tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/bittorrent-270/articlesBitTorrent – The Conversation2015-06-23T06:44:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/437012015-06-23T06:44:46Z2015-06-23T06:44:46ZThere are better ways to combat piracy than blocking websites<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86046/original/image-20150623-19411-nmmrv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=173%2C0%2C706%2C482&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">BitTorrent site Pirate Bay is one of those often targeted in anti-piracy legislation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/125207874@N04/14363252187/in/photolist-nTeqt6-bUqRHK-99WwHr-h9mG5r-98gEpM-4pqiwa-9abrM1-bVVmTG-99Ww4k-brSWqk-99ZEKq-99ZDfh-99Ww5K-99Wwan-99ZEGb-99WxEv-99WxyX-98jQ2h-98jPYQ-98gF2F-riofPL-98gF9V-98jQ3y-98jQ6J-98jPUG-99WwcX-98jPMb-98jPVy-98gEZH-99ZEvb-99ZDxY-99ZECf-98jPK3-98jPsN-99Wxhv-99Wxsa-98gEQ8-99Wxun-99ZEtq-99WxeH-99WweM-99WxiZ-99ZDk3-99WwjV-99WwGc-99Wx5c-98jPjC-5XAPJt-8pcRkU-98jP77">Bhupinder Nayyar/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Senate <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/australian-senate-passes-controversial-antipiracy-websiteblocking-laws-20150622-ghuorh.html">passed</a> controversial anti-piracy legislation, the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5446_ems_1599ec23-c036-4dee-9562-a8a2e4d3d6fe%22">Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015</a>, last night. But it’s not so clear whether the legislation will actually achieve its stated ends of reducing piracy, and it might be easily circumvented by the public. </p>
<p>Arguably, the media industry can do more to prevent piracy by making content more easily accessible rather than quixotic efforts to block it using legislation.</p>
<p>Despite the bill being passed in both the House of Representatives and Senate, Labour MP Ed Husic and Greens Senator Scott Ludlam have spoken publicly about <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/i-dont-like-it-labor-mp-ed-husic-hits-out-at-unfair-antipiracy-websiteblocking-bill-20150618-ghrk0d.html">their concerns</a> about the legislation. </p>
<p>Husic argued that the bill “favours the interests of rights holders over consumers” and “doesn’t actually deal with the way of getting that content to people in much more efficient means”. Ludlam echoed this, stating: “This is what happens when you get a government that only listens to one side of the argument – the public interest gets left in the dust.”</p>
<p>The legislation is an attempt by the government to curb piracy in Australia. It was backed by industry groups such as the <a href="http://goo.gl/xNvYFW">Australian Film and Television industries</a>. Brett Cottle, from the Australasian Performing Rights Association (<a href="http://apraamcos.com.au/">APRA AMCOS</a>), has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/music-film-and-tv-industries-present-united-front-at-senate-/6437888">argued</a> that the industry had been “bled dry” by piracy.</p>
<p>This issue gained prominence after the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/235041743/Copyright">Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper</a> was leaked by <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/07/25/government-flags-copyright-crackdown-to-overturn-iinet-decision/">Crikey</a> last year. More recently, the ongoing legal case involving the <a href="https://theconversation.com/it-is-not-clear-who-won-in-the-dallas-buyers-club-llc-court-case-and-was-it-moot-39833">Dallas Buyers Club</a> and iiNet has again <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-australias-dallas-buyers-club-pirates-have-to-pay-40302">raised questions</a> of piracy in Australia.</p>
<h2>But does the new law solve more problems than it creates?</h2>
<p>The intention is to curb online piracy, particularly of music, television and films. This is an area in which Australia has become a <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-convicts-to-pirates-australias-dubious-legacy-of-illegal-downloading-39912">leader</a>. But the legislation curbs piracy at what costs to consusmers? </p>
<p>The proposed annual estimated cost to carriage service provider (CSPs) of A$130,825 for implementing the law’s requirements will arguably be passed onto consumers through the pricing of internet services.</p>
<p>There are also question around the <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/562252/copyright-clampdown-scheme-block-pirate-websites-open-abuse/">abuse of such powers</a> and the content that the legislation could block. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-rimmer-4398">Matthew Rimmer</a>, intellectual property academic, has raised concerns about how this could be “abused in a variety of different ways in terms of engaging in censorship or trying to engage in rent seeking”. He suggests that sites like Wikileaks could fall foul of these laws.</p>
<p>Even if a site is blocked, Australians might bypass the restriction by many means. One is already used by many Australians: <a href="https://theconversation.com/unlocking-the-geoblock-australians-embrace-vpns-32373">Virtual Private Network (VPN) geo-blockers</a>. These hide the user’s geographic location, thus bypassing any regional blocks. </p>
<p>More than <a href="https://theconversation.com/unlocking-the-geoblock-australians-embrace-vpns-32373">200,000 Australians</a> have already used services such as these to access Netflix prior to the company’s launch in Australia. Mumbrella <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/astra-predicts-piracy-traffic-could-halve-following-new-laws-despite-concern-over-vpn-loophole-301318">reported recently</a> that more than 680,000 Australian households use this technology to access video content, not all for piracy.</p>
<p>But the media industry has a different perspective on the use of such technologies. In the Mumbrella article, Andrew Maiden, Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (<a href="http://www.astra.org.au/">ASTRA</a>) chief executive, compared the use of VPNs to “getting around that a supermarket has a faulty checkout where you can take goods out without paying for them”. He added that just because it’s possible to circumvent a law, that doesn’t make it right to do so.</p>
<h2>Does it actually work?</h2>
<p>Australian media organisations argue they are doing their bit to combat piracy by making content legally available. In a Copyright Act inquiry earlier this year Foxtel’s Bruce Meagher <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/music-film-and-tv-industries-present-united-front-at-senate-/6437888">argued</a> that the company was doing its bit by releasing content at the same time it was released in the US and at a competitive price.</p>
<p>What is not considered here is that Foxtel has a relatively small penetration rate in the Australian market, at only <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/04/foxtel-halves-price-basic-pay-tv-package">30%</a>. This is far less than the pay-TV penetration in the <a href="http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/us-pay-tv-penetration-2010-2014-45625/">US</a> (84%) and UK (50%). So even if Foxtel releases content sooner, most Australians still don’t have access to it unless they sign up for a pay TV account, which might include many channels and programs they’re not interested in.</p>
<p>However, during the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/music-film-and-tv-industries-present-united-front-at-senate-/6437888">Copyright Act inquiry</a>, Christopher Chard from Village Roadshow Films noted that traffic from the UK to a piracy site diminished significantly once the site was blocked in that country. This is despite some people in the UK using VPNs to still access that site.</p>
<p>In the UK more than 100 websites <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/uk-blocking-more-than-100-pirate-sites-after-new-court-order-150324/">have been blocked</a> since similar legislation was introduced in 2012. A <a href="http://www.incopro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Site-Blocking-Efficacy-UK-revised-19-03-2015.pdf">report</a> by <a href="http://www.incopro.co.uk/">Incorpro</a> found a 73.2% decrease in traffic after the introduction of site blocking in the UK However, the report also found a boost in traffic to other sites that hosted pirated material. There are also some <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/uk-site-blocking-gives-boost-to-pirate-linking-sites-150102/">questions</a> about the methodology of the report, and whether it accurately tracks traffic to blocked sites, particularly over VPN.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there is evidence of piracy decreasing when content is made available to the consumer legally. For example, there is <a href="http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/04/26/how-hbo-and-netflix-inc-are-fighting-piracy.aspx">evidence of a decline in piracy</a> when Netflix enters a particular region. </p>
