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!

Filed Under: blocking, copyright, infringement, law enforcement, remedies, study

Are You A Company Or Developer Threatened By Patent Trolls? Please Take This Quick Survey

from the thanks dept

Law professor Colleen Chien, who has done some great work on the issue of patent trolls, is looking for insights and data from companies and developers who have been threatened by patent trolls. She's created a survey and is seeking input from those on the receiving end of patent threats: demand letters, lawsuits, etc. I know plenty of folks here have experienced that themselves and/or work for companies who have. If you have directly been on the receiving end, please fill out the (short) survey. If you work for a company who has, or if you know someone else who has been in this situation, please share the survey with them. The more accurate data that Chien has, the better the research will turn out in the end.

Filed Under: patent trolls, patents, research, study

Senator Leahy Hopes To Rush Through PIPA By Promising To Study DNS Blocking... Later?!?

from the say-what-now? dept

As we noted yesterday, staffers in both the House and the Senate quietly started floating the idea that they would drop the DNS provisions in the bill... in the hopes that maybe it would calm down the growing unrest about SOPA/PIPA. Senator Leahy today made the first official statement on the matter, and it's ridiculous. Rather than drop the DNS blocking, or even hold off on voting on the bill -- both of which would be sensible steps in a much bigger process, he wants to rush the bill through... but ignore the DNS provisions until there's a chance to "study" the impact of them:

As I prepare a managers' amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property. I regret that law enforcement will not have this remedy available to it when websites operating overseas are stealing American property, threatening the safety and security of American consumers. However, the bill remains a strong and balanced approach to protecting intellectual property through a no-fault, no-liability system that leverages the most relevant players in the Internet ecosystem.

In other words, pass the bill now... then wait until all the furor dies down... and then we turn on the DNS blocking provisions when no one's paying attention. This is just nasty politics. It's an attempt to ram through everything while pretending to listen to constituent concerns. This lets Leahy and PIPA/SOPA supporters pretend that DNS blocking is no longer an issue in the bill... get the bill approved... and then figure out some way to turn them on later. Ridiculous.

It's incredibly important to let Leahy -- and every other Senator -- know that this is totally unacceptable. If there are big concerns on the bill, and he's suddenly going to release a manager's amendment that no one's seen yet, shouldn't we stop moving forward with the bill, give everyone a chance to digest what it's saying, explore the issues and concerns and then determine if the bill has any merit? Instead, he's still trying to move forward with a bill that has all sorts of problems: it still involves censorship for "information location tools" (just not DNS blocking). It still has a very broad definition for a rogue site. It still has the private right of action that will lead to a ton of lawsuits. There are tons of problems... and punting DNS blocking down the road to shove the rest through is just obnoxious.

Still, this shows that the public outcry has been working. Leahy more or less admits this in his statement:

The process in drafting the legislation has always been an open one in which we have heard from all third parties, and have worked to address as many outstanding concerns as possible. It is through this process that we have gained the support of the majority of third parties who will be asked to take action under the legislation, as well as a bipartisan group of 40 cosponsors in the Senate.

It is also through this process that I and the bill’s cosponsors have continued to hear concerns about the Domain Name provision from engineers, human rights groups, and others. I have also heard from a number of Vermonters on this important issue. I remain confident that the ISPs – including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs – would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. Nonetheless, this is in fact a highly technical issue, and I am prepared to recommend we give it more study before implementing it.

That first paragraph is ridiculous. PIPA drafting has not been open at all. Traditionally such bills are widely shared with others, including those who oppose. PIPA was not. Traditionally, hearings are held for controversial bills. No hearings were held on PIPA. The tech community has repeatedly reached out and offered to be a part of the discussions... and it was ignored.

That said, the fact that he's "heard from a number of Vermonters on this important issue" shows that the grassroots effort -- with many people calling, emailing and visiting the Senator, are having an impact. But it needs to continue -- and even amplify. Senator Leahy needs to know that this is not a reasonable solution. He needs to know that if there are concerns with the bill, we should wait band not rush it. He needs to know that if he's making last minute changes, he should be sharing those with the outside world -- who he claims is a part of the process... and let them comment on the bill.

