For more than a decade copyright holders and the U.S. Government have been trying to find the silver bullet to beat piracy.

This week the American Bar Association joined the discussion with a 113-page white paper. With their “call for action” the lawyers encourage Congress to draft new anti-piracy legislation and promote voluntary agreements between stakeholders.

Among the options on the table is the filing of lawsuits against individual file-sharers, something the RIAA did extensively in the past. Interestingly, the lawyers advise against this option as it’s unlikely to have an impact on current piracy rates.

According to the lawyers these type of lawsuits are also financially ineffective, oftentimes costing more than they bring in. In addition, they can create bad PR for the copyright holders involved.

“While it is technically possible for trademark and copyright owners to proceed with civil litigation against the consuming public who [...] engage in illegal file sharing, campaigns like this have been expensive, do not yield significant financial returns, and can cause a public relations problem for the plaintiff in addressing its consuming public,” the lawyers write.

“The [American Bar Association] does not believe that legislative action directly targeting consumers would prove effective in reducing piracy or counterfeiting at this time,” the white paper adds.

While the above may be true for any of the cases that go to trial, various copyright trolls might tend to disagree as they have shown that targeting file-sharers can be quite lucrative.

Pirates shouldn’t be too quick to cheer on the lawyers though, as the white paper also contains some pretty draconian suggestions.

The American Bar Association says that future legislation should target infringing websites, and it names The Pirate Bay as an example. Since site owners are often unknown and therefore hard to prosecute in America, they advise a series of more indirect tactics.

The lawyers are in favor of a “follow the money” principle where anti-piracy measures are targeted at strangling the finances of pirate sites. They call for legislation that makes it easier to cut off advertising, and to seize funds through banks or payment processors.

In addition, the white paper calls for new legislation that would allow copyright holders to obtain injunctions against the hosting companies of pirate sites. The American Bar Association also considered similar injunctions against domain registrars and search engines, but it couldn’t reach agreement on these issues.

Overall copyright holders will be pleased to see the recommendations put forward in the white paper, but it’s doubtful whether lawmakers will be quick pick them up.

Several of the suggestions were previously listed in the SOPA and PIPA bills, so if these are ever drafted into legislation Congress can expect a lot of public backlash.

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

For the past several years Google has been under the hammer for supposedly providing easy access to pirated content online. Criticism has flooded in on both sides of the Atlantic, with record labels and their Hollywood counterparts blaming the search giant for infringement they have little do with.

The argument is that Google should take responsibility for what the wider Internet is doing by doctoring its search results and AutoSuggest/AutoComplete features in order to promote legal content while relegating pirate sources to the poor leagues.

The record labels claim that little has happened on this front so we decided to carry out some tests of our own. How quickly could we find both legal and illegal popular music using only Google’s search and suggestions?

The rules

Searching for the current Billboard Top 10, we carried out two searches for each track. One would aim to find infringing content and the other only legal options. We entered no more letters of a song than needed and stopped when Google began guiding us with its AutoSuggest options which we accepted. Any more than ten keypresses or clicks overall would be classed as an abort.

Track #1 – Fancy – Iggy Azalea Featuring Charli XCX

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search Entry – “fancy_”
AutoSuggest offered – “fancy mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9

Search for authorized track

Google Search Entry – “fan”
AutoSuggest offered – “fancy”
Best Offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#2 Rude – MAGIC!

