Google announces TV service, week after Apple

The battle for the living room has kicked of in full force. Almost a week after Apple announced the new Apple TV, Google’s Eric Schmidt reveals plans to bring the web to to the living room via Google TV.

The free Google TV service will allow couch potatoes full internet access. The search engine giant plans to partner up with other technology and media companies in order to provide easy access to the new service and to make sure that there is worthwhile content to connect to through the portal. Schmidt said that Google will not produce their own content as that is not in line with Google’s way of doing business and that it mainly wants to open the channels to start partnerships with content producers.

(...)

Sony brings streaming music service to her living room devices

Sony had some good news to share at the international consumer electronics fair IFA in Berlin. Users of Sony devices such as Bravia TVs, Vaio laptop computers and the Paystation 3 console will soon get access to the streaming music service Music Unlimited Powered by Qriocity.

Owners of Sony devices will get one account that provides access to millions of songs, promises the Sony spokesperson, as long as they use a Sony device.

(...)

All Dutch movies and TV series accessible online

An online portal is going to provide access to all Dutch movies and TV series ever produced. To realise this goal, a new organisation has been established recently under the name of Filmotech. The plan was developed and initiated by the Dutch Association for Movie Producers, the Netherlands Institute for Image and Sound and the EYE Movie Institute Netherlands.

At the end of the month, the project will be officially announced during the Netherlands Film Festival. Within the frame of a year, “many thousands of hours worth of material should be posted online,” a spokesperson of Filmotech states on nu.nl. Some time later, all approximately 1200 movies and hundreds of series should be accessible through the portal.

(...)

Pirate amnesty for Machinarium is great success

Game studio Amanita managed to sell 20.000 copies of Machinarium at a 75% discount in a bid to stem piracy. The studio is very pleased with the results.

A few weeks ago, we posted on the pirate amnesty action initiated by game developer Amanita. The studio noticed that the number of pirated copies of their prize horse Machinarium circulating outnumbered the copies sold by about 9 to 1. As a way to entice these pirates to come in and buy a copy instead, Amanita drastically reduced the price for their star game.
 
And it worked: after one week 17.000 copies were sold. The folks at Amanita were so pleased with the result that they decided to prolong the action with another weekend. When the amnesty action finally concluded, the tally was 20.000 copies sold in 10 days. Not bad at all. The vast majority of copies, about 80%, was sold in the US and the EU.

(...)

Swedish police cracks down on shared folder with 6000 songs

In the land of The Pirate Bay, it is not using torrents that file-sharers get into legal trouble in Sweden. Instead, Swedish police and prosecutors tend to target people who share a large quantity of files all at once using a shared folder.

Torrentfreak reports that last Friday, the Prosecutors Office in Stockholm, acting on a tip from IFPI, seized the computers of someone who they suspected illegally shared around 6000 songs.

The owner of the computer used Direct Connect to share media. Direct Connect is less accessible than torrent platforms, but users tend to share their entire collections with each other.

(...)

Virgin to go public about average internet speed

One of the constants in the online environment is that consumers are sceptical towards the veracity of the download speeds the ISPs advertise with. In Britain, Virgin has plans to address this situation by publishing the average attained speeds every month.

According to a poll conducted for Virgin Media, only 9% of the respondents feel that ISPs deliver the promised bandwidth. 98% indicate that they believe there is a clearer way to advertise than with the normal “up to 20 mbps” slogans. A recent study by Ofcom, the British telecoms authority, shows that on average, ISPs only deliver 46% of their promised bandwidth.

Virgin Media now propose that ISPs should use terms like ‘typical’ or ‘average’ when advertising download speeds, using data received from independent experts. BT has indicated not to support this proposal, as it fears that it disadvantages the larger network operators operating in rural areas. Longer copper lines negatively influence internet speeds.

Source: The Guardian

Piracy of DS leads to new piracy measures for 3DS says Nintendo

According to Alain Corre, Ubisoft's managing director EMEA "the last 24 months the market for DS has collapsed for software, but people are still buying the hardware." The collapse would partly be a result of the increase in piracy on the platform. "On the DS it was really the very first time that Nintendo software was pirated, so it took us all by surprise very quickly," Corre told GamesIndustry. 

(...)

German GEMA lacks urgent interest to obtain a blocking order for YouTube content

Earlier this week the Court of Hamburg ruled in the case between GEMA (the German collective management organization for related rights) and YouTube (Google). The court found that GEMA’s claim for an emergency order to block access to infringing material on YouTube lacked urgent interest. GEMA had long known that the contested songs were available on YouTube.

(...)

Vodafone to provide (almost) free access to TV in Germany

Vodafone is planning to provide free iptv services in Germany before the end of the year. When you opt to make use of this offer, you will need to either buy or rent a decoder. The services only applies to people who are connected to the internet via Vodafone’s DSL network.

The telco/ISP can provide this service so cheaply because no expensive upgrades have to be made to the network, reports tweakers. Iptv requires a 2 mbit data connection.

Users of the new service can at the same time maintain their cable or satellite connection. All incoming TV signals are routed through Vodafone’s settopbox. The signals are compared for strength and the strongest is forwarded to the TV.

In addition to the iptv services, Vodafone will provide an on-demand service for movies. The company is now making deals with the movie studios to do so.

YouTube to host movies for free in the UK

The UK division of YouTube has struck deals with movie studios such as Sony Pictures and even some from Bollywood as well as with the British online movie rental service Blinkbox and will provide free access to around 400 feature films.

Blinkbox normally charges 2 pounds for on demand access to its movie catalogue, but will allow free access to 165 movies through YouTube. It receives a part of the advertising revenue generated around its movies and hopes to reach new audiences by pairing up with YouTube.

Donagh O’Malley says in The Guardian: "This is one of many efforts to ensure that people can find all the different kinds of video they want to see, from bedroom vlogs and citizen journalism reports to full-length films and TV shows."

(...)

For moderate to heavy readers, e-reading reduces your ecological footprint

A company called Cleantech, an environmental consultancy, has calculated which is the greener: reading on your e-reader or doing it the old fashioned way. 

