The Pirate Bay is arguably the most censored website on the Internet. Courts all around the world have ordered Internet providers to block subscriber access to the torrent site, and more are expected to follow.

The idea behind these blockades is that they will help to decrease online piracy. However, research increasingly suggests that this aim is not being fulfilled. In fact, the blocking attempts may actually be having the opposite effect.

Today, University of Amsterdam researchers, together with Tilburg University’s CentERdata, released a new report which evaluates how the Dutch Pirate Bay blockade affected local piracy habits.

Titled “Baywatch,” the paper uses survey results as well as data from BitTorrent trackers to assess the effectiveness of the blocking measures.

The report finds that of all respondents who admit that they’ve downloaded files from illegal sources over the past half-year, between 20 and 25 percent say they stopped or downloaded less after the Pirate Bay blockade came into effect.

While this could be interpreted as a clear success for the blockade, the researchers don’t see any evidence for this in the rest of the data.

“This would suggest a small negative effect of the intervention on the percentage of the population who download copyright protected content from illegal sources. However, no such effect is found.”

In fact, the percentage of UPC, KPN, Tele2 and T-Mobile subscribers who admit to downloading or streaming from illegal sources over the past six months went up from 15.7% before the blockade, to 18.4% after. For two other ISPs, Ziggo and XS4ALL, the percentage increased over time as well, settling at 25.2%.

Downloading & streaming from illegal sources per blocking situation

The researchers believe that the increased piracy rates can in part be explained by people who picked up the downloading or streaming habit after the blockades went into effect.

“[Although] a small share of downloaders report a decrease in their downloading activities after the blocking, this effect is not reflected in the overall numbers, possibly because there are other consumers who have started downloading from illegal sources,” the researchers write.

In addition, they note that affected Pirate Bay users may have simply started using other means to get unauthorized content. In any case, there appears to be no negative long-term effect of the court ordered-blockade on the overall piracy rate.

“Blocking access to TPB has had no lasting net impact on the overall number of downloaders from illegal sources, as people learn to use alternatives to TPB.”

In addition to the survey data the researchers also monitored several popular BitTorrent swarms. Here they also found no clear impact of the blockade. Initially the market share of blocked ISPs appeared to decline, but this picked up later.

The researchers believe that this can be explained by the fact that subscribers find ways to circumvent the blockades.

The above, paired with the survey responses, leads the researchers to conclude that after an initial decrease in piracy the “market” quickly returned to the old situation. In other words, censoring The Pirate Bay proves to be ineffective in the long run.

This is not the first research to come to this conclusion. Previously the ineffectiveness of the blockades was highlighted by several Dutch and UK Internet providers, who claimed that BitTorrent traffic didn’t decline after the blockades were implemented.

Whether this will stop copyright holders’ efforts to demand additional and wider blockades is doubtful though – thus far it certainly hasn’t.

Source: Censoring The Pirate Bay Is Futile, Research Shows

Back in June the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel announced the release of the government’s second Strategic Plan for IP Enforcement.

Together with that announcement came a request from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for interested parties to comment on so-called Voluntary Best Practices to reduce instances of online piracy. A deadline of July 22 was later extended to August 21.

With Espinel out of the frame (she stepped down last week after four years in the job), organizations including the MPAA and Google are now left to argue over how best to implement the outgoing czar’s momentum on voluntary initiatives. Yesterday they were clashing opinions at the USPTO.

The MPAA held up existing examples of cooperation, such as the six-strikes collaboration between the studios and leading ISPs, as somewhat effective but only part of the solution. Search engines, the movie group explained, aren’t doing enough to scale back piracy and their voluntary efforts to demote pirate sites in search results just aren’t working.

“Voluntary initiatives are not a panacea, and they are not appropriate to address all forms of piracy,” said the MPAA. “Some voluntary initiatives work well; some have more modest success; and some are simply not effective.”

And this is where the MPAA hits a problem. Whenever voluntary agreements live up to their name there is always room for participating parties to back away or water down their approach to the terms of the arrangement. The boundaries of what can be achieved, the MPAA suggests, will always be governed by legislation.

“A party’s willingness to commit to a particular practice will depend to a significant degree on what it perceives to be the legal consequence (or lack thereof) of continuing its current course of action, and not committing to any voluntary agreement.”

The underlying message here is that the MPAA feels restricted by Google and friends’ current anti-piracy response and would prefer it if the government stepped in and formally set the rules for any “voluntary” agreements. Those rules, of course, represent a change in the law.