<p>Netflix arrived in Australia this year. Given that <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-convicts-to-pirates-australias-dubious-legacy-of-illegal-downloading-39912">many of the programs</a> acquired illegally by Australians include many of those available on Netflix, one might expect piracy rates here to decline as well.</p>
<h2>Who should change to fight piracy?</h2>
<p>This year Fremantle Media <a href="http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/fremantlemedia-claims-user-uploaded-youtube-clips-with-broadbandtv-1201161590/">announced</a> that it will no longer be removing any pirated clips of American Idol. Instead it has found a way to profit from those fan-uploaded YouTube clips of its program.</p>
<p>According to Variety, the company has partnered with BroadbandTV to identify and manage user-uploaded content on YouTube for more than 200 shows, including American Idol, The Price Is Right, America’s Got Talent, Baywatch and The X Factor.</p>
<p>Olivier Delfosse, COO of Fremantle Media, stated that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When we see a fan of our show who has gone through the hassle of uploading (content from) it, it’s not an indication of them stealing from us – we see it as fan loyalty […] It doesn’t matter if we upload the official clip or a user does – the value to the advertiser is the same.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is legislation that blocks so-called piracy sites really the solution to the problem associated with online piracy? It doesn’t solve the most common issue raised by Australians: legal and fairly priced access to the content they want to watch. </p>
<p>Ultimately, it’s more likely that solutions such as those offered by Fremantle Media and Netflix, and a re-thinking of media companies’ business models, will eliminate piracy rather than heavy-handed top-down legislation, which is also relatively trivial to bypass.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>The government’s new anti-piracy bill is not the best solution to online piracy. What really works is easily accessible and affordable legal means to acquire the latest content.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Digital Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/399122015-04-10T07:37:59Z2015-04-10T07:37:59ZFrom convicts to pirates: Australia’s dubious legacy of illegal downloading<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77610/original/image-20150410-2103-16a6jpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Game of Thrones has been the most pirated television show in history. Will season 5 be any different?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Helen Sloan/HBO</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fifth season of Game of Thrones is being <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/game-of-thrones-to-be-broadcast-simultaneously-around-earth--which-means-11am-monday-aest-20150311-140jrr.html">released simultaneously across the globe</a>, which means Australians will get access from 11am (AEST) on Monday April 13. HBO has decided to not drip-feed the episodes across differing regions, a method more commonly used for television series.</p>
<p>One reason for the change is an attempt to curb the high piracy rate associated with earlier broadcasts of the popular television series, particularly in Australia.</p>
<p>But according to Game of Thrones director, <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-doesnt-hurt-game-of-thrones-director-says-130227/">David Petrarca</a>, piracy is not a bad thing and “may do more good than harm” by contributing to the buzz around the series. </p>
<p>During 2013, prior to the third season, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/downloads-dont-matter-20130226-2f36r.html#ixzz2LywE7AZ2">Petrarca said</a> that unauthorised downloads did not matter because shows such as Game of Thrones thrive on “cultural buzz” and benefit from the social commentary they generate.</p>
<p>The premiere of season 4 for Game of Thrones triggered a <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-premiere-triggers-piracy-craze-140407/">record rate</a> of “more than a million downloads in half a day”. Torrent Freak <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-premiere-triggers-piracy-craze-140407/">revealed</a> Australia as the leader (11.6%) in illegal sharing of the episodes, followed by the US (9.3%) and UK (5.8%). </p>
<p>Australian cities also led the top cities in illegally sharing the program. Melbourne ranked number one and Sydney third, with Brisbane (ninth) and Perth (tenth) rounding out the top ten. These are not titles of which Australians should be proud. </p>
<h2>Dubious record</h2>
<p>Game of Thrones is not the only television program with a legacy of piracy. The Breaking Bad finale in 2013 had <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/house-of-cards-season-3-piracy-booms-in-countries-without-netflix-20150302-13sr7a.html">illegal downloads</a> of “more than half a million times within 12 hours”. </p>
<p>Top of the list again for pirating the finale was Australia, accounting for 18% of the illegal downloads, followed by the US (14.5%) and UK (9.3%).</p>
<p>But we are not always on top of the illegal download table. The recent release of House of Cards season 3 saw Australia at <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/house-of-cards-season-3-piracy-booms-in-countries-without-netflix-20150302-13sr7a.html">fourth place</a>, behind China, the US and India. </p>
<p>What is important to note is that of the top ten countries listed, half – China, India, Australia, Poland and Greece – had no local Netflix service (although the Australian service launched weeks later). This lends support to the notion that a key problem is access, which needs to be resolved to help reduce piracy globally.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77613/original/image-20150410-2092-dg1jxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77613/original/image-20150410-2092-dg1jxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77613/original/image-20150410-2092-dg1jxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77613/original/image-20150410-2092-dg1jxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77613/original/image-20150410-2092-dg1jxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77613/original/image-20150410-2092-dg1jxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77613/original/image-20150410-2092-dg1jxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77613/original/image-20150410-2092-dg1jxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Breaking Bad is another television show that has been heavily downloaded by Australians.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ursula Coyote/AMC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>But are Australians the pirate leaders?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au">Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation</a> has commissioned studies in this area since 2009. Its <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=120744">2010 report</a> showed that more than half of Australia’s population had participated in some form of piracy. The largest group was 18-24 year olds, with 69% pirating in some way, and over half using file-sharing software to pirate films and television programs. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=120742">following year</a> the attitude and rate of piracy of movie and television programs in Australia had “remained consistent”. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=120375">2012 report</a> stated that more than a quarter of those surveyed were persistent or casual illegal downloaders (i.e. downloading at least once a month). A further 10% noted they had but were no longer downloading illegal content. The report also indicated that the “persistent” downloaders were downloading more television programs than movies. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=157662">2013</a> those who were persistent or casual illegal downloaders dropped by a small margin of 2%. But research by Sycamore Research and Newspoll in 2014 <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=178182">showed</a> “29% of Australian adults admitting to being active pirates”, up 4% from the previous year.</p>
<p>What maybe more surprising for some is that piracy rates in Australia correlate with <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/online-piracy-appeals-most-to-those-who-are-better-educated/story-fna03wxu-1226660999120">level of income and education</a>. The rate of piracy more than doubles between those with a household income of A$40,000 (14%) to over A$100,000 (30%). The rate is highest in Victoria (25%) and metro areas far outweigh regional areas, 25% to 16%.</p>
