Researchers from the University of Ballarat survey content on BitTorrent networks also find that “of the torrents in the top three categories (Movies, Music and TV shows), there were no legal torrents in the sample.”
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has released the results of an “academic research” paper it funded via the University of Ballarat and unsurprisingly the findings are in keeping with its long battle against BitTorrent traffic and its users, the paper concluding that as much as 98.1% of BitTorrent traffic is illegal.
For years now AFACT has been trying to get ISPs to become copyright cops and filter P2P traffic on their networks, a proposal ISPs have long rejected. It once even tried to denigrate illegal file-sharers even further by suggesting that biker gangs had become involved in illegal downloading and that the the practice had become more lucrative than dealing heroin.
Fed up with inaction by ISPs, AFACT sued iiNet back in 2008 and tried to hold it responsible for “allowing” its customers to use BitTorrent to download files illegally. It eventually lost the case this past February, but immediately filed an appeal, noting that the “judgment that has left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers and represents a serious threat to Australia’s digital economy.”
iiNet noted its dismay that “we feel like we’ve wasted a year when we should have spent the time and money [on developing a content distribution model].”
Now AFACT is back at again with a study titled “Investigation Into the Extent of Infringing Content on BitTorrent networks” in order to tout “academic research” which it claims “gives a clear insight into the nature of traffic on [the] Bit Torrent network.”
Researchers took a measly 1,000 torrents from 19 of the “most popular” BitTorrent trackers and examined what percentage of them were infringing.
Some of the key findings:
- 89.9% of all torrents within the sample were found to be infringing both by the number of files and total downloads.
- The top two categorized torrents were movie and TV shows making up 72.4% of all torrents. There were no legitimate movies or TV torrents in the sample.
- The top two movie files were being seeded more than 1 million times each. The third most popular movie file was being seeded more than 500,000 times.
- 9.9% of torrents were responsible for 90% of the total seed population.
- Only 1 non-infringing torrent (an open source program) was found in the most popular 100 torrents.
The researchers also noted that the 89.1% figure excluded pornographic torrents whose legality could not be verified. If one assumed that all of the pornographic titles were infringing the overall figure would increase to 98.1%.
“All it takes is an internet connection and the BitTorrent software to efficiently distributing large files amongst users,” said Neil Gane, Executive Director of AFACT. “It may be a legitimate software but, as we have always maintained, it is the preferred software for sharing unauthorized copyright content. The research found that movies and TV shows made up 72% of all torrent traffic yet not one copy was legitimate.”
That may be so, but it’s insane to argue that ISPs should somehow try and ban the BitTorrent protocol or filter BitTorrent traffic simply because a majority of a mere 1,000 torrents were infringing. If AFACT really wants to fight illegal file-sharing it ought to do as iiNet suggested and develop a better content distribution model.
The truth doesn’t seem to matter to AFACT, and iiNet has repeatedly emphasized their disconnect from reality.
“AFACT have made it very clear – their idea of cooperation is for ISPs to disconnect our customers when they demand it,” it says. “If we don’t do their bidding they’ll tie ISPs up in the courts.”
“We will happily sit down with any and all content owners to discuss ways to make their desirable content available to our customers, legally and commercially. We’ll do that individually, or as part of industry initiatives, but that needs to be done in good faith and with a genuine desire for success,” it adds.
What it comes down to is bogus stats, and Ernesto over at TorrentFreak does an excellent job of pointing out just exactly why.
“To back this up, we only have to take a look at isoHunt. According to isoHunt their site indexes 5,451,959 unique torrent files, and 85,457 of these come from Jamendo, a site that publishes only Creative Commons licensed music,” he says. “So that’s already 1.5% torrents that can be shared legally, without mentioning any Linux distros.”
Stay tuned.
Let’s see where this little postgrad study came from:
Funded by Village Roadshow. [ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Village_Roadshow ]
Okay, No surprise there given the result.
First credit is held by a PhD student, Robert Layton and backed by Associate Professor Paul A. Watters,
Research Director of of the Internet Commerce Security Laboratory (ICSL) and an Associate Professor
in Information Security with the university. This is a typical arrangement, showing the the student did the
work and the prof signed off on the result. It is unlikely that Dr. Watters participated in the work or that
he wrote any portion of the report but it is indisputable that the student had no choice but to deliver results
and data that met with his approval because otherwise it would not be published. Failure is not an option.
Layton was elected by the students to the Council last year, served in a typically limited role as a student
member and was given special leave for partial attendance, not unusual for a student with academic duties
of his own. This year, in pursuing a doctorate, he’s bringing in research dollars. A good, company man.
Dr Watters is into security in several Big Brother style technologies such as online censorship, covert
messaging and steganography (hiding data in pictures, audio and video files), biometric authentication
(using fingerprints and the like to digitally identify people), “Trustworthy Computing” (the locking down
of computers), and in cybercrime, like phishing and all that goes with that. Along the way, so he claims,
he has researched P2P before, so It will be interesting to see that past work.
The ICSL, as you may have already guessed, is focused on security of commerce in all of it’s research
so one can see that their mindset and all of their work leans toward business interests and in giving both
business and government greater or total control over technology with little awareness or sensitivity to
human rights and freedoms except as potential objections and obstacles to security goals.
If one were shopping for one-sided pro-business opinions and research this is likely the best place in
Australia to spend your dollars for small jobs with a quick turnaround. The intellectual momentum and
polarized security culture ensures a favourable result for business interests with little to no risk of
confounding statements about concerns over personal rights and freedoms catching a reader’s eye
and causing the actual research to pull any attention from the PR campaign which paid for it.
Given the sharply limited scope of the data and the shortness of the final report it is clear to me that the
resources and time allotted were carefully measured to ensure a one-sided report with no danger of
unwanted balance in analysis or of unexpected data in appendixes weakening the intended message.
In summary, this report is a well-planned and executed public relations laundry with just enough
legitimacy to keep the press from looking too closely at any part of it’s substance as they obediently
parrot the sound bites. Layton is not entirely to blame because he was not free to do otherwise and
unaware of that, and probably knew little to nothing about the other issues in play. The prof is partly
covered because the kid did all the work and his name on the report is a formality of this position as
Director. AFACT did pick the most likely place to get what they wanted but can assert that they did
not dictate the results. Village Roadshow guaranteed the result by controlling exactly how much time
and effort was spent but since their contact with Layton was behind two or three intermediaries they
are well protected no matter what may happen. Though the buck is passed between all four the only
effective risk is to Layton’s reputation for not getting enough facts together to back his conclusions
and even then he is “just” a student so his reputation is disposable in the short term and his college
career is still secure.
As productions go Village Roadshow got a good, low-risk deal for bottom dollar and nobody gets hurt.
All they have to worry about is getting yet another negative review but they are used to those. ;]
If BitTorrent is banned, then players of World of Warcraft will have an extremely hard time keeping up to date.
But I want to download Captain Planet!
When you want to do a study like this, the first critical thing you need to do is establish how many Torrent swarms are out there. With private trackers and possibly public trackers using robot.txt to stay off of search engines, determining that is impossible.
The second critical thing is to get an appropriately sized sample of torrents. Since it’s impossible to figure out how many torrents are out there, this step is also impossible.
Grabbing information from “top 19″ trackers is not an appropriate way of gathering data given the existence of specialty trackers as well as the possibility of more hidden trackers ala private trackers) So any result from a study like this has to be thrown out since it’s clearly not scientific.
The study is junk science at best and fraudulent at worst.