ZeroPaid.com » ifpi

IFPI Announces Agreement With PayPal to Cut Off Pirate Sites

Drew Wilson — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:18:24 +0000

After over a half of a year of pressure on these companies from major multinational companies, the IFPI has said a few days ago that PayPal has agreed with the IFPI. The question remains, is it too little too late for this effort to have any impact?

In retrospect, this could be seen a mile away. Last year, rights holders pushed companies like Mastercard to cut off payments to pirate websites. As far back as 2010, many sites that felt that they could be the target of what some might consider corporate sponsored censorship could easily have made preparations by now to make sure that their methods of payments have been altered to evade detection. If the writing wasn't on the wall by that alone, there was also the report last year that PayPal cutoff payments to Wikileaks. So, it could be easily seen as far back as 2010 that PayPal would stop payments to customers as others demand it. Now, the long-time coming announcement has come. In an IFPI press release, PayPal has agreed to cut off websites that the industry says infringes on copyright. Frances Moore, chief executive of IFPI, which represents the recording industry worldwide says: "We knew that when illegal online music services could no longer take payment from credit cards they would try to work around the restriction. That is why we and the City of London Police approached PayPal and I am delighted to say they responded instantly and positively. "The work the City of London Police is undertaking is at the cutting edge of tackling online copyright infringement, a serious problem that is eroding the ability of record companies to invest in a diverse range of artists with serious consequences for jobs, tax revenues and consumer choice." The problem is that many sites that might be a target have already taken steps to avoid detection if they do use PayPal methods. Some sites have told its users to do things like merely put in the payments, "Here's my club membership fees" while some of these sites use PayPal accounts that simply show no sign of it being connected to any site that might be a target. Other sites have opted to simply stop using PayPal altogether and simply use other methods like Flatr and Bitcoin to name two examples. So, really, anyone who is in the know most likely saw something like this coming and planned accordingly. This would really affect the unprepared if the targets are accurate in the first place. In fact, this is great news for competitors of PayPal because it means more reasons to move away from PayPal to them in the first place. The only entity I see losing out in a deal like this is PayPal. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

IFPI Boss and CEO Accused of Tax Evasion in Germany

Drew Wilson — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:16:29 +0000

The IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) may be quick to denounce others for breaking the law when it comes to downloading copyright infringement, but now the shoe is on the other foot. After incriminating documents surfaced about the organization, some very interesting questions about the IFPI are being raised.

High ranking members of the IFPI might be a little more red-faced these days, but not because someone is downloading KISS albums. According to Heise Online (Google translated, original), the IFPI (like a European version of the RIAA) are being accused of tax evasion. Late last month, incriminating documents surfaced (Google translated, Original) about IFPI "boss" Ivo Sacchi and IFPI CEO Beat Högger may have been involved what some are calling "tax fraud". From the translated Heise article:

The reason for the investigation of German tax investigators, the suspect that it is located in the German-owned corporation is a shell company, which primarily served the purpose, the German tax authorities unlawfully withhold income. Should not involve manipulation of documents and business books have arrived, this would also punishable in Switzerland. That IP gate actually a shell company, there are several clues to Swiss media reports: The company was reported, for example, by 2009, as the IFPI in the Zurich Toblerstrasse 76a. Since then, it resides in the power Strasse 30 - an address that refers to the same building. And the next two Högger only employees of the company are two secretaries who work strangely well with the IFPI.

These revelations are largely seen as a black eye for the organization and some wonder if the scandal is isolated to the two higher ups or if others in the IFPI are involved in this scandal. The reports don't suggest that German authorities are investigating, but given how cash strapped some European countries are these days, it might not be too far fetched to think that authorities might be interested in pursuing the case. The IFPI has been known for pushing for things like a three strikes regime in Britain amongst other anti-piracy efforts across a number of countries. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Baidu Plans to Launch “Baidu Ting” Legal Music Service

Jared Moya — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:51:53 +0000

Chinese search engine giant to offer legal music service to help satisfy music industry complaints that its MP3 Search service facilitates copyright infringement.