<p>Even the US ambassador to Australia, Jeffrey Bleich, has <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/ambassador-bleich/stopping-the-game-of-clones/542850132425361">asked Australians</a> to stop pirating Game of Thrones after the launch of season 3. In his Facebook message, Stop the Game of Clones, he states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As the Ambassador here in Australia, it was especially troubling to find out that Australian fans were some of the worst offenders with among the highest piracy rates of Game of Thrones in the world. While some people here used to claim that they used pirate sites only because of a delay in getting new episodes here, the show is now available from legitimate sources within hours of its broadcast in the United States.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The post resulted in numerous opposing comments, resulting in a second post, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/former-us-ambassador-jeffrey-bleich/return-of-the-clones/546315188745522">Return of the Clones</a>.</p>
<p>But Australia should not be seen as a country of pirates, nor should piracy be seen as the social norm in this country. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-15/piracy-cancer-will-kill-australian-film-tv-industry-john-jarratt/5815864">The ABC reports</a> that 60% of Australian adults and 66% of Australians aged 12 to 17 said they had never downloaded or streamed pirated content.</p>
<h2>Why are Australian’s downloading TV and movies?</h2>
<p>The main reasons Australians give for pirating content are cost and availability of content. In 2010 <a href="http://www.news.com.au/">News.com.au</a> completed market research that <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-pirates-say-theyd-pay-for-legal-downloads/story-e6frfro0-1225863187697">reported</a> that TV shows were more regularly downloaded than films or music. </p>
<p>The study also showed that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The most popular prices for legal downloads chosen by respondents were $1 per TV show, $2 per movie and 50c per music track.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The discussion of price was again raised in 2014 by the Communications Alliance <a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/46857/Online-Copyright-Infringement-Summary.pdf">Online Copyright Infringement Research Report</a>, which <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/telecommunications/aussies-say-theyll-stop-pirating-tv-shows-if-they-get-better-access-20141112-11l84h#">noted</a> that “most Australians believe cheaper and easier access to content will solve piracy problems”. </p>
<p>The report found that Australians believe that A$1.20 per episode was the optimal price for television content, which is less than half the iTunes price for standard-definition shows, at $A2.99 per episode, and far from the high-definition price of A$3.49 per episode. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au">Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation</a> reports of 2012 and 2013 also had interesting results. During <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=120375">2012</a>, when acting legally, the preferred method from those surveyed was to stream content rather than downloading it. The following year the <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=157662">research showed</a> a 4% increase on the uptake of pay-per-view services from the previous year.</p>
<h2>Exclusive issues</h2>
<p>Despite the many years of discussion around Australians’ delayed access to content, it still continues. The most pirated television program, Game of Thrones, is restricted to Foxtel, which has only a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/04/foxtel-halves-price-basic-pay-tv-package">30% penetration</a> rate in Australian households. </p>
<p>This is in comparison to the US, where pay TV has <a href="http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/us-pay-tv-penetration-2010-2014-45625/">over 80%</a> penetration, and 50% in the UK. Therefore, in the local environment, 70% of households will not have access to the program – at least, not without subscribing to a large package of other programs and channels.</p>
<p>In the US the latest season will be available via the new HBO Now service via Apple TV, at a cost of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/how-aussies-geododgers-could-benefit-from-new-apple-tv-deal-with-hbo-now-20150309-13zq7z.html">US$14.99 per month</a>. For Australians this won’t be an option, unless they wish to attempt bypassing geo-blocking. Again, the content producers are demonstrating a “restrictive” – or as they may say, “exclusive” – ideology. </p>
<p>As noted previous, Australians’ approach toward subscription television is far different to those in the US. In Australia, television was developed on a free-to-air model. Subscription services like Foxtel are still young in comparison to the US, which has a <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/evolution-cable-television">long history</a> of pay television.</p>
<p>In the US there has been a recent decline in the subscription rate of pay television with the introduction of Netflix. A report by Leichtman Research Group stated that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>48% of US households that don’t subscribe to pay TV now pay a monthly Netflix bill, up from just 29% in 2012 and 16% in 2010.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Netflix has also been shown to lower the BitTorrent traffic in the countries it operates within. Netflix’s chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, <a href="http://www.stuff.tv/news/netflixs-ted-sarandos-talks-arrested-development-4k-and-reviving-old-shows#RlAHmETKxVCxc09T.99">noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When we launch in a territory the Bittorrent traffic drops as the Netflix traffic grows. So I think people do want a great experience and they want access – people are mostly honest. The best way to combat piracy isn’t legislatively or criminally but by giving good options.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77614/original/image-20150410-2122-15zpjh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77614/original/image-20150410-2122-15zpjh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77614/original/image-20150410-2122-15zpjh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77614/original/image-20150410-2122-15zpjh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77614/original/image-20150410-2122-15zpjh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77614/original/image-20150410-2122-15zpjh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77614/original/image-20150410-2122-15zpjh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77614/original/image-20150410-2122-15zpjh9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The arrival of video-on-demand services such as Netflix in Australia may reduce the incidence of piracy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dekuwa/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Will the new VoD services assist with piracy in Australia?</h2>
<p>Whilst we can continue to make the comparisons between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, we need to be clear about the differences between the media structures and business models of the countries.</p>
<p>Whilst Australia emulates parts of the US and UK models, Australian viewing and sourcing of media, particularly television, differs from the other two countries.</p>
<p>Australia’s free-to-air broadcasters have made attempts to hinder piracy by “fast-tracking” programs, but it appears this has not had a major impact. This may be due to the limited prime-time hours available to Australia’s three commercial broadcasters and the added costs to broadcast a program at the same time as it is launched in the US.</p>
<p>While the new <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-netflix-stan-and-presto-mean-for-australian-tv-39244">video-on-demand (VoD)</a> services – Stan, Presto and Netflix – could assist in reducing piracy, as evident by the results in the US with Netflix, there still is the issue of “exclusive” rights, in particular with Foxtel. </p>