Although often associated with green causes (paper bags for groceries), paper is quite the opposite of a green material. Its production requires large amounts of water and often toxic chemicals as well.

Information technology, however, doesn’t score that well either. The semiconductor industry has passed the airline industry in the ranking of most polluting industries.

Furthermore, sustainability analyses are notoriously complicated and depend on many factors and the weight you attribute to them. How do you offset the use of water against greenhouse gas emissions and the use of chemicals? One way is to just separate each topic and make the comparison for each factor apart.

(...)

Dick van Engelen comments on Dutch Authors' Contract Rights Bill

"A non-transferable copyright? The collective guardianship of creative minds ". Thus is the title of an article by intellectual property lawyer Dick van Engelen on the proposed Authors' Contract Rights bill that would amend the Dutch Copyright Act.

(...)

Dutch comments on ACTA internet consultation

Since June 21st 2010, the Dutch Ministries of Economic Affairs, Finance, Justice and Development have received 60 responses to the negotiating text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Of these responses, 38 are public, including those of TNO ICT, Philips, Bits of Freedom, the Dutch Association of Producers and Importers of Picture and Sound carriers (NVPI), KPN and the Dutch Association of Film Distributors (NVF). Below is a brief summary of their submissions and the reaction of the Dutch Minster of Economic Affairs. 

(...)

Dutch Green Left party has concerns about the ACTA Treaty

Dutch political party Green Left (Groen Links) is completely fed up with the ACTA Treaty’s haziness, reports Webwereld. One of Webwereld’s readers tipped off Mariko Peters (GL) about ACTA's continuing secret negotiations and contradictions in communications about possible changes in Dutch law as a result of the Treaty. Maria van der Hoeven, Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs replied.

(...)

Innocent copyright infringement limits statutory damages

Cheerleaders apparently not always have their way. This week the case of then teenaged cheerleader Whitney Harper appears before the U.S. Supreme Court. Starting point for the case is that several record companies had discovered that Harper illegally downloaded 37 songs through a P2P network. The record companies are now demanding compensation from Harper. 

(...)

Music industry professionals interviewed about their thoughts on own future

An interesting post on the Music Network blog interviews music biz officials about what they think the music industry and consumer landscape will look like in five years. Of course, five years isn’t all that long, so the interviewees do not expect any major landslides. However, they do see their business changing.

All still see a significant part played by the traditional labels. Artists, is the general opinion, will still need the recording, marketing and distribution expertise that labels have to offer. Some, however, predict a shift in the nature of the relationship between artists and labels, predicting that deals will be made more on the basis of partnership rather than control.

(...)

Bollywood concerned about piracy, too

As the place where investment in movies is highest, Hollywood is the most expressive in denouncing movie piracy. However, Hollywood’s more productive Indian cousin Bollywood is now getting more and more vocal in its own concerns about this topic. I say more productive because Bollywood manages to churn out more movies each year than Hollywood does. The movie Mecca in India produces around 900 movies per year.

Bollywood movies shoot notoriously fast and cheap, so in terms of money, Hollywood still leads. The entire Bollywood turnover of 2009 equals the turnover of Avatar at around 2 billion dollar. American movies may still attract more investment, but budgets for Bollywood movies are rising, too. Rising investment also means that there is more attention to pirates eating away return on that investment.

(...)

Competition on Dutch cable delayed

The Dutch Board of Appeal for commerce has ruled that cablers Ziggo and UPC do not have to offer competitors access to their infrastructure. Recently, the telecoms authority OPTA  stated that the market for cable television needed to be opened for competition. According to the Board, OPTA has been careless in her judgement and has defined the market wrong. Therefore, the cablers do not have to open up their cable to competitors.

Tele2, that has been advertising for months with cheap analogue cable television, reacted initially by reassuring their customers that the ink on the contracts between them, Ziggo and UPC had dried already and that consumers could still watch television through Tele2.

(...)

Mubi offers quality movies as streams, also for the PS3

Following yesterday's news - that many people prefer streaming media over illegal downloading - today comes the news that acclaimed movie streaming website Mubi is now also accessible with the PS3.

(...)

Director BREIN personally hands over Amsterdam verdict to Pirate Bay founder

The Director of Dutch anti-piracy organization BREIN yesterday personally explained and handed over the verdict of the Amsterdam District Court to Peter Sunde of The Pirate Bay. 

(...)

After Wolverine yet another Fox film appears on BitTorrent before release

An unfinished version of the movie 'Vampire Sucks' has been circulating on BitTorrent for over a month already. It is the second time in a short while that  movie studio 20th Century Fox finds one of their much anticipated movies available on BitTorrent before the planned cinema release.

(...)

Half of Norwegian streamers stop file-sharing

According to Norwegian research exactly one third of the Norwegian population has streamed music. Just over half of them (18% of the total population) say they no longer illegally download music because of streaming services. 

(...)

BSA takes on software piracy in Asia

The Business Software Alliance has given out a clear signal about the illegal use of software in Asia. The Business Software Alliance recently setteled with an Asian company for a record sum of 3.6 million U.S dollar over software infringements. It is BSA’s largest settlement to date. 

(...)

Torrent platforms endorse artists, bundle their album with downloads

Torrent site uTorrents has started to backing an artist called PAZ and is bundling every download with his album. It is not the first site to do so. The Pirate Bay, Frostwire and Vodo have all started small scale promotional work. TPB, for example, regularly promotes artists on their homepage.

More and more artists conduct in experiments using torrent platforms to get exposure for their products. Torrent portals can be a good way for bands without the backing of a label to spread their music and make their claim to fame.

(...)

Pink Floyd wants their entire CD’s online, no separate tracks

All Pink Floyd albums - except for the first "Dark Side Of The Moon" - were taken offline. This is due to the expiration of Pink Floyd's licensing agreement with EMI on June 30 and the bands having trouble finding a new licensing deal that meet their stringent requirements.

(...)

