While action against online infringement takes place on many levels, parallel large-scale initiatives with broader aims are increasingly being employed by entertainment industry companies.

Outside of “three strikes” style programs, “follow the money” is perhaps the next best well-known. This type of initiative, carried out with the assistance of big brands, advertising companies and payment processors, aims to strangle the finances of ‘pirate’ sites.

As seen last week, there are also tandem efforts to portray unauthorized sites as “unsafe” places for netizens to frequent. The overall message is that pirate sites are run by criminals, consumers should not support them, and money is best spent with legitimate content providers.

Denmark has become the latest country to embrace these ideals via a Memorandum of Understanding titled ‘Code to Promote Lawful Behavior on the Internet’ signed by some of the world’s biggest online players.

Google and Microsoft are the most recognizable international technology signatories and all the big Hollywood studios make a proxy appearance via anti-piracy group Rights Alliance. Broadcasters and cinema companies are also represented.

The interests of more than 40,000 composers, songwriters and music publishers are served by rights group Koda and payment companies including MasterCard and Diners Club are also on board. Local ISPs have signed through the Tele Industrien group.

According to the Ministry of Culture the MoU represents the beginning of a collaborative mechanism designed to tackle digital challenges on five key issues.

1. To help make the Internet a safe and legal platform for consumers and businesses.
2. To stress that copyright is an important cornerstone for growth and innovation.
3. To work together to reduce financial crime, based on copyright violations.
4. To work together to promote the dissemination of legal products.
5. To contribute to efficient processes that can help to reduce copyright violations and associated crimes.

In keeping with voluntary anti-piracy initiatives currently underway in other countries, signatories will also participate in discussion aimed at identifying new areas of cooperation.

The shape of this Danish initiative looks familiar, with rightsholders applying the pressure and search engines, ISPs, payment processors and advertisers falling into step. While the emphasis is on consumer safety, it is clear that companies are being advised to do everything they can to disassociate themselves from “criminal enterprises” on the Internet.

As part of the MoU, signatories agree not to “finance criminal activities” by offering support of any kind including giving them “exposure”, providing advertising revenue or payment processing services.

“The companies and organizations that are part of this Code want to counter that their companies are associated with economic crime, based on copyright violations,” the code reads.

In a statement announcing the signing of the MoU, the Ministry of Culture stressed the aims and importance of the broad agreement.

“The code reflects a common desire to make a determined effort to ensure that the Internet is a safe and economically sustainable marketplace. It will help to create better conditions for growth and innovation for legitimate businesses and security and transparency for the users,” the Ministry said.

Time will tell how far each signatory will be prepared to go and on what basis, but the companies involved are the biggest players around and having them all at the same table will be a powerful tool.

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

This week we have two newcomers in our chart.

Jupiter Ascending is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated 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.

Ranking	(last week)	Movie	IMDb Rating / Trailer
torrentfreak.com
1	(6)	Jupiter Ascending	5.8 / trailer
2	(3)	Furious 7 (Subbed/cropped HDRip)	8.8 / trailer
3	(4)	American Sniper	7.4 / trailer
4	(1)	Kingsman: The Secret Service	8.1 / trailer
5	(…)	Run All Night	6.9 / trailer
6	(5)	Get Hard	6.2 / trailer
7	(7)	Fifty Shades of Grey	4.2 / trailer
8	(2)	Seventh Son	5.5 / trailer
9	(…)	Infini	5.3 / trailer
10	(9)	Interstellar	8.8 / trailer

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

Public libraries started appearing in the mid-1800s. At the time, publishers went absolutely berserk: they had been lobbying for the lending of books to become illegal, as reading a book without paying anything first was “stealing”, they argued. As a consequence, they considered private libraries at the time to be hotbeds of crime and robbery. (Those libraries were so-called “subscription libraries”, so they were argued to be for-profit, too.)

British Parliament at the time, unlike today’s politicians, wisely disagreed with the publishing industry lobby – the copyright industry of the time. Instead, they saw the economic value in an educated and cultural populace, and passed a law allowing free public libraries in 1850, so that local libraries were built throughout Britain, where the public could take part of knowledge and culture for free.

