AFACT touts BitTorrent study ahead of iiNet appeal

 

Inadmissable.

A regional university lab has produced a study on copyright infringing uses of BitTorrent that was partly financed by one of the film studios set to appeal a Federal Court judgement on the subject in just over a week.

The study, called Investigation into the extent of infringing content on BitTorrent networks [pdf], was created by the Internet Commerce Security Laboratory (ICSL) at the University of Ballarat.

A small portion of funding - said to be "about half of one percent" of the total cost of the research - was drawn from Village Roadshow, the first applicant in a Federal Court copyright case against Perth ISP iiNet.

Village Roadshow and other film studios lost a court battle last year to make iiNet and other ISPs responsible for the copyright infringing actions of internet users on their networks.

The rest of the funding came from ICSL's sponsors which include the Victorian Government, Australian Federal Police, IBM and Westpac.

ICSL head Paul Watters said the research came out of "discussions" with Village Roadshow and built on earlier work he had conducted in 2005.

"This is one aspect we agreed to do in collaboration with Village," he said.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), which is representing film studios such as Village Roadshow in the case, denied the release of the report was timed to coincide with the appeal process.

AFACT's executive director Neil Gane told iTnews the report had been prepared for a cybercrime and trustworthy computing conference, now in its second year, and not for the case.

He noted that new evidence could not be introduced at this stage of the case.

Gane said AFACT and the film industry would not seek to use ICSL as a local investigative arm to examine potential copyright infringement over Australian internet networks.

The researchers also said they had no immediate plans to commercialise their methodology.

The study

Using data scraped from 19 BitTorrent trackers, the study found that "at least 89.9 percent" of a sample of 1,000 popular torrents infringed copyright.

The number excluded pornographic torrents, for which copyright infringement could not be verified.

Movies and TV shows reportedly made up about 72 percent of all torrents.

Only one torrent in the top 100 looked at proved legitimate- the open source VLC Player, which relied on BitTorrent for distribution.

However, the researchers urged some caution around interpretation of the findings.

"We note that these results may vary from sample to sample, and from time to time, and the ICSL is in the process of continuously updating its database and tools," the researchers said.

"This includes building more robust tools for classifying pornographic content as infringing or not."


AFACT touts BitTorrent study ahead of iiNet appeal
"And they are all public trackers.... What about private trackers? They are not publicly available, neither you can Google them as report states. Reports states that each of 1000 files analyzed ..."
By acdcfan
 
 
 
Comments: 12
RB
Jul 23, 2010 3:49 PM
So AFACT are actually aware that Internet users want to obtain movie content online?
Well why aren't they publishing their content through BitTorrent networks?

Just imagine ... a BitTorrent directory that has every movie ever made from the 34 largest studios/producers in the world and all available for high-speed download. The catch? ... there's an Ad-break every 20 minutes.
What? ... "you can't make money off online avertising!" ... that's funny because Google makes lots of money from it ... lots and lots of money.

This research just goes to show that the demand for movie content online is huge.
hamrag.yattletrot
Jul 23, 2010 4:25 PM
So they found that 89% of torrents from a site that specifically caters for searching other sites which are specifically setup for illegal torrenting...are illegal. Wow, give them a medal for this insight!

Did they try a site like linuxtracker.org? Or clearbits.net? Or legaltorrents.info? 100% of torrents on those sites are LEGAL!

Or would that have skewed the results of the study too much?

If you specifically go looking for the illegal material you are bound to find it. This study is dubious at best, maybe "misleading" is a better word?
carl
Jul 23, 2010 4:41 PM
@hamrag.yattletrot

I also doubt they checked the validity of the torrents in the list that the title of the torrent accurately represented the content.
aka Fakes
anonymous
Jul 23, 2010 5:41 PM

It seems that some small regional universities may be highly susceptible to bundles of dollars dangled in front of some of their faculties.