The long running battle between Chinese search engine giant Baidu and the music industry took another interesting turn today with news that it plans to launch a new, ad-supported legal music service called Baidu Ting some time next month. Most of the music currently available on its MP3 Search service is copyright infringing and has been the subject of more than two years of legal wrangling. The new service would remove all of those copyright infringing "deep links," and replace it with content users will be able to stream or download. Last week, Baidu reportedly reached an agreement with the Music Copyright Society of China (MCSC) to pay royalty fees for every download. Baidu has been targeted by the music industry since as far back as 2005, but last January an appeals court judge made it clear the case still had a long ways to go by ruling that deep-linking to unlicensed music doesn't constitute copyright infringement. Baidu Ting is sure to help settle those claims once and for all. It dominates nearly 70% of the search engine market in China, though some analysts claim that 50% of its current MP3 Search service users won't migrate to Baidu Ting. Nevertheless, Baidu Ting will be be an interesting experiment for the world's most populous country. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

IFPI, UK Cops, Credit Cards Unite Against Unlicensed MP3 Sites

Jared Moya — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:17:44 +0000

Continues a pattern of copyright holders trying to choke off sources of revenue for alleged infringing sites.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has announced a new partnership involving it, the City of London Police's Economic Crime Directorate (ECD), and credit card companies MasterCard and Visa to target online services selling unlicensed music. The way it works is that the IFPI forwards ECD evidence of people acquiring music from an infringing site who then, after verifying the claim, in turn notifies MasterCard and Visa of the illegal activity. The credit card companies then ask the site to produce evidence of the correct licenses to sell the copyrighted music in question or it will cease handling payments to it. "It is extremely positive for the recorded music industry that the world's largest payment systems are taking steps to prevent their services being abused by illegal websites that infringe the rights of artists, songwriters and producers," said Frances Moore, Chief Executive of IFPI. "Intermediaries, such as MasterCard and Visa, can play a key role in tackling online piracy wherever it originates around the world." Most of the unlicensed music sites are based out of Russia and Ukraine where royalty payments are considerably lower than elsewhere, and thus rejected by copyright holder groups like the IFPI. "MasterCard is pleased to support IFPI and law enforcement to help prevent the illegal sale of unlicensed music," said Eileen Simon, Chief Franchise Development Officer, MasterCard Worldwide. "A coalition approach such as this will enable us to prevent our system from being used to carry out this illegal activity and will help protect the livelihoods of artists, legal rights holders and legitimate e-commerce merchants selling properly licensed material." The move could hurt sites like the Ukraine-based MP3Fiesta, for example, because it specifically advertises that customers can buy music with "safety and guarantee without doubt" because it uses Visa and MasterCard to handle payment transactions. Without them it could make selling music a bit tougher. "This is an excellent example of how the police can work with different business sectors to effectively tackle the impact of economic crime, in this case music piracy," said Steve Head, ECD's Detective Chief Superintendent. "It demonstrates the benefits of innovative and focused partnership working and I am confident that it will greatly assist in preventing this criminal undermining of the music industry and all of those whose livelihoods depend upon it. We will continue to support initiatives such as this as we seek to develop a broad range of tactics to prevent crime being committed, no matter where in the world these criminals may operate from." The news is a reminder of a continued effort by copyright holders to pressure credit card companies into cutting off the financial lifelines of alleged infringing sites. last December it was mentioned how the MPAA and RIAA were trying to convince MasterCard to cut off sites like Megaupload and other file-sharing and streaming sites. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