<p>This could change in the future as Foxtel is a joint partner with Seven in Presto. But for now Game of Thrones remains solely with Foxtel. This could yet again see Australia top the piracy charts for season 5.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39912/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>Australians are amongst the top pirates of movies and television worldwide, but that may change in time.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Digital Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/398542015-04-09T07:19:12Z2015-04-09T07:19:12ZBitTorrent and the digital fingerprints we leave behind<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77448/original/image-20150409-15236-1jnqyar.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Finding those responsible for illegal downloading on BitTorrents may prove a challenge.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrkbeta/2305831708">Flickr/nrkbeta</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2015/2015fca0317">Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited</a> piracy court case raises many questions about what sort of trail people leave when they use technology to make illegal copies of movies and other copyrighted material.</p>
<p>The Federal Court of Australia <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-07/dallas-buyers-club-isps-must-hand-over-customer-details/6375358">has ruled</a> that iiNet and a number of other internet service providers (ISPs) are required to disclose details of 4,726 of their account holders alleged to have been used to illegally download the movie over the internet via BitTorrent.</p>
<p>BitTorrent is a protocol (i.e. a detailed procedure) for transferring files – including, but not limited to, music and video files – between networked computers.</p>
<p>It was invented in the early 2000s by Bram Cohen, a programmer who went on to <a href="http://www.bittorrent.com/">found a company called BitTorrent Inc</a> that produces official BitTorrent software, which implements the protocol. Many other organisations have written compatible software. </p>
<p>To explain what BitTorrent does and how its users can be traced, it’s first worth examining more common examples of file transfer protocols. HyperText Transfer Protocol (<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/44501/http">HTTP</a>) and its more secure cousin [HTTPS](<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/44515/https">HTTPS</a> are two of many other file transfer protocols.</p>
<p>But there are some key differences between “client-server” protocols such as HTTP and HTTPS, and peer-to-peer protocols like BitTorrent. </p>
<h2>The client-server approach</h2>
<p>When a browser retrieves a web page or other resource from a web server, the page to retrieve is defined by a Uniform Resource Locator (<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/53516/url">URL</a>). For example, one of my previous articles at the The Conversation has the following URL:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-heartbleed-bug-reveals-a-flaw-in-online-security-25536">https://theconversation.com/how-the-heartbleed-bug-reveals-a-flaw-in-online-security-25536</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this URL, the “https” indicates the protocol and “theconversation.com” is the <em>host name</em>. The remaining part of the URL denotes a specific resource (file) on the host server. </p>
<p>When you access a URL, the web browser (i.e. the client) examines the <em>host name</em> (theconversation.com) and contacts a <em>name server</em> to find out the Internet Protocol (<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/45349/ip-address">IP</a>) address of the server responsible for hosting “theconversation.com”.</p>
<p>It’s just like looking up a person by name in a phone directory to get their phone number.</p>
<p>Once the browser knows the IP address of the server, it contacts the server and asks for the content as indicated by the rest of the URL. The server retrieves the content and sends it, in its entirety, to the client’s IP address.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting that the client also has an IP address, but that only has to remain stable for a relatively short period of time, and doesn’t have to appear in any directory.</p>
<p>Most home ISPs only provide IP addresses to their customers on a temporary basis. Furthermore, that “visible” IP address is shared between all the devices connected to a home network. This might include a couple of PCs, a few tablets and smartphones or even internet-connected appliances, possibly owned by different people.</p>
<p>Client-server file transfer protocols work well for many purposes. Unfortunately, media files – particularly high-definition video for movies – can be very large. A high-quality full length movie runs to hundreds of megabytes of data that needs to be transferred to the client. Multiple simultaneous requests for them will overwhelm most standard internet servers.</p>
<p>Companies such as Netflix and YouTube therefore need large “server farms” with extremely fast and expensive network connections to meet peak demand. </p>
<h2>Sharing the load</h2>
<p>But there is an alternative approach. We don’t need to ask the <em>original</em> server for the file – any intact copy will do. All we need is a mechanism for finding out which computers have a copy of the file we want and are willing to share it, at this particular moment, and what their IP addresses are so we can contact them and ask for a copy.</p>
<p>And that’s precisely what early peer-to-peer file sharing mechanisms such as Napster and Gnutella did. Rather than one server providing the files, Napster and Gnutella had central servers that kept track of the IP addresses of computers (i.e. peers) currently offering particular files on a minute-by-minute basis, and a mechanism for requesting a file from another peer.</p>
<p>BitTorrent has an additional refinement. When your software makes a BitTorrent request, you get a list of the IP addresses of a <em>swarm</em> of peers who either have a complete copy of the file (“seeders”, in BitTorrent’s terminology ), or are in the process of retrieving the file (non-seeder peers, or “leechers”).</p>
<p>The software then requests “chunks” of the file from both seeders and leechers. Other leechers can request the parts you do have even before you have a complete copy.</p>
<p>Because of this cooperation, a very large number of computers can simultaneously get copies of very large files, without putting undue load on any one computer or network link.</p>
<h2>Legal and not-so legal sharing of files</h2>
<p>This has a number of very useful non-controversial applications. For instance, Facebook <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/facebook-uses-bittorrent-and-they-love-it-100625/">uses the BitTorrent protocol</a> to transfer software updates to the thousands of servers it uses. </p>
<p>But it’s undeniable that BitTorrent is also very useful for those who want to share copyrighted material. The only permanent infrastructure required is a server that has links to “torrents” – the originating seed which maintains a list of the computers in a swarm.</p>
<p>Not only is this not particularly costly, it maintains a level of indirection to the possibly copyright-infringing files being shared.</p>
<p>This has not stopped authorities – with the strong encouragement of the movie, television and music industries – using the law to attempt to shut down torrent directories for copyright-infringing material such as the Swedish-based <a href="https://thepiratebay.se/">The Pirate Bay</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77477/original/image-20150409-15236-a641u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77477/original/image-20150409-15236-a641u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77477/original/image-20150409-15236-a641u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77477/original/image-20150409-15236-a641u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77477/original/image-20150409-15236-a641u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77477/original/image-20150409-15236-a641u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77477/original/image-20150409-15236-a641u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77477/original/image-20150409-15236-a641u3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Pirate Bay survives despite attempts to close it down.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-762415p1.html?cr=00&pl=edit-00">Shutterstock/Gil C</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s worth noting that BitTorrent Inc itself is not associated with The Pirate Bay or any other copyright-infringing torrent directory. It is not a party in the present lawsuit about the alleged use of BitTorrent technology for copyright infringement.</p>
<p>Despite periodic shutdowns and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/pirate-bay-co-founder-arrested-in-thailand/5866910">arrest of The Pirate Bay’s creators</a>, it and other torrent directories remain available.</p>
<p>Representatives of copyright holders have resorted to another approach: <a href="http://www.wired.com/2011/05/biggest-bittorrent-case/">suing BitTorrent users</a> who have shared copyright-infringing files. To do so they must identify those users, both to contact them and to provide sufficient certainty that they will be held legally liable.</p>
