All around Europe rightsholders have been working hard to have Internet providers block torrent and other file-sharing platforms. Courts in the UK, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark have ordered blockades, but Italy raises its head more regularly than most with additional censorship orders.

In a fresh batch of court orders dated today, Italian ISPs have been ordered to block several of the world’s leading torrent sites. The orders were granted by the prosecutor from Bergamo who ordered the original blocking of The Pirate Bay back in 2008. Music industry group FIMI say that they were responsible for the complaints.

“I can confirm that FIMI referred these sites to the criminal prosecutor. We are very happy about the outcome,” FIMI chief Enzo Mazzo told TorrentFreak.

The first blocking order is against ExtraTorrent, an indexing site ranked 5th in the world during the early part of 2013.

The site suffered a setback earlier this week when police in the UK asked its registrar to suspend its .com domain. However, it now appears that ExtraTorrent managed to transfer the domain away from PDR Ltd to a new company and has since regained control.

The Italian block against the site specifically mentions ExtraTorrent.com (the site has since moved to .CC) but also details the site’s IP address.

Also ordered to be blocked is 1337x.org, the only site in the batch that operates both indexes and trackers. In January 2013 the site was ranked 6th in the world and it currently lists more than 586,000 torrents in its database.

The third site covered by the blocking orders is the troubled H33T. The site disappeared from the Internet last month following a complaint from Universal Music. The site’s admin is currently maintaining radio silence but there are signs that the site is preparing for a revival. The Italian court order lists H33T’s .eu domain in addition to its IP address, neither of which will be in use for any return.

TorrentHound is the fourth site on the prosecutor’s list and although not as big as the others has attracted attention from anti-piracy companies in the past, including the RIAA who attempted to identify the site’s operators in 2011. It currently indexes 6,041,258 torrents linking to 12,755 terabytes of data.

Finally, the prosecutor is revisiting The Pirate Bay. The new order references the site’s relatively new .sx domain but according to Marco d’Itri who runs Osservatorio Censura, the scope is particularly unusual.

“I think that this new Pirate Bay order is seriously troubling because it appears to request that the whole network 194.71.107.0/24 should be filtered, which also covers The Pirate Bay’s mail server,” d’Itri told TorrentFreak.

D’Itri is currently investigating the precise details and we hope to post an update here shortly.

Source: Italian Court Orders ISPs to Block Several Major Torrent Sites

Using TorrentFreak figures as a basis for their analysis, public policy researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center launched a website yesterday which considers whether Hollywood’s business model of not making content widely available on day one might be a driving force for piracy.

Some hours later Tom Giovanetti, president of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), a public policy research organization based in Dallas, Texas, expressed his displeasure over just about everything connected to the site, from pirates and those who report on them, to the researchers and their findings.

Giovanetti’s problems seem to be two-fold. First, he thinks that reporting on “criminal behavior’ is somehow unacceptable and second, the effects of piracy on the legitimate market should be discounted due to the phenomenon being unlawful. After dismissing any connection between piracy and a lack of legal options as “utterly irrelevant”, Giovanetti proceeded to shoot the messenger.

“It IS interesting that TorrentFreak brazenly publishes a list of the most pirated movies. That’s pretty in-your-face behavior, considering that piracy is illegal,” the IPI president wrote.

Not surprisingly that statement raised our collective eyebrows. Just last month an NBC Universal-commissioned study from NetNames titled ‘Sizing the Piracy Universe’ generated dozens of news articles. By Giovanetti’s standards that report must go way beyond brazen, since the amount of illegal activity documented in the study was on a staggering scale.

Of course, all the major movie studios hire companies to prepare reports on pirates too, it’s just that unlike us “brazen” folk they don’t make that data publicly available every week. But despite Giovanetti’s disapproval, it’s encouraging to know that even the MPAA finds TorrentFreak data useful when it wants to make a point.

A blog post published yesterday by the MPAA’s Kate Bedingfield happily cited our recent (in-your-face) Walking Dead piracy stats, although we had to summon a wry smile when we saw that the MPAA chose to credit Variety as the source and not us. Perhaps there really is no respect for creators these days.