Judge awards whopping $89 million for infringement on World of Warcraft copyright

World of Warcraft is an immensely popular online game. Millions of people worldwide log on to the online world to conduct in some fantasy adventuring and questing.

Over the last few years, Blizzard has taken a tough stance on third parties developing private servers to log on to the World of Warcraft world or create software mods that operate in the WoW environment. When these cases end up in court, as they usually do when the private hosts do not take them down when so requested by Blizzard, the WoW developer most often comes out on top.

Still, some people find it a risk worth taking. One such company, Scapegaming, developed private servers offering access to the World of Warcraft universe, including a micropayment system.

(...)

Public consultation of the E-Commerce Directive

Yesterday the European Commission invited all interested parties to provide feedback through a online public consultation on the European Directive that regulates internet services. 

(...)

Movie producer takes down Hitler parodies

Who is not familiar with the "Hitler rants..." parodies on that famous bunker scene from the German movie Downfall? Constantin Film, the film’s German producer, recently took down a few of the popular "Hitler rants..." parodies on YouTube... which has in turn led to a new "Hitler rants..." parody.

(...)

KickassTorrents moves servers abroad after visit from Ukrainian authorities

KickassTorrents, one of the fastest growing and most visited torrent sites on the internet, was taken offline by the owner after inquiries from the Ukrainian authorities, reports TorrentFreak.

(...)

An introduction to the future of copyright

Futureofcopyright.com offers a platform for discussing the future of copyright, an issue governments, content industries and other stakeholders have been struggling with for years. How do we protect copyrighted material in an information society without severely limiting access to the wonderful possibilities the internet has to offer, like sharing information online? How can we make sure that copyright owners receive proper compensation for their work, so that they may continue to produce the films, music, games and software we all enjoy?

Copyright in 2020

The Pew Internet & American Life Project has released a third study on the future of the internet (available through our Knowledge Database). Based on interviews with leading technology experts, the following scenario on the future of copyright was drawn up:

“Content control through copyright-protection technology dominates. In 2020, strict content controls are in place thanks to the efforts of legislatures, courts, the technology industry, and media companies. Those who use copyrighted materials are automatically billed by content owners, and Internet service providers automatically notify authorities when they identify clients who try to subvert this system. Protestors rarely prevail when they make claims that this interferes with free speech and stifles innovation.”

Three out of five respondents (60%) disagreed with the idea that legislatures, courts, the technology industry, and media companies will exercise effective content control by 2020. According to a majority of the experts cracking technology will stay ahead of technology to control intellectual property (IP) or policy regulating IP. Nearly a third of the survey respondents (31%) agreed that IP regulation will be successful by 2020; they said more content will be privatized, some adding that this control might be exercised at the hardware level, through Internet-access devices such as smartphones.

Furthermore, the experts predicted that regulators will not be able to come to a global agreement about intellectual property. Many respondents suggested that new economic models will have to be implemented, with an assumption that much that was once classified as paid content will have to be offered free or in exchange for attention or some other unit of value.

Insider Interview: Usenet expert on file sharing

We know Usenet as a secluded, rather unstructured and inaccessible environment where Internet 'geeks' discussed all kinds of topics on the various forums: .alt.newsgroups. Usenet was definitely not mainstream, nor easy if you weren’t familiar with it and it seemed as if there was a policy not to speak about Usenet.  This left Usenet virtually untouched by outsiders for years. Until recently, now more and more commercial parties are offering subscriptions to Usenet with easy overviews of  ‘selected content’: music, games, movies and software to download.  In the Netherlands you can get subscriptions of a monthly flat fee for around 10€ for unlimited downloading, with the advantage of far better data distribution than the regular Internet. No surprise Usenet is becoming mainstream very quickly, just as the organisations offering file-sharing services. The friendly Usenet is risking becoming the next free haven for piracy. Futureofcopyright.com wondered what the possibilities for distributing copyright protected and also for take-down of illegal content are and we managed to speak to a Usenet expert, on the condition that he/she remains anonymous, to provide us with some inside views.

Read the full interview after the jump!

Huge Polish ‘Masterbox' piracy ring busted

A joint effort from law enforcement agencies and anti-piracy organizations from Poland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium has led to the biggest anti-piracy raid ever in the European Union. This Monday the Polish police raided optical disc manufacturing plants in Warsaw, Rybnik and Zabki. The plants produced the so-called ‘Masterbox’ a collection of DVDs containing pirated movies, TV-series, music and adult content aimed at the Dutch market. Four suspects have been apprehended, including the ring leader.

During the raid master discs used for pressing the illegal DVDs were confiscated as well as some 42,000 illegal discs ready for shipment. Prices on the street for the Masterbox ranged from 25 to 50 euro. A preliminary estimate of damages on the basis of confiscated evidence is 8.8 million euro, of which 2/3 relates to film and 1/3 to music.

The operation was brought to the attention of the authorities by Dutch anti-piracy organisation BREIN. A seizure by the German Customs organization ultimately led to the identification of the Polish plants. According to sources close to the investigation, the swift and decisive action undertaken by the Polish police was of particular importance for the success of the operation.

Source: Komenda Stoleczna Policji

Insider Interview: A closer look at file-sharing

An interview with Annelies Huygen (TNO) and Jos Poort (SEO Economic Research) about the economic and cultural implications of file-sharing for music, films and games, following the recent publication of their study 'Ups & Downs'.

The headline 'File-sharing good for Dutch economy' featured in some newspapers provoked a lot of discussion. Did this come as a surprise?
This headline did not accurately reflect our position and did indeed lead to some semantic confusion. Not only in the Netherlands, but in France, Spain, the United States, Finland and Sweden as well. People over there seemed to think that the Dutch government had given illegal file-sharing its stamp of approval, but 'good for general welfare' is not the same as 'good for the economy'.

So that was not what you meant at all?
No. We were talking about a welfare analysis, an instrument often used to calculate the total costs and benefits of a certain phenomenon to society. Non-economic effects are expressed in monetary terms as best as possible. Within the framework of our welfare analysis, we only looked at music. It is too soon to do a welfare analysis of games and films, but there may be some parallels.