However, the MPAA tried this before with SOPA and PIPA and soon discovered they were no match for the combined forces of the Internet.

Indeed, back in February MPAA chief Chris Dodd admitted there was no enthusiasm for a “brawl in Congress” over new legislation.

So what’s the alternative? The MPAA’s potential allies – Google, Facebook, Yahoo and other tech giants including Reddit who formed their own lobbying organization called The Internet Association – feel that things should be approached somewhat differently.

“The Internet Association recommends the [Patent Office] set aside its inquiry of industry’s voluntary initiatives to reduce online infringement for a broader review that looks beyond data and metrics of enforcement mechanisms,” they told USPTO, The Wrap reports.

“Taking a holistic approach will reveal that today’s copyright landscape involves important industry practices, marketplace realities, and consumer behavioral dynamics that all play a role in both the source of and potential solutions to online infringement.”

While there has been some cooperation it seems that the approaches of Hollywood and the tech sector are still some distance apart. Given the option the MPAA would relish new legislation to ‘encourage’ the likes of Google to ‘cooperate’ more readily. But with the SOPA backlash still ringing in their ears they may have to settle for what’s currently on offer, until memories begin to fade at least.

Source: MPAA: Tighten the Law to Force Voluntary Anti-Piracy Cooperation

As the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin goes, there are only two certain things in life – death and taxes.

We all pay taxes and in the United States its the job of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to scoop up the cash from the public and place it in government coffers. It’s currently collecting somewhere north of $2.5 trillion and has a budget in excess of $12 billion.

But despite all the money rolling around and the IRS’s ability to suck up the last dollar from errant payers, it apparently has trouble keeping its computer department in order. According to the findings of a recent audit, the IRS is in quite a mess when it comes to paying for software it’s using and not paying for stuff that it isn’t.

“The proper management of software licenses helps to minimize risks by ensuring that licenses are used in compliance with licensing agreements and cost-effectively deployed, and that software purchasing and maintenance expenses are properly controlled. This audit was initiated to determine whether the IRS is adequately managing software licenses,” the report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration begins.

Thanks to rightsholders’ efforts to toughen up the law, the effective managing of software licenses is a serious business. Running unlicensed software can constitute a breach of federal copyright law, something a government agency such as the IRS should seek to avoid. According to the report, it seems to have failed.

“The IRS is not adequately performing software license management and is not adhering to Federal requirements and recommended industry best practices. The IRS does not have enterprisewide or local policies, procedures, and requirements for software license management,” the report states.

As a result the audit discovered that out of a total 27 products examined, proper licensing documentation could be produced for only three of them.

The Treasury Inspector General also notes that in 2011 the IRS spent $235 million on computer software and that efficient and cost-effective management of those resources is crucial to providing efficient services to taxpayers. But somehow and in addition to the under-licensing, the IRS also managed to license software that they didn’t use.

“Until the IRS implements an effective program to manage software licenses, the IRS is incurring increased risks,” the report adds.

“These risks include: 1) not complying with licensing agreements that could result in embarrassment, legal problems, and financial liability; 2) not using licenses in the most cost-effective manner; and 3) not effectively using licensing data to reduce software purchase and software maintenance costs.”

As many companies around the world will agree, not having the correct licenses for software can indeed become a financial liability. Over the years many have been targeted by the Business Software Alliance who, often acting on tips from employees, pursue companies for audits and then pressure them into settlements. Actions against under-licensed software even take place with the support of armed police.

In Belgium a company was pressured by the BSA due to under-licensed software and was told that its computers would be taken away unless it paid 30,000 euros ($40,000) in settlement fees. The CEO of the company described the event as “a robbery more than a check-up.”

It’s notable that the BSA aren’t barking at the heels of the IRS though, which is a bit of shame. Watching the BSA trying to extract money from the best money-collectors in the United States would be something to behold and probably the only battle in which the public would cheer for the IRS.

Source: The IRS is Running Pirate Software, Send in the BSA for Blood

Over the past several years we have covered many copyright disputes, but now we have become part of one ourselves.

Last week we wrote a news article based on public court records, revealing that Prenda Law has been involved in operating a honeypot in order to lure Internet users into downloading copyrighted material.

This revelation came to light after Comcast returned a subpoena linking the IP-address of Pirate Bay uploader “Sharkmp4″ to the infamous law firm, and has since been published by several other news outlets since we broke the news.

It was an article like any other, we thought, but on Monday we learned that Comcast was not happy with our coverage. Through the brand protection company Cyveillance they sent a cease and desist letter for an alleged copyright infringement, demanding that we take the article offline, or face legal action.