In other words, they made explicit exceptions to the copyright monopoly for the benefit of public access to culture and knowledge. In most copyright monopoly legislation today, it says explicitly that monopoly holders to not have any kind of right to object to their works being displayed, read, and lent from public libraries. This can be traced back to the insights of 1850.

So how is this different from file-sharing? From manufacturing your own copies of knowledge and culture from others’ sources? Is it different at all?

Yes, it is different. It differs in efficiency. Where public libraries can educate one citizen at a time from one original book, file-sharing has the potential to educate millions at a time with the same effort spent.

Libraries and file-sharing do not differ in payment to copyright monopoly holders. You would frequently hear that authors are paid royalties when their books are borrowed from a library. This claim is not true. Authors do indeed get some slush money in most European countries, and this is based on library statistics, but it is no form of compensation for that library activity. The difference is crucial.

Rather, that money “from libraries” is a unilateral cultural grant that happens to use library statistics for data. It is not true that authors get money when their books are borrowed from libraries. In some cases, they do, but that’s mostly a coincidence. When Harry Potter in Swedish is borrowed from a Swedish library, for example, J.K. Rowling does not get a single penny for that. (The translator does, though. It’s a grant to promote culture availability in the local language, not to reward the author.) So the equivalence – the connection between lending and compensation – can be trivially disproven through examples.

Libraries and file-sharing do not differ in principle. The purpose of libraries was – is – to make culture and knowledge available to as many as possible, as efficiently as possible, for free – simply because of the greater socioeconomic benefit of an educated and cultural populace. How is this not file-sharing?

So we can observe that public libraries and file-sharing differ in scale and efficiency – and only in scale and efficiency. Quite a bit, even. But that’s a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference. I sometimes hear people trying to defend the copyright monopoly by saying that file-sharing makes public libraries too efficient, and therefore cannot be allowed.

I can’t do anything but shake my head at that.

That has to be a first in the public debate: Are those people actually standing up and demanding that public services, such as public libraries, be made less efficient, to have less output for the tax money spent on it?

No. That does not make sense. And they deserve to hear it, to hear the absolute silliness of their own argument.

You just cannot defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing at the same time. They are one and the same phenomenon. One is just vastly more efficient.

In a quote from the 1850s that went past my information flow in February 2009, I noted that a publisher of the time had argued, paraphrased, that “you cannot possibly allow people to read books for free! If you pass this law, no author will ever make a penny from books again! Not a single more book will be written if you pass this law!”

(Sadly, I have lost the source of that quote. If somebody recognizes it, I would love to re-source it.)

Indeed, no book has been written since 1850. And no movie or piece of music has been created since large-scale file sharing with the Internet arrived around 1999. Either that, or these arguments are completely bogus, and there are only gains to be had from enabling the largest library ever created.

History does repeat itself. As do the people trying to defend obsolete guild-like privileges, even across centuries.

We have built the most amazing public library ever created. All of humanity is able to access the collective culture and knowledge of all of humanity, twenty-four by seven, as well as contribute to that collective pool. All the tools are already in place, all the infrastructure already rolled out, all the training already completed. Not a single tax penny needs to be spent to accomplish this. The only thing we need to do is to remove the ban on using it.

Why are we letting a cartoon industry stand in the way of this?

About The Author

Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at falkvinge.net focuses on information policy.

Book Falkvinge as speaker?

Follow @Falkvinge

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

When Spotify launched its first beta in the fall of 2008, we branded it “an alternative to music piracy.”

With the option to stream millions of tracks supported by an occasional ad, or free of ads for a small subscription fee, Spotify appeared to be a serious competitor to music piracy.

In the years that followed Spotify conquered the hearts and minds of many music fans. Currently available in more than 60 countries, the service has amassed dozens of millions of users.

It’s a true success story, and one that led to a decline in music piracy rates in a few countries, exactly as planned.

