In recent years many initiatives to curb online piracy have emerged and in several countries so-called graduated response schemes have been implemented.

In France, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea strikes schemes are baked into law, a similar policy is in place in Ireland, and earlier this year the United States rolled out its voluntary “alert” system commonly known as six-strikes.

The goal of these policies is to track down copyright infringers and warn them that their behavior is not acceptable. After repeat warnings, these accused file-sharers then face a penalty ranging from a fine to prolonged Internet disconnection.

Entertainment industry groups have lobbied hard to have these systems put in place and often describe the results as major successes. To assess how effective these plans really are Dr Rebecca Giblin of the Australian Monash University decided to look at the publicly available evidence that supports these claims.

The results of this evaluation, the most elaborate that has been published to date, was published this week in a 61-page article. Talking to TorrentFreak, Giblin says that the goal of the paper was to evaluate the effectiveness of graduated response schemes on three measures that are closely aligned with the purpose of copyright law.

What’s the evidence that these policies reduce infringement? What’s the evidence that they increase the size of the legitimate market? What evidence is there to show that they encourage the creation and dissemination of a wide range of content?

The paper shows that the graduated response schemes fail on all accounts.

“Rightsholders make big claims that graduated responses are ‘successful’ and ‘effective’ to argue for their continued adoption, but the evidence doesn’t back them up. The paper finds little to no evidence that any form of graduated response reduces infringement or increases the size of the legitimate market,” Giblin tells TorrentFreak.

The paper mentions, for example, that all of the studies that claim to have found a reduction in P2P usage are biased towards copyright holders and not peer-reviewed. In addition, they consistently ignore that people may have switched to other forms of piracy, through streaming websites and cyberlockers.

Similarly, a study suggesting that iTunes sales went up in France after Hadopi was announced, is criticized as the effect may very well be explained by third factors such as the surge in iPhone sales. The results are further put into doubt as revenues in the French music industry as a whole decreased, while there was a clear uptick in nine of the top 20 markets over the same period.

The third measure of effectiveness, whether the “strike” schemes improve access to and the creation of content, doesn’t pass the test either.

“Regarding the third aim, it finds that France is the only jurisdiction to really require rightholders to provide greater access to content in exchange for their new enforcement rights. However, it finds that many existing graduated responses have structural biases in favour of so-called ‘Big Content’,” Giblin tells us.

Giblin says that not all copyright holders are treated equally under the graduated response schemes. The major music labels and movie companies often have more influence, if smaller parties are allowed to participate at all.

Despite this, the major industry players may not see an increase in production either, since there is no solid evidence that fewer people are pirating.

“In reality graduated responses are unlikely to actually result in greater production even of that type because they don’t actually reduce infringement or increase the size of legitimate markets; but this demonstrates a level of structural capture in the lawmaking process that is deeply troubling,” Giblin says.

On the upside Giblin notes that the movie and music industries are breaking revenue records year after year. However, there’s no evidence any of these are the result of graduated response schemes.

In fact, the expensive anti-piracy policies may be a losing strategy which policy makers have to reconsider.

“International policymakers considering adoption need to carefully consider the policy aims they wish to achieve, and evaluate whether a graduated response would actually help them to do so. They cannot simply accept rightholders’ claims of ‘success’ or ‘effectiveness’ at face value,” Giblin says.

“Regulators who already have graduated responses should also do a cost/benefit analysis in light of the evidence, and decide whether it’s desirable to keep them,” she adds.

Source: Anti-Piracy “Strike” Schemes Are Not Effective, Research Shows

Founded 30-years ago this year, the Federation Against Copyright Theft is active in the UK and works to protect the rights of movie and TV show companies.

The organization, which has close ties to Hollywood, tracks down and prosecutes groups that run torrent sites and streaming portals (such as the now-defunct SurfTheChannel), and works with police to weed out those who record movies in theaters and then put the content online.

Over the past couple of years FACT has become more visibly active than any other organization in this field and has been responsible for closing several sites using a variety of tactics, mostly centered around using intelligence to find culprits and then offering an ultimatum – shut down or face prosecution.

