Piracy Wars

An article on the remix culture and the lines blurred between piracy.

I stumbled on this article a couple of years ago and the writer brings up the interesting notion of the remix. 

The remix culture is definitely thriving and as Laurence Lessig often writes, it's becoming very much a need in the way new content if reproduced. If you consider the remakes of novels into films like this year's blockbuster, 'The Great Gatsby' could we then argue that it was copyright infringement or 'unoriginal'?

Fair enough we hear you say they got permission to reproduce the story into a filmic experience, but then sampling into new music has gotten quite the stir lately and we're not entirely sure it's fair to label it as outright intellectual property theft.

Futurama's Anti-piracy warning - Parody

Here at Piracy Wars, we're all about dispelling the over representation of copyright piracy issues. We want you to read, to learn, to judge and to think. It's all a matter knowing about both sides of the argument and allowing you to make a learned decision.

So here's a little treat for you.

Here is Futurama's animated advert entitled 'Downloading Often Is Terrible', in other words D.O.I.T and follows the "You wouldn't steal.." structure but with more unusual content.  

Whatever the ad suggests that Bender wouldn’t steal or do, is followed up by Bender doing just that. Although Bender is stealing physical objects in his 2D animated world, lots of people disagree with the use of the word ‘steal’ to describe the act of copyright infringement. 

Arguably, copyright lobbyists often illustrate the chasm between sharing and copying as being a 'life and death' as a matter of life or death. And this may ring true. But what really hits home is Bender's last stolen item, and whether it really it really is a matter of life or death is up for you to decide. 

What do you think Bender wouldn't steal? 

When Gutenberg created the first flat-bed printing press around 1440 in the entrepreneurial spirit of an emerging capitalist society, he had no idea that it would later be challenged and squashed by online regulatory systems for the prevention of “intellectual property” piracy in digital age printing institutions.

It started as a good idea in the spirit of anti-piracy and social development, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) (Or under the international means Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement [ACTA]) intended as the greatest solution to many of our socio-technological qualms of today. The essential idea was to hold all those accountable for piracy or apparent “fraudulent” acts and to inflict punishment on them. These acts would include copying or sharing of any online content as videos, books, online texts, website URLs, pictures, message, you name it. Essentially, the video: ‘An explanation on SOPA’ says that “it is supposed to prevent product and trademark printing especially expensive goods as cars”, it aims to “safeguard research investments and medical developments” and finally it’s supposed to help “artists and journalists to produce high quality work and harmonize international copyright agreements.” Sounds like a good deal right? Wrong, think again, What Gutenberg sparked as an revolution of a multi-platform sharing content society, by its speed and practicality to produce exact replicas of information and materials is now branded a crime.

 With the advent of the SOPA bill and ACTA notions, rather than improving the possibility of “fraudulent” data, it is essentially reversing the effect and building barriers that prevent a free flow and shared content environment for businesses and consumers.  Firstly, with the attempts to filter ISPs for fraudulent data would result increased surveillance of all online activity, thus undermining all previous legislation on privacy, civil rights and freedom of information.  While it remains a legislation by the US government, he co-dependant relationships between countries may influence Australian government.  Even, social networking websites will be held under the same rule, with the heavy regulation of shared content between family and friends on Facebook and Twitter to become a legal issue if it does not abide SOPA bill.  Furthermore the suppression of information would change the content that can be accessed, what mediums can publish this content, and our consumption of such content.

This is an article that really speaks on what #Piracywars is really about, and a great way to wrap things up. These are the four ideas of music piracy writer, Pablo Fierro deems a misconception in today's society. 

1. Any promotion is good promotion.

2. Piracy does not hurt sales.

3. Pirates are people who love music and want to share it.

4. Piracy is inbuilt into the digital age.

Fierro concludes by stating that we must educate the masses and influence the open use of file sharing to effect the rampant of music piracy. 

Boy, is our face red.

It looks like Australia has once again made it on the map for biggest piracy offences in a recent report released by the Motion Picture Association of America.