However, in recent months there have been calls to end Spotify’s free ad-supported service. Some prominent musicians and labels believe that killing the free tier will increase revenues.

This week it was revealed that Apple is also pressuring record labels to end the licensing agreements that allow Spotify’s ad-supported deal, presumably to make its own Beats service more competitive.

While Spotify hasn’t signaled that anything will change, killing the free version will be a dangerous move. In fact, it’ll be a step backward that is likely to increase piracy in the long run.

Sure, when free users are forced to pay it will motivate some to sign up for a paid subscription. This will then lead to more revenue in the short term, something labels and artists will appreciate. However, in the long run the effects may not be so positive.

One of the main appeals Spotify has for the public, specifically ‘pirates,’ is that there’s a free version available. Pirates like to try before they buy and Spotify free removes the giant hurdle to make the switch to a legal streaming service.

Those who then like the service and want the ad-free experience will eventually convert to a paid subscription. After all, paying is not a problem for most ‘pirates’ who tend to spend more money on entertainment than the average consumer.

Ultimately, the goal of the free version is to start changing the habits of pirates, and it’s been pretty successful at doing so.

Besides killing the free version of Spotify there’s also a possibility that it may become more limited. Just before the weekend news broke that Apple’s Beats may also offer some content for free, and perhaps they would like Spotify and others to do the same.

Again, this isn’t a particularly good idea. The magic of Spotify is that users can access a virtually unlimited library of music. A library that’s greater than what people can find on most pirate sites, and more convenient too.

Limiting the library for free users will make it look less attractive compared to the pirate alternatives. As a result, people will be less likely to get hooked and less likely to make the switch to becoming a paid user.

This brings us to the exclusivity issue. In recent years the music industry has excelled in making its music available to as many people as possible, often without restrictions. But now that some big artists are removing (or threatening to remove) their music from Spotify, or offer some content exclusively to other services, the overall appeal is waning.

Music fans don’t want to pay for 3, 5 or 10 services to get all the music they love. They want it all in one place. While this may not bring in as much as everyone would like, it’s a crucial part of stamping out music piracy.

A few months ago a movie industry report found that consumers in the UK need to use dozens of movie services if they want access to the most popular films. If the same happens to music, piracy will surely soar.

All in all it’s safe to conclude that exclusivity breeds pirates. So if artists and labels are in it for the long run they should keep everything together, and make it easy for pirates to go legal.

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

In September 2014, NetNames published a report titled Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions.

While the report was informative in many respects, NetNames made the questionable decision to include cloud-hosting service Mega.co.nz. Granted, Mega’s Kim Dotcom connections might paint the site in an unfavorable light in some eyes, but the fact remains that Mega.co.nz covers all the bases when it comes to copyright law.

And let’s face it – the site has had no other choice. As the most scrutinized file-hosting startup in history, any breach (even of the overseas DMCA) would prove absolutely catastrophic. Nevertheless and largely thanks to the NetNames report, payment processors including Visa, Mastercard and PayPal recently pulled the plug on the company.

Then this week, just eight months after the NetNames report, came another turn of the screw. Titled The Revenue Sources for Websites Making Available Copyright Content Without Consent in the EU, a new MPA-commissioned report published by Incopro examined the money-making techniques of more than 600 ‘unauthorized’ sites in the file-sharing space.

The study’s overarching tone is that the sites surveyed are criminal enterprises run by shady individuals aiming to get rich on the backs of the entertainment industries. In respect of many sites on the list it is difficult to argue with the assertion. But, yet again, Mega.co.nz finds itself on the list alongside the likes of The Pirate Bay and other similarly copyright-hostile domains.

Just as we did following the NetNames report, TorrentFreak contacted the report’s authors and asked why Mega, a company with robust copyright protection mechanisms, had been included in the report. We received no response to what shouldn’t have been a particularly difficult question.

