with the assessment of the defense lawyer and threw out the case. This means that the Pirate Bay uploader walks free, although the copyright holders are still allowed to start a case of their own.

Prosecutor Esther Loppé disagrees with the court and believes that they should have been allowed to proceed with the case.

“Of course there are people who upload a small number of files. However, in this case there were a lot of files, meaning that the policy doesn’t apply so strictly,” she says.

The prosecutor is right that Internet piracy on a mass scale can indeed be handled as a criminal case. However, the policy rule clearly states that the civil route is preferred, even in the case of commercial and pre-release piracy.

It is unknown whether the public prosecutor will appeal the decision. Neither the book publishers nor anti-piracy group BREIN has thus far commented on the verdict.

This is not the first setback for the Dutch Department of Justice in an online piracy case.

In 2010 the criminal proceeding against P2P index site ShareConnector was also dismissed. In this case the court ruled that the public prosecutor relied too much on evidence provided by BREIN, and failed to do a proper investigation of its own.

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

Presently, the Dutch see downloading movies and music for personal use as “fair use” and not punishable by law. However, the current government is trying to find a solution to the ever-increasing piracy problem and has proposed a new bill to make it unlawful.

The topic has resulted in a heated political debate over the past several months, and yesterday opponents of the bill won the first battle as the Dutch parliament adopted a motion to keep downloading movies and music for personal use legal.

One of the main concerns of the parliament is that a download ban would go against the free and open Internet, as it restrict the free flow of information. The motion further states that enforcing such a ban via monitoring would invade the privacy of Internet users.

In addition, the parliament is worried that should downloading become unlawful, copyright holders will go after individual downloaders in court. This might result in a similar situation currently seen in countries like the United States and Germany, where hundreds of thousands of Internet subscribers are being sued by copyright trolls out to make a quick buck.

Instead of a download ban, the parliament suggests that the entertainment industry should focus more on offering authorized alternatives. At the moment, it is practically impossible to download high quality copies of recent movies and TV-shows via legal channels in the Netherlands.

The stance of the Dutch parliament is in line with an authoritative report commissioned by the government in 2009. In the report it was estimated that file-sharing has an overall positive effect on the Dutch economy. While it was recognized that the entertainment industry suffers some losses, these don’t outweigh the positive effects of file-sharing.

This report also motivated the Swiss government to keep downloading of music and movies totally legal a few weeks ago.

While the adopted motion is a win for the parties who want to keep downloading for personal use legal, State Secretary for Security and Justice Fred Teeven has already announced that he plans to bring the plan back in an altered form. Whether that will be able to address the current concerns of parliament is yet to be seen.

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

In a response, the Swiss government has been conducting a study into the impact downloading has on society, and this week their findings were presented.

The overall conclusion of the study is that the current copyright law, under which downloading copyrighted material for personal use is permitted, doesn’t have to change.

Their report begins with noting that when it comes to copying files, the Internet has proven a game-changer. While the photocopier, audio cassette tape and VCR allowed users to make good quality copies of various media, these devices lacked a in-built distribution method. The world-wide web changed all that.

Distribution method or not, the entertainment industries have opposed all these technological inventions out of fear that their businesses would be crushed. This is not the right response according to the Swiss government, which favors the option of putting technology to good use instead of taking the repressive approach.

“Every time a new media technology has been made available, it has always been ‘abused’. This is the price we pay for progress. Winners will be those who are able to use the new technology to their advantages and losers those who missed this development and continue to follow old business models,” the report notes.

The government report further concludes that even in the current situation where piracy is rampant, the entertainment industries are not necessarily losing money. To reach this conclusion, the researchers extrapolated the findings of a study conducted by the Dutch government last year, since the countries are considered to be similar in many aspects.

The report states that around a third of Swiss citizens over 15 years old download pirated music, movies and games from the Internet. However, these people don’t spend less money as a result because the budgets they reserve for entertainment are fairly constant. This means that downloading is mostly complementary.

The other side of piracy, based on the Dutch study, is that downloaders are reported to be more frequent visitors to concerts, and game downloaders actually bought more games than those who didn’t. And in the music industry, lesser-know bands profit most from the sampling effect of file-sharing.