(read more after the jump!)

Content filtering: good or bad?

Filtering illegal and harmful content is an effective way to deal with the unwanted consequences of the internet. But filtering internet content is highly controversial, since it can be a threat to the freedom of speech and the principle of net-neutrality.

In Australia a public debate about internet filtering is already taking place. As part of this debate, online magazine Australian IT has published ten expert views that highlight different sides of the debate. The articles are very interesting an well worth a read. Check them out here.

Movie piracy funds criminal organisations and terrorists

Today the Rand Corporation released a study on the relation between counterfeiting and organized crime. In particular, the study focuses on movie piracy. Through several case studies from around the globe the researchers illustrate that the problem with pirated movies is not only the damage to the movie industry, but also the fact that revenues from pirated DVDs flow into the pockets of criminal—and perhaps terrorist—groups who can use it to fund their activities.

For instance, the researchers describe a former Mafia boss turned government witness that outlined how the Camorra, at times working in cooperation with Chinese and Taiwanese triads, generated millions of dollars from counterfeiting including film piracy. Another case study examines the Malaysian Ang Bin Hoey triad which engaged in turf battles with rival gangs (leading to stabbings and even assassinations) in order to maintain control over lucrative piracy markets.

The researchers come to the conclusion that there is a broad, geographically dispersed, and continuing connection between film piracy and organized crime. Piracy is a source of revenue for criminals (and possibly terrorists) that is high in payoff and low in risk. Since piracy is a global phenomenon and has little priority with law enforcement, it remains safely under the radar. The researchers therefore call upon governments to commit more resources to anti-piracy efforts. Furthermore, they argue that stronger legislation, consistent enforcement and deterrent sentencing are necessary.

Because the study was financed in part by the MPA, file-sharing aficionados were quick to dismiss the results of the study. While one might question the impartiality of this study, it is undeniable that there is a large market for pirated movies. It is likely that this market is in large parts controlled by organized crime, given the necessary investments in producing and distributing physical copies. One example of this is the Masterbox gang we reported on earlier.

Technical measures to combat piracy (Part I)

Given current discussions about graduated response, filtering, and bandwidth management, Future of Copyright will list the pros and cons of ISP regulation and explore the merits of a number of possible technical measures in the next few days.

Introduction
When it comes to the distribution of digital content, entertainment industries and consumers have effectively been in a deadlock for years. Consumers want round-the-clock, reasonably priced access to digital content. Entertainment industries would be happy to oblige, but they are held back by fears that giving unrestricted access to content will promote piracy, making it impossible for them to earn back their investments. A a result, consumers and entertainment industries have had difficulties in making an online connection, much to the delight of professional pirates.

Part of the solution undoubtedly lies in improving the supply of digital content. The current supply is fragmented and often limited, driving consumers towards illegal alternatives. Providing consumers with adequate alternatives for the extensive range of easily accessible illegal files will prove to be a vital step in the coming years. In turn, content users would do well to realise that good things do not come for free. Making films and games involves substantial and risky investments which have to be recouped. No return on investment means no new films, it is as simple as that. The same goes for computer games and software. Therefore, effective protection of copyrights should also be a key concern in the coming years.

At the moment, copyright laws are enforced mainly by means of legal action and Digital Rights Management (DRM). Legal action involves prosecuting professional pirates and bringing civil action against individual consumers. It is worth mentioning that civil action against consumers has been widely regarded as controversial, especially by the film industry. For the most part, enforcement through DRM entails regulating the use of files by means of technology, copy protection systems being one example. This method has also given rise to some dispute, however, as copyright protection can be circumvented and also restricts legitimate consumers in their use of legally purchased content.

Clearly there is a need for viable alternatives to legal action (against professional pirates) and enforcement through DRM. According to an as yet undisclosed report published by the British company Informa, Internet Service Providers are likely to play a central role in this matter in the coming years, as they hold the key to regulating network access to and from illegal sources. The Informa study looks into the ways in which ISPs may contribute to preventing and combating copyright infringement.

ISP regulation is not without its critics either. While it may help to combat piracy effectively, it also poses risks for freedom of speech, privacy and the principles of net neutrality.

Technical measures (part II): URL blocking

This week Future of Copyright will devote specific attention to technical measures against piracy that can be employed by ISPs. Today we discuss the pros and cons of URL blocking.

ISPs have the power to block access to an URL (domain) if it is deemed to contain harmful or illegal content. Most ISPs have been known to resort to this course of action, particularly in cases involving child pornography or other illegal content. URL blocking is an effective mechanism to shut down direct downloads from websites offering downloadable material. Unfortunately, URL blocking is not a suitable option for tackling peer-to-peer file-sharing, as P2P traffic consists of numerous packets collected from different IP addresses. Possible exceptions are P2P aggregators like The Pirate Bay, which would probably lose most of their clientèle as a result of URL blocking.

From a legal point of view, URL blocking is debatable. Blocking access to websites is at odds with the freedom of speech and without just cause it may also constitute a wrongful act against the proprietors. In cases where no just cause can be established afterwards, the ISPs involved may in theory be held liable for the resulting damages suffered by website owners. This is not the only issue that comes into play, however. From a commercial standpoint, it may be disadvantageous for ISPs to block certain websites. ISPs that actively block download websites and torrent trackers lose their appeal to consumers whose primary interest is downloading. These legal and commercial concerns make ISPs understandably reluctant to block URLs of their own accord. Instead they prefer to leave the matter to the courts: in a recent case in Denmark, Tele2 was ordered by the courts to block access to The Pirate Bay.

Technical measures (part III): Protocol and port blocking

This week Future of Copyright will devote specific attention to technical measures against piracy that can be employed by ISPs. Today we discuss the pros and cons of  protocol and port blocking.

