Over the past decade a lot of research has looked at the effects of online piracy, particularly on the revenues of various entertainment industries.

Increasingly researchers are also examining the sociological links, causes and effects of copyright infringement. A new study conducted by Tennessee Tech University’s Jordana Navarro is a good example.

With a large survey Navarro and her colleagues investigated the link between piracy, internet addiction and deviant tendencies. The results were published in an article titled “Addicted to pillaging in cyberspace: Investigating the role of internet addiction in digital piracy,” which appears in the latest issue of the Computers and Human Behavior journal.

The researchers conducted a large-scale survey among 1,617 students from 9th through 12th grade. The participants were asked a wide range of questions, covering their piracy habits, as well as scales to measure Internet addiction and association with deviant friends.

The findings on the piracy side are comparable to many previous studies and show that movie piracy is most prevalent. Nearly 30% of the students admitted to pirating movies, and this percentage went down to 15% and 13% for music and software piracy respectively.

One of the more interesting findings is the link between piracy and Internet addiction. Here, the researchers found that students who have more internet addiction related issues are more likely to pirate software.

“Based on the results of the study, we can determine that high school students who have Internet-related problems due to addiction are more likely to commit a specific form of piracy involving the illegal downloading of software,” the researchers write.

The same group of software pirates were also more likely to hang out with deviant friends. This measure includes friends who pirate, those who threaten others with violence online, those who send nude pictures, and those who have used another person’s credit card or ID without permission.

“Not surprisingly, youth who committed this form of piracy were also more likely to have deviant peers. In other words, their behaviors were influenced by friends who committed similar or other deviant acts,” the researchers conclude.

Interestingly, the link between Internet addiction and copyright infringement was only found for software piracy. High school students who pirated movies and music were not more likely to have these type of problems. They were, however, more likely to associate with deviant or criminal friends.

“The remaining two forms of piracy for juveniles are not predicted by Internet addiction based on our findings. However, the results did support past findings that deviant peer association and piracy behaviors are significant related,” the researchers write.

According to the researchers the results are a good first step in identifying how various problems and deviant behaviors are linked, which could be helpful to shape future educational efforts.

Unfortunately, the paper doesn’t offer any explanations for the differences in the link between Internet addiction and various types of piracy. One likely explanation is that those who show more signs of Internet addiction simply spend more time on the computer, and are therefore more interested in software piracy and software in general.

For now, it appears that some more follow-up research is needed before it’s warranted to send the first batch of kids to piracy rehab.

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

In the continuing piracy debate one thing has been established beyond reasonable doubt. If an entertainment producer wants to make any dent in piracy, at the very least they’re going to have to make their products readily available at a fair price.

This argument has gathered serious momentum in Australia during the past few years, with local consumers regularly criticizing international TV and movie companies for shipping products Down Under months after release and then charging unrealistic prices.

But in a recent opinion piece, the principal analyst at local music royalty collection outfit APRA AMCOS disputed whether the arrival of services like Spotify that give consumers what they want, have actually done anything to reduce piracy rates.

“Music’s had everything everybody now wants for television shows, such as Game of Thrones, for a couple of years: availability, access and a reasonable price. But the piracy issue still has not been solved,” Andrew Harris wrote.

“In fact, results last month from our ongoing national research show that music piracy levels – just as they were almost two years ago – still sit at around the same level as that of movies and television shows.”

Noting that Spotify offers content in Australia at the moment it’s released around the world and does so at one of the best prices, Harris arrives at a familiar conclusion.

“We’ve heard it all before. No matter how loud the minority might shout it in anger as the answer, it’s impossible to compete with free.”

Unsurprisingly that notion doesn’t sit well with Spotify, a company that was designed from the ground up to compete with piracy.

Responding to Harris’s assertions in Australian Financial Review, Spotify Australia and New Zealand chief Kate Vale said that the company’s experiences told a different story.