IFPI: 31% Decline in Global Music Sales

Jared Moya — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:16:31 +0000

Says sharp decline in physical sales hasn't been offset by meager rise in digital sales, and says there is "growing worldwide momentum" for govt's to get involved to stop P2P. The only problem is that digital sales will never offset physical sales as music fans now have the option to buy a single track for 99 cents versus the previous business model that required a $19 album purchase.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has released its annual music industry report, and the results are about as surprising as what it says needs to be done to fix them. Like all other music industry interest groups the IFPI suffers from the delusion that digital music is like physical music, and that two would be equal if "wasn't for them meddlin' kids" - aka illegal file-sharers. It says that in 2010 CD sales continued their sharp decline while digital music sales rose by a mere 6%, but what it doesn't say is that people no longer want to own clunky, outdated CDs. Why would u want to lug around a bulky portable CD player with a capacity of 17 songs when you could load up an iPod the size of a matchbook cover with 500 or more? Digital music sales will never match the previous levels of physical music sales because the album is also now unbundled. Music fans don't have to buy an entire album to hear the one or two good songs they heard on the radio. Now they can get the greatest hit for as little as 99 cents. Sadly for the IFPI, but even sadder for the public at large, is that it thinks it can magically make digital music sales surge enough to give it the levels of overall it was accustomed to prior to the advent of P2P. In the report Frances Moore, IFPI's Chief executive, speaks of "encouraging signs" that the "tide of government opinion is turning." She says the "music industry is still hemorrhaging revenue as a result of digital piracy," and cites a study that predicts "million of jobs will disappear" from the European creative industries by 2015 if piracy isn't stopped. The problem with that study and its claims of millions (1.2mln) of jobs lost is that it includes a range of sectors that have absolutely nothing to do with digital piracy It includes things like art fairs, advertisers, and anybody involved in the sale of TVs, DVDs, radios, gaming consoles, music instruments, photocopiers, and cameras. ISP-level filtering and "three-strikes" legislation won't protect the jobs of guys at your local Best Buy. Moore doesn't care about the facts, and insists the music industry needs "adequate legal tools" to fight illegal file-sharing. "Action to stop digital music piracy is gaining momentum worldwide, with implementation by ISPs of warnings and deterrent sanctions taking effect in three countries in 2010 and governments in other countries expected to implement measures in 2011," she says, pointing to South Korea, France, and Ireland as examples of what's in store. The problem with all of her theory is that it isn't true. There is no "worldwide momentum." South Korea only passed "three-strikes" legislation after the US hinged a supposed "free trade" agreement on its passage. It's been nearly two years and not only has the US still not upheld its end of the bargain by approving that free trade agreement, but as of last October only 31 people have had their Internet accounts suspended. There are an estimated 48.7 million Internet users in South Korea. If this example wasn't foolish enough, Moore cites France and Ireland. In France only 4% of those who have received warnings for illegal file-sharing have quit while more than half say they will be “more vigilant then before." In fact, illegal file-sharing has reportedly become a “national sport” in France as the country’s youth rebel against copyright legislation they rightly consider among the most repressive in the world. With Ireland the example is even more dubious. Only one ISP warns and suspends (12mos) Internet users for illegal file-sharing. Eircom's "voluntary partnership" with the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) was the result of an out of court settlement over outrageous accusations that it was responsible for any copyright infringement carried out by its customers. Rather than fight back it capitulated. Other Irish ISPs had the guts to fight back, and the country's High Court ruled in their favor. This is hardly a portrait of "worldwide momentum." The IFPI also conveniently leaves out other facts like a UK study purporting a decline in P2P among youth in favor of free streaming, another source of revenue decline. Moreover, the only study I really pay attention to is the one from last September which found that since the advent of digital music the income of the average musician has increased by some 66%! There's a big difference between record labels and musicians, and the latter is the only one I'm concerned about. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Operation: Payback Targets IFPI for Pirate Bay Verdict

Jared Moya — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:20:26 +0000

For four days now the IFPI site has been the target of a Distributed Denial-of-Service attack for its role in the The Pirate Bay's conviction for the facilitation of copyright infringement, a ruling reaffirmed the other day on appeal which incited the attack. It's being waged by Operation: Payback as part of its ongoing DDoS campaign to protest what it considers draconian "censorship in the form of copyright law and other restrictions." In response to The Pirate Bay appeal verdict it released the following statement:

