Correlation Between Illegal Downloaders and Buying Music

A Hadopi study shows that those who pirate music, the same people that the industry hate, are their best customers. 

Could it be perhaps that they have a budget for music and pirate the rest? Not all pirates are scumbag steve freeloading trolls, another Columbia University study shows strong correlation between file-sharing and media spending. (Read more here)

Just remember you pirates, if want something you value Buy It. Because:

Seriously though...

Read More

Canadian Copyright Law Caps File-Sharing Lawsuits at $5000

Anti-Piracy laws in Canada have made the front page, much of it not so good, but some of it is reasonable. 


The Entertainment industries have again been trying to hammer down on the Pirating trolls. The Daily Dot reports that a Canadian "Forensic" Anti-Piracy firm called Canpire has provided evidence in the NGN Prima Productions case, in which NGN is trying to claim cash settlements from alleged sharers of its action movie "Recoil". So far, there have been 50-100 IP addresses that have been identified, and the company intends on pursing them. Canpire also threatens to ID a million more illegal downloaders in the future. Already a country where file-sharing is legal, on what grounds will these pirates be charged? and how accurate is the data retrieved by Canpire? 

Typical right? But what's new?

A new law called Bill C-11 has passed, which reforms digital copyright laws, particularly for pirated music/movies. The law would limit non-commercial cases of infringement to a maximum of $5000 and a minimum of $100. Notice the word "non-commercial", this means the 13 year olds downloading One-Direction songs aren't going to have to go to jail (possibly a bad thing? jk). Although this is much better than the U.S. maximum penalty which is at $150,000, people don't want to see a letter saying they are going to court for illegal or "negligent" downloading.

Not long after this law was passed, Voltage's case of suing pirates for sharing their movie "The Hurt Locker" has been abandoned. There was no statement given for the reason, but a good inference is that the new C-11 copyright reform will make the penalties not even worth pursuing. 

In my opinion, Bill C-11 seems to be pretty reasonable and deters both sides from their bad habits: Pirates getting their "free" content are going to be annoyed with court hearings and menial fines, and large entertainment corporations in the industry won't be getting large sums of money for suing teenagers on the internet. It's actually a phenomenon how much money entertainment companies make from suing, yet still claim ridiculously large net losses.

Consumer/Producer Attitudes still need to change, and we aren't close to a real compromise, but it's nice to finally see some a baby step toward an appropriate legal policy that puts a cap on frivolous piracy lawsuits.

Read More

Anti-Piracy Draconian Law in Japan, Music Sales Drop

With the pressures of ACTA (the global Anti-Piracy initiative) in place, a Draconian Anti-Piracy Law goes into effect and Music Sales subsequently plummet (more details at TechDirt).

According to Japan Today, downloading copyrighted music and video can be punishable by up to Two years in jail and a 2 million yen fine ($24,284 USD). Two years of trying your best not to drop the soap while losing the money for a new car... for downloading a stupid song. Scary? That's the point.

Unfortunately the music industry in Japan needs someone to blame for the decline in sales. No, they don't blame the crappy artists, high-priced CD's in a struggling economy, or their lack of initiative to increase revenue in other ways beside direct royalty from music purchases. They conveniently point their fingers at the evil RPG wielding internet pirates, who need to be observed every second because they are so "dangerous"... 

 Music Industry's Perception of Internet Pirates

The backfiring is obvious, this law has discouraged the already decline in interest in today's music. Many Japanese people state that when they do purchase music, it's from a foreign store because music at domestic stores are too expensive.

With that said, seeing that now the download button isn't available, and the music doesn't seem worth buying, people just don't bother anymore. Yet, the industry and lobbyists still fail to recognize this.

 Internet Pirate in Real Life

Read More

The War on Piracy: Battle Map

Battle Map

 

Read More

The War on Piracy: Piracy Tactics and Mechanics

Pirate Hierarchy and Mechanics

Click to Enlarge


Internet User Psyche

  Click to Enlarge

Read More

Author Neil Gaiman on Copyright and the Web

Author Neil Gaiman Shares an Interesting Point of View on Internet Piracy

Watch the video, Gaiman points out some odd ways piracy has helped accelerate his career, and his success as an author is testimonial. Perhaps this could help other authors or even music artists jumpstart their sales and ambitions.

Read More

More Insight from Widen The Web

Long before making this blog, I stumbled upon a WP blog called "Widen the Web". Two articles I felt would be relevant to this blog were ones about the Ethics of Censorship/Restriction of the Internet and the other about how The Benefits of Internet Piracy (click the links). One thing I really like were that blogs have a nice "SAD" analysis structure to them which concisely yet effectively examine the issues.

