While it’s impossible to report with any accuracy how many DMCA-style notices are sent by all rightsholders Internet-wide in a typical week, thanks to Google’s relative openness we do have a reasonable idea of the size of the problem.

After a fairly steady climb in the early part the year, between July and October 2012 copyright holders stepped on the gas, sending around 1.8 million URL notices in a single week, more than ten times the amount being sent in a typical seven day period at the start of the year.

Mid November 2012 saw the sharpest increase to date, with 2.8 million URL notices sent in a week, a record beaten in mid December when 3.5 million were delivered to Google.

Then following a deceptive lull at the start of 2013, things picked up again in February. In a single week 3.8 million takedowns landed on Google’s desk, a record beaten again at the end of March when 4.47 million were received.

Since then it’s been rare for more than 4.6 million URLs to be processed by the world’s largest search engine in a single week but the latest figures published by Google reveal that during the final days of last month yet another record was smashed.

Between September 23 and September 29 Google received DMCA notices from 5,407 copyright owners and reporting organizations requesting the removal of 5,310,080 URLs spanning a total of 37,413 domains.

That’s up 561,950 URLs on the previous record set two weeks earlier and a 4008% increase over the first batch of notices listed by Google in July 2011, meaning that Google is now taking down just under nine URLs every single second of every single day.

As usual the major labels of the recording industry are leading the way. During the week in question the BPI asked for the removal of 1,294,641 URLs (2 per second) and the RIAA 751,739 (1.2 per second).

From the figures for the whole of September we can see that file-hosting site ZippyShare was the number one target with more than 830 copyright holders asking for the removal of 922,946 URLs. Two music linking sites, Dilandau and BeeMP3, took second and third places with 918,008 and 698,985 URLs respectively. File-hosting search engine FilesTube (585,338 URLs) and file-hoster Rapidgator (569,580 URLs) made up the top five.

But despite Google’s herculean response to the demands of nearly 5,500 entertainment and anti-piracy outfits, according to some the search engine still isn’t doing enough. Both Hollywood and the recording labels say that Google needs to step up its game but it’s difficult to see how much more it can do, unless it doesn’t even index ‘pirate’ URLs in the first place….

…and, of course, there you have it……the Holy Grail – for now at least.

Source: Google Now Taking Down Eight ‘Pirate’ Links Every Single Second

When it comes to online piracy Ukraine has built up a bad reputation over the years.

The Eastern European country has been branded by the U.S. as one of the top piracy havens in the world and was placed on the USTR’s priority watchlist.

To counter this image a group of Ukrainian media outlets has started the “Clear Sky” initiative. The coalition’s goal is to find solutions to online piracy. However, with one of their first campaigns they appear to put the ball back in the court of international companies.

The group commissioned the research outfit InMind to take a closer look at the advertising revenues of two of the country’s major file-sharing websites, Ex.ua and FS.ua. Both sites have millions of visitors per week and generate a healthy revenue stream through their ads, some of which are paid by global companies.

According to the report about 10% of all ads on the two file-sharing sites are financed by well-known international brands. Nearly half of all those ads (4.2% of the total) come from Samsung as the bar chart below reveals.

A big chunk of Samsung’s advertising budget in Ukraine goes to the two file-sharing sites according to the report. “The research reveals that 15% of all Samsung`s ads in Ukraine are placed on the pirate websites Ex.ua and Fs.ua,” Clear Sky informed TorrentFreak.

Samsung is not the only international brand that advertises on pirate sites, the top 20 also lists other familiar names including Nokia, Canon, Carlsberg and Coca Cola.

Other international brands are better at avoiding these sites. For example, Kraft and Procter and Gamble advertize more on Ukrainian Internet than any other the other brands listed above, yet they are not listed among the top 20 advertisers on Ex.ua and FS.ua.

Clear Sky informed TorrentFreak that they have demanded an urgent audit of the global online advertising practices of several of the world’s largest brands in order to support its domestic anti-piracy efforts.

“Clear Sky believes that malpractice within global online advertising and the ambiguity surrounding the wider digital environment, are key factors currently enabling piracy to flourish while damaging anti-piracy initiatives,” the group added.

