Late last year a study from European researchers revealed that the Megaupload shutdown had a negative effect on the box office revenues of smaller films.

The researchers suggested that the decrease in sales may be the result of a drop in word-of-mouth promotion from pirates, which affects smaller movies more since they have less advertising budget.

The MPAA wasn’t happy with the media coverage the study generated and went on the defensive citing two Carnegie Mellon University studies to show that piracy harms sales.

Interestingly, it failed to disclose that those findings came from research that was supported by a $100,000 grant from the MPAA.

While we trust that the research is solid, the above shows that academic research plays an important role in the MPAA’s lobbying efforts. For this reason, the Hollywood group has recently started a grants program, hoping to enlist more academics to conduct copyright-related research.

The MPAA is now accepting research proposals on a series of predefined topics. They include the impact of copyright law on innovation and the effectiveness of DMCA takedown notices. The best applications will be awarded a $20,000 grant.

“We want to enlist the help of academics from around the world to provide new insight on a range of issues facing the content industry in the digital age,” says MPAA CEO and former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd.

According to the MPAA boss, academic researchers can contribute to understanding the changes the industry faces by providing unbiased insights.

“We need more and better research regarding the evolving role of copyright in society. The academic community can provide unbiased observations, data analysis, historical context and important revelations about how these changes are impacting the film industry and other IP-reliant sectors,” Dodd notes.

The MPAA clearly sees academic research as an important tool in their efforts to ensure that copyright protections remain in place, or are strengthened if needed.

This outreach to academics may in part be fueled by what their ‘opponents’ are doing. Google, for example, is heavily supporting academic research on copyright-related projects in part to further their own interests.

Both sides clearly steer researchers by giving them precise directions on the grounds they want covered. It’s now up to the academics to make sure that they don’t become pawns in a much bigger fight, and that their research is conducted and results presented in an objective manner.

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

It’s definitely not breaking news that the Australian piracy debate has reached unprecedented levels of activity. While the government proposes tough new measures such as “three strikes”, Game of Thrones download records are throwing fuel on an already raging fire.

If the government is to be believed, many of the issues could be solved if copyright holders and Internet service providers would only shake hands, sit down for lunch, and agree on the best way to punish their errant subscribers. Trouble is, they’ve tried that, it didn’t work, and Hollywood – via local movie company Village Roadshow – ended up suing ISP iiNet.

The record showed that iiNet won that battle in a big way, leaving Hollywood licking its wounds and banking on a return to voluntary discussions. Sadly, as recently confirmed in the senate, those talks are dead, but that hasn’t stopped both iiNet and Village Roadshow making their feelings known.

Last week iiNet Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby urged his customers to fight back against attempts to introduce fresh legislation, something which prompted Village Roadshow co-CEO Graham Burke to make his own voice heard. In an interview with Gizmodo yesterday, on more than one occasion Burke accused iiNet of lying over piracy.

Outrageous liars – the gloves are off

“It’s sad that to forward their case, [iiNet] use what they must know is a fabric of lies,” Burke said.

“They’re saying that there’s no proof that graduated response works. They’re instancing a number of countries where graduated response was frustrated by lobbying and the power of Google, which pays little to no tax in Australia and creates nothing,” he said, going on to attack Dalby directly.

“Some of the stuff Steve Dalby has said is just outrageous, and he’s got to know its outrageous too,” Burke said.

Not content with letting Burke have the last word, after the publication of the Gizmodo piece Dalby fired back, accusing the CEO of calling Australians “content thieves” without revealing their huge contribution to the industry.

The fightback – outrageous!

“Perhaps we’ve touched a nerve,” Dalby began. “Mr Burke is obviously concerned about the increasing threat to his ‘middle-man’ status by the changes in technology and has failed to mention his colleague Simon Bush’s comments that the (Aust Home Entertainment Distributor’s Assoc) figures showed that ‘on a per capita basis Australia is second only to the United States in digital consumer revenues’.”

