Today, anti-piracy company DigiProtect are being featured in an article by the BBC where they defend their UK file-sharing witch-hunt. As usual, the firm says its just protecting rights holders when it demands cash payments from individuals, without solid proof that the accused have actually done something wrong.

Notably, the German-based outfit refused to tell the BBC the names of its clients, but this is to be expected. Part of the DigiProtect service is to shield the brand image of its clients by taking all the adverse publicity these campaigns generate by taking it on their own chin. However, despite putting themselves front and center for criticism, it doesn’t actually play out like that.

It is ACS:Law, the tiny one-lawyer UK law firm who do the ‘dirty work’ for DigiProtect, which gets all the attention. Unlike lawyers Davenport Lyons and more recently Tilly Bailey & Irvine who withdrew from this business due to the damage it was causing to their reputations, ACS:Law don’t care about the negative publicity. Considering the huge amounts of money they’re bringing in, some might consider their defiance understandable.

But perhaps ACS:Law should stop for a moment and think about the damage being done to the reputation of their profession and to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA), the body charged with the task of ensuring the law business in the UK isn’t brought into disrepute. As we will now reveal, the toll is considerable.

During the debates about the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Lords, repeated mentions were made that the appropriate route of complaint for recipients of demands relating to filesharing accusations is via complaints to the appropriate legal authorities. Comments along these lines were made by Lord Young, despite his department having received a number of complaints from individuals stating they had exhausted all their options.

It was therefore surprising that the following comment was made on record during these debates: (Lord Young – 20 Jan 10)

“The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that these actions are appalling and unacceptable, but nobody has referred them to any of the regulatory bodies. I find that strange. We are saying that we have had thousands of these cases yet nobody has said that this law firm is acting in a totally unacceptable way. I should have thought that the legal regulatory bodies would by now have been involved and I am puzzled why they have not been.”

As a result of this claim, which he knew to be untrue, John Fletcher (working with Beingthreatened.com) discovered that the total number of complaints to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) could be found using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which the SRA voluntarily honor.

An FOIA request was made and the results are astonishing.

By the end of December 2009, a full month before Lord Young claimed “nobody had referred [ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons] to the regulatory bodies”, more than 247 individual complaints had in fact been made to the SRA.

At the answering of the FOIA request, nearly 300 complaints had been made against a total of three law firms. Of these, 14 complaints are recorded as having been resolved in one case file, which would have pertained to Davenport Lyons and 3 complaints at the time of the request were against Tilly Bailey and Irvine. So what about the rest?

As of 22 March 2010, a staggering 283 of these complaints related to the activities of ACS:Law.

Together, the individual complaints made against mainly ACS:Law (and to a much lesser extent Tilly Bailey & Irvine and Davenport Lyons) over the past two years dwarfs the levels of SRA complaints relating to any other area of intellectual property law in the UK.

Furthermore, in September 2009, complaints against ACS:Law topped out at over 16% of the 500 complaints made in total to the SRA for the whole month.

But there is a serious problem. The SRA is there to serve the public by ensuring that disreputable lawyers are quickly kept in check, and to this end they have to adhere to timeliness targets.

The information published by the Office of the Legal Services Complaint Commissioner (OLSCC) in their annual report has set the following timeliness targets for the SRA and the Legal Complaints Service (LCS):

Timeliness Target T1 – 6 Month Closures: The Legal Complaints Service to investigate and conclude at least 87% of cases within 6 months of receipt.

Timeliness Target T2 – 12 Month Closures: The Legal Complaints Service to investigate and conclude 100% of cases within 12 months, apart from in exceptional circumstances.

The Freedom of Information request referred to above discovered that of the 14 complaints made regarding the activity of Davenport Lyons:

· Only 7% of cases were closed within 6 months of receipt (against the target of 87%).

· 29% of cases were closed within 12 months of receipt.

This means that a huge 64% of all complaints failed to meet targets T1 and T2, yet no explanation has been given by the SRA as to the exceptional circumstances preventing these complaints being resolved quicker.

We can also see from the FOIA request that the complaints against ACS:Law appear to be following exactly the same pattern.

In this case the complaints have not yet been concluded, but at the time of writing 51% of complaints have already passed beyond the 6 month target (according to target less than 13% should have done so). We are also less than two months from the first complaints against ACS:Law also exceeding the 12 month target.