According to the research 40% of Ukrainian population is exposed to ads from these global brands on file-sharing sites, which gives the impression that these sites are legitimate entertainment portals.

Pavel Mykolyuk, director of the law firm Vindex and a key member of the Clear Sky coalition, calls on international partners to help address this issue.

“Clear Sky is calling for international collaboration to ensure anti-piracy efforts are optimized by changing the status quo, a situation that sees brands – sometimes unwittingly – fueling the illicit revenue of these sites and consequently exacerbating the global problem,” Mykolyuk explains.

How much these international brands indirectly pay to file-sharing sites remains unclear. Some experts estimate that Ex.ua and FS.ua alone already generate millions of dollars in revenue.

Source: Samsung Exposed as Top Advertiser on Pirate Sites

In early September 2010, a little known anti-piracy company admitted that in the course of their work they sometimes go the extra mile to end copyright infringement.

India-based AiPlex Software said that when faced with uncooperative torrent sites they “flood the website with requests, which results in database error.” The admission, that the company engaged in what amounts to a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, started off a momentous chain of events.

The confession irked the masses on the chat board 4Chan and many of its members, known as Anons (collectively ‘Anonymous’), plotted their revenge. Firing up their LOICs, they DDoS’d AiPlex in return, taking the site offline.

But despite letting off steam the rage did not subside and soon the MPAA and RIAA were being overwhelmed with traffic, along with the Bank of America, Visa and Mastercard who had cut off payments to Wikileaks. Operation Payback was underway and it would spread around the world.

In the three years that have since passed, authorities in various countries have rounded up some of those who coordinated and participated in the attacks. A few hours ago came the news that United States authorities have scheduled some payback of their own for more than a dozen Operation Payback participants.

A federal grand jury has indicted 13 alleged members of Anonymous on claims that they “did knowingly cause the transmission of a program, information, code, and command, and, as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause damage, and attempt to cause damage, without authorization, to a protected computer,” including those operated by the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the U.S. Copyright Office.

The indictment states that 13 men coordinated attacks by collectively deciding on targets and publishing their names and IP addresses along with proposed times and dates for the attacks. Via online postings and fliers, plus through the IRC channels #saveTPB, #savethepiratebay, and #operationpayback, the men allegedly recruited more individuals to the collective.

Interestingly, the indictment makes no specific mention of AiPlex’s illegal DDoS attacks on torrent sites, merely stating that Anonymous launched Operation Payback to retaliate “against the discontinuation of ‘The Pirate Bay’.”

In addition to United States-based targets including Warner Bros., the indictment lists attacks on the IFPI, BPI, ACS:Law, Davenport Lyons and Ministry of Sounds websites in the UK, against anti-piracy group BREIN in the Netherlands, one launched in Australia targeting the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), and another against French anti-piracy outfit Trident Media Guard.

Overall the indictment tries to paint a very bleak picture of the defendants engaging in a deliberate campaign of destruction during the course of Operation Payback. It often cites comments made by each individual as they allegedly went about arranging and motivating others to carry out attacks against high-profile targets.

“We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us,” is the Anonymous battle cry. United States authorities appear to operate with a similar philosophy.

Source: Anonymous Members Indicted for DDoSing Pirate Bay Enemies

There can be little doubt that given the chance the entertainment industries would like to see super-tough copyright legislation introduced worldwide. The idea is that with harsh legislation comes fear of serious repercussions, prompting a decision by the music consumer to purchase rather than pirate.

On October 1 2012, Japan introduced brand new legislation targeting users that not only upload (distribute) music without permission, but also those who merely download. There were no half measures on punishments either, with infringers facing up to two years in jail.

With those using P2P software to obtain music naturally being the most vulnerable to monitoring, the effects on those networks were both immediate and dramatic. According to data gathered by the General Association of Copyright for Computer Software, populations of three key file-sharing networks plummeted as the law was introduced and have since failed to recover.

So what effect did this exodus have on the market for recorded music?

According to figures published by the Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ), after the new law was passed physical sales increased, with CDs enjoying a boost of 5% between October 2012 and June 2013 when compared to the period October 2011 to June 2012.