The Swiss report then goes on to review several of the repressive anti-piracy laws and regulations that have been implemented in other countries recently, such as the three-strikes Hadopi law in France. According to the report 12 million was spent on Hadopi in France this year, a figure the Swiss deem too high.

The report further states that it is questionable whether a three-strikes law would be legal in the first place, as the UN’s Human Rights Council labeled Internet access a human right. The Council specifically argued that Hadopi is a disproportionate law that should be repealed.

Other measures such as filtering or blocking content and websites are also rejected, because these would hurt freedom of speech and violate privacy protection laws. The report notes that even if these measures were implemented, there would be several ways to circumvent them.

The overall suggestion the Swiss government communicates to the entertainment industries is that they should adapt to the change in consumer behavior, or die. They see absolutely no need to change the law because downloading has no proven negative impact on the production of national culture.

Aside from downloading, it is also practically impossible for companies in Switzerland to go after casual uploaders. In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that tracking companies are not allowed to log IP-addresses of file-sharers, making it impossible for rightsholders to gather evidence.

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

Through an elaborate survey the Government wanted to find out more about the views of artists on piracy, DRM, and other opportunities and challenges they face in the digital era. The questions covered in this article were answered by nearly 4,000 artists of all ages, including musicians, filmmakers, authors and photographers. The results give a unique insight into the position of artists on this controversial subject.

One of the results that stands out directly is that artists are pirates too. Not all of them of course, but a healthy percentage. Of all the respondents surveyed on the subject, 22% indicated that they had downloaded copyrighted works without the owners’ permission in the last 12 months. Another 71% told the researchers they hadn’t downloaded anything without permission during this period, and the remaining 7% didn’t know, or didn’t want to answer the question.

A follow up question among those who admitted to downloading others’ copyrighted works, found that music is by far the most downloaded media type. Over 80% of the downloaders downloaded music, and little over 40% also downloaded movies. Other categories such as E-books and games were less popular, with around 5% downloaders interested in these works.

Aside from their own ‘piracy’ habits, the survey also asked the respondents about their role as ‘victims’ of unauthorized file-sharing.

One of the questions dealt with whether the artists think they are being financially harmed by file-sharing. Interestingly, only about 12% of artists completely agree with the statement that file-sharing hurts them (~16% agree). The majority of the artists are not convinced that file-sharing is doing them any financial harm, and some actually think the opposite is true. What’s worth nothing is that higher educated artists in particular believe that file-sharing is doing them no financial harm.

Instead of hurting their wallets, the majority of the artists believe that file-sharing helps to promote their work. Little over 50% of those questioned responded affirmatively to the question of whether file-sharing helps to get their work known among the public, while only 5% completely disagreed with this statement. In particular the younger artists (< 25yo) recognized promotional benefits, as more than 80% thought file-sharing increases the popularity of their work.

Moving on to DRM, the survey found that 30% of the artists believe that DRM is hurting legitimate customers through access restrictions. Despite this negative view, 70% of all artists still believe their work should be protected by DRM. With regard to DRM there appears to be quite a large generation gap. More than 40% of the artists younger than 25 years old say DRM is hurting their relationship with the public, while none of the artists over 75 years old believes it does any harm.

Finally, the artists were also surveyed on whether individual file-sharers should be treated more harshly. Interestingly, close to 60% indicate that they should, with an even higher percentage among the older artists. Even among the people who admitted that they were downloading without permission, nearly one third said that harsher measures are needed to deter file-sharers.

All in all it can be concluded from the survey that the majority of Dutch artists don’t believe that unauthorized file-sharing is hurting them financially, and that it may actually help them to gain a larger audience. Despite these liberal views, a majority of the artists support harsher measures against unauthorized file-sharing and for DRM to ‘protect’ their works.

A mixed message, but one that’s hopeful, especially since the younger generations recognize the benefits of sharing, even when it’s without permission.

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

This is a bad idea, according to the consumer watchdog artists unions. Instead, they have issued a counterproposal that would eventually legalize both the uploading and downloading of movies and music entirely.