Hell, he could just look at the Wyden/Issa alternative bill, OPEN. Whatever you think of the OPEN Act, the backers of that bill need to be commended. They put the bill up on the web and made it editable by all, so that anyone and everyone could be a part of the feedback process. That process has been ongoing, and out of that process, a final bill will be drafted. Why wouldn't Senator Leahy do something like that? Why wouldn't he slow down, let everyone explore the bill? If he's really serious about wanting to hear from everyone on the bill... why rush it through without hearing from anyone (except, we imagine... some lobbyists).
Filed Under: copyright, dns blocking, patrick leahy, pipa, protect ip, punt, security, study

Blue Cross / Blue Shield Says Study Pointing Out Failures Of Its Doctors... Violates Its Trademark

from the that's-not-how-tardemark-works dept

Don't mean to sound like a broken record, but the purpose of trademark is consumer protection from confusion. The idea is that someone shouldn't be able to sell you "Bob's Cola," while labeling it "Coca Cola," because that's a form of fraud on consumers. Tragically, over the last few decades, lawyers have been able to reposition trademark law not as a "consumer protection" law, but as "intellectual property." This leads trademark holders to increasingly pretend that trademark law grants them additional rights and abilities and to use trademark law in ways that simply are not granted under the law.

For example, the Massachusetts Blue Cross/Blue Shield apparently thinks that you can't publish a study criticizing its doctors without permission thanks to trademark law. The company's VP of Communications contacted the authors of the study (which pointed out that BCBS doctors didn't always respond well to patients needing psychiatric care), telling them:

“We are VERY concerned about the use of BCBSMA’s name and brand in a published study without BCBSMA authorization. We’d like to talk with you about that.”

You may be concerned, but shouldn't you be a bit more concerned about the results of the study that call into question the practices of your doctors? Because the use of the name is perfectly legal and in no way touches on trademark law. No moron in a hurry is going to have a "likelihood of confusion" here, thinking that this study was somehow a product of BCBSMA. And, of course, in trying to intimidate the study's authors, all BCBSMA has done is... draw a lot more attention to the study and the reported failings of the organization.

Filed Under: doctors, study, trademark
Companies: blue cross blue shield

Study Shows That Web Blocking Ignores Real Problems, Doesn't Solve Anything & Is Used As A Political Tool

from the total-failure dept

We've been hearing a lot about politicians trying to restrict access rather than actually dealing with the root causes of problems a lot lately. From the horrible COICA censorship bill, to various state attorneys general pressuring websites to block forums, rather than having those AGs actually do their job and go after those responsible, it seems that politicians keep looking to put up a wall, rather than deal with real issues.

And, surprise, surprise, that doesn't work.

Kelly was the first of a few of you to send over a report (found via BoingBoing) that looked at how child porn blocklists in Scandinavia worked -- and what they found is that they didn't work well at all. As the researchers noted: "Blocking means looking away instead of acting."

The key findings in the report were that of the 167 sites on the list, only three of them appeared to actually contain child pornography. There were two problems here. The first is that sites that were put on the blocklist apparently were never reviewed later. But, much more importantly, it looks like once law enforcement put sites on the list, no one in law enforcement actually bothered to do anything to go after or to stop the actual perpetrators. The researchers noted that they were able to get the three sites in question taken down within hours, and wondered why law enforcement didn't take the most basic steps to do so, or to find and arrest those responsible. As they note:

The investigators seem to be operating a "fire and forget" strategy by just putting the sites on the lists -- they don't seem to go after the crimes and the perpetrators, and they don't unblock sites that are no longer relevant, which they should do for freedom of speech considerations.

It's too bad that many other countries are now trying to jump on such a mistaken censorship setup, without ever bothering to see if they can actually do something about the underlying causes of the sites they're trying to censor. It's all too typical in politics these days. This is a way that they can pretend they've done something by really brushing it under the rug. It doesn't stop the activity. It doesn't actually go after those responsible. It just hides things (perhaps too aggressively) and forgets about it.

Filed Under: blocking, study

Yet Another Study Suggests File Sharers Are Frustrated Buyers

from the but-is-it-true? dept

We've seen plenty of studies like this one in the past, but here's yet another in a long list (this one from Australia) suggesting that people who are file sharing unauthorized files are really frustrated consumers, who would pay if there was an actual reason to. That is, it suggests the reason they go to file sharing sites is because they're easier and more convenient, not just because it's free. While I'm sure that's true of some people, I'm not convinced the numbers in this report are anywhere near accurate. This was done as a survey, and surveys are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to having people tell you what they would do, compared to what they actually would do. Frankly, while studies like this do point out that file sharers are often willing to buy -- if given the reason -- the setup of the survey actually gives the industry a false milestone to work towards. It gets them back to thinking that there really is a market for digital goods, when the economics suggest they should be looking for scarcities, not trying to price infinite goods.

Of course, even with that false hope, the industry still is confused. The response to the study from Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft was that the industry won't "compete" with unauthorized file sharing until it goes away:

"Movie industries obviously want to make their content available online, but they can't compete currently with a free alternative that's perpetrated through theft. Once there is a level playing field, I think you'll begin to see a lot more flexible, innovative business models."