“So Australians are not only the worst pirates, but one of their best performing markets. Outrageous!” Dalby said.

Clearly riled at being described as “outrageous”, Dalby suggested that Burke should look in the mirror.

“Mr Burke suggests that my comments are outrageous. I’m sure he doesn’t like us pointing out some of the outrageous suggestions from his own industry. You know … stuff like ‘You wouldn’t steal a car, you wouldn’t steal a handbag’.”

“It’s not our job to catch car thieves. It’s not our job to catch bag-snatchers. It’s not our job to stop on-line infringers. Whoa ! Outrageous!” Dalby fired back.

Responding to Burke’s earlier claim that iiNet makes the most money from pirating customers so has a clear incentive to let them continue, Dalby said that Burke doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Movie boss is ignorant

“Mr Burke also shows his ignorance of the ISP revenue model. Not only is he totally wrong, but I think he fails to be outrageous. The ISP subscription model, commonly in place in Australia, does not charge by the download, as he suggests, it is a fixed fee per month. In that model ( a bit like gym membership) the less data a customer uses, the more profitable they are,” Dalby explained.

“This was an argument that failed the logic test in the High Court, but don’t let that get in the way of your outrage Mr Burke.”

And then, the inevitable. Local companies and anti-piracy outfits in piracy disputes often claim to be protecting local artists, yet as we saw in New Zealand, when subscribers got their first strike notices they were for artists like Rihanna and Lady GaGa. This type of scenario has not escaped the iiNet man.

Doing Hollywood’s bidding

“Finally, if this is all about protecting 906,000 Aussie jobs why is it that not one single example of Aussie content ever gets a mention. It’s always about American movies, music and TV,” Dalby said.

“If you want to protect Aussie jobs, Mr Burke, how about you turn up to the industry talks and put something on the table? Where is the quid-pro-quo for Australian ISPs to do the bidding of your American masters?”

“No. I thought not,” Dalby concludes.

The final bell – for now

It’s pretty rare these days to see this kind of public dueling, but after the legal trauma Hollywood and Village Roadshow put iiNet through, it’s not really a surprise that diplomacy is in tatters. Voluntary agreement still possible this year? Let’s get them on Jerry Springer to find out.

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

Over the past several years hundreds of thousands of Internet subscribers have been sued in the United States for allegedly sharing copyrighted material, mostly films, online.

This year the people behind the Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club joined the game. Thus far the filmmakers have filed 66 lawsuits across the United States, targeting more than a thousand alleged downloaders.

In common with all other mass-BitTorrent lawsuits the end game is not a full trial, but the revelation of the alleged downloaders’ identities so they can be encouraged to settle. To accomplish this the movie studio asks courts to grant subpoenas ordering associated ISPs to give up their customers’ details.

Several courts have complied and recently the first settlement letters arrived in the mailboxes of account holders whose Internet connections were used to share the film.

Interestingly, not all alleged downloaders are treated the same. A settlement letter sent to a Texan Internet subscriber offers a complete settlement for $3,500, while an Ohioan in the same position was asked to pay $5,000.

The second offer was also presented in a more intimidating form, with a threat to raise the amount to $7,000 if the recipient doesn’t pay in time.

Pay or else…

While $5,000 may sound high for sharing a single movie, the letter says that this is a reasonable request and that various courts have issued much higher damages awards in the past.

“Considering the large expense it incurs to enforce its rights, and further that some cases have awarded as much as $22,500 per infringed work, Dallas Buyers Club, LLC feels that asking for Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00) to settle is very reasonable,” the letter reads.

One of the most often heard comments is that the person who pays for Internet access is not necessarily the infringer in these cases. The movie studio realizes this, but adds that this person is indeed responsible, an argument various courts have refuted in the past.

“Dallas Buyers Club, LLC has absolutely no interest or desire in making an innocent person pay; but it does have clear evidence to establish that your internet account was used to copy and distribute the file. Therefore, if it was not you, then it was someone that (sic) you gave the right to use your account,” the letter reads.