Internet censorship: right, wrong or both?

Published on July 20, 2012 by Widen the Web in Uncategorized

 

Advocates of unlimited free speech hold that the internet should never, under any circumstances and by any person or organization, by censored in the United States. My heart agrees but my better judgment tells me there are certain instances in which some form of internet censorship is necessary.

The structure for this argument follows the SAD formula of Situation, Analysis and Decision (Louis Alvin Day, 2003).

S: Situation Definition

What are the facts?

The World Wide Web started off as the World Wild West, completely open and uncontrolled by any authority. However, now that ordinary people have the means to put potentially damaging and disruptive content online, governments are realizing that the internet has to be controlled in some way.
Many countries now censor their national internet, including Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The Kremlin has this week voted in a new law to censor the internet in Russia, with a national list of banned websites that ISPs must shut down. Among the reasons cited are child pornography websites and sites that encourage drug use and teenage suicide. Iran has plans to launch a “national internet” – and in China, the classic case of internet censorship, access to some Western news sites and to content that might destabilize the Communist regime is effectively blocked.
The fact is that many governments and organizations censor their local and national internet space in some way. Should the U.S. follow suit?

What the principles behind internet censorship?

Oliver Burkeman argues, in an excellent Guardian newspaper report, that debates about censorship and freedom of speech online boil down to the “fundamental question of whether the internet should be ‘open’ – a place of unfettered expression, self-organising order and plenty of chaos – or ‘closed’ and controlled, subjugated to existing frameworks of politics, policing and law.”
The Western value system leans towards the “open” internet, since freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and in fundamental Western philosophies such as those of John Stuart Mill.
At the extreme end of freedom of speech is digital utopianism – that free speech should reign supreme, and that online openness should be championed at all costs. The phenomenon of digital utopianism is excellently espoused in Frank Turner’s book, From Counterculture to Cyberculture. This is the view of techno-libertarians and groups such as the OpenNet Initiative and Reporters without Borders, who publish an annual list of “Enemies of the Internet.”
At the other end of the scale are many conservative citizens and mums who desire the internet to be a civilized space, free of child pornography, sex, drugs, suicide, violent death and other social taboos.
In the middle are people like me, who recognize that some sort of control over the internet space is necessary – but that in most cases it is either technically impossible or socially undesirable to censor the net.

What is the fundamental issue behind internet censorship?

Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the internet can and should be censored in some way, I identify four areas of controversy.

1. WHO has the right to censor the web – and who decides who has that right?
2. In what CONTEXTS is it right to censor the web?
3. WHY? What is the purpose behind internet censorship, and is that purpose legitimate?
4. Are there alternatives to internet censorship that would be more effective and easier for the public and free speech advocates to swallow?

A: Analysis of the Situation

Ideas vs information

Even free speech advocates will admit that there is a vast chasm between censoring ideas and censoring information. Ideas should never be censored, however unattractive they are. Information, on the other hand, can and should in some cases be censored.
During World Wars I and II, British censors blacked out whole sentences and paragraphs in personal letters and newspapers in order to hinder information-gathering by German intelligence. If World War III were to break out and somebody decided to leak the entire US defense strategy on the internet, I would hope that they would be prevented from endangering the country.
Arguments about national security are admittedly shaky. Who is to decide what is and is not to be censored in the interests of national security? In many countries, “national security” can be used as a smokescreen for dodgy dealings and corruption. However, that doesn’t mean that national security is not a good reason to prohibit some content from being freely available online.

Private and corporate vs. state censorship

Local, privately owned organizations on the internet can legitimately self-censor their own online spaces, as long as they make their policies clear. For instance, if somebody makes an inappropriate comment on my personal blog, I am at liberty to “censor” their freedom of speech by removing it. A company might decide to censor their internal network to stop employees releasing corporate secrets, whether deliberately or inadvertently.
In an interesting recent case, Facebook were lambasted for removing a link to a Human Rights Watch report posted by the free speech advocacy group Article 19. The group’s executive director, Dr Agnes Callamard, complained: “The deletion shows the looming threat of private censorship…. Facebook act like judge, jury and executioner.”
However, even though Facebook could and should have done more to investigate the case and inform the group before removing the link, it is arguably justified that Facebook have a moderation team that removes offensive or inappropriate content. In a way, this is an example of a community being responsible by censoring and policing itself.