Dear IFPI, MAFIAA and other parasites, The recent verdict in the Swedish Appeal Court (ThePirateBay spectrial) provoked this statement from Operation: Payback. We emphasize our statement with a Distributed Denial-of-Service attack aimed at the IFPI's website. Today marked perhaps one of the most heinous of crimes against freedom. It has been announced that the leaders of ThePirateBay have been found guilty in a Swedish court. This travesty of injustice perpetrated by media conglomerates is an abomination against society. Anonymous strongly opposes this decision and the far reaching implications. No single court should be able to decide what the rest of the world can or cannot do. We believe the Internet has opened new avenues of opportunity for everyone everywhere. The Internet should not be censored or controlled by governments or corporations. Large numbers of people benefit from the use of torrents and peer-to-peer to distribute their work. Torrents are widely used by artists. Many profitable companies distribute their content using P2P thereby saving themselves money by using other's connections. Why should they get to have it both ways? Who are they to decide? In simple terms, ThePirateBay is nothing more than Google for torrents. They host NO infringing content. How can this be declared illegal? What is next? Ringtones? Perhaps your favorite search site? The leaders of ThePirateBay are not criminals. They have harmed no one. They only brought good to this world. We are taught as children that we must learn to share. Share food with the hungry, share water with the thirsty, share medicines with the sick, then WHY CAN WE NOT SHARE HAPPINESS?! Everybody enjoys music, everybody enjoys film. Isn't it hypocritical to say that we can share these necessities but not that what makes us enjoy life? Technology has developed quicker than the entertainment industries can comprehend. They cannot grasp what is possible today. They live in the time where gramophones, cassette tapes and video tapes were the only distribution method. Its ironic that they made the same arguments then, yet they are still profitable. Today, our future is being limited by the corporation's failed business models.Their solution is to control the Internet itself. We have had enough. We are angry. We will no longer take orders from oldfags dictating what we can and cannot do. ThePirateBay stands as a symbol representing our beliefs. The voice of the people should not be silenced by government let alone a private company interested only in protecting their bottom line. Copyright laws as they exist today are far outdated and have no place in the modern world. We will continue our fight against these outdated laws. We will continue to attack websites of those who are a danger to freedom on the Internet. We will continue to attack those who embrace censorship. You will not be able to hide your ludicrous ways to control us. We will expose you and your intentions will be dealt with. This injustice must be corrected. We will not forgive. We will not forget. Yours (dis)respectfully, Operation Payback.

Not wanting to make the other copyright holder groups responsible for the verdict "feel singled out" it also decided to take down the Warner Brothers site as well. It says:

Warner Bros, MGM, Universal, and Sony are among the largest organizations represented by the IFPI. These organizations have levied 6.5 million dollars in damages against innocent people. In response, we will cause equivalent losses in downtime, corrupt data and focused disruption of the distribution of their media. The founders of The Pirate Bay were not pursued because they were guilty but because they made easy targets for these organizations to take money from and to use as scapegoats. They don't care about art or creativity. They don't care about artist rights nor do they care about Justice. So we will send them a message in the only language they understand; money. We will hit them in their wallets. If these organizations are so concerned over the growing and widespread use of their products, then we shall oblige, and if needs be, we shall abstain from and take measures to prevent the legal purchase of what they have to offer. Let it be known that this is only the tip of the iceberg and only the beginning of our statement of displeasure against the actions of these corporations. We are Anonymous, we shall never forgive, we shall never forget. Expect us.

