The Pirate Bay

The Pirate Bay is refusing to die. It’s been the largest and one of the most popular torrent trackers in the world for a few years now. But its notoriety and ability to taunt copyright owners meant trouble was never far away.

The Pirate Bay’s legal woes came to a head in February when a three-year investigation into the site arrived in court. By April, the four defendants had been found guilty and it looked as though this was the beginning of the end for TPB.

The TPB Tracker Is Dead

The last few months have seen The Pirate Bay tracker unavailable at various times as copyright owners managed to pressure its ISPs to cut off service to the site. But instead of fighting against it, TPB has decided to roll with it.

As announced in a blog post today, The Pirate Bay has now shut down its tracker completely, and there’s no going back. However, this doesn’t mean the end of the site and the end of torrents.

Decentralizing Power

The Pirate Bay claims that torrent trackers are now unnecessary. In its place comes trackerless solutions such as distributed hash tables (DHT) and peer exchange (PEX).

These methods mean that instead of locating .torrent files from a central repository, files can be found simply by querying other peers in the swarm.

In essence, this removes the central power needed for torrents to be shared over a network. And that has clear (positive) legal ramifications for The Pirate Bay and could make the IFPI and MPAA’s mission to control filesharing an impossible one.

The Pirate Bay is now offering magnet links, hence the new logo as seen above. These simply direct a BitTorrent client to the BitTorrent peers which contain the file in question.

Conclusions

This is a genius move on the part of The Pirate Bay as it appears to throw a very large spanner in the legal victory celebrated by copyright owners earlier this year.

I doubt they’ll give up without a fight but they’re now fighting an activity that is impossible to track and is clearly not going to cease anytime soon.

ZillionTV or ZeroTV?

ZillionTV was announced back in March to some very positive comments and feedback. I myself stated that “good backers, a man in charge who knows the business, and a couple of innovations which could drive the sector forward” meant it had a chance of succeeding, despite entering a crowded market.

However, in September a delay in launching the service was announced. It was originally thought to be due for a launch in late 2009 but that slipped to the second half of 2010, which is nigh on a year later than first expected.

Critical Web Coverage

This led many journalists and bloggers to wonder what the hell is actually happening at the company. One of these bloggers is Brandon Wirtz, who just happens to be a former employee of the company.

Wirtz recently received a Cease & Desist letter from ShawValenza, a law firm acting on behalf of ZillionTV. Unfortunately for the company, rather than heed the warning in the letter, Wirtz used his own personal blog and XYHD.tv to respond to the threats.

Wirtz’ Words

On XYHD, Wirtz discusses how he considers the C&D not to have any basis in law. Rather than sharing confidential information as the letter implies, he believes he’s been very careful in only reporting things which have been reported elsewhere on the Web.

He also discusses his lack of respect for the management of ZillionTV, ponders how the company has kept studios such as Disney and Lionsgate interested, and asks what the actual delay with launching the service is all about.

On BlackWaterOps, Wirtz basically pokes fun at the content of the C&D and how much of a bad idea it is to send one to someone who was only ever going to post the letter on his blog and discuss it in less than complimentary terms.

As Wirtz put it:

Know your enemy. Don’t send a C&D letter to someone who has a bigger hammer than you. The general rule is don’t send a C&D to anyone with a better Alexa rank than you, or someone with more press mentions in the past year than you.

Update: Drugs, Sex & Zillion TV

Brandon has hit ZillionTV again reporting Meth abuse, masturbation and apparent lies from some prominent members of the Zillion team. Certainly doesn’t sound like a healthy internet TV start-up.

Piracy Peaks

The people who run the big media companies clearly have a vested interest in keeping everything the way it is, or at least was maybe a decade ago.

While piracy has always existed in some form or another, the popularizing of the Internet and the trend for file-sharing saw the “problem” get a little out of control as far as those in charge are concerned.