This time, the spotlight was on Melbourne Caribbean Gardens and Markets as it was named one of the 'global hotspots' for pirated content being distributed alongside global cities like Odessa, Jakarta, Rio De Janeiro and Beijing. The markets are infamous for the distribution of illegal copies of region 1 and 2 DVDs as well as pirated copies of recently released Blockbusters which can be found at any of the 10-20 market sellers.

According to the report, while the number of sellers has decreased significantly decreased since the early - mid 2000s, there has still has been a steady rise recently. The MPAA write in the report the reason for this is the lack of enforcement and specifically blames the state and federal police as showing 'no interest in enforcing the issue despite multiple entreaties from right holders.'

Check out this piece in The Australian for a more in depth report.

Anybody visited the Melbourne Caribbean Garden and Markets?

Is Australia really showing that much of a neglect towards issues of piracy and theft of intellectual property? Or is the MPAA taking things a little too extreme?

#PIracywars is all about naming the #top #10 within the #entertainment media. Now its time for the top 10 most pirated #television #shows.

Now these figures may have changed because the article was written a few months ago (and due to the fact that #Breaking #Bad is not on the list) but if you need some new televisions shows to watch, then refer to the most popular shows that are being downloaded today! 

So something people often overlook is that even that background music on ads and elevators needed legitimate contracts and licensing. Even the 16 hour in- flight entertainment apparently can cause a stir in today's piracy battle.

US- Chicago based airlines United Airlines has come under fire and is facing a lawsuit by Sony Music Entertainment for the music and videos played on the aircrafts without proper license.

The artists and music in question?

According to the Chicago tribune sound recordings of artists including Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Justin Timberlake and Carrie Underwood.

Rightscom a specialist organisation in rights management apparently was the whistleblower for the copyright infringement. Another source says that while United's Inflight department had informed the organisation that it would be "negotiating deals" for the music to be legally broadcast, United did not wait until any deals were finalised and went ahead broadcasting the music material anyway.

Consumerist writes:

"Since the in-flight music system used on the planes is an on-demand system and not a passive, radio-style broadcast that would arguably fall under statutory royalties — meaning the airline would pay a fixed fee to labels and artists for the songs — Sony argues that the airline and its partners are required to negotiate royalties for the songs played." 

You can check out the full article here.

Tell us your thoughts!

Does Sony really have a case?

#netflix #teamAndR #piracywars #SOPA #PIPA

Is file sharing really stealing?

The age-old question has become a hot button topic in recent years with the increasing rate of TV shows, films and albums being pirated.

But apparently Netflix has an answer to this problem.  In a strategy to build a bigger user base in the Netherlands, Netflix has begun tracking internet piracy over a number of torrent websites. Michael Thomsen’s article from Complex magazine (2013) states that this it to help Netflix “determine what new shows and movies will be popular among new users.”

Indeed it is a notable shift away from the “monotonous antagonism” towards the unlicensed sharing of certain kids of media, which began with the Napster attacks that culminated with the push for the SOPA and PIPA bills.

The article argues that Netflix has noticed this trend and realized the potential to capitalize one it.  Reasoning in favour of this argument is likened to a study released by the Government Accountability Office in 2010 admitted “that there was no clear evidence to support the idea that Internet piracy was harming the economy.”

In contrast, the article states, “one of the fundamental problems in thinking about internet piracy is the conflation of a number of different acts into a word that comes with heavily prejudicial implications.” In other words, the negative perceptions of Internet piracy are often fed by a consistent flow of negative prejudices. Think of it this way, is it stealing is someone downloads a video game that hasn’t been licensed or wouldn’t be released in their country?

Prejudices aside, perhaps IP owners are considerably making the first aggressive gesture by limiting what can and can’t be shared across a network, right?  But is placing limits on file-sharing a matter of generosity or financial limitations?

#teamAandR #internetfreedom #piracy #artistrights #piracywars 

It may appear that not all artists support BitTorrent’s campaigns to raise awareness on issues related to Internet freedom, piracy and artist rights. 