“We do believe that access, availability and price does contribute and is the answer and we have proven this in other markets across Europe and particularly in Sweden where we have seen a 30 per cent reduction in piracy since we launched about six years ago,” Vale said.

Cracking Sweden was undoubtedly a major feat given the country’s long association with Internet piracy and Vale believes that Spotify now has the right formula to attract the most aggressive file-sharers – and make money from them.

“If you look at the main audience that is on Spotify, a lot of them are former pirates. There are teenagers who have potentially never paid for their music before, and probably never will,” she said.

“If we can get them on to a service that is free but legal, and they are contributing through our advertising on that free tier, then it is giving money back into the industry that they are just never going to get before.”

The ad-supported tier of Spotify is undoubtedly a great incentive to get people to try the service. Globally the company says that it converts around a quarter of free users to premium subscribers but Australia actually tops that with 31%, suggesting that Aussies are happier than most to part with their hard-earned cash in exchange for a good product.

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

In a speech back in February, Australia’s Attorney-General George Brandis indicated that the Government had plans to crack down on Internet piracy. Not only was consideration being given to the introduction of a “three strikes” style regime, but ISPs could be required to block access to so-called ‘pirate’ sites.

This week, in a session of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the topic was raised by Senator Scott Ludlam of the Australian Greens. With the Attorney General and his team sat immediately opposite him, Ludlam asked Brandis about current Government copyright policy.

“Unlike the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, France and many other comparable countries, Australia lacks any effective protection against online piracy,” Brandis said.

“Australia, I’m sorry to say, is the worst offender of any country in the world when it comes to piracy, and i’m very concerned that the legitimate rights and interests of rightsholders and content creators are being compromised by that activity.”

Who is helping Brandis shape his anti-piracy opinions?

“Where are you getting your information from to form your views, who are you consulting and through what vehicle are you forming your views that you’ve just presented to us?” Ludlam asked.

“Well, those are my views. I mean, the views that I expressed in the speech to which you referred, legal and philosophical views in particular,” Brandis said.

Ludlam then asked if consumer groups were being involved in the process, as is the case in the United States “strikes” system.

“Have you spoken to any consumer groups, such as Choice or ACANN, who would probably contest your view that a graduated response or three-strikes or any of those kinds of propositions…..”

A clearly irritated Brandis interrupted, but Ludlam wasn’t giving an inch, continuing:

“….or any of those countries that you’ve just listed at the outset that do have some version of those schemes, that actually they’re not working very well in those jurisdictions and there might be other ways to tackle the problem more effectively, but still preserve artists’ rights to be paid for their work.”

Avoiding answering the question again, Brandis said that he and his colleagues speak to stakeholders all the time.

Answer the question – are consumer groups involved?

“Does that include Choice, for example?” Ludlam persisted.

Brandis said that his team has consulted with “industry leaders” in the United Kingdom and the United States to learn from their experiences. That wasn’t the answer Ludlam was looking for.

“I know industry leaders have very strong views on these things, but i’m asking you about groups like Choice or ACANN or others that might represent consumer interests or the public interest,” he said.

“There is a very strong public interest in the protection of private property and that includes the protection of intellectual property,” Brandis responded evasively.

“So you’re not going to answer the question,” Ludlam said rhetorically.

Clearly irritated with the line of questioning and despite being the one to interrupt, Brandis then gave Ludlam a mini lecture on not interrupting him and proceeded, again, not to answer the question. The Greens Senator wasn’t letting go.

“Have you met with Choice or ACAN in the process of forming your views?” he insisted.

As the exchange continued it became very clear indeed that while Brandis was pretty sharp on how his discussions had gone with “stake holders”, he was vague on any discussions with groups that should be involved to protect the public interest.

Is three-strikes still on the agenda?

Switching towards a member of Brandis’ team, Ludlam asked directly whether or not the Government’s copyright task group was looking at a three-strikes style regime to deal with online piracy?

“Yes, that’s one option,” came the response.