If It Don’t Work, Don’t Fix It?

The problem is, rather than embrace the new technology or even trying to fight piracy by offering innovative and fair alternative means of obtaining digital copies of movies, television shows, music, games, etc. they try to maintain the status quo. Even though the horse bolted a long time ago.

The latest attempt at locking the stable door is to change the terminology used from “anti-piracy” to “content protection” and to push even harder against illegal file-sharing. Because that will clearly work.

New Faces, Old Ideas

The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is the trade body of Hollywood whose mission it is to look out for the interests of the film studios under its protective wing. In terms of Internet piracy, it has several people assigned to the task of stopping it happening. And they have clearly been doing a fantastic job.

According to CNET, the studios have realized the current strategy isn’t working, and so the MPAA has let three people go, including Greg Goeckner, the MPAA’s general counsel.

Unfortunately, this isn’t in order to usher in a new way of doing things. Rather than a roster of proactive measures such as offering new, improved, and reasonably priced ways of offering movies to people over the Web, the same old reactive measures will be enforced. Just more harshly.

Conclusions

This latest chapter in the life of the MPAA is both sad buy hilarious at the same time. Changing the name of its efforts is absolutely pointless. And it still hasn’t figured out the undeniable truth that piracy is here to stay.

Some will argue its efforts have been mildly successful – with the victory against The Pirate Bay the most obvious example – but do those people seriously think for one moment that the people who used to use TPB have stopped downloading movies from the Web?

How long is it going to take for both the MPAA and the movie studios it serves to stop fighting a losing battle and look at how to take advantage of the very system and practice it is currently desperate to stop?

Online Video Wild West

In 2006, before Google had bought YouTube, Google Video was its entry into the online video market. Looking back now, both Google Video and YouTube were pretty lawless back then, with few of the checks and balances on content being uploaded to the sites.

This lawlessness lead to Viacom suing YouTube for $1 billion over the copyrighted clips it claims were allowed on the site. But it also lead to another lawsuit, smaller, and less publicized, but still important.

Down’s Syndrome Bully Video

During 2006, a video was uploaded to Google Video which showed four students bullying a teenager with Down Syndrome’s in front of several other students. Not a nice video, I’m sure everyone would agree, but offensive enough to mean Google are culpable?

The 191-second video made it on the site and stayed on there for months until complaints were received. At which time, Google removed the video. But that fact wasn’t enough for Italian investigators who spent two years building a case against Google.

The Legal Obligation

Italian prosecutors claim that the search giant should have had filters in place to prevent the video finding its way online in the first place or human eyes watching for that sort of content. Furthermore, the fact that all parties shown in the video hadn’t given permission amounts to invasion of privacy.

According to BBC News, the trial began yesterday, with four Google employees, “David Carl Drummond, head of Google Italy’s managing board; George De Los Reyes, a board member; Peter Fleitcher, in charge of privacy protection in Europe; and Arvind Desikan, who worked in marketing for Google Video” in the dock.

The Bigger Question

Personally, speaking as a layman, I can’t see how Google or its employees can be held accountable for this video. Maybe more steps should have been taken to prevent it appearing on the site, but the fact Google removed it as soon as it was informed of its existence is surely a key point.

If this case does end with convictions for the four Google employees then it could have implications for other Web sites which rely on UGC, YouTube and other video sites included. The trial is set to last until December and the verdict will prove very interesting.

Related Ad

Buy ‘Law of Internet Speech’ on Amazon

Hollywood Hype

Following in the fine tradition set by the music industry a decade ago, Hollywood is set on going after online piracy and the illegal sharing of copyrighted movies. Fair enough, I suppose, as an industry it’s the logical thing to do to try and keep a vice like grip on how we all consume movies.

However, logic will only get you so far. And I’m afraid Hollywood is missing the bigger picture that’s been proved time and again in the last few years: that movie piracy isn’t harming the film industry in the way it would have us believe.