<h2>IP addresses revealed</h2>
<p>Identifying the IP addresses of the members of a BitTorrent swarm is extremely simple. When a new client connects to the swarm, the IP addresses of the members of the swarm are transferred to the client, and existing clients are updated as new clients enter or leave.</p>
<p>Therefore, if an organisation wishes to identify those participating in trading a particular infringing file, they merely need to write a modified BitTorrent client that connects to the relevant swarm and records the list of participants. </p>
<p>University of Birmingham researchers have <a href="http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/%7Etpc/Papers/P2PSecComm2012.pdf">reported</a> on the extent of such monitoring, which indicated that at the time of their study in 2012, participants in high-profile torrent swarms would be logged within three hours.</p>
<p>In the current court case, the recording of IP addresses was performed by a product called Maverik Monitor, written by the German firm <a href="http://www.maverickeye.de/">Maverickeye</a>. The court <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2015/317.html">decision</a> makes amply clear that Maverik uses the general approach outlined above. The judge was satisfied:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] that there is a real possibility that the IP addresses identified by Maverik Monitor were being utilised by end-users who were breaching copyright in the film by making it available for sharing on-line using BitTorrent participating in a torrent swarm […]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The judge therefore decided that this was sufficient reason to permit “discovery” and ordered that several Australian ISPs turn over their records.</p>
<h2>Proving copyright infringement</h2>
<p>The fact that the judge accepted the possibility that the IP addresses might be being used for infringing copyright, however, does not necessarily mean that the ISP account holders identified will automatically be held liable for copyright infringement.</p>
<p>The judge authorised handover of IP records for three purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li>seeking to identify end-users using BitTorrent to download the movie</li>
<li>suing end-users for infringement</li>
<li>negotiating with end-users regarding their liability for infringement.</li>
</ul>
<p>But identifying the end-user responsible for BitTorrent use to a sufficient degree of certainty may prove challenging in many cases, to an extent not clearly articulated in the judge’s decision.</p>
<p>For instance, home Wi-Fi networks are often left “open” (not requiring a password to access the network), allowing any device within range to use the network, including for BitTorrent. That range can often extend considerably beyond the boundaries of a person’s property.</p>
<p>It’s clearly going to be a challenge to identify all the actual people responsible for accessing illegal copies of the Dallas Buyers Club.</p>
<h2>Evading the BitTorrent monitors</h2>
<p>There are a number of technical measures that determined pirates can use to avoid BitTorrent IP monitoring, aside from taking advantage of open Wi-Fi networks.</p>
<p>Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) are one such measure. They provide an encrypted “tunnel” between an Australian computer and a proxy in a country with a less conducive legal framework for copyright infringement lawsuits.</p>
<p>Many VPN providers take payment by near-untraceable means such as pre-paid credit cards, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/bitcoin">Bitcoin</a>, and claim not to keep logs tying the visible IP address from their systems to the Australian IP address at the other end of the tunnel. </p>
<p>Like BitTorrent itself, VPN technology has many legitimate uses, not least in providing secure remote access to corporate and governmental networks for employees. As such, banning or restricting the technology would be costly and impractical.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39854/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Merkel has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>How easy is it to find those responsible for movie piracy using BitTorrent technology, as in the Dallas Buyers Club case. Not as easy as you might think.Robert Merkel, Lecturer in Software Engineering, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/398012015-04-08T00:49:16Z2015-04-08T00:49:16ZCopyright trumps privacy in Dallas Buyers Club ruling<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77265/original/image-20150407-26496-1owu2b6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Dallas Buyers Club ruling is a further attack on online privacy.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.voltagepictures.com/details.aspx?ProjectId=131e77c6-d02a-e211-a8d1-d4ae527c3b65">Voltage Pictures</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/online-privacy">online privacy</a> is constantly under threat. Our activities on the internet are monitored for a variety of reasons and our <a href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12">human right of privacy</a> is often pitted against other human rights like freedom of expression. </p>
<p>Such situations require an appropriate balance to be struck, and there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/google-court-ruling-creates-a-more-forgetful-internet-26696">signs of privacy gaining ground</a>. But there is one interest that always seems to trump privacy: the financial interest protected by copyright.</p>
<p>Only yesterday the Federal Court of Australia <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2015/317.html">ruled</a> that a group of internet service providers (ISPs) are required to disclose details of almost 5,000 of their account holders to a Hollywood studio. The individuals in question are alleged to have illegally downloaded the movie Dallas Buyers Club over the internet without permission.</p>
<p>The case is being discussed as a landmark “<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/iinet-loses-dallas-buyers-club-landmark-piracy-case/story-e6frg90f-1227294508657">anti-piracy</a>” case. However, for most Australians, it is more importantly a landmark “anti-privacy” case.</p>
<h2>The background</h2>
<p>The dispute arose when the copyright holders of Dallas Buyers Club, Voltage Pictures, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/dallas-buyers-club-slays-iinet-in-landmark-piracy-case-20150407-1mey38.html">hired a German firm</a> to identify individuals illegally sharing the film online. They subsequently identified 4,726 Australian <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/45349/ip-address">IP addresses</a> they associated with the sharing of the movie via <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/38716/bittorrent">BitTorrent</a>. </p>
<p>To link those IP addresses to real people – who can be made to pay for the alleged copyright violations – the copyright owners needed the help of the Australian ISPs that had distributed those IP addresses to their users. That is, only the ISPs can provide the necessary link between the infringing IP address and the account holder who was assigned that IP address at that particular time.</p>
<p>When a group of Australian ISPs refused to disclose the personal details of their users to the US copyright owners, the copyright owners sought the assistance of the courts by filing a “discovery application”, a tactic previously applied in other parts of the world. </p>
<h2>The rules about legal ‘discovery’</h2>
<p>A key issue in the case was the fact that, in many circumstances, several people share the same internet connection. Consequently, in such situations the actual offender may not be the account holder. In essence, what the copyright owners wanted was for the ISPs to be forced to reveal the identity of the account holders so that the account holders could be forced to identify the actual offenders. </p>
<p>This issue went to the heart of the court proceedings. The judge – <a href="http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/about/judges/current-judges-appointment/current-judges/perram-j">Nye Perram</a> – acknowledged that, to meet the requirements of the relevant provision of the law (<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/fcr2011n134o2011269/s7.22.html">Federal Court Rules 7.22</a>), it was necessary for the copyright owners to satisfy the court that the ISPs know or are likely to know the identity of the prospective respondent. Ostensibly, this is the person or persons who infringed copyright.</p>
<p>Given the ISPs can only identify the account holders, not the actual offenders, the law does not seem to support the copyright owner’s application to be provided with the personal information of the account holders. </p>