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “rud”
AutoSuggest offered – “rude mp3″
Best Offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “rud”
AutoSuggest offered – “rude magic”
Best Offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#3 Problem – Ariana Grande Featuring Iggy Azalea

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search Entry – “probl”
AutoSuggest offered – “problem ariana grande mp3″
Best Offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 7

Search for authorized track

Google Search Entry – “prob”
AutoSuggest offered – “problem ariana grande”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#4 – Am I Wrong – Nico & Vinz

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “am_”
AutoSuggest offered – “am i wrong mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “am i w”
AutoSuggest offered – “am i wrong nico and vinz”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8

Winner: Pirate option (MP3Skull)

—————————————————————————————

#5 Stay With Me – Sam Smith

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “stay_w”
AutoSuggest offered – “stay with me sam smith mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “stay”
AutoSuggest offered – “stay with me”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#6 Wiggle – Jason Derulo Featuring Snoop Dogg

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “wigg”
AutoSuggest offered – “wiggle jason derulo mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 7

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “wig”
AutoSuggest offered – “wiggle jason derulo”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#7 – Summer – Calvin Harris

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “summer_”
AutoSuggest offered – “summer calvin harris mp3″
Several ‘pirate’ results failed.

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = Aborted (more than 10)

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “sum”
AutoSuggest offered – “summer”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#8 All Of Me – John Legend

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “all_o”
AutoSuggest offered – “all of me john legend mp3″
Best Offer: MP3Fon (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “all_of_me_j”
AutoSuggest offered – “all of me john legend”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 13

Winner: Pirate option (MP3Fon)

—————————————————————————————

#9 – Maps – Maroon 5

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “maps_maro”
AutoSuggest offered – “maps maroon 5 mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (second result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 12

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “maps_m”
AutoSuggest offered – “maps maroon 5″
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#10 – Turn Down For What – DJ Snake & Lil Jon

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “turn_d”
AutoSuggest offered – (turn down for what mp3)
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “turn”
AutoSuggest offered – “turn down for what”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)
—————————————————————————————

Conclusions

From the above results we can see that when using only a song title and then taking Google’s suggestions, most of the time those searching for pirate content will take longer to access it than those looking to go legal.

However, what we’re talking about here is a difference of a handful of clicks, which is hardly the accessibility chasm the RIAA and BPI were aiming for. Pressuring Google and sending millions of DMCA takedown notices every month appears to have had little effect on pirate availability.

Also, it’s also worth noting that if the YouTube/Vevo results were ignored in our tests or removed from Google results altogether, finding legal alternatives would become much harder since iTunes and similar sites are rarely, if ever, on the first page of Google results following either a ‘pirate’ or ‘legal’ search for music.

Google has told the record labels that they need to do something about that themselves, by making their sites more crawlable, but it appears that security concerns have hindered progress on that front to the point that sites like MP3Skull with relatively tiny budgets can beat them at every turn.

It’s difficult to blame anyone but the labels and their partners for that problem.

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

Pretty much every weekend The Pirate Bay replaces its logo to plug a band, game developer or filmmaker. This is part of the Promo Bay initiative through which TPB supports independent artists.

At the start of this weekend the torrent site decided to feature something a little more personal. The site currently displays a banner asking visitors to send their support to two of the site’s original founders.

Gottfrid Svartholm and Peter Sunde are both in prison at the moment and could use an uplifting note or two, the message suggests.

“Show your support by sending them some encouraging mail! Gottfrid is only allowed to receive letters while Peter gladly received books, letter and vegan candy,” the TPB team writes.

Pirate Bay homepage

Peter Sunde is serving the sentence he received for his involvement with The Pirate Bay. He’s being held in a high security prison in Västervik and recently requested a transfer to a lower safety class unit.

Gottfrid Svartholm has already served his Pirate Bay sentence but currently stands accused in Denmark of hacking into the mainframe computers of IT company CSC. He faces up to five years in prison and his trial will start in two months.

When Gottfrid served his Pirate Bay sentence in Sweden he also received numerous letters and cards. He later sent a video out to thank everyone for the support he received.

“I would like to thank everyone who has supported me in any way, very much, it has meant a lot to me,” Gottfrid said at the time.

“I don’t have the time or the possibility to answer many of the letters but you should know that I read each and every one of them and it has really helped me a lot.”

—

For those who can’t read the image above, the addresses for Gottfrid and Peter are as follows.