This may result in an outcome that some vastly overpaid lawyers may think suits their purpose (what a coincidence), but it is hardly an outcome that may be likely to impress most other people.
Paul K
Jul 24, 2010 7:35 AM
Probably because most people want their video delivered digitally, and don't want to pay $30 for a DVD/Blueray that is in a format they have to break the law in order to convert to play on the device of their choice, or add to their media center. If you have to break the law anyway, why bother buying at an inflated price (By inflated I mean that 30% may go to the rights holder, and the rest go to those who manufacture and distribute the physical material).

All of the restrictive copyright laws that we currently enjoy were mostly written by the media companies. While it's true they have a huge (legitimate) interest in maximising their profits, the public's interest should also have been better represented.

Most people ignore laws that seem unfair, or are inconvenient... They better hurry up and come up with an alternate, because the genie is out of the bottle, and there is an entire Generation who regard media as a sharing opportunity, not a purchase.

The huge profits made each year, and how little end up in the artists hands don't help them, because that sort of information is used to justify unlicensed use.
BoZz
Jul 24, 2010 8:55 AM
So a Uni has been paid lots of money to produce this outcome? For free over the past 30 minutes I have done some Googling, gone to a few forums, Blogs and IRC channels to find out around 8-12 months ago Torrent sites started to get hit with large amount of fake torrents in the label of Movies and Music? Wow I wonder who is doing this? Could it be the same group that paid for the Uni study. Isn't this an old trick, create the illusion and then act on the outcome? Sure there is movies for download but almost all Torrents? I think not.
sabredog66
Jul 24, 2010 10:30 AM
Do AFACT really believe that a study sponsored and supported by a entertainment company with a vested interest is actually going to be believed?

Here is iiNet's response to this load of baloney.
http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/20100722-letter-to-commsday.pdf
Res
Jul 24, 2010 10:39 AM
BoZz is right, you don't have to make material available, you only have to make someone thing the material is what they want.

And I read somewhere Australia has the highest ratio of downloads via torrents for TV shows, well, if the networks stopped treating us with utter total contempt and aired shows in a reasonable time frame, that would be a non issue, why are we months, to over a year in some cases, behind the U.S and the U.K. with aired series, and probably, any 3rd world country as well.
Ch 10 once proved they can match it, remember Jericho, and the start of one of the House series, they did air within 24 hours of the U.S., so they CAN do it, WHEN they want to, same goes for all others, including the ABC which is still 10 months behind with spooks for example... *shakes head* and they WONDER why TV torrents are a problem here.

Anyway, this is all moot, as appeals can not accept new evidence.
Rhino
Jul 24, 2010 1:02 PM
Irrespective if this study is valid or not, it is not the ISP's responsibility to manage and enforce their own copyright.

By introducing this now, AFACT's aim is to try and sway whatever judges will be presiding over the upcoming appeals.
zag
Jul 24, 2010 3:14 PM
Problem 1)

What does this study have to do with the end result from the court case and the last appeal? and in what way does it prove that iiNet forced it's users into downloading illegal files via iiNet?

Problem 2)

Are ALL these trackers in Australia?

As this report would have to apply to Australia only and not the world.

No point pointing out how Russian people could be using bit torrent sites in china to break the law is there and then apply that report some how to Australian law and say see that's why iiNet customers are downloading illegal files.

peterniss
Jul 24, 2010 10:28 PM
Data scraped from 19 Warez trackers maybe? What kind of shabby study is this? Did they analys via DPI or did they go to the pirate bay and click sort by most seeds? It wreaks of privately funding from the big media cartels and seems to have zero credibility. AFACT is building evidence to support its own case. Just because it was done by a university makes it no more credible than if they got their marketing department to have done it. Absolute rubbish!
acdcfan
Sep 4, 2010 5:02 PM
And they are all public trackers.... What about private trackers?
They are not publicly available, neither you can Google them as report states.
Reports states that each of 1000 files analyzed had 11710 seeders... Rubbish report..
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Vito Forte: A CIO for tough times
Fortescue Metals CIO talks vendor management and innovation.
 
Tech staff spared in ANZ's 1000 job cuts
Cost cutting hits middle management.
 
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  83%
 
No
  17%
TOTAL VOTES: 245

Vote