Empirical Data Suggests That Website Blocking Is A Useless Weapon Against Infringement
from the empirical-data dept
Calls for evidence-based policy-making in the copyright domain are increasing on both sides of the Atlantic. How do we best regulate the fair remuneration of artists? How do we enforce it? Evidence based on sound methodologies and research is slowly but surely appearing. Now the highly respected Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam joins the league of evidence-givers with a new report, Filesharing 2©12, Downloading in The Netherlands, about how blocking websites is not a worthwhile remedy (The report is in Dutch, but the executive summary is translated. It was an initiative by the IViR itself and was partly financed by the Ministry of Culture, Education and Research, some ISP's, Dutch society for professionals in the book industry and done in collaboration with several other institutes. Small disclaimer: I did my masters at this institute).Economist Joost Poort explains his main findings:
"The most surprising result for me is that the act of downloading from an unauthorized source seems to have peaked and is now declining. This is most likely due to the actions of the music industry, who have been successfully experimenting with new business models."There you go, music industry! You're doing it right! It seems like everyone is winning in the Netherlands: illegal downloads decreasing, new business models (streaming, advertising) successfully competing with abundant free supply, and paying customers. In fact, the study shows that some two thirds of consumers are willing to pay around the current retail prices for content. I can't back this up, but it seems reasonable to suggest that this is the same amount of people who would have shelled out cash back in the day of optical discs, or CD's as those clumsy shiny discs used to be called. Remember all those thieving fans who proudly owned huge tape collections with self-decorated covers of the copied albums? If you don't, you must be younger than 25. However, not all is good news. Poort continues:
"The downloading of films and series from unauthorized sources is on the rise. This shows that enforcement is not the reason for decreased downloading of music, since successful enforcement would not only have an effect on music, but on all media offered by blocked websites, such as the Pirate Bay"Note that ThePirateBay.org is blocked in the Netherlands, pending appeals in several cases. Poort elaborates:
"The reactions from consumers show clearly that the blockade of the Pirate Bay website is not relevant to about 75% of them. This is because they never downloaded from illegal sources anyway, or stopped downloading since legal services have taken off or they had enough money to pay for content. The other 25% seems fairly unaffected by the injunction. Only 5% have indicated they actually started downloading less, not a shockingly large effect to put it mildly."."To say this is an interesting finding is an understatement of epic proportions. This finding gives decisive evidence that blocking access to websites, services or content distribution methods is a bogus way of addressing an innovating customer base. To repeat, but in more joyous terms: Hey Policymakers! Honorable Judges! Here's the evidence you've been waiting for! Ha, turns out that blocking websites is an ineffective way to change consumer behavior after all. Gosh, if only someone had predicted this before... Would've saved us all quite some hassle, right?!
Well then, now this is settled, time to focus all the wasted litigation and lobbying money for restrictive measures on R&D. The legal services are still in their infancy and have so much potential. The better they get; the more people will pull out their wallets to pay for access. You wouldn't want to be the only kid left behind who can't access all the great content made available through 4G network phones and super fast broadband by really easy to use services, would you?
Thinking about it this way, affordable, user-friendly and all encompassing services for music, films and books may even increase the paying user base from 67% to... 100%?! Maybe not quite 100%, but more research is needed for this new and possible social phenomenon of peer-pressure to pay for media and at the same time the reversal of the old media model: huge paying consumer bases for the cultural sector due to abundant and ubiquitous availability, instead of artificial scarcity and thriving "piracy". Record execs must be throwing money at their screens by now, reading about this not-quite-so-hypothetical but under-researched gap in the market.
Of course, we must not forget that part of the financing team is currently in appeal for a court ruling, which forced ISP's to block ThePirateBay.org. This blogger is happy to keep you updated of any developments in the already legendary Dutch copyright fisticuffs of 2012!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blocking, copyright, infringement, law enforcement, remedies, study
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
The phrase "innovating customer base" is a repugnant lie euphemizing theft, removing the moral sting of taking what is --regardless of all else -- demonstrably NOT YOURS. One could as well use the phrase "innovative pocket access" to describe pickpocketing. It's sanitizing wrong acts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
We would not have the internet in the first place if people like you were in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
Everything you take is not yours by definition. Whether you pay for it or not, whether you have permission from the owner or not.