At this point and since we have a convenient MPAA segue, it’s probably appropriate to question why Giovanetti is so interested in movie piracy.

The IPI identifies itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan public policy think tank…founded in 1987 to research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today’s public policy problems.”

While that’s all very nice, according to the MPAA’s latest tax filing the IPI are actually being paid by Hollywood to “promote the film industry.”

With that established, let’s have a look at what Giovanetti has to say about the apparently reprehensible notion that piracy might be a market signal.

“[It] is utterly irrelevant whether or not a pirated movie is available for streaming. That’s because the release schedule and business plan for the movie is entirely the business of whoever owns the movie, and not anyone else. That’s an implication of property rights that libertarians ought to understand. You and your pirate friends do not get to decide what happens to my property,” he said.

It’s worth pointing out that earlier in Giovanetti’s rant he referred to the researchers at George Mason University as the libertarians, so here he deliberately aligns them with those carrying out the illegal downloading, a quite ridiculous notion.

The problem with the latter half of Giovanetti’s assertion, that ‘pirates’ don’t get to decide what happens to ‘his’ property, is plain to see. Of course, sharing content without permission is against copyright law in many countries, so those who feel harmed by the act have a legal right to reply. But that misses the point.

Whether Giovanetti likes it or not, piracy exists and whether people have the right to or not they engage in unauthorized downloading. Stamp your feet and shout about rights all day long, it makes no difference to the reality on the ground. If it did we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

And finally, just when it couldn’t get much worse, Giovanetti again turns on the researchers for suggesting that a modification of Hollywood’s business model might ease the piracy situation.

“They are implying a change that should happen because of criminal behavior. And those of us who are champions of markets do NOT defend criminal behavior as a market force or creative disruption. Markets take place within the rule of law. We don’t insist that markets adapt to account for criminal behavior. Rule of law is also something libertarians should understand,” Giovanetti notes.

Sadly, these statements help no one. If “rule of law” was a suitable deterrent then already unauthorized downloading wouldn’t be an issue – aren’t $150K in statutory damages for a single infringement already enough to send a message? Apparently not.

What this problem needs is creative thinking and a desire to deal with a real-life situation already underway, not people boo-hooing about how wrong it all is while shooting both the messengers and those looking for solutions.

Especially when they aren’t up-front about who they’re doing it for.

Source: Policy Research Chief Blasts TorrentFreak Piracy Research, But Why?

As the trial date moves closer, the arguments between the MPAA and BitTorrent search engine isoHunt are heating up.

One of the issues the two parties are in disagreement over is whether isoHunt should be able to question the notion that piracy is actually hurting the movie industry.

To argue that piracy might not be as disastrous as it’s often portrayed, the torrent site has listed researcher and economics professor Koleman Strumpf as one of its witnesses. Strumpf’s research has previously shown that piracy is not hurting sales at all, and isoHunt is expected to use this in its favor during the trial.

The MPAA, however, prefers not to discuss the topic of actual damages during the trial. They argue that the issue is too complex and that it could mislead the jury. For example, isoHunt may be able to show that movie industry profits are increasing, but that doesn’t mean that piracy has had no effect.

The movie studios are therefore asking the court to exclude the issue, arguing that actual damages can’t be measured.

“To permit consideration of actual damages under these circumstances would be perverse – and particularly unfair – given that Plaintiffs elected statutory damages precisely because their actual damages are not capable of meaningful measurement,” the MPAA’s legal team writes.

The MPAA argues that since the court has decided to award statutory damages, it is irrelevant to what extent their revenues are negatively impacted by online piracy.

“Defendants should not be permitted to exploit the inherent difficulty of proving actual damages in a case such as this as a basis for lowering the statutory damages award, especially when the very purpose of statutory damages was to provide a remedy that is not dependent on proof of actual damages.”

While the MPAA admits that the effect of online piracy is nearly impossible to measure, the movie studios do have a very clear picture of what’s needed to bankrupt isoHunt. The transcript from a recent court meeting reveals that two to five million should exhaust the company.