<p>However, through what can only be described as a legal contortionist show, justice Perram managed to read the relevant law to mean something different to what it says, so that the discovery sought by the copyright owners could be allowed after all. </p>
<p>The problem is obvious: where the law is bent and twisted to such a degree, it will never be straight again. And where the law does not mean what it says, it is a failure. </p>
<h2>Privacy issues</h2>
<p>The potential difference between account holders and actual copyright infringers is relevant also when it comes to one of the privacy concerns the case gives rise to. After all, if the copyright infringer and the account holder are different people, then a notice containing a description of the content that is alleged to have been downloaded may disclose sensitive personal information about the alleged infringer to the account holder. </p>
<p>Such handling of personal information is only lawful where it is authorised under the <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A03712">Privacy Act 1988</a>. Yet this matter was not even mentioned in the judgement.</p>
<p>Instead, justice Perram saw the privacy aspect as properly disposed of merely by imposing a condition that the copyright owners only would be allowed to use the personal details of the relevant 4,726 Australians for the purpose of recovering compensation for the infringements. </p>
<p>As this restriction does not require anything that is not already required under the Privacy Act 1988, it does not really soften the blow to privacy that this decision represents.</p>
<p>Other privacy concerns relate to questions such as: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>How will the copyright owners choose which internet users they place under surveillance?</p></li>
<li><p>Is there a risk that the personal information collected by the copyright holders will attract hackers <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/france-halts-three-strikes-ip-address-collection-after-data-leak/">as happened in France</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Are there any privacy risks stemming from the fact that the surveillance of Australian internet users is carried out from abroad, and from the fact that personal information about Australian internet users is at risk of being exported to copyright owners overseas? </p></li>
</ol>
<p>The groundwork for a judgement hostile to privacy like this was laid down already in 2011 by the High Court of Australia in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html">another anti-piracy dispute</a>. In the context of that case, the <a href="https://www.privacy.org.au/">Australian Privacy Foundation</a> had <a href="https://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/HCA-Amicus-iiNet-111007.pdf">filed a “friend of the court” brief</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae"><em>amicus curiae</em></a>) seeking to draw attention to the considerable privacy concerns that arise where ISPs are forced to reveal customer information to copyright owners. However, the High Court <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/54.html">took no interest in the privacy angle</a>.</p>
<p>The concern for the future is obvious. With a precedent like that set by justice Perram, monetary copyright interest are given a carte blanche to continue to trump our fundamental human right of privacy, with increased online surveillance as the tragic consequence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Jerker B. Svantesson is an ARC Future Fellow (project number FT120100583) and receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.
In 2011, he was a Deputy Chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation and the lead author of the amicus brief referred to in the text.
</span></em></p>The Dallas Buyers Club court ruling has serious implications for online privacy.Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Co-Director Centre for Commercial Law, Bond UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55602012-02-24T03:02:03Z2012-02-24T03:02:03ZWill the internet kill copyright? Here’s hoping …<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8049/original/23y7mh2c-1330045205.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Debates about online copyright protection have been particularly heated of late.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">marfis75</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>IDEAS AND OWNERSHIP: The concept of protecting ideas and innovation by legal means dates back to antiquity. But many of our existing laws are under strain, their suitability and ultimate purpose called into question.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Here, Philip Soos considers the faults that plague existing copyright laws and suggests that, in an increasingly online world, we need to find more realistic options.</strong></p>
<p>In the past few months, there’s been substantial media interest in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/sopa">Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)</a> bill in the US, introduced ostensibly as an attempt to crack down on intellectual property rights (IPR) violations.</p>
<p>If adopted, this bill would give the US government even more power to deal with those found infringing IPRs than currently exists under the existing legislation – the <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf">Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)</a>. </p>
<p>SOPA has spawned a great deal of debate over the merits and demerits of further expanding protection for IPRs. Some claim SOPA would help protect jobs and profit – hence innovation; while many argue SOPA would impinge upon citizens’ right to privacy. </p>
<p>Opposition to SOPA prompted many websites, including Wikipedia, to <a href="https://theconversation.com/major-turn-off-leading-lights-stage-an-internet-blackout-to-fight-sopa-4964">close down temporarily</a> in protest.</p>
<p>But this debate leaves much to be desired. It consists of arguing IPR protection should be strengthened, weakened or left alone. Few, if any, are critical of the reigning assumption that IPR is a necessary intervention in the economy. </p>
<p>The question that needs to be asked is: why is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_privileges_and_monopolies">16th century medieval government monopoly</a> being used to spur innovation and creative art in the technologically-advanced 21st century?</p>
<p>The usual story trotted out is that markets will produce a less than optimal level of research and development and creative works without some form of government intervention. <a href="http://www.copyright.com.au/assets/documents/benefits%20&%20costs%20of%20copyright.pdf">We are told</a> that without such intervention, many of the technologies and modes of entertainment we enjoy today would simply not exist. </p>
<p>Thus the need for copyrights to provide the stimulus for firms to invest to meet consumer wants and needs.</p>
<p>The state-driven tech revolution of the late 1990s has seen an explosion of IPR-protected content being shared over the internet. Evolving technology (such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-bittorrent-lawsuit-why-sly-stallone-is-out-to-get-you-1231">peer-to-peer networking</a>) has made it easy for almost anyone with a decent internet connection to continuously download and upload files, whether that’s video games, music, books, magazines, comics, TV episodes, films, documentaries, or programs.</p>
<p>Anything that can be converted into electronic data and stored on a computer can be shared. It <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-and-netflix-dominate-americas-internet-traffic-111027/">has been estimated</a> that the sharing of content through the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)">BitTorrent file-sharing protocol</a> accounts for one-third of internet traffic today.</p>
<p>Given authorities across the world have often had to catch up to the evolving uses of the internet via legislation, it is difficult for individuals and firms to simultaneously enforce their state-granted rights in many countries, all with differing laws in regards to IPRs.</p>
<p>(That said, the <a href="http://www.wto.org/">World Trade Organization</a> has attempted to standardise international and national law through its Agreement on <a href="http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm">Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)</a>.)</p>
<p>Industry and governments have certainly tried hard in this respect. Every iteration of copyright protection law appears to be more draconian than the last. It is unsurprising that the US is in the lead of protecting IPR, as its industries are the largest and often most profitable (as in the case of pharmaceuticals and biotech).</p>