When I purchase a DVD, I am taking something that is demonstrably not mine.
This is a troll post I like, because it clearly demonstrates some of the garbage thinking that underpins piracy hysteria.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
Copyright is not a moral doctrine. It's a legal construct.
Confusing legality with morality is a commonly made but basic mistake. You may argue that it's morally wrong to break any law (and many religious people believe that) but no moral person thinks the law describes moral behavior.
Again, a great teaching moment. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, morals are subjective. Yours are not mine. Mine are not Mike's. Mike's are not Obama's. And so on and so forth.
Stop playing the morality card, it has little to no business in business, law or anything else really.
As for "innovating customer base", wtf is wrong with you? How is that a lie for "euphemizing theft"? It's not. It's quite frankly an honest and frank business reality. You must innovate your customer base. You must give them reasons to buy. You must make it so paying you is not a worse and more difficult task than simply acquiring something illegally.
Also, it is not necessarily wrong to take something that is not yours. Knowledge and culture being two things that are commonly taken and used by others, as well as expanded upon.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You were speaking (falsely) of the moral recognition of who has the right to make copies, now you're discussing taking something (actual theft) and pickpocketing. Which is again, a horribly incorrect (and morally repugnant) analogy.
You're conflating theft with the ability to create copies. Go look up theft. I'll wait. Didn't bother? That's okay, theft is when one DEPRIVES another of something. Doesn't matter what, as long as it is in some way something tangible (for the most part). Meaning they are now without. Copying means copying, creating another and now there being two of an item where before there was wrong.
You idiot. I'm sorry, I try not to insult others, but you seriously test my patience and my ability to be respectful to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
Do not agree, well just look at youtube, and torrent sites, where people are uploading there own tracks and albums for no compensation.
Just as with authors and publishers and people being able to publish books that should have been published years ago but were blocked, more and more authors are letting there works go for nothing, why , because they enjoy writing, it is a hobby and now that the ability to distribute it has become 0 yes 0 everyone that ever wanted to can write a book or two or three in there spare time.
Movies and TV shows: This is the best part of copyright, where huge companies are finding it almost impossible to do business with the studios, where the cost to supply and sell the product is so high that there is almost no chance to make any profit, or very little profit for the amount of effort put in to distribute in a way people will pay for content. More and more big internet businesses are talking about funding TV shows and movies and supplying them free of charge to there customer base.
Eventually these groups of businesses will hopefully get together and start making big blockbusters and start taking money away from the old copyright czars. TV shows even more so as the cost is not so high and with technology improving on almost a daily basis it is becoming cheaper and cheaper to create a really good TV show.And look at the story on here the other day where the east is starting to break into the market with a much better product than the west has produced in many years.
Just watch red hill a Japanese or Chinese subtitled movie, seriously torrent it and watch it, I think it gives the likes of the biggest blockbusters a run for there money, in many ways it is one of the best movies I think that has ever been released and it has English subtitles. I would actually say that it is way way better than the lord of the rings trilogy, more believable, better videography and a more in depth sincere story, the special effects are unbelievable...ok i shut up now.. :)
SO I understand that people are upset and at times I get upset at the way the studios or Hollywood or the mpaa , call them what you will, try to lock down entertainment and charge virtually just for thinking about there content, they are going, the writing is on the wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
Plus, the actual wording "congrass shall have the power... to promote the progress of science(copyright) and the useful arts(patents)" suggests that it is not meant as a moral right at all and only for things that move socity forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
Umm, not, it's not. The purpose of copyright is clearly spelled out, and "moral recognition" of anything is not a part of it. It is also specifically not a property right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
At least try to understand what we're talking about when entering a discussion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
Reading comp fail. Nobody said a copy isn't property, only that copyright isn't property.
A much better question is what right does the government have to prevent his access to his perfectly legal files?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same AC as above.
You've got a team of developers working on a software project. Could be 20, could be hundreds. The project is pretty much done and ready to be distributed, say GOG.com (definitely a model for software distribution). One of the developers leaves the project, and starts selling the group's project on Steam. Doesn't this have any property aspects for the 19 or 99 other developers that worked on that project.
That copy does have property rights, in my humble opinion. And when someone purchases a copy, that copy should have rights to the individual that purchases it as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same AC as above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same AC as above.