However, while the option is being considered, the Government clearly faces problems. In response to Ludlam asking whether talks were underway between rightsholders and service providers, a member of Brandis’ team gave a one word answer: “No.”

The problem, the Attorney General said, stemmed back from the iiNet ruling in 2012. Since then there had been less willingness on the part of some ISPs to come to the table. However, one ISP has been very helpful lately.

“Earlier in the month I had a very long conversation [with executives from] Telstra. If I may say so publicly I would say that Telstra’s contribution to this issue, and their willingness to work to find a solution to the piracy issue, which is really unaddressed in Australia, has been very commendable,” Brandis said.

“We want to see if the various industry participants can be brought to the table and find themselves in agreement rather than having a solution imposed from on high.”

So who is pulling the strings, who is making the decisions?

And then, just before the end of the session, Brandis undermined confidence in government transparency again in response to Ludlam’s questioning on how the issue would now be progressed.

“The matter is under active consideration right now. I had a meeting with certain decision makers in this matter as recently as 7pm last night,” Brandis said.

So who are those key decision makers?

“I’m not going to be disclosing in a public forum who I meet with, senator,” Brandis told Ludlam.

With anonymous “stake holders” and “decision makers” commanding Brandis’ ear, no consumer groups front and center, and only Telsta, the part-owner of pay TV company Foxtel, worthy of praise on the ISP front, a voluntary agreement on strikes in Australia seems as far away as ever.

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

February last year, five U.S. Internet providers started sending copyright alerts to customers who use BitTorrent to pirate movies, TV-shows and music.

These efforts are part of the Copyright Alert System, an anti-piracy plan that aims to educate the public. Through a series of warnings suspected pirates are informed that their connections are being used to share copyrighted material without permission, and told where they can find legal alternatives.

These alerts start out friendly in tone, but serious repeat infringers face a temporary disconnection from the Internet or other mitigation measures. The ISPs and copyright holders believe that the voluntary agreement is effective, but experts have their doubts.

According to a report released today by the Center for Copyright Information (CCI which oversees the program, the Copyright Alert System has had a significant effect. For the first time the group has published actual numbers, covering the first ten months of the program ending December last year.

As can be seen in the table below, 722,820 account holders received a first strike or copyright alert. Of this group, nearly 30% were caught again, generating a second alert. A total of 60,477 subscribers were particularly persistent and reached the mitigation phase after their fifth alert, which is 8% of everyone who received at least one warning.

Around 1.3 million notices were sent out during the first 10 months, a number that will double in the coming year according to the report.

It is relatively hard to interpret these numbers, but the repeat warning percentage of 30% is quite high, especially when one takes into account that people who received their first alert during the last month had little time to generate a second one. In addition, the detection rate is relatively low, not to mention subscribers’ use of anonymizing tools.

It appears that U.S. pirates are relatively persistent. In France, for example, only 9% of all the warned copyright infringers received two warnings, and that was after two full years. Also, only 0.029% of the French got a third strike.

While these “strikes” programs have their differences, the high number of second warnings in the U.S. stands out. One of the issues that may play a role here is that some people don’t read the emails that come in at their ISP address.

The CCI is nonetheless convinced that copyright alerts are able to deter pirates, some at least.

“We are encouraged by the initial data from the Copyright Alert System’s first 10 months suggesting that the program has the potential to move the needle in deterring copyright infringement,” CCI’s Jill Lesser said commenting on the results.

“Our initial research into consumer attitudes – along with what we have seen in our own data – shows that consumers do respond to this kind of educational system that alerts them to infringing activity on their account and helps them find the content they want easily and legally,” Lesser adds.

Another figure of interest is the number of appeals. After three or four alerts subscribers have the option to appeal the evidence at the American Arbitration Association. Only 0.27% of the eligible subscribers did so, which translates into a few hundred people.

The most often cited reason to appeal was “unauthorized use” of the subscriber’s account. According to the report there were just 47 successful challenges decided in favor of the accused subscriber, which is 18% of all appeals.