I don't think many will suggest the DDoS campaign will have any meaningful effect on our outdated copyright laws and restrictions, but at least some aren't willing to sit idly by as entertainment companies target those not actually profiting from the creative works of others. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Pirate Bay Appeal Trial Reaffirms Copyright Infringement Charges

Jared Moya — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:11:37 +0000

Sweden’s Svea Court of Appeal gives three of the four co-founders varying lengths of prison time, and requires them to jointly compensate copyright holders 46 million kronor ($6.57 million) in damages for the BitTorrent tracker site's alleged facilitation of copyright infringement.

Sweden’s Svea Court of Appeal has reaffirmed copyright infringement charges against three of the four co-founders of BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay. "The Appeals Court, like the district court, finds that The Pirate Bay service makes possibly illegal file-sharing in a way that entails a punishable offense for those who run the service," reads the court's ruling. In a ruling handed down yesterday, Fredrik Neij, received a 10 month prison sentence for the facilitation of copyright infringement, Peter Sunde eight months, and Carl Lundström four months. The trio is also required to share in compensating the entertainment industry plaintiffs up to 46 million kronor ($6.57 million) in damages. The fourth defendant, Gottrid Svartholm Warg was not part of the trial due to illness, but is sure to face prison time as well as a share of the damages. Though still harsh, the verdict is a reduction from their original April 2009 conviction in which they each received a 12 month prison term. Originally damages, however, were set at only 30 million kronor ($3.6 million USD). Court of Appeal Judge Christina Boutz based the varying degrees of prison time on what she perceived to be the level of individual responsibility for the crime. She noted that a verdict was difficult because the case is the first of its kind to ever appear before the court, and there were also some questions as to where the actual crime of copyright infringement took place. “Partly because it is complex when crimes are committed on the Internet, then it becomes a question of where the crime was committed,” she says. “Then it's a difficult question about the responsibilities you have if you run a search service that is used for illegal activities. It is also difficult because there is no precedent.” Prosecutor Hakan Roswell said that he thought the verdict was “good,” and doesn’t think the country’s Supreme Court will hear the case. Monique Wadsted, lead attorney for the US entertainment companies, though slightly disappointed the court didn’t ward them the full 120 million kronor ($17million USD) in damages sought, is nonetheless happy that The Pirate Bay co-founders received prison time for their actions. “It is the most important thing,” says Wadsted. International Federation of Phonographic Industry CEO Francis Moore said the verdict “confirms” The Pirate Bay’s “illegality” and “seriousness” of the crimes. He called on govts and ISPs everywhere to “do the responsible thing and take the necessary steps to get The Pirate Bay shut down." It’s important to observe the plural nature of his “govts and ISPs” request and the singular nature of the verdict - Sweden. Borders don’t seem to matter to the IFPI. Co-founder Peter Sunde called the verdict “totally reprehensible” and criticized the fact that Court of Appeal “basically didn’t bother much with finding out how this [BitTorrent] works.” The Pirate Bay has always made a point to remind copyright holders that it doesn’t actually host any copyrighted material, and is merely a search engine much like Google. What if Google or other search engines we’re held liable for the contents of its results? “That way, I think this is much larger than whether to pay for music or not,” says Swedish MP Karl Sigfrid. “It is a nonsense question, compared with the whole freedom of speech issue.” Swedish Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge criticized the ruling. "This case was politically motivated from the start and (the problem) must be solved politically," he said. "This doesn't mean anything for The Pirate Bay and it doesn't mean anything for similar sites. File-sharing is increasing every day and the only thing this means is that more and more people will try to hide what they are doing on the Internet." Exactly. Shuttering the site will have no overall effect on the level of illegal P2P activity. Just ask the IPFI how well shutting down OiNK, the once mighty music-oriented BitTorrent tracker site, worked out for them when no less than two more - Waffles.fm and What.CD - sprung up to take its place. Either way, despite what Prosecutor Roswell believes, the case is sure to wind up before the Supreme Court in order to settle the issue once and for all. The game of whac-a-mole continues. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Pirate Bay Prosecutor Wants Original Verdict to Stand

Jared Moya — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:21:48 +0000

Swedish prosecutor Hakan Roswall asks the court to allow the BitTorrent tracker site's original sentence of one year in prison be upheld while the entertainment industry demands even higher compensation than what it was originally awarded.