If copyright isn't property, it goes to the public domain. So the one developer can legally sell the work of 20 or hundreds of developers without punishment. Sadly this is going to effect many open source projects in the future for both the Microsoft Store and Apple Store that require DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Same AC as above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same AC as above.
Unfortunately people get whipped into a frenzy by hostile and rude "pro-copyright" comments -- I wish these were gone -- so they can't respond to your serious comment without sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same AC as above.
If by "property aspects" you mean that it's a violation of property rights, I would say no.
However, there are at least two important legal ramifications of this that protect the company: it's certainly a copyright violation (and possibly a criminal one at that), and it's almost certainly a contractual violation.
To say that copyright is not a property right is not to say that it has no force or value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
Innovating is something one does to combat infringement. Hand wringing, name calling, and getting in lather is something one does to... um... why do you do it?
You're about as full of wind as The Donald��, are you in real estate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old "ineffective so do nothing" ploy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"not relevant to about 75% of them."
"The other 25% seems fairly unaffected by the injunction. Only 5% have indicated they actually started downloading less, not a shockingly large effect to put it mildly."." -- Actually, of the 25% downloading, 5% is a TWENTY PERCENT effect, and worthwhile.
Disproved by internal evidence. Your argument is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
"Of the remaining 23.8% of Ziggo and XS4All customers, about three quarters said the blockade had not affected their downloading habits and a mere 5.5% said they now
download less, or had stopped downloading altogether. The expected reaction of customers of providers that had not yet enforced the court-ordered Pirate Bay blockade at the time of the survey was found to be comparable."
So we are talking 5.5% of 23.8% of the users of ziggo and xs4all that had actually felt affected by the ISP-blocking. Please stop lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
The Betamax case wants a word with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright math, no matter how many people say it.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57537871-38/more-pirate-sites-face-u.k-isp-blocks/
I also guess you did not receive the news about privacy methods like VPN services have greatly increased since website blocking has been implemented.
http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/299099,paid-vpn-services-boom-in-sweden.aspx
Unle ss we want to live behind the Great Wall of the MPAA/RIAA, these attempts will be useless, and even then technology will improve as has been shown by Chinese dissidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
OoTB - Return to base. Now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "not relevant to about 75% of them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time and again it has been shown, not just here but all over the net it's a smoke and mirror game when they scream morals.
It might not hurt for them to take lessons in ethics to discover what morals really are if they are going to try that route. Right now, they haven't a clue.
Any arguments from that direction merely show the wishful thought of saddling someone else with what they don't wish to be burdened with. Moral arguments for copyright are a fail from the start of the use of that word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
highly respected by WHO ??? themselves ? you..
who else, apart from Masnick and the institute itself highly respects them ??
google "institute for information law" and look up how many people are 'respecting' them !!!!
what have they done to earn this 'respect' ?? what have you dont to earn our respect ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Notable Alumi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their web site lists these places as ones they cooperate and do research with:
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (UC Berkeley);
Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Harvard University);
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law (Munich);
Norwegian Research Centre for Computers and Law (NRCCL);
University of Haifa Law School (Israel);
Center for Intellectual Property and Information Law of the University of Cambridge (CIPIL );
Institute for Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen (Norway);
Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society (TILT).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You will never, ever, EVER be considered to have the intelligence nor relevant cognitive capability of an average Australian.
You have done absolutely nothing that is worthy of respect. The closest gesture of respect someone might offer you would be spitting in your direction.
Find yourself a gun and someone who is smart enough to pull the trigger and get him to off you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the only ones that wont accept this fact are the entertainment industries themselves, including the BPI and the thick fuckers in the UK government. the BPI has just put in requests for ISPs to block other websites but will have to go to court to get it enacted as they did for the TPB blocking action. as for the UK government, whatever has been tried elsewhere and failed, they come along months or years later and try that very thing, just in case the effects will be different than they were for everyone else! talk about dopey! and these idiots are supposed to be in charge, for Christ's sake! unbelievable!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I notice something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I notice something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really
I have pointed out the extreme here but I suspect that in most cases someone who has downloaded 2 tb of music will not have a need to download anything every again. or at most the odd song here and there.
And all these people that have terabbyte's of music , you think they will not be allowing anyone to copy there hard drives, I mean it does not cost anything and if anything there is a backup if the original hard drive is bricked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]