Summer 2009 U.S. Box Office

Summer 2009 has seen the highest box office in U.S. history with around $4.18 billion taken at theaters around the country. This beats the previous record set in 2007 when $4.16 billion was taken. So the last three years has seen two of the biggest Summer box offices in the history of cinema.

Variety reports that the biggest earners were Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, while there were some surprisingly big hits in the shape of Pixar’s Up, The Hangover, and The Proposal.

What About Pirates?

But hang on there a Goddamn minute. It was only a few years ago when the major studios banded together under the umbrella of the MPAA to declare that online piracy was costing the industry $8.5 billion. Granted, this was a worldwide figure and came on the back of a couple of years of sustained decline, but it’s since been proved incorrect.

This year has seen the MPAA and studios sue The Pirate Bay and win, and go absolutely nuts when X-Men Origins: Wolverine leaked online a full month before release. And yet box office takings are massively up. And even those films widely available online have performed stoically.

Exaggeration

Movie piracy is a problem for the industry, that much is clear. But the scale of the problem has been exaggerated until it bears no resemblance to the truth. In fact, there is evidence that having downloaded and watched a dodgy copy entices more people to go to the cinema to see that film.

Conclusions

This little thing called word of mouth, especially coupled with social networking, can work massively in favor of a movie. And the starting point for that is a copy being shared over the Internet to create the buzz needed to have a hit.

As usual, it all comes down to quality. If Hollywood pumps out good content then people will pay their money regardless of alternative methods for consuming the goods.

Related Ad

Buy ‘Transformers 2 Blu-ray’ on Amazon

The reason? Because a free Hulu is evil and is killing network television. Apparently.

Traditional TV Vs. Web TV

And there I was thinking that the TV industry was finally getting it. Thinking that it was managing to embrace the idea that there are alternative ways of consuming content than the traditional ones using the old-fashioned business models. But it would seem not.

There has been much talk recently from the people in charge of the companies which own Hulu, especially News Corps. chairman Rupert Murdoch, over the possibility of turning Hulu into a cash cow by either going all-out for a subscription-based model or at least running a paid option parallel to the free one.

And now CBS has got involved in the argument.

Execs Rip Into Hulu

This all started with a Contentinople story detailing the opinions on Hulu of various media executives who spoke at an Advertising Week panel at The Times Center.

Major League Baseball Advanced Media CEO Bob Bowman explained he doesn’t “understand the business model.” While Verizon Communications Inc. vice president of content strategy and acquisition Terry Denson and YES Network CEO Tracy Dolgin both threw the weight of their support behind a hybrid advertising/paid model for the service.

CBS’ Quincy Smith Pounces

CBS Interactive CEO Quincy Smith then passed the article around internally via email. Unfortunately for him, TechCrunch got hold of a leaked copy.

Smith packaged the copied article with his thoughts that, “We should think about how hard it would be to prove that some ratings declines are a result of reckless hulu [sic] streams and that Authentication [sic] is a nice option.

This is, of course, an important time of year for television networks thanks to the Fall premieres of new shows. Smith wants to somehow prove that poor ratings for shows on any network other than CBS are solely due to the show also being available to watch on Hulu.

Conclusions

Maybe Smith isn’t doing anything that bad in trying to find evidence that his, and his company’s, decision to avoid Hulu like the plague is the correct one.

But his stance on the issue shows a disregard for the idea of offering content for free without authentication, short hand for viewers proving they already subscribe to a cable service. Which is why CBS is fine with the new TV Everywhere offering which does exactly that.

There’s clearly a battle on its way and as viewers we have to hope the TV industry takes the longer term view and avoids the pitfalls the music industry has made and continues to make to this day.

DMCA Safe Harbor Provision

All online video sharing sites, and sites which accept other forms of media, which allow users to upload content, run the risk of copyrighted material making its way onto their servers. Whether that in effect means the site itself is infringing on copyright law is open to interpretation.

The safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, otherwise known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is designed to end this debate by exempting Web sites and hosts as long as they follow certain rules.

Legal Battles Ensue

However, this hasn’t stopped content owners from suing video sites, especially if they consider them not to have followed the rules set out in the DMCA safe harbor provision. The biggest case of this kind is the lawsuit brought by Viacom against YouTube, which is still ongoing.

While that case rumbles on, other similar cases are being resolved, with the online video sharing sites usually coming out on top. In late 2008, Veoh won a copyright infringement case brought against it by Io Group, an adult entertainment company. And now, Veoh has emerged victorious again.

Veoh Vs. UMG

Universal Music Group brought a lawsuit against Veoh back in 2007 alleging copyright infringing videos were present on the site. UMG accused Veoh of “engaging of high-tech theft in the name of ’sharing.’” The argument against Veoh being protected by the DMCA safe harbor provision was owing to the way Veoh transcoded the videos.

But now the judge in the case has issued a summary judgment stating that Veoh does qualify for protection. Judge A. Howard Matz made it clear that Veoh “expeditiously” removed videos it found to be infringing copyright and introduced measures to prevent similar lapses in the future.

Veoh CEO Dmitry Shapiro issued a statement saying:

“From an industry perspective, this decision is a big deal as well, as we now have a second clear victory showing that companies who work diligently to respect property owners and the DMCA will be able to run their businesses and be successful without the fear of those select content owners who may be uncomfortable with emerging technology.”

Viacom Vs. YouTube Fallout

The question now is what effect this could have on the Viacom vs. YouTube case. Although the Io Group lawsuit was sufficiently different, UMG’s is very similar and the result must surely have a bearing on the outcome of that lawsuit.

That case is being heard in a different district but legal experts predict this case will at least have an influence on the outcome.

And the judge’s insistence that making financial gains from user-generated content, even if it infringes on copyright, doesn’t remove the DMCA safe harbor provision is doubly good news for YouTube as it potentially opens up over 90 percent of YouTube uploads to advertising.

[Via Ars Technica]

Related Ad

Buy ‘Copyright’s Paradox’ from Amazon

Famous For 15 Minutes

Andy Warhol once predicted that “in the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes.” And oh, how true has that statement become. Television has helped, particularly with reality TV shows now big business, but online video also has its place.

Even more than reality TV, online video enables absolutely anyone, skilled or otherwise, with or without talent, to become world-famous. Anyone who has the means to record themselves or be recorded can become a viral video star the world over.

Viral Video Fakes

This has lead to a whole raft of genuine celebrities having been created from nothing merely for appearing in a video which appeared on YouTube and other similar sites. Despite sometimes only being on screen for seconds, these people find fame thrust at them.

Since this level of interest in online video has been noticed, some have tried to exploit it for their own ends. And so it means we now get entirely engineered attempts at fame posted on YouTube and the like. The JK Wedding Dance video being a prime example.

Criminals Caught On Camera

The other way of getting at least noticed if not famous is to do what you’ve always done but commit it to video. Which can lead to complications if what you usually do is considered a criminal act or something worth being fired from your job for.

It goes without saying that committing a crime on camera and allowing the video to be uploaded to a video sharing site isn’t very sensible. But it also brings bragging rights that one could live off for a good few years. And some people consider it a worthy trade-off.

Buket The Tagger

According to The L.A. Times, a 26-year-old man named Cyrus Yazdani, better known to his fans as Buket, was recently sentenced to four years in prison for various counts of vandalism, one of which became a big hit on YouTube with over 500,000 viewers.

It is claimed that this video was viewed by sheriff’s transit investigators, and it was this that lead to his arrest and ultimate conviction. Yazdani must also pay $117,196 in restitution for his crimes of vandalism.