 According to an article by TorrentFreak, a group of disgruntled artists have launched a banner campaign spoofing BitTorrent’s promotions.

The artists’ banners suggest that BitTorrent doesn't care about artists intellectual property and they appeared on website including Rollingstone.com, The DrudgeReport.com, Masahable, GrooveShark and MediaFire.

The banners read: “Instead of paying for artists, we spent money on banners” and “All your content are belong to us”.

Best known for its file-sharing applications, BitTorrent’s latest marketing campaign aims to raise awareness of piracy related issues to artists.

Initially the BitTorrent billboards read “Your data should belong to the NSA”, and “Artists need to play by the rules” but they were later updated to imply to reverse.  Not everyone agreed with the confusing message and some artists were offended, as according to TorrentFreak.

There is no doubt that as a result of these campaigns there is a great deal of miscommunication between both parties.

 Members of the public who’ve commented on the article suggest an alternative; perhaps artists should offer their music on a online streaming system controlled by them. Arguably, this may lend to the growing trend of streaming systems as Spotify, Rdio and Souncloud. It also bypasses the issues of copyright infringement of artists’ work and illegal downloading that is heavily challenged in this article.  

While other commenters suggests that BitTorrent’s marketing campaign was lacking and therefore the retaliation was just as troubling. For filesharing hosts like BitTorrent is the correct move really to distance them from piracy? Or could this present itself as an opportunity for such websites to promote their technology by explaining their benefits and how it can generate new sales leads for the company or for the record labels.

 What do you think of these campaigns? What could have been done better?

Ed Sheeran: England’s most pirated artist?

#Ed Sheeran #teamAndR #teampiracy #piracywars #artistsforpiracy

A study into music downloads suggests that Ed Sheeran is the most pirated artist in the UK, while Drake is topping the US piracy charts.

Research into the BitTorrent data, published by the Musicmetric and seen by the BBC, suggests that Sheeran’s album ‘+’ has been downloaded more than 55, 000 times in one month in 2012.

However, in an interview with BBC about file sharing, Sheeran says that it doesn’t bother him and it’s all a matter of finding “balance.”

“I think that there is a decent balance between living off your sales but you can allow people to illegally download and come to your gigs,” Ed Sheeran says.

Despite affecting album sales, Sheeran proved optimistic about the figures and stating that downloads are likely to inspire fans to come to his gigs.

"My gig tickets are £18 and my album is £8, so it's all relative."

Indeed, on the hand more artists may want to consider allowing file sharing links to some of their intellectual property to boost sales and to expand their fan base.

A bold move for artists to provide file sharing alternatives could also influence changes to the assumed attitudes to file sharing as hurting artists’ sales.

 However, it may not be a sentiment that is shared by everyone, including record label producers and industry executives.

There will still be music industry leaders that will believe that illegal downloading can not only hurt sales, but third party website hosts can benefit from the downloads instead.

File sharing may be something artists can consider for the future, but it has a long way before music industry leaders can accept it.

Watch Not A Big Deal video clip. An FBI agent shows the boys the pain that goes with free music downloading.

Here at Piracy Wars, we're all for bringing to light the pros and cons of copyright infringements in the entertainment industry and of course having fun while learning! 

This is probably our favourite media source that deals with music piracy in a fun and light hearted way. South Park's episode 9 from season 7 "Christian Rock Hard" addresses the problem of users downloading from P2P sharing sites and really brings forth the panic of the early 2000s.

The trend saw users being held ultimately responsible for the music industry in particular for losing billions of dollars. Check back for The Blame Game series in some of our past posts to see some of the shifts in blame piracy has undergone since 2000.

The following year this South Park episode was aired the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) released a report that 2003 saw $4.5 billion lost in pirated music. Check out this piece written 10 years ago on it!

And yet another textbook example of the music industry attempting to keep their heads above water and their 'dream' alive, as they continue to fight the uphill battles with the computer and software industry. Only this time online power figures, Google are giving a run for their money. 