However, when comparing sales during the first eight months of 2012 before the law was introduced with the first eight months of 2013 with the law in effect, a different picture emerges. Total CD music sales this year are down a full 7% on the same period in 2012.

Given the legal threats against file-sharers in place since October 2012, the overall digital market isn’t looking great either, despite subscription services enjoying a sales boost in excess of 500%.

Japan’s NHK News reports that digital sales between October 2012 and June 2013 are down 24% on the same period in the previous year. Furthermore, figures published by the RIAJ show that despite digital album sales being up 52% over the same period in 2012, overall digital sales for the first two quarters of 2013 are fairing even worse, down 26% on the same period last year.

Another shift in the market has been witnessed in the CD album rental market, a popular method of listening to music in Japan. According to the RIAJ, since the introduction of the new legislation rentals have increased by 50%. However, no such boost has been seen in those making purchases.

“The new law has been effective in increasing the amount of CD rentals, but seems unconnected to the number of people who are actually buying music,” RIAJ chief Kenji Takasugi told NHK.

Was that a confession that harsh legislation online doesn’t affect the numbers of people actually buying music? Could be, and consider this. While album rentals go through the roof another interesting thing took place in the first half of 2013 – sales of digital singles dropped 34%. Perhaps those rented albums aren’t simply being listened to and returned?

Nevertheless, Japan is doing rather well overall and is set to become the world’s largest music market, bucking the trend by embracing physical formats while lagging behind on digital. What seems fairly certain for now is that threatening to send people to jail for downloading hasn’t helped much at all.

Source: Jail For File-Sharers Does Nothing to Increase Music Sales

Over the past years there have been ample research reports showing that file-sharing can have positive effects on the entertainment industries.

Industry lobbyists are often quick to dismiss these findings as incidents or weak research, and counter them with expensive studies they have commissioned themselves.

The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) jumps into the discussion this week with a media policy brief urging the UK Government to look beyond the reports lobbyists hand to them. Their report concludes that the entertainment industry isn’t devastated by piracy, and that sharing of culture has several benefits.

“Contrary to the industry claims, the music industry is not in terminal decline, but still holding ground and showing healthy profits. Revenues from digital sales, subscription services, streaming and live performances compensate for the decline in revenues from the sale of CDs or records,” says Bart Cammaerts, LSE Senior Lecturer and one of the report’s authors.

The report shows that the entertainment industries are actually doing quite well. The digital gaming industry is thriving, the publishing sector is stable, and the U.S. film industry is breaking record after record.

“Despite the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) claim that online piracy is devastating the movie industry, Hollywood achieved record-breaking global box office revenues of $35 billion in 2012, a 6% increase over 2011,” the report reads.

Even the music industry is doing relatively well. Revenue from concerts, publishing and digital sales has increased significantly since the early 2000s and while recorded music revenues show a decline, there is little evidence that piracy is the lead cause.

“The music industry may be stagnating, but the drastic decline in revenues warned of by the lobby associations of record labels is not in evidence,” the report concludes.

Music industry revenue

The authors further argue that file-sharing can actually benefit the creative industries in various ways.

The report mentions the success of the SoundCloud service where artists can share their work for free through Creative Commons licenses, the promotional effect of YouTube where copyrighted songs are shared to promote sales, and the fact that research shows that file-sharers actually spend more money on entertainment than those who don’t share.

“Within the creative industries there is a variety of views on the best way to benefit from online sharing practices, and how to innovate to generate revenue streams in ways that do not fit within the existing copyright enforcement regime,” the authors write.

Finally, the report shows that punitive enforcement strategies such as the three strikes law in France are not as effective as the entertainment industries claim.

The researchers hope that the U.K. Government will review the Digital Economy Act in this light, and make sure that it will take into account the interests of both the public and copyright holders.

This means expanding fair use and private copying exceptions for citizens, while targeting enforcement on businesses rather than individuals.

“We recommend a review of the DEA and related legislation that strikes a healthy balance among the interests of a range of stakeholders including those in the creative industries, Internet Service Providers and internet users.”

“When both [the creative industries and citizens] can exploit the full potential of the internet, this will maximize innovative content creation for the benefit of all stakeholders,” the authors write.

Source: Piracy Isn’t Killing The Entertainment Industry, Scholars Show