Conclusions

Those who partake in criminal activity aren’t the sharpest tools in the box, but uploading videos which show your crime and your face together? That is pushing stupidity to the next level. The lesson is that although YouTube can lead to fame and fortune, it can also lead to unemployment and imprisonment.

Music Videos On YouTube

Music videos are an integral part of YouTube. A quick glance at the latest viral video chart will tell you this much. This would seem to be a win-win situation for the Google-owned site, the record labels, and the artists involved. But that hasn’t always appeared to be the case.

Disharmony

On a large scale, Warner Bros. saw fit to remove its content from the site at the end of 2008 due to a breakdown in talks over a new licensing agreement.

While on a smaller scale, record producer Pete Waterman bitterly complained about the tiny amount of money he’d made from Rick Astley’s Never Gonna Give You Up, given a new lease of life and millions of page views thanks to the Rickrolling phenomenon.

PRS & YouTube Fall Out

PRS for Music, a U.K. specific organization which collects royalties for labels and artists, fell out with YouTube in March 2009. While in the process of renegotiating a licensing deal, YouTube suddenly removed all music videos covered by PRS off the site.

The reasons given were that PRS was demanding too much money and refusing to reveal which songs were actually covered. PRS for Music told a different story but suffice to say it was British Web users who ended up losing out.

PRS & YouTube Make Up

The issue has now been resolved, with MediaMemo reporting that Google and PRS had reached an agreement. Music videos will now be restored to YouTube and any new ones made since talks broke down will also be added.

However, it seems that rather than stick to the tried and tested pay-per-view agreement, YouTube has paid a lump sum to PRS which covers all music videos until June 2012. Neither side would reveal the amount of money agreed upon and all involved have reportedly had to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

Conclusions

This is good for British Web users who have been denied the right to watch music videos on YouTube for six months. However, we don’t actually know which side capitulated and decided this win-win situation was too good to lose.

After The Pirate Bay lost its high-profile court case, the end was nigh. And the founders took the easy way out of the situation, agreeing to sell the property lock, stock, and barrel.

The Acquisition

The people behind The Pirate Bay agreed to sell the site at the end of June for $7.7 million to a Swedish software company, Global Gaming Factory X AB. GGF planned to turn the site into a legitimate business, working with rather than against the same media companies who fought TPB just month before.

However, CNET reports that the acquisition is far from complete, with Global Gaming’s financial affairs coming under scrutiny. Trading in the company’s stock was halted on Friday morning and there are even questions being asked about possible insider trading.

All of this means GGF’s acquisition of The Pirate Bay is anything but clear. The deal was meant to go through by the end of August but that time scale looks very optimistic at this stage of proceedings.

The Torrent Copy

Meanwhile, fans of The Pirate Bay have been making sure they’re not going to be left high and dry if and when the acquisition and legalizing of the site goes through. TorrentFreak reports how an anonymous user copied the site in its entirety and has now made it available as a torrent in its own right.

It’s a hefty 21.3 Gb file and contains the code for the site and all 873,671 torrent files The Pirate Bay was listing at the time the copy was made. This effectively means that The Pirate Bay will live on no matter what GGF do with it.

The Alternatives

Assuming you want to move away from The Pirate Bay and use an alternative site, Gizmodo has listed the top 5 Web sites where torrents can be obtained.

There is Demonoid, which boasts a good community and high-quality torrents. However, you’ll need an invite to join the site. Then there is Mininova, which is actually the biggest torrent site in the world. The only downside is the copyright filter which is slowly being integrated, meaning the chances of obtaining pirated content through the site is lessening all the time.

ISOHunt is another alternative, as are BTJunkie and EZTV.

Unfortunately for those people keen to download and share files on the Internet, the choices for doing so are becoming few and far between. Even some of the sites listed have had trouble staying online and the chances are they’ll eventually be taken down or sold just like OiNK, Suprnova, TorrentSpy, and The Pirate Bay.

So the advice has to be to enjoy them while you can.