Overall, the participating ISPs and copyright holders are all positive about the results so far. According to the RIAA’s Steve Marks the program is a respectful and effective way to deal with the piracy problem.

“We are proud of the program’s accomplishments and delighted by our successful partnership with the ISP community. This report confirms that the CAS is working – it’s reliable, respectful of consumers, and an effective way to let them know about all the legitimate alternatives in the marketplace,” Marks says.

Despite the enthusiasm, whether the program has been effective enough to put a real dent in local piracy rates has yet to be seen.

Last year we reported that instead of kicking their download habit, many people took measures to prevent themselves from being monitored. In addition, we observed that U.S. traffic to The Pirate Bay did not decline after the system was implemented.

In any case, it’s good to see that the first set of data is now available to the public. It will be interesting to see how the current trends develop over time.

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

In early April, Twentieth Century Fox, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros. teamed up to file a new lawsuit in a Virginia District Court.

Their targets were old adversaries Megaupload, Kim Dotcom and associates Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk. Running in parallel with the ongoing criminal proceedings initiated by the U.S. Government, the complaint followed much of the same path.

Earlier this month, Megaupload’s legal team responded by asking the court to freeze the MPAA’s case in order to protect their clients’ Fifth Amendment rights not to implicate themselves in advance of the U.S. government’s criminal case against them.

In the period since both sides’ legal teams have been in discussion over the potential terms of any stay. But, according to papers filed in a Virginia court yesterday, 20th Century Fox are concerned that Dotcom’s fortune could soon be back in the entrepreneur’s hands.

Megaupload’s and Dotcom’s millions were seized following the now-notorious 2012 raid. However, last month the New Zealand High Court said it would not extend the foreign restraining order against his assets.

That decision was quickly appealed by the Crown, but the possibility remains that Dotcom could soon regain his wealth and legally dispose of it. The studios want to stop that from happening.

“If the New Zealand Government loses the appeal, the assets will be unfrozen, and there is a significant risk that they will then be immediately dissipated,” the studios’ lawyers state in yesterday’s filing.

Led by Warner Bros., the studios add that since Dotcom and his associates “have or have had sophisticated global business interests” and with that an ability to “move assets offshore quickly and immediately”, they are taking legal action to try and prevent that.

“To ensure that Defendants’ New Zealand assets remain frozen even if the New Zealand Government loses the pending appeal, several of the Plaintiffs have initiated civil proceedings in New Zealand to freeze Defendants’ assets pending a judgment in the [studios' civil case against Megaupload/Dotcom].”

But the fight to secure Dotcom’s and Megaupload’s cash isn’t confined only to New Zealand. Hong Kong is another battleground and the studios are determined to narrow the options for release of assets there too.

“In addition to opposing extension of the asset freeze in New Zealand, Defendants are also seeking to unfreeze their assets in Hong Kong, which have also been frozen pursuant to this Court’s restraining orders issued in the Criminal Action,” the studio’s lawyers write.

“If Defendants are successful in their efforts to unfreeze their assets in Hong Kong,
there is a significant risk that those assets will be dissipated in very short order. Plaintiffs are monitoring developments in Hong Kong and assessing whether they may need to take legal action there to further preserve Defendants’ assets.”

In conclusion the studios state that while they do not oppose Megaupload’s request for a stay, the terms must not preclude them taking action to freeze the worldwide assets of Megaupload and Kim Dotcom.

But of course, just days after the studios filed their lawsuit in April, the RIAA jumped on board too by filing a a substantially similar suit against the same defendants, again demanding millions in damages.

Yesterday the labels also made their voices heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in respect of Megaupload’s motion for a similar stay in their case. Although penned by different law firms, the labels’ filings are much the same as those from the studios.

In a slightly different conclusion, the labels oppose a stay order, but note that if one is granted it should not disallow them from seeking to “preserve the Defendants’ worldwide assets.”

Further hearings on the fate of the currently seized millions are scheduled for July 10 in Hong Kong and in the New Zealand High Court tomorrow.

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