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg
c/o Jens H. Jorgensen
Politigarden, 1567, Copenhagen
Denmark

Peter Sunde
Box 248
593 23 Västervik
Sweden

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

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation spin-off not only owns several major newspapers, but also has a stake in Foxtel, the Australian pay TV network that airs Game of Thrones.

The hit TV show has become a pivotal talking point in the copyright debate, so it comes as little surprise that News Corp is now regularly throwing its own anti-piracy opinions into the mix.

Last month, News Corp. CEO Robert Thomson fired shots at Google for operating sophisticated algorithms that “know ­exactly where you are and what you’re doing” yet at the same time “pleading ignorance” on piracy.

“[It's an] untenable contradiction,” Thomson said.

Now the media outfit is making its feelings known again in a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade, regarding the Free Trade Agreement between the governments of Australia and South Korea.

Specifically, News Corp doesn’t like the fact that following the failed Hollywood legal onslaught against iiNet, Aussie ISPs are able to distance themselves from the pirating habits of their subscribers.

“As News Corp Australia has expressed previously, we are concerned that the amendments made to the Copyright Act 1968 in 2004 regarding secondary liability of ISPs do not operate as intended,” the company writes.

“Specifically, the provisions of the Act – although intended to do so – do not provide rights holders with means to protect rights online as the provisions are technology specific and ineffective in dealing with online copyright infringement as it manifests today, nor as it may manifest in the future.”

The law as it stands, News Corps adds, is not “readily suited to enforcing the rights of copyright owners in respect of widespread infringements occasioned by peer-to-peer file sharing, as occurs with the BitTorrent system.”

Looking towards a solution, News Corp supports the position taken by Attorney-General George Brandis back in February when the Senator noted that Section 101 of the Copyright Act should be reformed so that an ISP which authorizes the copyright infringements of others can more effectively be held liable for those infringements.

“News Corp Australia supports the Attorney-General’s approach to the issue of online copyright infringement, and looks forward to contributing to ensuring domestic copyright protection provisions function as intended, and the balance between obligation (secondary liability) and benefit (safe harbour) is re-established,” the company concludes.

Whether ISPs will relish taking on more responsibility is up for debate, but it’s safe to say that one – Hollywood nemesis iiNet – definitely won’t. The company’s Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby has been in the press on numerous occasions in the past few weeks taking a particularly aggressive stance against most government and entertainment industry proposals.

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

The Popcorn Time phenomenon is one of the biggest piracy stories of the year thus far.

The software became an instant hit by offering BitTorrent-powered streaming in an easy to use Netflix-style interface. Needless to say this has been a thorn in the side for Hollywood.

Today the MPAA decided to deploy countermeasures by filing requests with development platform GitHub to take down several Popcorn Time related repositories.

“We are writing to notify you of, and request your assistance in addressing the extensive copyright infringement of motion pictures and television shows that is occurring by virtue of the operation and further development of the GitHub projects Popcorn Time, and Time4Popcorn,” the MPAA writes in its takedown notice.

GitHub swiftly complied and starting a few hours ago the repositories were absent from the website, leaving the following note.

Popcorn Time removed

In its takedown notice the MPAA specifically targets the “popcorn-official” and the “time4popcorn” projects, but it also urges GitHub to remove all related forks.

“By this notification, we are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping your users’ unauthorized activity. Specifically, we request that you remove or disable access to the infringing Projects’ repositories and all related forks,” MPAA writes.

Interestingly, the MPAA doesn’t mention the original Popcorn Time repository, which remains intact.

To prove the infringing nature of Popcorn Time the takedown notice was accompanied by several screenshots of the user interface, as well as several pirated copies of Hollywood movies playing.

While the takedown notices may hinder the development of the software, at least temporarily, the websites of the forks remain online. This means that the applications themselves are still available for download.

Earlier this week the team behind the Time4Popcorn fork informed us that they have gathered millions of users over the past several months, and that the application is being downloaded tens of thousands of times per day.

Whether the MPAA also has plans to target the Popcorn Time fork websites remains to be seen.

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