“The parties find it essential to protect the freedom of consumers on the Internet and to ensure that the rights of artists are respected. A necessary condition for the adoption of the proposal is that the technologies used will not infringe on the rights of consumers,” the press statement reads.

Legalizing ‘illicit’ file-sharing would happen in two stages. The existing levy on blank media such as CDs and DVDs will be replaced by a levy on devices that can play an record movies and music. This includes, but is not limited to mobile phones, MP3-players and TVs.

The average levy would be around 5 euros per device, and the money collected should be fairly divided among artists and other rightsholders. The proposal does not apply to other digital files such as games, software and books.

In the future, when file-sharing is even more dominant than it is now, this levy should be changed into a general Internet levy which will completely legalize the uploading and downloading of movies and music for personal use. Commercial copyright infringement will remain illegal according to the proposal.

The proposal is an interesting one, especially coming from the artists themselves, but it also raises many questions. The proposal is quite vague about how the collected money should be divided. Also, it avoids the important issue that people who are not downloading at all will end up paying more for their mobile phones and TVs.

The proposal will undoubtedly meet some resistance from music retailers such as Apple, who will lose millions in revenue if it was adopted. That said, it’s good to see that the unions and the consumer watchdog are at least thinking about alternative solutions.

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

The results were presented earlier this week and they were quite remarkable. A massive 93% of the surveyed respondents said they download music, movies or games from the Internet, while only 5% of this group of downloaders actually uses a paid service like iTunes.

Downloading copyrighted music or movies for personal use is not prohibited in The Netherlands, but uploading is. In most cases this means that using BitTorrent to download copyrighted music is not the best choice, since it generally requires uploading. However, this is not holding any of the Dutch youngsters back, so it seems.

BitTorrent was by far the preferred file-sharing (download) application according to the survey. More than 45% of the downloaders said they use sites like Mininova and The Pirate Bay to download the latest music and movies. Usenet came in second with a respectable 15%.

Aside from looking into their download behavior, respondents were also asked to predict the outcome of the Mininova trial. Only 15% thought that BREIN will come out the winner, while 45% thought Mininova would strike up a victory. The remaining 39% knew too little about the case to make a useful assessment.

There are of course many flaws in this type of survey. First off, respondents were recruited through online forums and even highly tech oriented communities such as Tweakers. Among these tech savvy and active Internet users the percentage of P2P-users is undoubtedly higher than average. Secondly, the survey was promoted as a “download” survey, this will of course attract the attention of those who actually download more than those who don’t.

Polls and surveys can be very misleading, especially when they are ill constructed. What we can conclude from the Dutch survey, although carefully, is that The Netherlands has quite a few active BitTorrent users and that they are confident that Mininova will beat BREIN in court. Let’s hope that a similar survey among lawyers would reach a similar conclusion.

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

The report, which was commissioned by the government, estimates the positive effect on the Dutch economy to be around 100 million euros a year. While it is recognized that the entertainment industry suffers some losses, these don’t outweigh the positive effects of file-sharing.

File-sharing gives people access to a wide range of cultural goods and is often used to sample content that is bought later, the report concluded. Most file-sharers would have never bought the content they downloaded, but having access to such a large media library increases the welfare of Dutch citizens, the researchers note.

The researchers further found that people who download music and movies are not buying less than people who don’t. In fact, downloaders are reported to be more frequent visitors of concerts, and game downloaders actually bought more games than those who didn’t. In the music industry, lesser-know bands profit most from file-sharing, the researchers report.

The report goes on to discuss the legal situation in the Netherlands. Downloading music and movies for personal use is currently legal under Dutch law while uploading is illegal, although most file-sharers are uncertain as to what is allowed and what is not. Although anti-piracy outfits are lobbying for harsher copyright laws, this will have little effect.

The researchers think that stricter copyright laws will not have much of an effect on the income of the entertainment industry. Most reported losses can be attributed to things other than piracy, they say. One of the main reasons for the loss in sales for the music industry, is competition with other forms of entertainment.

BREIN, the anti-piracy voice of the Netherlands hasn’t commented on the conclusions of the report yet, but we’re looking forward to hearing from them.

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