The investigative workload behind these actions requires significant number crunching ability and a few moments ago IBM revealed that it has been working with FACT to achieve that. The computing giant says that FACT has been using IBM Big Data intelligence analytics software in order to better access intelligence data in order to efficiently identify individuals and groups distributing unauthorized content online.

Previously FACT used spreadsheets to manage its data but over the past few years and a via a fresh intelligence-led approach, the IBM systems have allowed the anti-piracy group to establish patterns and relationships by linking places, times, events and individuals within their databases.

IBM cite the case of SurfTheChannel, which ended in the successful prosecution of Anton Vickerman, as an example of where their systems have paid off.

“FACT analysts, using IBM Big Data intelligence analytics software, were able to access publicly available chat logs, forum messages and other generally available data. Using a visual mapping illustration of the data, FACT identified non-obvious links between the various data trails, which in turn assisted with identifying the culprit,” the company explains.

Keith Byrne, Intelligence Manager at FACT, describes the IBM technology as crucial to FACT’s work.

“Our role in successfully detecting and targeting those involved in crimes that impact our members requires the ability to foresee and be aware of the technological changes that occur constantly,” said Byrne. “The IBM technology is vital to our work at FACT and enables us to better protect our members’ valuable creative intellectual property.”

Interestingly, IBM claim that by use of their systems FACT has been able to “virtually eliminate” instances of movie “camming” in UK cinemas, adding that in the last two years there has only been one such recording.

The claim is controversial. As detailed in our report earlier this week, one individual in the UK is currently facing FACT allegations that he filmed at least two movies, both carried out this year in a local cinema.

However, one thing is for certain. FACT are not going away and will only become more powerful as the months unroll. A new City of London Police initiative is likely to add significant new resources to FACT’s repertoire ensuring that the UK remains one of the more difficult environments in which to become involved in online piracy.

Source: FACT Teams Up With IBM to Track Down Movie and TV Show Pirates

In an effort to make piracy less visible copyright holders are sending dozens of millions of takedown notices to Google every month.

Music industry group BPI is one of the most active senders. Over the past year they’ve asked Google to remove more than 30 million URLs, and the search engine complied in nearly every instance.

Last week, however, Google refused to take down one link in a DMCA notice containing more than 2,000 allegedly infringing URLs. The link in question points to the homepage of the most notorious file-sharing site on the Internet, The Pirate Bay.

While The Pirate Bay is often targeted, this is a rather odd request. It is no secret that TPB links to hundreds of thousands of infringing titles across its site, but the homepage is not one of them.

The BPI’s notice however, claims that thepiratebay.sx infringes the rights of “The Music” but the page in question only links to a music category.

Google agrees that The Pirate Bay homepage is harmless and the search engine has refused to comply with BPI’s request. As can be seen below, thepiratebay.sx is the only URL in the entire notice for which no action was taken.

BPI’s takedown request

This is not the first time that The Pirate Bay’s homepage has been targeted by rightsholders. Four years ago Google briefly removed it from its search results after it received a takedown a request allegedly sent by “Remove Your Content.” Google later admitted that the removal was an error on their part, and the link was quickly reinstated.

At the time Remove Your Content claimed that an impersonator must have sent the DMCA complaint, but this is almost certainly not the case with BPI’s recent notice.

Over the past few months there has been an increase in DMCA notices asking Google to remove homepages of “pirate sites.” The MPAA in particular is targeting a lot of streaming portals using this method. Google doesn’t appear to see these requests as legitimate, as it refuses to comply with many of them.

In the BPI’s case it’s not known whether The Pirate Bay’s homepage was intentionally targeted or if yet again the mistake was the product of an automated takedown process.

Source: Google Refuses to Remove The Pirate Bay Homepage

Earlier this year we reported on the unusually heavy-handed approach taken by the police who were acting on a tipoff from FACT, the Federation Against Copyright Theft.