To our knowledge no complainant has been kept up to date on the timeliness of their complaints nor given any indication of their progress. This appears to be completely unacceptable, especially given the continued failing to meet targets.

Sadly, the office that set the targets is due to have closed on the 31st March, and therefore is no longer in a position to uphold them, but those who have made complaints should persist as they deserve and have a right to be heard.

Those affected should take their cases to the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Ministry of Justice to ask why these timeliness targets have not been adhered to and why there has been no communication as to the progress of their complaint.

One could perhaps conclude that the reasons for the delays are obvious. Due to the activities of ACS:Law, DigiProtect and their faceless, entirely non-UK clients, the systems of the SRA have been entirely overwhelmed. This means that not only do recipients of these letters get a poor service from the SRA, but quite possibly complainants in other areas of law.

But despite these huge and growing problems, Andrew Crossley from ACS:Law is absolutely defiant that he will continue to operate this scheme in the UK. His claim that his number one priority is protecting copyright is increasingly falling on deaf ears, particularly when he revealed recently that in the last 11 months alone he had collected £1 million from letter recipients.

The cost to the legal profession overall, however, can’t be measured in terms of money. Some things have greater value.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Last Wednesday the Digital Economy Bill was forced through by the UK Government. Under the new law copyright holders have the power to spy on those who infringe their rights, which may ultimately lead to file-sharers being disconnected from the Internet. In addition, copyright holders can urge the Government to close websites without the hassle of going through the courts.

Despite these new powers awarded to copyright holders, it is unlikely that they will stop heavy file-sharers from continuing what they’ve been doing for so long. The problem with using technology to fight technology is that it’s only a matter of time before the latter catches up with the former.

It has already been shown numerous times that DRM has not prevented anyone from sharing files, and the Digital Economy Act – with all the extra powers it gives to copyright holders – wont be successful either.

For those who don’t want to give up their habit of downloading copyrighted material, there are simply dozens of ways to download music and movies without being at risk. Much like DRM, the Act will not stop tech savvy file-sharers, it will only change the rules of the game.

Listed below are a few ways how file-sharers will easily avoid the measures that have been introduced by the new legislation.

A Simple Trick

For those who use BitTorrent to share files, there is one really simple trick to avoid being tracked by many copyright holders. Since all of the tracking software we’re aware of today use BitTorrent trackers to gather data, one can simply remove the tracker(s) before downloading and rely on DHT and PEX instead.

DHT and PEX are supported by all the major BitTorrent clients nowadays and users will be able to download just as quickly as they are used to. Instead of going through a central tracker, DHT and PEX allow BitTorrent users to get all the information they need from the swarm, and avoid the prying eyes of many anti-piracy outfits by doing so.

Although monitoring DHT is harder than using the BitTorrent trackers to gather ‘evidence’, it is not impossible. But since the leading BitTorrent tracking organization Dtecnet has no clue about DHT, we assume that it might take a while before their evidence gathering techniques are updated.

Buying Anonymity

For a few pounds a month file-sharers can circumvent the Digital Economy Act entirely with a VPN. These services offer an encrypted tunnel between your home connection and an external server and will exchange your IP-address for one in another country where UK laws don’t apply. Besides avoiding being tracked by anti-piracy outfits, a VPN will also allow access to all of the sites that may be blocked under the new legislation.

There are thousands of VPN services available on the Internet. Itshidden is a popular one among BitTorrent users, but Hidemyass and Swiss VPN have received positive reviews as well. The Pirate Bay folks offer one of the cheapest solutions, they launched their Ipredator VPN a year ago after Sweden passed their new anti-piracy law.

Ditch BitTorrent

What hasn’t been mentioned too often is that the Digital Economy Act only targets a select group of file-sharers – those who upload material. It is expected that BitTorrent and Gnutella-based applications such as Limewire will be the main targets, simply because they are the easiest to monitor.

However, there are several other ways to download copyrighted content on the Internet. Usenet providers offer premium download services that cannot be monitored easily, and as we mentioned in a previous article, there are also hundreds of MP3 search engines that allow users to download files directly on their computers without being tracked.

The bottom line is that no matter what legislation governments introduce, it is doubtful that it will have an effect on heavy file-sharers or those that can be bothered to spend 30 minutes using Google. It might deter some novice file-sharers, but the question is at what expense? As The Guardian rightfully notes today, the Act might lead to hundreds or thousands of people losing their connection based on false evidence. Is that worth it?