In addition to blocking specific addresses, it is also possible to block certain transfer protocols and corresponding ports. Modern routers in ISP networks can distinguish between various kinds of IP traffic, such as BitTorrent, Skype, eDonkey, KaZaA or Napster. Subsequently, ISPs can choose to block access on the basis of traffic type. The simplest way to do this is by closing off the port used by the protocol, but many modern downloading tools and protocols now have ways of circumventing this measure. Often they make use of standard ports (which cannot be blocked as they are also used for essential services such as e-mail and surfing the web) or change ports at regular intervals.

Even though most ISPs are reluctant to block protocols and ports, several of them do use the aforementioned measures to protect their own networks or business models: ISPs that do not support Internet phone services usually block the Voice over Internet Protocol. Most ISPs are not very keen to block protocols and ports, however, as it clashes with the principles of net neutrality. According to these principles, all Internet traffic is deemed equal; there should be no data discrimination. In addition, blocking ports is often not in the ISP's best interests as many consumers are primarily interested in downloading. However, the dramatic increase in P2P (BitTorrent) traffic forces many providers to impose certain limits, as P2P increases data traffic costs and interferes with the quality of other services such as VoIP, video streaming, e-mail and surfing the web.

Technical measures (part IV): bandwidth shaping

This week Future of Copyright will devote specific attention to technical measures against piracy that can be employed by ISPs. Today we discuss the pros and cons of  protocol and port blocking.

Bandwidth shaping and throttling are similar to protocol and port blocking in that they are basically ISP interventions in network traffic. Bandwidth shaping and throttling are often intended to safeguard quality of service and network security. As opposed to protocol or port blocking, however, file-sharing connections are not severed but temporarily assigned a lower priority, with a corresponding decrease in data transfer speed. This (temporary) decrease in P2P traffic ensures sufficient bandwidth for time-critical applications such as video streaming, VoIP and web traffic.

To implement bandwidth shaping and throttling effectively, ISPs should be capable of distinguishing between different types of traffic. Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) is used alongside protocol recognition as a method to identify traffic types. DPI technology not only enables ISPs to inspect IP packet headers (which contain information on traffic type, sender and recipient), but also the data contained within the packet (the so-called payload). In this manner, traffic types can be determined (more) clearly. ISPs primarily use DPI to manage network traffic more efficiently and identify malicious IP packets that can possibly be used to orchestrate attacks on their networks.

The use of Deep Packet Inspection is controversial because it allows ISPs to search through communications, which may potentially constitute an invasion of the subscribers' right to privacy. Because of this, ISPs are reluctant to use this technology on behalf of third parties such as governments or entertainment industries. The question is whether ISPs can indeed be said to 'peek'. Examining the contents of one single packet suffices to establish the type of protocol involved. In case of content recognition, a small number of packets are enough to determine whether the contents are copyrighted or not. Nevertheless, examining IP packet payloads is potentially a more invasive measure than checking headers and should therefore be applied with due consideration.

Technical measures (part V): content identification

This week Future of Copyright will devote specific attention to technical measures against piracy that can be employed by ISPs. Today we discuss the pros and cons of filtering by means of content identification.

One last measure to combat harmful and illegal content is automatic file recognition. If  files can be identified automatically, data transfers from these files can subsequently be blocked (filtering). It also creates the possibility to search P2P networks or UseNet for illegally distributed content (scanning). Several techniques can be used to make files identifiable, such as hash matching, fingerprinting and watermarking.

With hash matching, a mathematical formula is applied to a file to generate a unique alphanumeric string (hash value). This hash value is unique to that particular file and all its copies. Possible matches can be found by calculating the hash values of certain files and comparing them to a database with known hash values. If there is a match, the content in question is illegal. It is important to note that hash values are unique to the bits files are composed of, not their contents. When files are converted from -.mpg to -.avi, for example, the hash values will no longer correspond.

Fingerprinting is a process similar to hash matching. Instead of identifying bits, fingerprinting identifies contents. Fingerprints are attached to original files and remain intact even if these files are subsequently altered. As in hash matching, the fingerprints of certain files can be compared to a database of known fingerprints. Watermarking affixes unique and (preferably) invisible digital watermarks to files. When watermarked files are found, they can be identified by running them through a database with known watermarks.

The good thing about content recognition is that it enables the identification and blocking of harmful and illegal content without impeding the legitimate transfer of files. However, setting up an effective system for content recognition can be daunting. Even though several providers are already using content recognition systems to filter out child pornography, there is no clear-cut solution for filtering out copyrighted works, which is a rather more complicated matter. Copyrighted materials often come in multiple large files, which means they are often transferred in fragments. This not only makes file recognition much harder, but it also requires significantly more computing power.

ISPs have indicated that implementing content recognition systems is a definite possibility, but they also stated that they (themselves) would not be able to shoulder the costs associated with using additional computing power. Another problem is that content recognition systems for copyrighted materials are not standardised at the moment, which means ISPs will have to implement several different systems. They will also need to consult with numerous copyright owners and hardware and software suppliers. A cooperative body consisting of copyright owners and suppliers would help solve this problem, providing ISPs with a central contact point and access to a larger database with reference files.

Technical measures (part VI): conclusions

In the past few days, several technical measures to combat piracy have been discussed. Even though none of these measures is 100 percent effective, implementation is expected to result in a significant decrease in piracy.

Site blocking
Blocking access to websites is understandably the most controversial measure of all because it is infringes upon the freedom of expression and information. Professor Egbert Dommering (Information Law, University of Amsterdam) has stated that this method of filtering is tantamount to censorship. Blocking access to websites is obviously rather heavy-handed, since it also shuts down access to files that are neither illegal nor copyrighted.

Blocking websites should only occur by court order and judges should take the interests of both copyright owners and website owners into account when making a ruling. Possible starting points for deliberation are the actual damages suffered by rightholders, the interests associated with freedom of speech and information, the proportion of legal versus illegal content and the manner in which website owners respond to Notice and Takedown requests.

Port and protocol blocking  
Port and protocol blocking is an equally heavy-handed course of action, since it also blocks the transfer of legal files. Raising such blockades stunts the development of new business models, impedes innovation in the field of distribution and affects legitimate users and illegal file-sharers alike. Blocking individual users is a viable option, but it should be regarded as a last resort in a graduated response procedure.