Five unmarked police vehicles were sent to arrest a man in the UK following allegations that he ‘cammed’ the movie Fast and Furious 6 and put it online. After being banned from every cinema in the country the 24-year-old was released on bail.

But now, three weeks in advance of his bail date, things have started moving again with yet another surprising turn of events.

Earlier this week police and FACT turned up at the man’s home in the West Midlands armed with a new search warrant issued by a magistrate, this time in relation to the camming of the movie ‘Epic’.

After being taken to a police station at 8am the man was questioned and held for more than eight hours. Interestingly and despite significant resources invested in the original raid, the police informed the man that charges against him in respect of Fast and Furious 6 had been dropped. There would, however, be new charges.

“When I was eventually interviewed at 4pm I was questioned again by FACT in relation to the Fast and Furious 6 cam, which I ‘politely’ declined to answer any questions about,” he told TorrentFreak.

“UK law states that to be questioned in relation to another offense they would have to re-read my rights and arrest me for the offense first, something they didn’t do, so I refused to co-operate with them on that subject.”

FACT then proceeded to question the man in relation to the filming of the movie Epic, informing him that he’d been seen by a member of the public with “recording equipment.”

The man told us he did go and watch Epic on the day of release but had to leave the cinema 25 minutes in due to a family emergency.

“I never returned to watch Epic at the cinema so there is no way I could have possibly recorded the full film, and any leaks found online would have been incomplete,” he explained.

With no response, FACT switched their questioning back to Fast and Furious 6. Having already refused to answer questions on that subject as detailed above, the man told us he lost patience and began throwing some insults FACT’s way which appeared to amuse the police officer present. But with the interview over, things again took a turn for the unexpected.

“After the interview I was sent to the custody desk to be released and bailed where I saw my solicitor, whom I did not ask for during my detention. I approached her and asked her what was going on only to find out she did not know I had been arrested,” the man explained. It soon became apparent that the solicitor had other related business in hand.

“She was there to support my brother, sister and one of my sister’s ex-boyfriends, all of whom had been arrested for the same offense. So not only did FACT perform raids on my property, but also on my family members’ homes which dragged my family into the case.”

“Speaking with my family afterwards I learned that they had been arrested for the same offenses. During their interview FACT attempted to trip my brother up stating I had admitted my guilt and he may as well come forward. He did not fall for the tactic and didn’t say anything in the interview. My sister’s ex-boyfriend was also questioned,” he added.

“After my release I drove to my older sister’s house to find that FACT had taken numerous items from my sister belonging to her, her partner and her children. My sister’s ex-boyfriend was the one found there as they had raided his parents house who had given information regarding his whereabouts, yet the police did not arrest anyone else from the property.

“That begs the question as to why the police seized property not relating to any offense. The items taken included a laptop, three Xbox 360s, an Internet router and much more. The police shouldn’t have any grounds to take these items due to them being my sister’s property not the male who was arrested there but lives elsewhere,” the man concludes.

So for now things are on hold again. All people arrested are bailed until February 2014 at which point the police will either have to come up with some evidence, extend bail again, or drop the case.

Source: Police Arrest Alleged Movie Pirate Again, Along With His Brother & Sister

This week we have four newcomers in our chart.

World War Z is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is collected by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are BD/DVDrips unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

Week ending September 8, 2013

Ranking	(last week)	Movie	IMDb Rating / Trailer
torrentfreak.com
1	(…)	World War Z	7.2 / trailer
2	(1)	Now You See Me	7.4 / trailer
3	(2)	We’re The Millers (Webrip)	7.2 / trailer
4	(4)	Kick-Ass 2 (R6)	7.2 / trailer
5	(6)	Pain and Gain	6.7 / trailer
6	(3)	Star Trek Into Darkness	8.1 / trailer
7	(…)	The Kings Of Summer	7.3 / trailer
8	(…)	The Bling Ring	6.1 / trailer
9	(…)	I Spit On Your Grave 2	5.5 / trailer
10	(7)	Iron Man 3	7.5 / trailer

Source: Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week