<p>The TRIPS and DMCA legislation have clearly done little to prevent file sharing, which appears to be ever-increasing in magnitude. Draconian laws have done little to deter users from violating copyrights and other forms of IPRs.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8040/original/5k3cjzr2-1330041860.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8040/original/5k3cjzr2-1330041860.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8040/original/5k3cjzr2-1330041860.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8040/original/5k3cjzr2-1330041860.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8040/original/5k3cjzr2-1330041860.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8040/original/5k3cjzr2-1330041860.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8040/original/5k3cjzr2-1330041860.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gideon Burton</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Online content is really no different to drugs that are currently illegal: people who want them will always get them, with entrepreneurs and cartels operating within the black market to meet demand. The sane course of action is to carefully legalise and regulate the supply of drugs/ content, not impose wildly invasive, expensive and equally ineffective government intervention against producers and consumers.</p>
<p>Ever more draconian legislation has not and will not prevent people from file-sharing and violating IPRs. Industry will claim IPRs, as private property, must be respected. But to claim IPR, as information, should be covered by private property rights is as nonsensical as if the government were to assign a property right to an autoworker’s job, allowing the employee the right to hold it or sell to another.</p>
<p>Ownership under copyright is twisted to the point where consumers do not own the software they purchase; rather, they are merely extended a license to use the software that the company owns.</p>
<p>The problems with copyright (and other forms of IPRs) are extensive. The most obvious flaw is the monopolistic pricing inherent to this form of intervention. Any introductory economic textbook tells us the efficiency is met when outputs are produced and sold at marginal cost – what it costs to produce the next good or service.</p>
<p>In the information age, electronic data or informational goods can be copied for free. Accordingly, this is what goods should be priced at: zero, instead of monopoly pricing. </p>
<p>Ironically, pirates are acting as conventional economists claim people should – that is, they are rational agents seeking to maximise their utility (happiness) by obtaining copies of informational goods at marginal cost.</p>
<p>Other costs include those associated with the court system and <a href="http://members.pcug.org.au/%7Earhen/">patents offices</a>, which have effectively become a joke. People and firms are <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/patent-wars">endlessly suing each other</a> over potential and real copyright infringements, with these legal expenses essentially acting as a tax on innovation that is passed on to consumers.</p>
<p>Bureaucrats at the patent office are under a difficult burden to ensure that software patents are truly innovative and do not violate previously-granted patents.</p>
<p>Under SOPA, citizens’ online activities would be <a href="http://www.itworld.com/security/251584/sopa-replacement-uses-child-porn-excuse-spy-997-percent-americans">watched and recorded</a> in ever-greater detail, in a futile attempt to crack down on piracy. What industry is calling for is an ever-stronger police state to ensure legislative compliance, despite what the evidence may say about the <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-not-that-bad-industry-says-090118/">loss of sales</a> pertaining to piracy.</p>
<p>It should be obvious by now that a new form of funding research, development and creative works needs to be implemented. The cornerstone of any new system should ensure goods are sold at the cost of production: either free on the internet or a few dollars for the physical product. <a href="http://creativecommons.org/">Creative Commons</a> and free software licenses should become the new mode.</p>
<p>The extremes of wealth also need to be avoided: there is no natural law that says Bill Gates should become a billionaire via government monopoly while many creative artists just scrape by.</p>
<p>It is imperative that the wastes and inefficiencies of the IPR system be eliminated and not reproduced under alternative systems.</p>
<p>It is time for some creative thinking on the part of the public (industry isn’t going to help) to design alternate models of financing. Otherwise, the nanny state that operates on behalf of the rich is going to become ever more authoritarian.</p>
<p><strong>This is part five of Ideas and Ownership. To read the other instalments, click on the links below:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="https://theconversation.com/ip-patents-copyright-you-5421">IP, patents, copyright, you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-patents-promote-innovation-5443">Do patents promote innovation?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-art-of-war-know-your-enemys-patents-and-your-own-5489">The art of war: know your enemy’s patents, and your own</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="https://theconversation.com/evergreening-patents-playing-monopoly-with-solar-fuels-and-medicine-innovations-5165">Evergreening patents: playing monopoly with solar fuels and medicine innovations</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Soos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>IDEAS AND OWNERSHIP: The concept of protecting ideas and innovation by legal means dates back to antiquity. But many of our existing laws are under strain, their suitability and ultimate purpose called…Philip Soos, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/23152011-09-04T20:41:23Z2011-09-04T20:41:23ZExplainer: net neutrality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3263/original/4155274000_bb8964e06f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is the internet free – or a bird on the wire?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Fraiz</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Net neutrality was succinctly described in <a href="http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cmst_grad_research/7/">a recent study</a> as “the belief that ISPs [internet service providers] must treat all internet content equally”.</p>
<p>Without net neutrality we see situations such as the one in 2008 where the American ISP ComCast <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/comcast-disclos/">limited traffic</a> on peer-to-peer file-sharing service <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-bittorrent-lawsuit-why-sly-stallone-is-out-to-get-you-1231">BitTorrent</a>. </p>
<p>ComCast argued this was justifiable to keep internet traffic flowing for everyone; opponents argued it was to disadvantage BitTorrent from competing with ComCast’s own <a href="http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Learn/DigitalCable/digitalcable.html">cable TV</a> business. </p>
<p>Last year, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia <a href="http://www.zeropaid.com/news/88573/comcast-prevails-in-bittorrent-throttling-case/">ruled in favour of ComCast</a>. </p>
<p>This set the precedent that any US-based ISP can throttle – limit upload and download speeds to regulate network traffic – or completely eliminate internet communication to and between its competitors.</p>
<h2>Corporate vs consumer</h2>
<p>Net neutrality depends in part on existing regulatory frameworks and the economic model underpinning a country’s internet provision. </p>
<p>A pay-for-bandwidth model, as used in most countries – including the US, Canada and Japan – places no restriction on the volume of data consumed. </p>
<p>With the increase in high data rate internet services such as internet television, the proliferation of peer-to-peer file-sharing and mobile applications, ISPs have argued that a degree of “prioritisation” when it comes to internet traffic is necessary for maintaining internet services. </p>
<p>Opponents argue this prioritisation will produce a “corporate internet” and a level of corporate censorship of the internet. </p>
<p>How realistic are such claims? Of course, it’s hard to know.</p>
<p>Some reports indicate large ISPs such as <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/09/verizon-censoring-unsavory-political-group-sms-messaging.ars">Verizon Wireless</a> and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9757841-7.html">AT&T</a> may have engaged in activity that effectively blocked internet communication that was not in their interests.</p>