The Pirate Bay's appeal trial of its conviction for the facilitation of copyright infringement is nearing an end. Today both Swedish prosecutor Hakan Roswall and attorneys for the entertainment industry gave their final pleas. Roswall first reiterated what connected each of the four co-founders to the creation of the Swedish BitTorrent tracker site, and then how each has been "defying the law" by continuing to to work with The Pirate Bay despite last year's ruling against them. He added that their indifference to the charge - copyright infringement - was strengthened by the fact that The Pirate Bay was up and running again a mere three days after the initial police raid on their servers back in 2006. Roswall picked apart the argument made by The Pirate Bay that it qualifies for protection under Section 16 of the E-Commerce Act. It reads:

A service that transmits information provided by a recipient of a communication network, or providing access to such a network, should not be because of the content of information to be required to compensate or pay the penalty, provided that the supplier does not

initiate the transfer,
select the recipient of the information, or
select or modify the information.

Since The Pirate Bay had categories of torrents that add to the convenience of the user experience as well as moderators that actively removed some of the torrents he says that it did have "control over information," and therefore ran afoul of the stipulations contained in Section 16. More importantly, he points out that Section 17 of the E -Commerce Act states that it shall only refer to telcos and ISPs, and that "The Pirate Bay is not an ISP." For all these reasons, he says, he asks the court to allow the original verdict of one year in jail to stand. The entertainment industry, on the other hand, would like to be awarded an even greater amount in damages than what it was originally awarded - 30 million kronor ($3.6 million USD). Peter Danowsky, attorney for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, said it's possible to calculate what it would've cost The Pirate Bay to obtain a "hypothetical license fee" and what the site should owe in damages by properly using the download counter meter to determine how many times a song has been illegally acquired. The district court used the figures as a starting point, but halved the number when calculating damages being that it is hardly an accurate determination of what actually happened. Danowsky says the music industry "cannot accept this," and thinks the "margin of error is not that great." Not satisfied with being compensated for it what it says are actual damages, the IFPI also wants general compensation for lost sales, goodwill, damage to the industry, and the harm to legal digital music stores. "The Pirate Bay has damaged an entire industry," he says. As for the fact that The Pirate Bay co-founders are not the ones who actually committed the copyright infringement by uploading torrent trackers that linked to infringing material, Danowsky says "it does not matter," that they have a liability for facilitating the crime. The Pirate Bay trial is scheduled to conclude this Friday, but no matter the verdict the trial will eventually end up at the country's High Court for a final ruling on the matter. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

RIAA Uses Net Neutrality to Lump Together Fight Against P2P, Child Porn

Jared Moya — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:44:39 +0000

Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) hopes that Google and Verizon's recently announced "joint policy proposal for an open Internet" will mean that ISPs will be "permitted" and "encouraged" to fight illegal network activity "whether copyright infringement, child pornography or other illegal conduct."

Copyright holders have a long and sordid history of trying to equate P2P with child porn, and again we see this manifested in recent comments made by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) about Google and Verizon's announcement about a "joint policy proposal for an open Internet." Earlier this week Google and Verizon proposed a new legislative framework for Net neutrality guided by two main goals:

Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.
America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