Court: What do you estimate to be the resources of [Defendants]? . . . What do you suspect?
MPAA’s counsel: Based on our estimate, Your Honor, we believe a couple to a few million dollars would exhaust Mr. Fung’s or defendants’ ability to pay…
MPAA’s counsel: A couple to a few million dollars would exhaust defendants’–
Court: Does that mean, like $2 million
MPAA’s counsel: Two million dollars to $4 million, $5 million at the most.

When the court asked the MPAA’s counsel why it was going for nearly $600 million in damages when a few million would be enough to put the company out of business, the MPAA argued that the high amount is needed to deter others from starting their own torrent search engines.

Court: So why are you making such a fetish about 2,000 or 3,000 or 10,000 or 100 copyrights?
MPAA’s Mr. Fabrizio: Your Honor, the purpose of statutory damages is not only to seek compensation from the defendants, the extraordinarily important purpose is to create — send a message to other would-be infringers like defendants, and there are thousands of them…
Court: But if you strip him of all his assets — and you’re suggesting that a much lesser number of copyright infringements would accomplish that, where is the deterrence by telling the world that you took someone’s resources away because of illegal conduct entirely or 50 times over?

In a reply to the MPAA’s opposition, isoHunt argues that actual damages are important information for the jury to have, so a more balanced sum can be reached. If there is no proof of piracy hurting the movie industry, a $3 million fine might be more appropriate than $600 million.

“Evidence on Plaintiffs’ overall and specific revenues relating to the works at issue will allow the jury to infer that Plaintiffs have not suffered any actual damages, which can be contrasted with the financial condition of Defendants in the jury fashioning an appropriate award,” isoHunt’s counsel argues.

“For example, if Plaintiffs enjoyed uninterrupted profits, and their overall revenues did not decline during the time that isoHunt was launched and Defendants began complying with the Injunction, the jury could conclude that it would be unjust and a windfall to award Plaintiffs anything more than the near $3 million statutory minimum.”

The court will now have to decide whether the issue of actual damages can be brought up in court. If that’s the case, then the trial is going to be a numbers game with experts from all sides trying to prove whether or not piracy is hurting Hollywood, and if so to what extent.

Source: MPAA Says Piracy Damages Can’t Be Measured

The issue of Internet piracy is certainly a polarizing one, with different camps setting out their stances over whether the practice is generally a good or bad thing.

Just last month a report from the London School of Economics reignited the debate after coming to the conclusion that rather than hurting the entertainment industries, piracy is actually helping matters.

Needless to say, the MPAA and IFPI were less than impressed with that conclusion and quickly moved to counter the study. But while scholars and music businessmen fight it out, what about the opinions of those who are supposed to really matter – the artists.

The BBC has spoken to several British artists to get their views on piracy and their responses are quite a mixed bag.

Pop icon Jessie J didn’t deviate from the opinions she’s expressed in the past. Perhaps cleverly addressing the “nothing was stolen” response to the piracy-is-theft mantra, the 10 million album selling star said downloading is akin to taking someone’s time.

“It’s like going to the hairdressers, having your hair cut and running out,” she said.

“You can’t make music for free, you can’t live for free. If people illegally download your album it’s very likely that you won’t make another one.”

Of course, plenty of people downloaded Jessie J’s first album and she’s just released another, so her argument doesn’t quite stand up. However, she was nowhere near as aggressive as singer John Newman.

“I think it’s disgusting. Get some respect for the artist. It’s not fair at all,” he said. “[Downloaders are] ruining the music industry, they really are and it’s really not fair.”

Interestingly, Grammy-winning artist Sean Paul sees things quite differently.

“Before there was the internet, there was people selling mix tapes and CDs with your music on it – they sell it, they benefit from it,” he said. “I get promotion out of it, which is a good thing for me, because people like my song and put on a stage show.”

Producer Naughty Boy, who has deals with Sony and Virgin EMI, says that there’s plenty of money to be made, even in the face of piracy.

“I don’t like the idea of people thinking you’re never going to get rich from music. You can, even with illegal downloading,” he told the BBC. “You’ve just got to make great music that people want to buy. You’ve just got to give them more of a reason to buy it than before.”