Bandwidth management
As a measure to combat piracy, managing bandwidth is a touch more refined. Decreasing connection speed can be targeted specifically at users that exceed download limits or persist in downloading and uploading illegal material. This measure hardly infringes upon freedom of speech, since the transfer of information is slowed down rather than blocked altogether. However, bandwidth management is at odds with the principle of net neutrality that states that all Internet traffic should be deemed equal. However, in view of the exponential growth in P2P traffic, which currently uses some 50 percent of the available bandwidth worldwide, it seems doubtful whether ISPs will be able to uphold this principle for long.  

Content recognition
Content recognition can help create finely meshed systems to combat piracy. These systems would be capable of blocking illegally distributed content without causing disruptions in regular P2P traffic. Possible drawbacks of content recognition are the relatively high costs associated with implementation and the fact that the technology is still being developed. A further concern is that examining content may possibly constitute an invasion of privacy.

All of this shows that implementing technical measures needs to be done with diligence. Technical applications might well be at odds with freedom of speech, the privacy of Internet users and the principles of net neutrality. This creates the need for checks and balances, transparency and effective arbitration mechanisms.  

Not only the users' interests should be taken into consideration, however. Ideally, ISPs should never have to find themselves in the judge's seat, but it seems inevitable that they, too, will have to make choices: either to respond to a court order, to protect their own networks or in consultation with copyright owners.

Why the Pirate Bay isn't like Google...

With the verdict in the Pirate Bay just a few days away, FOC discusses the statement of the Pirate Bay that it is just like Google and its 'King Kong' defence. Read the full article below or download it from our knowledge database.

Summary
Both technically and structurally, The Pirate Bay and Google are very different. The argument put forward by the defence that The Pirate Bay essentially provides the same services as Google is therefore not true. By calling upon this argument, The Pirate Bay hopes to be awarded the same kind of legal protection that the Electronic Commerce Directive offers to Internet Service Providers. Besides the fact that this legal protection probably does not apply to search engines in the first place, the fundamental differences in set-up between The Pirate Bay and Google make resorting to these provisions seem like a far stretch.

Introduction
The ruling in the court case against The Pirate Bay is due in a few days. The courts will decide whether the administrators of The Pirate Bay are complicit in copyright infringement. The key question is whether The Pirate Bay, as service provider, can be held liable for actions undertaken by its users.

According to The Pirate Bay, the answer is no: it cannot influence or be held liable for its users' activities. The defence backed up this argument during trial by claiming that The Pirate Bay is similar to search engines like Google: it is a service that allows users to search for files, some of which just happen to be illegal. The defence also argued that The Pirate Bay is merely a conduit for information: like Google, it does not store copyrighted material on its servers.

By positioning itself as a Google-esque service that cannot (hope to) influence its users, The Pirate Bay wishes to lay claim to the same kind of protection enjoyed by Internet Service Providers under European (and consequently Swedish) law. According to article 12 of the Electronic Commerce Directive, Internet Service Providers cannot be held liable if they function as intermediaries or mere conduits for information. Furthermore, article 14 protects hosting providers with a similar protection for content stored on their networks. With regards to the criminal court case against The Pirate Bay, this would mean The Pirate Bay cannot be deemed to be complicit in copyright infringements. Would the case against The Pirate Bay be a civil case, then the outcome would be that The Pirate Bay cannot be held liable for damages suffered by third parties (copyright owners).

But are The Pirate Bay and Google the same? And is The Pirate Bay really eligible for the same kind of legal protection? In order to find answers to these questions, we need to delve into the service's technical and structural set-up, as design is a crucial factor in making judgements about legitimacy.

click below to continue reading.

The Pirate Google: Google liable for copyright infringement?

In response to the verdict in the Pirate Bay trial, an anonymous user has created a site called ‘The Pirate Google’. It uses Google’s search engine to search exclusively for .torrent files (by automatically appending the search command :torrent to every search). The user says his or her goals is:

“to show the double standard that was exemplified in the recent Pirate Bay Trial. Sites such as Google offer much the same functionality as The Pirate Bay and other Bit Torrent sites but are not targeted by media conglomerates such as the IFPI as they have the political and legal clout to defend themselves unlike these small independent sites.”

However, this protest, while a handy tool for pirates, fails to convince. First of all, I highly doubt it that the entertainment industry is scared of Google’s political and legal clout (mind you, they slapped YouTube with a billion dollar lawsuit), but  more importantly the underlying argument that Google is the same as the Pirate Bay is ultimately flawed.

Like I argued in this article, Google and The Pirate Bay are a world apart. In a nutshell: Google searches everything while the Pirate Bay provides a framework that mainly facilitates piracy.

But how about this new implementation of Google’s search engine? Who is liable for that? Nobody? Google? The Pirate Google? Or the sight that hosts the .torrents that are found? My answer would be the site that hosts the .torrents.

When you type in ‘The Dark Knight’ on the Pirate Google, it will use Google’s search engine to point you to sites like torrentreactor.net and torrentportal.com. These sites contain the actual torrents and provide more or less the same services as the Pirate Bay. Given the outcome in the Pirate Bay trial it is highly likely that these services are liable for hosting the .torrents and providing the same framework for piracy the Pirate Bay does.

But what about Google then? Why aren’t they liable? Google is (most likely) not liable for contributory copyright infringement and vicarious liability because its search engine has ‘substantial non infringing uses’. This criterium, set forth in the case of Sony versus Universal, dictates that if a service has many other uses than the infringing one, a ‘safe harbour’ applies to that service. This means that it cannot be held liable.

So you see, no double standards… just the law.

Thesis on privacy and copyright

A thesis by miss Tuba Yali, one of my students, has been added to our knowledge database. Miss Yali has written an excellent graduation thesis on the relation between privacy and copyright in the context of p2p networks. The subject over her thesis is especially relevant in the context of current dicussions about filtering of copyrighted content and the prosecution of individual uploaders and downloaders.