Censorship in context

Context matters greatly in debates about internet censorship. For instance, most parents would agree that websites which encourage teen suicide, glamorize drug-taking or show violent and pornographic material should be censored on school computers, by filtering software or a code of conduct. Those same websites may be legitimate and (borderline) acceptable in other settings, such as private homes or research institutes.

What else?

Several other factors must be taken into consideration.

• There is a difference between censoring the internet and censoring traditional media such as newspapers. There are a finite number of newspapers and each newspaper has a finite number of pages, which makes censorship more straightforward. Moreover, newspapers are written by trained journalists who are careful about claims that they make and information that they release. On the web, the amount of content available is infinite, uncontrolled, impossible to keep track of and produced mainly by people with no fear of lawsuits or training in journalistic codes of conduct.
• Many laws already exist that may be sufficient for stopping harmful content being available online. For instance, privacy laws, and laws against illegal drug sales or child pornography. Before enacting any internet censorship bill, we should look at existing laws that impact these issues.
• Should censorship should be reactive or proactive? Installing filtering software on computers in libraries and schools is a form of proactive censorship. If, on the other hand, we wait until something harmful is put online then demand that an ISP removes it from the internet, that is a form of reactive censorship.
• It may not even be possible to censor the web effectively. People get around current censorship in China and Iran using proxy websites or VPNs. It is likely that whatever censorship methods are put in place, determined hackers will always be able to get around them.

Duties and responsibilities

• As a society, we have a duty to our fellow citizens to protect their freedom of speech…but also to protect society as a whole. The latter duty underlies arguments for internet censorship on the grounds of national security.
• We also have a duty to protect an individual’s right to privacy. When one person’s freedom of expression infringes on another’s right to privacy, we should be able to resolve that by limiting that freedom of expression in some way.
• We have a duty to our children and teens, to protect them from obscene or harmful content while they are young and vulnerable.
• We have a duty to protect intellectual property and corporate secrets in order to allow the economy to flourish.
• We have a duty to protect individuals from con-men and fraudulent phishing websites whose sole purpose is to engage in criminal activity.

D: Decision

Context matters so greatly in questions of internet censorship that I find it impossible to list areas where censoring content is either right or wrong. Rather, I think every issue should be discussed openly and transparently.
Rather than entrust a few people with decisions as to what should be censored and why, I think we should engage in candid debate – as a society, through politics, the courts, the media, and internet blogs and forums.
Hillary Clinton has campaigned globally for “internet freedom.” Attempting to censor the web would put the U.S. government in the strange position of encouraging people in foreign regimes to beat internet censors, as this article in the Guardian newspaper explores, while preventing their own citizens from viewing content freely.
Moreover, we can’t stop the web. Rather than focusing on censorship, I think we should explore innovative ways of helping useful, better quality internet content triumph over the bad stuff. Options include refining search engines, exploring so-called “net neutrality” (which stops ISPs making it harder to access one site over another) and plain old self-censorship by organizations that listen to their users.
I think this would satisfy the generally accepted Western idea that freedom of expression should be limited only when there is a real, demonstrable and universally agreed need to prevent harm to vulnerable people.

Read More

Concluding Thoughts

The internet was built on the principle of freedom to information, communication and anonymity. But that could drastically evolve in a negative direction if a censoring legal policy is enforced as a stupid knee-jerk reaction to a radical self-entitled consumer culture. 

The problem of piracy will continue to inflate unless producers and consumers reach a compromise and gain better understanding of the issue and their part in it. Once that is resolved, the real and effective three-pronged solution of shifting industry and consumer attitudes, new business models and developing an appropriate legal policy can be truly implemented to reduce piracy.

Before this solution can even be actualized, more people need to realize whats at stake:

• Their Individual Rights, Opportunity and Innovation
• The future direction of the internet and digital technology
• Consumer/Producer Culture

Actions need to be made and behaviors need to change from all parties, including the government, if a free and growing internet is to be preserved. Motivation is a fundamental requirement for any effective solution to a problem, including piracy. It will be a drudging process contaminated with political filth to implement the solution, but with enough motivation and initiative, I am confident Internet Piracy will be reduced to the point where it ceases to be a hot media issue.

So, what can you do? Well, by reading this and seeking more info about Internet Piracy you'll be more informed and empowered. Talk about this with peers, spread concern and awareness, especially when Congress tries to silently fart out Rights-Infringing Bills like SOPA. Be Proactiv.

Hopefully with better understanding, a new perspective will encourage you to change your actions (like not being a total leech) and to participate in discussions or conferences on piracy.