In short, Google has been attempting to get label licenses from record companies for their upcoming music service. However due to their refusal to grant these licenses, Google is opting to 'shut down' this music project all together.

The writer presents us with two very interesting arguments; one being that Google could establish this service without licenses like Amazon has over the years, or purchasing the music industry altogether. Either way the expenditure incurred would be quite heavy but nothing Larry, Serge and Eric (the owners of Google) can't afford. Wish I could say the same thing about the music industry.

The music industry is economically quite small and unimportant compared to the computer industry. And yet somehow - through honed lobbying and old boy networks - it wields a disproportionate power that enables it to block innovative ideas that the online world wants to try.

On a rational basis, the music industry's concerns would be dwarfed by those of the computer world, which is not just far larger, but vastly more important in strategic terms. But instead, the former gets to make all kinds of hyperbolic claims about the alleged "damage" inflicted by piracy on its income, even though these simply don't stand up to analysis.

The music industry is faced again with their inevitable supersession as piracy and technological determinism is socially and culturally developing independent ways for us as consumers to receive our musical products. Therefore Google's music service would have been another medium for artists and listeners a-like to distribute and consume music.

New data suggests that the most heavily pirated movies are often unavailable through legal channels online.

Time for some Wednesday motivation.

No, really. A new report released by piracydata.org released the top 10 most pirated films of the week and collects it's data from TorrentFreak and 'CanIStreamIt.'  According to The Washington Post, the majority of these films were either unavailable for legitimate digital purchase or streaming. Even after re- addressing some of the errors however on the availability of these numbers, the question still does remain; Does Hollywood really have a right to push such measures like demanding search engines like Google to initiate crackdowns on piracy networks, when the industry itself doesn't offer the platforms to access this entertainment?

The MPAA has responded to the reports and still firmly believes there is certainly enough access for people to find legitimate streaming sites for users to find the content.

MPAA spokesman Kate Bedingfield says to Washington post "Today there are more way than ever to watch movies and TV shows legally online, and more are constantly being added. If a particular film isn't available for stream or purchase at a given moment, however, it does not justify stealing it from the creators and makers who worked hard to make it." 

Piracydata.org creator Jerry Brito believes Hollywood needs to continue to work and keep up with the demands of the viewers who want the content immediately available.

What do you think?

Does Hollywood really need to pick up on lack of availabilities to access online entertainment?

Or will piracy orientated users always prevail?

#teamPiracy: The team that supports P2P file sharing users and Torrent downloaders.

#teamA&R: The team that support major record labels and the traditional models of music distribution.

Lets slide away from our free music countdowns and focus on some film. Here are the top 10 most popular films that are being illegally downloaded this week. From the data collected by Torrentfreak, the statistics show that the robots vs. monsters epic action film, Pacific Rim takes the leading title, followed by White House Down and my personal favourite of the list, Elysium with The Internship remaining on this list for the second week in a row.

2 Chainz Cookbook!

Ever since the birth of P2P networks and digital copies, physical album sales have drastically fallen.

However a few original approaches to promote physical sales have bloomed to compensate this fact. One of these is shown from 2 Chainz’s new upcoming album B.O.A.T 2, which comes with an accompanying cookbook with a lyrics booklet.

Although recipes for a variety of healthy, cheap meals is an odd choice for a rapper to include in his musical release, Tauheed Epps (2 Chainz) has given the audience a new medium to participate with and that is what the music industry really needs to meet the high expectations of fans. A fresh, original and, in this case delicious, outlook.

Named as, '2 Chainz Tour Bus Recipes' the cook book is a compilation of quick meals that are easy but healthy that can be put together on the go. If a touring musician on a bus can make them around their hectic lifestyles how hard could it be?

Now returning back to physical sales, many artists have tried different marketing models in the past. Whether it would be secret tracks, concert and special footage DVD's, and competitions to promote the physical sales of the musician's LP, a cook book is possibly the most bizarre yet original approach. 

Here are some mouth watering images from the '2 Chainz Tour Bus Recipes.' Enjoy!