The RIAA, which after ending the practice of suing individual file-sharers back in 2008 in favor of ISP-level cooperation, has been waiting impatiently for the opportunity to somehow convince ISPs that it's in their best interest to fight copyright infringement on their networks. Unlucky for it ISPs, at least for now, haven't been much interested in targeting erstwhile loyal, paying customers unless their illegal file-sharing activity has an adverse effect on an ISP's network in terms of data or bandwidth usage. So the RIAA sees the Net neutrality debate as important opportunity to try and convince them otherwise. Google and Verizon's proposal says that "wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition." In response, the RIAA says that it is pleased that they "recognize that lawful and unlawful content should be treated differently," but goes on to give only two examples of unlawful activity: copyright infringement and child pornography. Not to downplay the latter, but it's funny that of all the unlawful online activity to choose from like fraud, identity theft, spam, harassment, etc. it chooses child porn. It's no accident. The RIAA's international cousin the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s (IFPI) has been trying to equate P2P with child porn for years. As far back as 2007 the IFPI has said that "technology similar to that used to block access to child pornography could be used to block access to websites that facilitate infringing file-sharing of copyrighted music." Earlier this year the IFPI took that sentiment to the next level, going so far as to exclaim that "child pornography is great...because politicians understand child pornography." "By playing that card," IFPI lawyer Johan Schlüter told an audience gathered at an anti-P2P conference in Sweden, "we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file-sharing sites.” So it's not by coincidence that the RIAA mentions P2P and child porn in the same breath. The IFPI's right. Child porn is something that politicians understand, and the RIAA apparently sees this as important tactic to use as well. The RIAA mentions that it hopes to take part in the legislative and regulatory process of fleshing out a Net neutrality solution. Lets only hope that groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have a seat at the table and have a chance to reiterate the differences between the two. The harm caused by child porn is very real, but the the harm caused by P2P is illusory at best. With the music industry's profits, at least in the UK, having risen for the last 2 years in a row it's hard to imagine why the RIAA would even compare the two acts. That is, unless, it's "playing that card." Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

IFPI Demands Google Remove Pirate Bay Links

Jared Moya — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:19:29 +0000

Sends the search engine giant a DMCA complaint asking that it quit "providing search results directly linking to the website for the illegal file-sharing service" that is the Swedish BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay.

Following the British Phonographic Industry's (BPI) recent surprising attempt to have search engine giant Google remove links to sites that illegally host copyrighted material, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) is following suit with a DMCA complaint of its own, asking that it remove links to Swedish BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay. "We are writing to you in relation Google's web search facility which is currently providing search results directly linking to the website for the illegal file-sharing service, The Pirate Bay," it says. The IFPI has long been trying to shut down The Pirate Bay. Last April it convinced a Swedish Court that the site's founders were guilty of copyright infringement, and for years has tried to force ISPs around the globe to prevent their customers from being able to access the site. Targeting Google is a natural progression of the music industry's fight against online music piracy. During The Pirate Bay trial it was pointed out that it, much like Google, doesn't actually host any copyrighted material. Google was miffed at the comparison, but the facts speak for themselves. "As part of IFPI's ongoing global anti-piracy programme we have asked Google to remove search results that link to infringing content made available through The Pirate Bay," said IFPI general counsel Jo Oliver. "The Pirate Bay is one of the world's largest drivers of online copyright infringement. Its operators have been found guilty of criminal charges in Sweden and courts in numerous other countries have ruled its activities are illegal. Online copyright infringement reduces potential revenue to record companies, large and small, that could be used to invest in the discovery, nurture and promotion of artists." The IFPI's DMCA complaint also hints at a possible future lawsuit, clearly spelling out its questioning of Google being defined as a "service provider" as defined by the DMCA. "Our use of a notice in this form, as required by Google, is meant to facilitate Google's removal of search results linking directly to infringing web pages and we neither admit nor accept that Google is a 'service provider' for the purposes of the DMCA or that it is necessary to serve, or that Google is entitled to be served, a notice in compliance with the DMCA," it says. "IFPI itself and on behalf of the IFPI Represented Companies expressly reserves all rights in this regard." It'll be a tough to sell to US judges, especially after its recent victory against claims of copyright infringement by media conglomerate Viacom. The judge in that case, US District Court Judge Louis Stanton, confirmed that YouTube does indeed qualify for protection under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. With The Pirate Bay no longer even hosting torrent trackers these days it makes the odds of an IFPI victory even more remote. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com