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Popularity: 2% [?]

BBC News

Digital Economy Bill makes internet file sharing illegal Metro Supporters of the Pirate Bay website, one of the world's top illegal file sharing websites. Innocent people could be blocked from going on to the internet … The Digital Economy Bill and youThe Linc The Digital Economy Bill – what it means, and what you can do about itCoast Digital (blog) Digital Economy Bill: Proposed By The Unelected, Debated By The Ignorant …Techdirt CMU News-Blog (blog) -PC Pro -TechRadar UK all 405 news articles »

Popularity: 1% [?]

Telegraph.co.uk

Internet file sharing is now illegal in the UK Metro Supporters of the Pirate Bay website, one of the world's top illegal file sharing websites. Innocent people could be blocked from going on to the internet … The Digital Economy Bill and youThe Linc The Digital Economy Bill – what it means, and what you can do about itCoast Digital (blog) Digital Economy Bill: Proposed By The Unelected, Debated By The Ignorant …Techdirt CMU News-Blog (blog) -PC Pro -TechRadar UK all 349 news articles »

Popularity: 1% [?]

Telegraph.co.uk

The Digital Economy Bill – what it means, and what you can do about it Coast Digital (blog) For the record – I don't use the Pirate Bay or BitTorrent. Anyway, as soon as you block one site, another one will spring up. And who will decide which … The Digital Economy Bill and youThe Linc Digital Economy Bill: Proposed By The Unelected, Debated By The Ignorant …Techdirt Digital Economy Bill passed by House Of Commons, minus Clause 18CMU News-Blog (blog) PC Pro -TechRadar UK -TechCrunch (blog) all 346 news articles »

Popularity: 1% [?]

Politics.co.uk

Analysis: The digital economy bill and you Politics.co.uk In this case, the copyright infringer is basically someone downloading Pirates of the Caribbean from a filesharing site, like BitTorrent or Pirate Bay. … and more »

Popularity: 1% [?]

Telegraph.co.uk

The Digital Economy Bill and you The Linc Peer to peer (P2P) 'torrent' sites like The Pirate Bay or applications like LimeWire are commonly known as a source to cheaply fill up iPods with music, … Digital Economy Bill passed by House Of Commons, minus Clause 18CMU News-Blog (blog) Analysis: The digital economy bill and youPolitics.co.uk Digital Economy Bill passes CommonsPC Pro TechRadar UK -TechCrunch (blog) -GigaOm (blog) all 326 news articles »

Popularity: 1% [?]

Telegraph.co.uk

Digital Economy Bill passed by House Of Commons, minus Clause 18 CMU News-Blog (blog) But the various versions of Clause 18 (originally Clause 17) proved controversial, mainly because some feared powers to block sites like The Pirate Bay or … Doublethink – The Digital Economy Bill against the digital economyTechCrunch (blog) Digital Economy Bill to be debated todayPC Advisor all 240 news articles »

Popularity: 1% [?]

The UK Government continues to push forward the Digital Economy Bill (DEB) that aims to protect copyright holders from online pirates. On 15th March the House of Lords approved the bill and handed it over to the House of Commons.

To the absolute dismay of most outside the music and movie industries, some of the most controversial elements of the Bill are unlikely to receive any major scrutiny and will be dealt with quickly under the so-called “wash-up”, a short period between the announcement of an election and parliament being closed down.

“It’s a deeply unsatisfactory and very worrying development,” a senior executive from an ISP told The Guardian. “The fear is that no one will know what is being cooked-up before it becomes law. It’s legislation on the hoof.”

But this situation suits the BPI just fine. This week a leaked memo from the BPI fell into the hands of Cory Doctorow which showed that the “LibDem amendment” – a proposal under the DEB which would allow for websites to be blocked if, essentially, the BPI didn’t like their activities – was in fact written by the BPI. Very cosy.

But the controversies don’t end there. Doctorow also received an internal document prepared by the BPI’s Director of Public Affairs and prospective Labour parliamentary candidate, Richard Mollet. In the document he admitted that the only reason the DEB had a chance of passing is because MP’s are resigned to voting on it without debate.

“Translation: if MPs got to debate the Bill, they would tear it to unrecognizable pieces as they realized what terrible rubbish it really is,” wrote Doctorow. The scandals go on and on, but we have to stop somewhere.

Nevertheless, UK Music head Feargal Sharkey says that he is confident that the DEB will be passed before the general election, although others are not so sure.