Of course, while the artists have their differing opinions, the major labels are singing with one harmonious voice – piracy is bad and it costs them money. Together they finance the BPI whose anti-piracy department takes down millions of links from file-sharing sites and search engines such as Google. Whether Sean Paul likes it or not, links to his music get taken down too.

The BBC were invited to the secretive operation where they spoke with John Hodge, the BPI’s head of internet investigation who suggested that people at home – the actual downloaders – aren’t a BPI target.

“Our focus is on the people who want to make profit,” Hodge said. “Whether it’s streaming or downloading, there’s somebody there facilitating this and making money out of it.”

Like the FACT operatives who visited the home of a file-sharing site admin earlier this month, the remainder of the BPI’s five man anti-piracy team asked to remain anonymous. Taking down links must be a dangerous game these days.

Source: Piracy is Disgusting! No, it’s Promotion! Artists Disagree as Links Get Removed

Every day millions of people download the latest Hollywood blockbusters though unauthorized sources.

The movie industry is not happy with the ever-increasing piracy rates and has called out Google and other stakeholders to “do more” to help. At the same time, Hollywood keeps emphasizing the many legal options that are available to the public.

A few months ago the MPAA launched the website WhereToWatch.org which provides an overview of dozens of legal video outlets that are available in the United States.

“Audiences want seamless access to film and TV shows. Our industry has listened, and we are now delivering more choices than ever before,” MPAA boss Senator Dodd said at the time.

“There have never been more ways to access movies and television legitimately online, and those platforms continue to grow and develop thanks in large part to a copyright system that encourages innovation, risk and growth,” Dodd added.

While this sounds great, the WhereToWatch site doesn’t change the fact that many of the newer releases are simply not available online due to artificial release lags. After a movie’s box office premiere it usually takes months before people can access it online.

This mismatch prompted public policy researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center to take a close look at the online availability of some of the most pirated movies. On the newly launched Piracydata.org the researchers use TorrentFreak’s weekly lists of most pirated movies combined with information from CanIStreamIt to come up with an overview of the availability of these titles.

The results from this week are listed below, and it’s clear that half of the movie titles don’t have any legal options at all, while none are available for streaming.

TorrentFreak talked to Jerry Brito, director of Mercatus Center’s Technology Policy Program and one of the people behind the PiracyData website. Brito tells us that the MPAA and RIAA complaints that Google is placing pirate search results above legal alternatives was one of the motivations to look into the legal availability.

“We are compiling a dataset to help answer the question: Are the most-pirated movies available legally online? With only three weeks of data, the answer seems to be that very few are available legally. We’ll get a clearer picture in the months ahead as the dataset grows,” Brito says.

The lack of legal alternatives they have found so far means that Google sometimes has no other choice than to place pirate sites high in the search results, as there simply are no authorized options available.

“One implication may be that when movies are unavailable, illegal sources are the most relevant search results, so search engines like Google are just telling it like it is. That is their job, after all,” Brito says.

While the current dataset is limited to three weeks, it’s quite telling that of all movies listed none was available for streaming, while only 20% could be rented.

Brito notes that the data doesn’t prove a causal effect between availability and piracy, but that it’s clear that Hollywood can “do more” to increase access to popular movies themselves.

“While there is no way to draw causality between the fact that these movies are not available legally and that they are the most pirated, it does highlight that while the MPAA is asking Google to take voluntary action to change search results, it may well be within the movie studio’s power to change those results by taking voluntary action themselves.”

“They could make more movies available online and sooner, perhaps by collapsing the theatrical release window. Now, their business model is their prerogative, and it’s none of my business to tell them how to operate, but by the same token I don’t see how they can expect search engines and Congress to bend over backwards to protect the business model they choose,” Brito adds.

Whether Hollywood will take up this suggestion has yet to be seen. Some movie studios have experimented a bit with shorter release delays, but unlike the TV and music industry it is still the core of its business model.

Update: The PiracyData website included some wrong data initially, the article has been edited to correct this.

Source: Are Hollywood’s Artificial Release Delays Driving Piracy?