IPretorian Blog, Internet Privacy Protector

RIAA’s 2008 tax return has showed that the industry body spent $17.6 million on legal costs fighting online piracy, but only managed to bring in $391,000 in settlements and damages. And what they spent whooping $17M? Well, some of these:

We are so sorry for failing to see anything wrong here, it's like double promo and for free

It has happened, EU Parliament adopted Gallo Report – controversal resolution for harsh restrictions on intellectual property infringements. France example we wrote about earlier is now likely to be copied to other EU countries as well.

It seems like nobody in EU Parliament does not notice or care, that HADOPI and other law alike  are based on wrong assumptions ignoring fact, that IP address does not clearly identify it’s owner, and can be used by different person at a time.  IP addres is like a rental car, can be used by many people legally, but if someone will rob a bank using it – does a rental car company is to blame for it?

Entertainment industry wasn’t able to turn back a river with a stick, they will try to do it now with a lash. Their agenda is very clear: “Either way, someone will pay“. Does it seems fair to You?

Read full story on TorrentFreak.

Well, one picture is worth 1000 words:

Whole truth about DRM

Six months after harsh HADOPI law – adoption of the three-strikes anti-piracy legislation was introduced in France, online piracy has increased significantly. A new study published by the University of Rennes shows that the critics are indeed right. The researchers looked into the habits of downloaders before and after the law was implemented. They found that instead of reducing piracy levels, the piracy rate actually went up by 3%. People just switched to other file-sharing services, not covered by Hadopi. Another blunder  of politicians making law about thing they lack basic understanding. We can only concur with TorrentFreak: “The answer to the increasing piracy rates worldwide is not legislation. Instead, the entertainment industry may accomplish much more by innovating and expanding their online business so that it meets the demands of today’s digital consumers.”

In Spain music group SGAE (Sociedad General de Autores y Editores) lost in court of law case against Donkey link site elrincondejesus.com: judge Raul N. García Orejudo declared that both non-commercial file-sharing link sites and non-profit use of P2P networks are legal in Spain. “P2P networks are mere conduits for the transmission of data between Internet users, and on this basis they do not infringe rights protected by Intellectual Property laws,” he declared. Therefore, if an individual uses P2P networks like eDonkey or BitTorrent to obtain copyright material for non-profit reasons, the act is completely legal. Outcome of taking this case to cours is nothing short of a disaster for SGAE.

In Lithuania anti-piracy outfit LANVA has lost its case against a user of the prominent BitTorrent tracker LinkoManija.net. Self-proclaimed investigators evidence consisted of a screenshot of peers as listed by uTorrent. The evidence was gathered in conjunction with a local police officer, but none of the parties involved was authorized to conduct an investigation of this kind. Citing faulty evidence judge closed the case and stated that LANVA had no right to collect and use the information they gathered. In addition, the judge ruled that such evidence gathering techniques have to be approved before they can be used.

Bottom line, a question to ‘copyright defenders’: end justifies the means?

IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), representing the recording industry worldwide with some 1400 members in 72 countries, announced 2009 Digital Music report again putting the blame for decreased physical sales on file-sharers. In their annual Digital Music Report, IFPI states that file-sharers (pirates) are half as likely to buy physical music than the average music buyer. Although the report is about digital music, they carefully avoid saying anything about file-sharers and digital sales. TorrentFreak concluded very different picture from barely 2 pages of report published online:

Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are:

• 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
• 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
• 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
• 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

The music industry own figures show pirates are paying more for music in digtal form, than average phisical music buyer; not forgeting fact, that digital music is cheaper that same one on phisical media, like CD. It’s very clear that music industry should get more respect for Customers actually growing their business: blame file-sharers for not buying CD’s, yet gladly taking their money for digital music.