Talk about getting it backwards. The reason they have to compete is because file sharing is there. And, of course they can and do compete with free alternatives all the time, and have for ages. Saying you can't compete with free is a lie. Providers compete on things other than price all the time. In fact, saying you can't compete with free is a direct misunderstanding of what the survey appears to say: it's saying that consumers are more than will to pay for greater value, but the industry refuses to provide it. Saying you won't compete until the market changes in your favor is basically signing your own death warrant.

Filed Under: australia, buying, consumers, file sharing, study

AT&T More Upset About Stupid Analyst Report About Its Network Than Actual Network

from the forest-for-the-trees dept

AT&T is apparently "miffed" that a recent report from a research firm said that it carries less data traffic on its mobile network than either Verizon or Sprint. Meanwhile, the rest of us are trying to figure out exactly why the company cares so much. AT&T has been much maligned for its network's inability to keep up with iPhone users' data (and sometimes, voice) demands; perhaps the company is concerned that ranking third in overall data traffic will somehow push the perception that its network is underpowered even further. AT&T's own analysis of mobile data traffic shows it carries more than half of US mobile users' data, it says -- which is great. But that figure doesn't matter much to an iPhone user who can't connect to the network or whose device doesn't live up to their expectations because of spotty coverage. And those users' stories are probably much more persuasive among consumers than some pretty meaningless stats.

Filed Under: network, study
Companies: at&t

What The IFPI Report Left Out: Its Own Study Showed That File Sharers Do Buy

from the well,-look-at-that dept

We already spent a bunch of time debunking many of the claims in the IFPI's new "Piracy Bad!!!!" report. But the folks over at TorrentFreak have dug up a bit more info. Apparently the research for the report was put together by Forrester, and the underlying research showed that when it comes to the growth in digital music sales, those who partake of unauthorized file sharing are also the best customers of authorized digital music. No, this is not saying that file sharing automatically leads people to buy, or that all file sharers buy. Obviously, that's not the case. But it does suggest that demonizing those people might not be the smartest thing.

But the IFPI report doesn't mention any of that. Instead, it claims that people file share for one reason and one reason alone: because it's free. If that were the case, though, then why would any of those who partake also buy? And why would they be the industry's best customers for digital sales? It seems like the IFPI should be embracing them to see how it can get them to choose to buy more -- but instead, it totally ignores what its own researchers found, insists that it's just because content is free, and then spends most of the report demonizing its best customers and asking governments of the world to kick those people offline.

Filed Under: buyers, digital music, file sharing, ifpi, study
Companies: ifpi

Study Shows Counterfeit Buyers Frequently Buy Real Products Later

from the acta-what-now? dept

As the negotiations over the ACTA treaty continue in secret, one of the more frustrating aspects is how defenders of ACTA repeatedly conflate "counterfeit goods" with "copyright infringement." Witness Senator Evan Bayh's nonsensical response to being asked about ACTA, where it becomes clear quite quickly that he's unfamiliar with the most basic information on the subject. He switches back and forth between counterfeiting and copyright as if they're the same thing, and seems to think that any treaty on the matter must be good.

But, an even more annoying part of all this is the use of fear mongering over "counterfeit goods" as some huge problem that has to be solved, when the evidence increasingly suggests otherwise. The copyright lobbyists are using the cover of some mythical massive counterfeiting problem to push for unnecessary and potentially dangerous copyright law changes, but even the counterfeiting claims are suspect. In the past, we've noted that both the GAO and the OECD have noted that the "problem" of counterfeiting has been massively inflated by lobbyists.

And, a new study suggests that even the counterfeit goods that do get sold aren't really a huge problem to the original manufacturers (thanks to Dave Barnes for sending this in) -- if there a problem at all. In a study that was actually carried out by a former brand manager at LVMH, it was discovered that people don't view counterfeit goods as a substitute to the real goods. People aren't being tricked -- they know they're buying counterfeits, and others know that they have counterfeit goods as well:

"Consumers are a lot smarter than we may give them credit for -- just because you've got a nice fake doesn't mean you're going to get away with it."

But, even more importantly, it looks like counterfeit products often act as a stepping stone to get people to go forward and buy the original version:

"The counterfeit actually served as a placebo for brand attachment," she said. "People were becoming increasingly attached to the real brand even though they never possessed it at all."

Forty-six percent of the counterfeit-bag owners bought the authentic products within two and a half years, she said. Shoppers were willing to pay $786 for a real luxury bag....

So, for all the reports of "harm" done by counterfeit products, here's a study suggesting that it actually helps build brand loyalty, and appears to often lead to the counterfeit buyer later buying a massively expensive real offering in a relatively short time frame. As some are noting, this suggests that the counterfeit goods act as advertising for the real goods. These are the sorts of things that would probably be useful to discuss with those negotiating ACTA. If only those discussions weren't all happening behind closed doors due to "national security" issues.

Filed Under: counterfeit, promotion, study