It’s worth pointing out, however, that Incopro do list the factors that get hosting sites on the list. They say the factors “are drawn from case law” and are “typically used by courts” to “determine the status” of a site. They’re listed in bold below:

Users are not charged for storage of files, instead revenue is accrued from subscription fees permitting download; per-download charges; and/or advertising

While the above could indeed describe an infringing site if bad intent was present, it also describes the business model of YouTube. It seems unlikely that a court would find a site illegal on this basis alone.

Anonymity for Users: The use of the service can be enjoyed in complete anonymity

Allowing users to be anonymous is no indication of criminality, unless a service intentionally encourages its users to commit a crime. For the record, Mega users are not anonymous – the service logs user IP addresses to counter abuse.

Anonymity for the Operators: Quite often the operators of the site will also be anonymous or based in jurisdictions where enforcement of the rule of law is quite difficult. Such sites tend to move less frequently, but will do so in response to perceived threats of legal action.

While anonymity for operators can be an indication that facing the law isn’t a key priority, it is blatantly clear that Mega.co.nz is going nowhere. The company and its directors are registered in New Zealand, are public faces, and are currently pursuing a stock market listing. The Pirate Bay this most certainly isn’t.

Inducement/Reward Scheme: Rewards for uploaders of large and popular files (with a particular emphasis on file size, i.e. additional rewards for popular files of over 200 megabytes, which are consistent with long-form copyright-protected audiovisual content).

It is well known that some of the most shadowy file-hosting services use these kinds of affiliate schemes to attract uploaders of pirated content, but their presence alone is not an indicator of criminality. Again, YouTube is happy to share revenues with uploaders of popular files. In any event, Mega offers no such scheme.

Ability to share files in the following formats (all consistent with long-form copyright-protected AV content): .rar, .zip, .avi, .wmv, .mpg, .mhv, .mp4, .divx, .xvid, .flv, .mov and .mpeg.

That the hosting of these filetypes can result in a site being labeled as infringing is beyond ridiculous and doesn’t even warrant a detailed rebuttal.

Free access for stored files is limited (in an attempt to encourage the purchase of premium membership) by methods such as increased wait times, bandwidth throttling, caps on the number of downloads freely accessed and online advertising.

Again, many of these techniques are indeed employed by some of the most notorious file-hosters but on their own they are not indications of criminality. However, the important thing here is that none apply to Mega.

Enabling Sharing of Links: Provision of ‘forum codes’ and ‘URL codes’ to facilitate the incorporation of links on third party indexing and linking sites.

Providing a URL to stored content indicates that a site is pirate? Watch out Dropbox!

The most important factors, the ones that really matter

Although not listed directly for hosting sites, Incopro does note that other factors can determine whether a site is likely infringing or not for the purposes of its report. This is where the meat of their claims against Mega and any other site should really hold up.

The clear (and often stated) purpose of the sites is copyright infringement and facilitation of copyright infringement.

The sites are highly structured and the content is referenced, categorized, curated and moderated.

The operators are believed to exercise control over the content on the website.

The sites provide guidance and deploy a variety of means of encouragement to
users in accessing and making available content and advertise the availability of content on third party sites.

The sites either don’t operate a takedown policy at all or such policies are mere window-dressing or even a sham.

To even the most casual observer it must be clear Mega does not fit into any of these categories. Most importantly the company has a robust DMCA-style policy that has even seen it remove its own founder’s music following a bogus DMCA complaint.

Conclusion

When a site fails to meet any of the criteria for inclusion in a piracy report yet still finds itself included, one needs to ask why. Sadly (and like NetNames before them) the creators of this otherwise enlightening report refuse to answer that simple question.

So why then have two big reports, both of which are likely to shape policy in the coming months and years, branded a legitimate file-hosting site a piracy haven?

If it’s because Mega is breaking the law, the aggrieved parties should step up to the plate and say so. Better still, those funding the report (the MPA) should have their lawyers do something about it.

If, however, it’s because Kim Dotcom founded Mega and everything he touches must now be destroyed at all costs, people should have the nerve to admit it. As noted earlier, both reports have their merits, but when suspicions of hidden agendas become apparent, their value is only diminished.

Mega informs TorrentFreak it is analyzing the report with its lawyers.

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