The threats are clear. If we fail to comply with the takedown notice within five days Comcast will file a lawsuit seeking immediate injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of the suit.

Unfortunately, the email above provides no indication of what we have done wrong. It simply states that we infringed on Comcast’s copyrights without explaining what the actual infringement entails.

To find out more we contacted Cyveillance with a request for additional information. In a quick response, the company informed us that the copy of the subpoena (also available on the Internet archive) response was the problem.

“The thing that we would like you to remove from you post is the copy of the subpoena form that contains Comcast subscriber’s information, The rest of the post can stay,” we were told.

While the response is clear, it still doesn’t explain what the actual infringement is. According to our knowledge court records are public domain and can be freely used by reporters, especially when they are the center of a news piece.

When we pointed this out to Cyveillance the company suddenly informed us that Comcast told them to “hold off on working on the removal of the post in question.” Baffled by the situation, and unclear how to proceed we asked for further details. However, everything went silent and several follow-up emails sent by us since Monday afternoon have gone unanswered.

Meanwhile, the situation further deteriorated when we learned that our hosting provider LeaseWeb received the same cease and desist notice. LeaseWeb alerted us to this problem on Tuesday and stated that our IP-address would be blocked if the issue was not resolved within 24 hours.

We contacted Cyveillance and alerted them to this issue, but again, no response.

TorrentFreak has consulted several legal experts who agree that we’ve done nothing wrong here. Also, Comcast has not asked the court to seal the filing in question and it can still be accessed through the court records.

While we generally refrain from writing about Internal issues, we believe this copyright claim is a matter of interest and one the public should be aware of. We hope that Comcast can clarify its stance eventually, and that our server remains online in the meantime.

Update 7pm CET: A Comcast spokesperson responded to an inquiry we sent to the company’s lawyers:

“[I] am replying to let you know that the cease and desist was sent in error, and you may disregard it. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.”

Source: Comcast Threatens to Sue TorrentFreak for Copyright Infringement (updated)

With a growing demand for digital books, the publishing industry is increasingly confronted with the issue of online piracy.

Boasting a collection of tens of thousands of eBooks, Springer is one of the larger publishers dealing with this emerging threat.

To show what they’re doing to prevent the unauthorized distribution of eBooks, the company has recently updated its anti-piracy strategy. Like most other copyright holders, Springer is mainly focused on sending takedown requests.

“In order to protect our authors´ rights and interests, Springer proactively screens websites for illegal download links of Springer eBooks and subsequently requires hosts of such download sites to remove and delete the files or links in question,” they write.

The sentence that follows, however, is perhaps of even more interest. While the company admits that piracy is a serious issue, they have yet to see any evidence that it hurts their business (emphasis added).

“While we have not yet seen harmful effects of eBook piracy and file sharing on our eBook portfolio, these are nevertheless considered serious topics,” Springer notes.

In addition to the revelation above, the publisher later notes that torrent sites and other forms of file-sharing “rarely present a threat to eBook content.”

It’s interesting to see that one of the largest book publishers in the industry doesn’t see piracy as a direct threat to its revenues. While Springer doesn’t go into details to explain the absence of a harmful effect, we have to assume that they have some data to back up this claim.

Despite the lack of a concrete threat, the publisher does target central download hubs and commercial sites that sell their content. Springer says that during the summer these anti-piracy efforts have resulted in the shutdown of several ‘unnamed’ illegal sites.

Springer further writes that concerned authors send in 100 notifications about illegal copies every month. Interestingly, half of these notifications don’t really point to infringing material, but spam.

It appears that many authors are falling for fake download advertisements, and the publisher recommends that its authors should ignore these.

“As a rule of thumb links with names like ‘fast download,’ ‘direct download’ or similar frequently turn out to be spam and are not critical in terms of piracy,” Springer explains, adding that the real threat comes from books that can be downloaded “without any barriers such as installations or payments.”

Finally, while P2P file-sharing isn’t seen as a priority for Springer, the company warns its authors away from downloading their own books, or even installing a BitTorrent client as that may result in legal trouble.

“Don’t install sharing clients such as ‘utorrent’ or others,” they warn.

Springer’s final recommendation is a bit over the top. After all, there are several book authors who use BitTorrent to share and promote their work. This includes best-selling author Paulo Coelho who says that piracy increased his sales tremendously.

But perhaps that’s a bridge too far for Springer.

Springer’s anti-piracy communique

Source: Piracy Doesn’t Harm eBook Sales, Publisher Says