You can download the thesis here.

Is the future of content on the internet free or not?

Is the era of free news and content on the internet history? Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp Inc. certainly thinks so, while others a experimenting and thinking about the future of ‘free’.

According to Murdoch, newspapers have themselves to blame for the loss of readers. They shouldn’t have put their content online for free! To make sure that ‘free’ is now history on the internet, Murdochs’ News Corp Inc. is going to charge online readers in newspapers such as the Ney York Post, The Sun and The London Times. Readers already had to pay to access the Wall Street Journal website since last year.

On the other side of the discussion you have several writers and thinkers who predict that the future of content such as music and movies will be free. Also, already free email services are already experimenting with unlimited storage space for its users. The reason is that developments in information and communication technologies are allowing greater information exchanges at faster speeds. Effective control of copyrighted works (such as music in mp3 format) is thus lost.

A prominent writer in this field is Chris Anderson (also know from the article/book ‘The Long Tail’), who wrote an article about the future of free business models. Hypebot, a music, technology and new music business blog hosted a ‘Free Week’ last month, with articles containing the opinions of music industry professionals on the future of ‘free’. Although it is not necessarily true that all agreed ‘free’ was the right way to go, the conclusion was that ‘free’ was is not stoppable anymore. The sentence “Let's stop debating free and start debating how to do free right” summarises the thoughts on content of others than Murdoch well.

Well known one-liners such as “You either compete with free or use free” seems to be applied increasingly by artists, who give away their music (partly) for free and earn an income through other means. Another leading thinker and writer, Kevin Kelly, described in an article how one can earn how it is possible to earn revenue with a ‘free’ business model. In the mass-copy world of the internet he differentiates 8 uncopyable values, which can be monetised: Immediacy, personalisation, interpretation, authenticity, accessibility, embodiment, patronage and finability (read the article for an explanation of these values).

Only time will tell how users respond to paid news-services, which they have gotten used to as being a free source of information.

Dutch parliamentary working group: downloading should become illegal in the Netherlands

Downloading from an illegal source should become illegal in the Netherlands, but only when the entertainment industry steps up efforts to come up with viable alternatives to illegal downloading. This is the most important recommendation of a parliamentary working group on copyright. The working group, which is part of the select committee on Justice affairs and is headed by MP Arda Gerkens of the Socialist Party, has investigated the sticking points when it comes to copyright in the light of the digital revolution.

According to he working group, the outdated Dutch copyright law (which was enacted in 1912) has failed to keep up with the rapid technological changes. Therefore, structural changes to the law need to be made.

The working group wants to see a ‘cultural change’ whereby consumers acknowledge  the fact that content isn’t always free. To this end the current legal situation in the Netherlands, where downloading from an illegal source is considered legal (it is covered by the home copying exception), needs to be remedied. Without this it will be very hard to convince consumers, especially younger consumers, that content is not by definition free. However, before any changes to the law are made the entertainment industry must come up with viable alternatives to their current business models ,which for the most part are tied to physical media such as DVDs. Future of Copyright signalled earlier that pressure on the government to change the Dutch policy on downloading was mounting, and this report will likely add to that mounting pressure.

The working group has also made other recommendations, in particular on collecting societies and homecopying levies. According to the working group, the homecopying levy system must be phased out, since the content, not the physical media, should be the basis for pricing and licensing.  Furthermore, the working group wants to bring down the number of collecting societies and improve oversight and transparency.

A debate on copyright in the information society is scheduled for later this year.

Opinion: File-sharing: the need for a cultural shift and a long term perspective

Last week the Dutch Parliamentary working group on copyright issued its final report. The main recommendation in the report was to make downloading from an illegal source a criminal offence in the Netherlands. Up until now, downloading from an illegal source is covered by the homecopying exception in the Netherlands. This means that while uploading is a violation of copyright, downloading is not. What the parliamentary working group wants to establish by changing the law is a ‘cultural shift’ in the attitude towards illegal file-sharing.

Why is this cultural shift necessary? Well, since downloading in the Netherlands is more or less ‘legal’, consumers get the impression that (digital) content is free. Why pay for a movie on DVD when you can get a perfectly good copy from the Pirate Bay for free? Of course, getting a free copy from the Pirate Bay is the most logical and economic choice for consumers.

Furthermore, the government sponsored ‘Ups and Downs’ study seems to suggest that file-sharing is actually beneficial to society, since it enables more people to access content. While this maybe true in the short term, the long-term effect of downloading is likely more detrimental to society than beneficial. By denying (professional) content creators any means of monetizing their intellectual and creative achievements they will most likely stop to create professionally produced content, leaving us with a lot of user generated drivel. Unfortunately, the only take away from these studies for consumers is that downloading stuff for free is actually good for the economy and society.

So we have a situation wherein consumers, especially younger consumers, don’t feel that downloading is a bad thing (it is legal), rather they feel it is a good thing, if not their right as a consumer. The Dutch government is not inclined to do anything about this situation and looks to the market to remedy the problem of file-sharing.

In the marketplace however, the debate about file-sharing focuses primarily on the short term economic aspects of copyright (i.e. current losses). The debate goes as follows: the entertainment industry claims that it suffers huge losses due to piracy, while the file-sharing community claims that these losses are greatly exaggerated and the entertainment industry abuses copyright to protect their ageing business models. Both of these claims have some merit I think. I think that the entertainment industry indeed suffers losses due to piracy, but I also think they are too slow in changing to meet the demands of an online environment.

Whatever may be the case, the economic arguments are very hard to prove with empirical data. Both the entertainment industry and the file-sharing community regularly publish studies about the effects of downloading on the creative sector. Moreover, they always blast each others studies, calling them biased or simply false.