<<<Back

Read More

The 3 Step Plan in Solving Internet Piracy: Step 3

Step 3: An Appropriate Legal Policy

Now that producer-consumer initiatives have been discussed let's look at current and proposed legal policy for internet piracy. 

For many years, the U.S. policy has been neutral but inefficient and ineffective, as suggested by high traffic of pirated content online, and rage between producer and consumer that have led to lobbying for bills like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and ACTA in 2010-2011. SOPA/PIPA are proposed legislation that wanted to essentially enforce no access to sites and software deemed by the government as "infringing"
 law (More & Infographic). They were shot down, boycotted and did not pass because it would basically censor the internet, but ACTA and CISPA did. ACTA was an international initiative to crackdown on copyright infringement, counterfeit, and internet piracy and CISPA allowed a broader no-warrant system for government agencies to access private cyber information. These two legal policies caused many file-sharing and hosting sites (ex. MegaUpload) to be shut down through DOS worldwide (took lots of resources to accomplish), basically taken down without legal due process from intelligence and security agencies. Government action is needed to reduce piracy, but ambiguous bills that prescribe a strict controlling solution for an already inflated problem do not help.

What concern us, is that internet piracy can ultimately lead to an extreme reaction through laws such as those discussed above, that would limit individual rights and the internet. Not only are these censoring policies unethical, they are also ineffective due to ignorance. China's government has the "Great Firewall of China" to censor their citizen's internet, but simply look how effective it's been; China still remains the largest hub of counterfeit and piracy. 

Author/expert on software security and copyright Bruce Schneier has proposed that the government focus on preventative standards such as software protection rather than regulation of the internet. DRM or Digital Rights Management, although a restricting anti-competitive practice, in one study has worked particularly well with software dependent on online service in which verification of the software is checked before it can be used. Anti-Virus and browser security that warn users about a potentially harmful webpage has also worked well in discouraging piracy by inducing paranoia/risk of malicious software attacks to users. Available software security technology such as these need to be applied where they are most effective.

One problem many companies have to deal with is the costliness of high-profile lawsuits followed by irrelevant punitive measures such as the case against KimDotcom's Mega-upload. On top of litigation costs, government resources, aka tax payer $$$ must be utilized in order to obtain evidence and subpoena. Often times these investigations are unworthy of pursing, such as the case in which a 9-year old girl in Finland was arrested after a house raid for downloading a song on the notorious piratebay.com.Those Cops must be feel real bad ass...

After reading Wally Wang's book "Steal This File-Sharing Book", I realized that copyright laws for digital property need updating. The book has suggested that legalization of clearly defined types of file-sharing, downloading and uploading would simplify the litigation process and have it more focused on the queen bees of large illegal hosting sites and illegal online vendors trying to sell pirated goods rather than adolescent down-loaders.

Aside from maximizing the potential of current technology and adjusting copyright laws, the development of a wrist-slapping policy should be emplaced to avoid costly lawsuits and also to be an effective deterrent. The government needs to invest in an accurate, efficient and fair system to mediate conflicts between producer and consumer. The Copyright Alert System or CAS, is a non-punitive piracy detection system being developed by CCI. It would serve as a fast (annoying) warning system to file-sharing sites that allocate high levels of copyrighted material. Instead of shutting them down without due process, a systematic 7-strike rule would be enacted. 

The first being informative warnings to the site owner to remove certain illicit content and to stress the seriousness of the matter, and the last would be a notice that "mitigation measures" will be enacted. Mitigation measures include temporarily slower server or internet speeds, reduced bandwidth or redirection out of the site. This would continue to occur until the owner contacts their Internet Service Provider or "ISP" to discuss and resolve the matter. Other variations of the CAS are also being proposed such as a wrist-slapping fining system in which internet users who pirate copious amounts of content and are caught must pay a small fine to their ISP or Internet Service Providers, which is then redistributed to creators. These systems strive to respect privacy and not be intrusive on rights, which is why they are still in development and being reviewed by the public. 

By changing our legal policy to an appropriate one that is more focused on developing piracy-mitigating technologies than destructive censorship or numerous unwarranted raids, piracy would be slashed. Increasing the application of effective current software protection through standards, modernizing copyright laws, and investing more effort to create a fair wrist-slapping policy would make up this appropriate legal policy. The overall goal of all these legal measures and policies is again to properly reward creators while maximizing the potential of the internet.

<<<Back                                                                   Conclusion>>>

Read More