“It will still be nip and tuck to get the Digital Economy Bill onto the statute book before the election so the battle is not won yet,” wrote Shadow Culture Minister, Jeremy Hunt, on his blog this week.

According to Jim Killock at the Open Rights Group, UK citizens aren’t leaving anything to chance with 10,000 of them having written to their MPs in the last three days to demand a debate on the Digital Economy Bill.

“It is outrageous for corporate lobbyists including the BPI, FAST and UK Music to demand that MPs curtail democracy and ram this Bill through Parliament without debate,” says Killock, adding: “The British people did not elect UK Music and the BPI to write our laws.”

Killock says that what is making the 10,000 so angry is the pushing through of the DEB without debate, an act he describes as “undemocratic and dangerous”.

If you’d like to add your dissenting voice, please email your MP, write to your local newspaper, and attend the planned demonstrations.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Popularity: 1% [?]

The entertainment industry is known to commission reports and research that hugely benefit their lobbying practices. A new report, “Building a Digital Economy” was released yesterday. This report investigates the impact of piracy on Europe’s creative sector and was paid for by the same industry.

As expected, the reports paint a disastrous picture. In just 5 years from now the total number of lost jobs in Europe could grow to 1.2 million and the lost revenue for the industry may skyrocket to €240 billion in the same time frame. The report was quickly praised by anti-piracy outfits including the BPI and IFPI who will use it in their political lobbying efforts.

Of course, those who took the time to take a good look at the report will have seen that there are many assumptions and statistical tricks that led to these outrageous claims. We will discuss a few of them below and show that depending on what sources are used, one could come to entirely different conclusions.

- The report suggests that there’s a direct correlation between Internet traffic growth and lost jobs. That is, the more traffic that is generated on the Internet, the more money will be lost. This correlation is 1 according to the report, which assumes that all growth in Internet traffic will increase piracy at the same rate.

- The report makes another bogus assumption by stating that more traffic will mean more piracy and thus more lost revenue. It does not account for the fact that people might consume higher quality files which are greater in file-size. All projections are based on bandwidth and not the number of pirated goods.

- The report cites some academic literature which suggests that piracy leads to a decrease in sales. Studies that reported the opposite or a null-effect were carefully left out. This bias defines the entire outcome of the report. If they used studies that found a positive effect they would have found that piracy would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the years to come.

- The report uses fixed substitution rates. They assume that 10 downloaded albums results in one lost sale and this figure is not adjusted for the projected increase in piracy. One would think that the public’s budget for entertainment is limited and that the substitution rate would go down as piracy goes up.

- Related to the previous point, if the industry did indeed lose over €240 billion in revenue by 2015, consumers would have a lot of extra cash to spend. Depending on where this money was spent it might create more jobs than the entertainment industry claims it is losing. As a report commissioned by the Dutch Government showed last year, the overall effect of piracy on the economy might actually be positive.

- It gets even more ridiculous when we take a closer look at the claims. In the UK consumers spent €6.3 on audiovisual products in 2008. If the projected trends continued, the ‘lost’ revenue because of piracy would exceed the actual revenue, meaning that the music and movie industries would end up having to pay people for pirating their products.

- Lastly, the researchers seem to have trouble putting a decent report together as they messed up the legend of one of the critical figures. In this figure the bars for “file-sharing” and “global Internet traffic” are switched around. This makes us skeptical about the other statistics that are published in the report.

We can go on for a while listing the many implausibilities and research failures but we have to draw a line somewhere. Unfortunately, most news outlets won’t take the time to read through the report, meaning that these figures will be re-posted without questioning the source.

Both the UK Pirate Party and the Open Rights Group have responded to the report criticizing its one-sidedness and propagandistic nature.

“I am fed up of hearing corporate propaganda being deployed in order to justify intrusions on our rights to freedom of speech, privacy and to a fair trial,” Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group said in a comment on the report.

“The claimed losses of £1200 per household in the UK are clearly ludicrous. I certainly don’t know anyone who has an extra £1200 in their pockets thanks to piracy,” Pirate Party UK leader Andrew Robinson added.

The entertainment industry lobby, however, has already managed to get support from various politicians in the EU Parliament and will continue to use the report to justify their call for tougher measures against online piracy. We can only hope that the majority of them will see through the misleading setup and bogus numbers.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Popularity: 1% [?]