<h2>Australia</h2>
<p>Australia uses a pay-for-data model (sometimes called volumetric pricing) and has <a href="http://www.tja.org.au/index.php/tja/article/view/108/106">regulatory frameworks</a> that prohibit anti-competitive behaviour. These frameworks also protect consumers against discrimination. </p>
<p>It may surprise some Australians to learn Australia is <em>not</em> net neutral. In 2004 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission <a href="http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/269309">decided against imposing a net neutrality ruling</a>, arguing that it would negatively affect competition in the marketplace.</p>
<p>Indeed the pay-for-data model encourages ISPs to transport their customers’ data as quickly as possible. Data-hungry customers can always pay for more data when their quota is exhausted. </p>
<h2>“Free” services</h2>
<p>As an example of non-neutrality, some Australian ISPs – see Telstra’s <a href="http://bigpond.com/unmetered/">Bigpond Unmetered</a> or iiNet’s <a href="http://freezone.iinet.net.au/">Freezone</a> – provide services, such as internet television channels from affiliated partners, that are “free” to their customers. </p>
<p>“Free” typically means the service will never be throttled and does not count towards customers’ monthly data usage. </p>
<p>Clearly, the quota-conscious customer has incentive to favour such free services over access to the rest of the internet, which is “non-free” and that <em>does</em> contribute to their monthly usage. </p>
<p>Assuming YouTube and Skype are “non-free” services, from the point of view of the ISP, customers can quickly exhaust their monthly data usage by accessing these services, and the throttling that follows in some cases will effectively prohibit use. </p>
<p>At this point “free” services, that may be in direct competition, have an effective competitive advantage.</p>
<h2>Impact</h2>
<p>Japan’s strong, long-standing net neutrality emphasis has arguably made it the leader in broadband technology, speed and pricing. </p>
<p>The Netherlands <a href="http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2011/06/23/dutch-law-to-enforce-mobile-net-neutrality">recently moved in favour of net neutrality</a> and the US is in the midst of <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/04/shed-a-tear-the-age-of-broadband-caps-begins-monday/">moving towards a pay-for-data model</a> while the government vigorously debates net neutrality legislation. </p>
<p>Although the impact of net neutrality varies between countries, the internet is a global system. This means Australia is not immune to the policies and directions taken in other countries. </p>
<p>As the internet is central to the public interest it would be careless to dismiss net neutrality as some other country’s problem, or to consider only its economic impact.</p>
<p>Whatever course Australia takes, it is clear that we must understand the role of net neutrality for a successful internet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2315/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aaron Harwood does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Net neutrality was succinctly described in a recent study as “the belief that ISPs [internet service providers] must treat all internet content equally”. Without net neutrality we see situations such as…Aaron Harwood, Senior Lecturer, Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/12312011-05-16T04:12:47Z2011-05-16T04:12:47ZThe BitTorrent lawsuit: why Sly Stallone is out to get you<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1083/original/aapone-20090913000205192947-italy_venice_film_festival-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When it comes to illegal downloading, are we all expendable?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claudio Onorati/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ever downloaded a Hollywood flick from the internet?</p>
<p>If the answer is “yes” then you could be next on Rambo’s hit list. As <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/biggest-bittorrent-case/">reported recently</a>, an American federal judge has agreed to allow the U.S. Copyright Group to subpeona at least 23,000 BitTorrent users for illegally downloading Sylvester Stallone’s meat-head heavy film <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320253/">The Expendables</a>. </p>
<p>This decision could effect the single largest illegal BitTorrent downloading case in U.S history. </p>
<p><strong>How do BitTorrent users access licensed content?</strong></p>
<p>The majority of internet users employ <a href="http://www.bittorrent.com/">BitTorrent</a> technology to download and share licensed content. </p>
<p>BitTorrent uses customised peer-to-peer protocols to facilitate the sharing of content among its users. The use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer">peer-to-peer technology</a> ensures there is no requirement for a single server to act as a content aggregator and distributor. </p>
<p>The users share the content directly with each other, which makes BitTorrent very efficient at delivering content to a large user base.</p>
<p>BitTorrent is one of the most popular file sharing technologies for several reasons. It uses a tit-for-tat system that rewards users for uploading content. The BitTorrent protocol also breaks large content files into very small chunks of data: this means users can download the file from multiple locations simultaneously, reducing the download time substantially. This makes it especially useful for large and popular files.</p>
<p><strong>How can Rocky, or anyone else, track BitTorrent users?</strong></p>
<p>The decentralised nature of BitTorrent technology makes it hard to track users that have downloaded a specific piece of content. But content owners can use sophisticated techniques to track the perpetrators. </p>
<p>Users trying to download a file have to obtain a <a href="http://www.ehow.com/about_4673906_what-torrent-file.html">torrent file</a> associated with that piece of content. This file stores information about the various chunks of data associated with the larger content file and, more importantly, the location of all <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker">tracker files</a> on the internet. </p>
<p>Tracker files store information about the active users sharing (uploading or downloading) the file. A new user is therefore able to connect to one or more of these active users and download the file. </p>
<p>Content owners often pretend to be normal users wanting to share the file. This allows them to be part of the tracker file and, in return, they have access to other active users (or IP addresses) sharing the file. These IP addresses are then forwarded to internet service providers (ISPs), the owners of which are obliged to provide details to the content owners. </p>
<p>This method of detection, though crude, is effective because popular content often has a large active user base. Furthermore, content providers are pressuring ISPs to install filters that can detect BitTorrent traffic and detect whether users are accessing licensed content. Such techniques are helping content owners successfully shut down sites that host torrent files for licensed content.</p>
<p><strong>Could the Expendables case be a knockout blow for illegal BitTorrent use?</strong></p>
<p>Despite (or maybe because of) its notoriety, BitTorrent’s popularity keeps on growing, with 100 million active users and <a href="http://news.softpedia.com/news/BitTorrent-Represents-The-Internet-64446.shtml">a large percentage of total internet traffic</a> attributed to the technology. </p>
<p>As a company, BitTorrent provides the most efficient <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network">CDN</a> (Content Delivery Network) product to its customers. A large number of businesses use it to distribute content. </p>
<p>Given its ubiquity, BitTorrent will continue to be used for delivering content – legal and illegal. Perhaps the company can improve its technology to differentiate legitimate users from the troublemakers who upload and share illegal content. </p>
<p>This will definitely help the Schwarzeneggers and Stallones of the world in their mission to catch the bad guys. And when they do … well, you’d better start running …</p>
<p><strong><em>Should people be sued for illegal downloading? Leave your comments below</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1231/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Santosh Kulkarni does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ever downloaded a Hollywood flick from the internet? If the answer is “yes” then you could be next on Rambo’s hit list. As reported recently, an American federal judge has agreed to allow the U.S. Copyright…Santosh Kulkarni, Principal Researcher, Data61Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.