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC does offer letter recipients a chance to move out of the firing line if they reveal in a sworn affidavit who the real pirate is, but it’s unlikely that many subscribers will take up this offer.

Finally, the filmmakers address the “copyright troll” label handed to them by some news outlets. The company states that this label doesn’t apply, as they haven’t bought the copyrights just to sue alleged downloaders.

“No. We are not what many refer to as ‘copyright trolls’,” the letter explains, adding that their right to protect their copyrights are ignored and belittled by some Internet critics.

“Many internet blogs commenting on this and related cases ignore the rights of copyright owners to sue for infringement, and inappropriately belittle efforts of copyright owners to seek injunctions and damages,” they write.

These efforts to distance themselves from the troll label and critics seems a bit misplaced. Based on a very narrow definition of copyright troll they may have a point. But as DTD points out, by addressing the issue in their letter they only direct people to look into the phenomenon, which in settlement terms may result in the opposite of what they want to achieve.

Nevertheless, a large percentage of the people who receive a settlement letter are expected to pay up. With over a thousand defendants thus far the potential income from these lawsuits runs into the millions of dollars.

And as the dollars continue to roll in, it will be rinse and repeat for as long as the copyright protection efforts are profitable.

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

Google’s dominance of the Internet, particularly in search, has seen the company become embroiled in the disputes of countless other companies.

Day after day, Google is expected to take action in third parties’ intellectual property complaints to avoid becoming liable itself. Prime examples can be found in the millions of DMCA-style notices the company processes each week. Google must remove those entries or face being accused of facilitating infringement.

Another case that Google has become involved in, Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, sees two Canadian entities face off (the latter previous employees of the former) over stolen intellectual property used to manufacture competing products.

While Google has no direct links to the case, the plaintiffs claim that the company’s search engine is helping to direct people to a network of websites operated by the defendants which are selling the unlawful products. Google already removed links from its Google.ca results voluntarily, but that wasn’t enough for Equustek who wanted broader action.

In a ruling handed down in British Columbia, Justice L.A. Fenlon agreed, ordering Google to remove the infringing websites’ listings from its search results. Despite protestations from Google that any injunction should be limited to Canada and Google.ca, the Judge targeted Google’s central database in the United States, meaning that the ruling has worldwide implications.

“I note again that on the record before me, the injunction would compel Google to take steps in California or the state in which its search engine is controlled, and would not therefore direct that steps be taken around the world,” the Judge wrote.

“That the effect of the injunction could reach beyond one state is a separate issue. Even an order mandating or enjoining conduct entirely within British Columbia may have such extraterritorial, or even worldwide effect.”

Noting that Google did not complain that an order requiring it block the websites would “offend” the law in California where it is based, or any other country from where a search could be carried out, the Judge said that the search giant acknowledged that most countries would recognize that dealing in pirated products was “a legal wrong.”

Further detailing her decision, Judge Fenlon compared Google to an innocent warehouse that had been forbidden from shipping out goods for a company subjected to an injunction. That local order not to ship could also have broader geographical implications.

“Could it sensibly be argued that the Court could not grant the injunction because it would have effects worldwide? The impact of an injunction on strangers to the suit or the order itself is a valid consideration in deciding whether to exercise the Court’s jurisdiction to grant an injunction. It does not, however, affect the Court’s authority to make such an order,” she wrote.

The Judge also touched on the futility of ordering a blockade of results only on Google.ca, when users can simply switch to another variant.

“For example, even if the defendants’ websites were blocked from searches conducted through www.google.ca, Canadian users can go to www.google.co.uk or www.google.fr and obtain results including the defendants’ websites. On the record before me it appears that to be effective, even within Canada, Google must block search results on all of its websites,” she explained.

The nature of the ruling has raised concerns with lawyer Michael Geist, who notes that despite being issued by a local court, the ruling has attempted to match Google’s global reach.