In my opinion it is less interesting to quarrel about the extent of current losses, but it is far more interesting to take a long term view. Many file-sharers are willing to pay a reasonable price for readily accessible content. But more and more there is an attitude that content is there for the taking: it is available and it is legal to get it for free. This attitude towards content poses a threat to the professional content sector in the future, especially those parts that are dependent on big investments (movies, software, games) that need to be recouped. Moreover, they pose a threat to authors outside of the entertainment industry, because the ‘free for all’ attitude towards music and movies extends to all forms of content. The pirates of the Amazon application (which linked people browsing Amazon’s catalogue to free copies on Bittorrent) for instance, is a sign that a lack of respect for content can seriously undermine innovative and fair business models.

For me, ultimately, the download debate is not just about the money and the future of the entertainment sector, it is about ethics: you don’t steal other people’s creations, you don’t ‘share’ anything that is not yours without permission, and you definitely don’t profit of other people’s work. That being said, the entertainment industry should realize that copyright is indeed a right and not a given. By using copyright to maximize profits and shield ageing business models the entertainment industry risks losing what little support they have with the public.

If we want to avoid a future without respect for authors and a lack of (professionally produced) content, a change in the attitude of consumers is necessary. A ban on downloading from an illegal source is an important step in this process, just as the creation of new business models by the entertainment industry is.

Therefore, the ideas put forward by the parliamentary working group on copyright (criminalize downloading, but only after the entertainment industry embraces innovation) are refreshing. Their ideas strike a fair balance between the rights of the consumer and the interests of the copyright holders for the long term and go beyond the current discussion about the damage to the entertainment sector. Furthermore, they stress the need for a cooperation between all stakeholders (consumers, copyrightholders, and the government).

Now let’s hope all stakeholders will actually start making work of the future of copyright!

EFF mapping copyright systems all over the world

The digital civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation has participated in an ambitious project: creating an overview of copyright systems in all countries of the world. The project is called Copyright Watch and can be accessed here.

The EFF embarks on this project in cooperation with copyright monitors, academics and libraries from all over the globe. It is primarily funded by the Open Society Institute.

Copyright systems vary greatly across the globe. The United States has one of the most elaborate systems, spanning over 130.000 words or roughly 2600 pages of copyright legislation. The shortest the project found so far is Afghanistan’s copyright, which is virtually non-existent.

(...)

Study samples files available on torrent sites, find 1% of files to be non-infringing

A census carried out by Princeton senior Sauhard Sahi, revealed that it is very likely that only one in a hundred available files on BitTorrent platforms does not contravene copyright.

The goal of the study was to provide some figures on what kind of files are available on torrent platforms. To do so, the researcher took a random, uniform sample of 1021 files using the trackerless system Mainline DHT. He then categorised the findings according to file type, language and copyright status.

(...)

Exploring the future of news media, an interview with prof. Robert Picard

The written news media have a hard time maintaining their solvability in this era of free online news. The number of subscribers dwindles, as well as the number of advertisers. News media have enhanced this trend themselves, by offering all the news that’s fit to click on their sites. For free. Adding news aggregators like Google News or Yahoo News and you’ve got a recipe for educating users that access to news is worth exactly, well, nothing.

Lately, some news media try to reverse this trend by limiting the amount of freely accessible news on their sites, allowing full access only to paying subscribers. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the News Corporation, especially favours this approach. Wall Street Journal, one of the News Corp’s stable, already uses such a model.

In this interview, we ask prof. Robert Picard, leading academic expert on the economics of media and advisor to many governments dealing with media policy issues, about his thoughts on the future of news media and copyright in online environments. Before starting with exploring the issues that the media are facing, a brief glance at the historical context sets the stage.

(...)

How much does a musician earn?

An often-heard issue in the debate on the future of copyright is the skewed distribution of income between artists versus the income for record labels and other links in the distribution chain.

Informationisbeautiful.net has mapped the income of artists and how much that artist should sell to earn the (American) minimum wage. Additionally, the distribution of turnover between artists and labels has been charted. Informationisbeautiful.net warns readers that the data is incomplete and very likely inaccurate because it is hard to discover the true distribution codes. Nonetheless, it provides a good basis for discussions.

As is well known, labels receive the major part of the turnover. For example, an artist receives 30 cents an album in a (low end) royalty deal, while the label gets two dollars.

(...)

End in sight for the guerrilla between Big Entertainment and pirates?

Enter text...There is no shortage of news coverage about the illegal character and, at the same time, the attraction of file-sharing. The Pirate Bay is in serious legal trouble but is still used by millions each day.  Rights holders and the content industries lobby with governments to better enforce copyright. In France and Britain, for example, laws have been instituted that allow the suspension of Internet connections of frequent copyright violators who refuse to change their behaviour.

In public opinion, the entertainment industry often receives the short end of the stick. File-sharing networks are seen as modern day Robin Hoods that take from evil rich companies and give to us. For free. Copyright holders meanwhile face blame for stifling innovation and clinging to outdated business models.

If the debate has yielded anything, it is a guerrilla between Big Entertainment and the pirates. Are the pirates right? Do copyright holders stifle innovation? My answer is that no, they don’t. However, they do slow them down. And so do we all when faced with innovation. Were you the first to embrace the Internet? Did you stun your peers with buying a mobile phone in the early nineties? Do you own an electric car already? Well, neither do I. Innovations need time to be adopted.

(...)

ISPs and Hollywood: natural partners for new business models?

Despite the enduring call for new business models for improving access to movies, games and music over the internet, these new models are slow to arise. At first glance, the entertainment industries and ISPs seem natural partners: the one creates the content and the other distributes it. However, these two parties have quite a hard time to find each other in practice.

Two economists of ParisTech have studied this question. Their research shows that ISPs and the entertainment industries have conflicting interests in the current state of the market. File sharing contributes to the profits of ISPs as downloading makes investing in a better, more expensive internet connection more attractive to consumers.
 The roll-out of broadband networks has been significantly enabled by file-sharing. Furthermore, ISPs, as well as every other actor in the online chain between contentproducer and consumer, stands to benefit from further exploiting and enhancing this situation. In other words: ISPs have the illegal distribution of copyrighted content to thank for generating business en find themselves in a situation where the incentives for innovation lie primarily in furthering this situation, that will further undermine the position of rights holders.

(...)