“The issues raised by the decision date back to the very beginning of the globalization of the Internet and the World Wide Web as many worried about jurisdictional over-reach with courts applying local laws to a global audience,” Geist explains.

“While there is much to be said for asserting jurisdiction over Google – if it does business in the jurisdiction, the law should apply – attempts to extend blocking orders to a global audience has very troubling implications that could lead to a run on court orders that target the company’s global search results.”

While Google has a little under two weeks to comply with the injunction, its representatives told The Globe and Mail that the decision will be appealed.

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

Over the past four years Homeland Security’s ICE division has seized thousands of domains as part of Operation in Our Sites, an initiative set to celebrate its fourth birthday in a couple of weeks’ time. More recently, however, the momentum has shifted to PIPCU, the City of London’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit.

The unit’s most recent and high-profile action was taken against Torrentz.eu, the world’s largest torrent meta-search engine. Despite the site complying with takedowns (clear evidence of which can be seen on the site where dozens of results are marked as deleted by rightsholders), PIPCU approached Torrentz’s registrar requesting a domain suspension.

The company complied, but the effect was only temporary. Confronted with legal argument that the suspension was unlawful, the Torrentz domain was soon operational again.

While it’s easy to see how this kind of result undermines the credibility of the police, there are other considerations too. According to the registry responsible for Iceland’s top-level .IS domain, suspensions of this kind target the wrong area.

“Domains can hardly be considered illegal any more than a street address. A street address is not illegal even if there is illegal activity in one apartment at the address,” ISNIC says.

“When a domain is suspended the website or the content itself is not, as became apparent when torrentz.eu was suspended. A suspension of a domain does not lead to a total blocking of the website it points to.”

However, while content may indeed remain available (or in the case of Torrentz, links to other sites, that carry links, that link to content), suspensions still have the ability to disrupt other services associated with a website that are outside the realms of the initial dispute.

“Disruption of email communication and service, unrelated to the website that is meant to be closed, is utterly unnecessary and unacceptable in these instances,” ISNIC explains.

“A suspension of a domain is in a way comparable to banning the use of an address of an apartment building depriving everyone at that particular address of their postal service. Additionally, the suspension of individual domains can affect other domains, specially in the situation when domain service is a registered subdomain.”

Furthermore, according to the registry the counter-productive effects of domain seizures aren’t limited simply to the technical realm. Perceptions that seizures are unjust persist not only among visitors to the affected domains but also the wider Internet, damaging the reputations of targeted TLDs in the process.

“It should be noted that when registries and registrars are made to suspend domains it can create negative publicity within the internet community, harming the top-level domain and reducing its credibility,” ISNIC says.

“It is difficult to rectify that sort of damage that easily could be avoided with increased awareness and proficiency of the technical workings of the internet.”

It’s worth noting that to date, all attempts at seizing or suspending .IS domains have failed.

“ISNIC has never shut down a domain in response to external requests,” ISNIC’s Björn Róbertsson informs TorrentFreak. “ISNIC however does place domains on hold and automatically re-delegates to parking in case of technical issues – but ISNIC has strict technical requirements for DNS server setup.”

Perhaps finding comfort in this kind security, earlier this month Putlocker.bz moved to an Icelandic domain following pressure from City of London Police. While a court order could potentially force ISNIC to take action against a domain such as this, to date the registry hasn’t been included in any disputes.

“In case of a court order, the court order would have to be addressed directly to Internet á Íslandi hf. [ISNIC] not to the Registrant. That has never happened,” Róbertsson says.

“Icelandic court orders [regarding domain disputes] have always been addressed to the registrant, and ordered him to stop using or/and to delete the domain.”

In addition to its stance on seizures, Iceland also has a great reputation in respect of privacy, something which prompted Kim Dotcom to announce that the Mega file-storing service could relocate there if local legislation compromises the company’s users.

Whether there will be mass Icelandic domain migrations in the future remains to be seen, but the signs are that the ISNIC registry will put up a fight at the very least, something registrars elsewhere have failed to do.

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