TorrentFreak's Latest News

'Expensive' Streaming Services Are a Key Reason for Americans to 'Pirate'Ernesto Van der Sar, 24 Apr 11:26 AM For online media consumers, things hav

'Expensive' Streaming Services Are a Key Reason for Americans to 'Pirate' Ernesto Van der Sar, 24 Apr 11:26 AM For online media consumers, things have improved significantly over the years. More content is being made available on-demand than ever before. Netflix set the tone a decade ago by offering movies and TV series online as a convenient alternative to piracy. This worked well, so well that more than a dozen other streaming services were launched, all with their own exclusive releases. While this may sound positive, in some ways it made things worse for consumers. As it turns out, it's quite costly to have more than a handful of subscriptions and fees may rise to the point where people feel justified to pirate some content to keep costs under control. This revelation isn't new. It's been brought up several times over the years, dating back to at least 2017. And indeed, while most people gladly pay for streaming subscriptions, many use pirate sites and services 'on the side' to incidentally watch content from services they're not already subscribed to. Academic studies are yet to examine this effect in great detail, but there is survey data to back the theory up. Previously, most UK consumers felt that they were paying too much for legal subscriptions, with half indicating that piracy is a viable alternative. 1 in 3 Americans Pirated Movies or TV recently New data from U.S. respondents released this week suggests that expensive streaming subscriptions are an issue there too. The online survey, conducted by Cordcutting among a sample of 988 American adults, finds that a third of all respondents pirated TV series or movies in the past year. Younger people are more likely to have pirated at some point in their lives. For example, 76% of Generation Z says they have pirated content, a figure that falls to 28% for baby boomers. Piracy habits are relatively stable. Most people who admitted pirating something over the past twelve months indicate that they 'consume' about the same as they did earlier. The positive news for rightsholders is that 35% pirate less than before, while just 11% have increased their piracy volume. Streaming Costs Trigger Piracy For many people, fragmentation and cost of paid streaming services appear to be key reasons for turning to pirate alternatives. More than a third of the self-proclaimed pirates mentioned the price of legal subscriptions among their reasons. Of all pirating respondents, 36% said they used unauthorized alternatives because they were only interested in a specific show or movie, which alone was not worth a full subscription. This is close to the 35% who indicated that subscription services are too expensive. The results of these types of surveys should always be interpreted with caution. The formulation of questions can be leading at times, for example, and paid online polls may have a selection bias. The results make it clear that the price of legal subscriptions is an issue for a number of people. At the same time, however, the majority of respondents didn't mention cost as a problem. Other popular reasons to pirate include content being unavailable through legal channels, or to avoid advertising. How to Solve It? The current streaming landscape is complicated for a reason. Many players are trying to gain market share hoping to become a dominant force. However, at some point more consolidation would make sense to keep costs under control for distributors and consumers. When asked about possible solutions, many respondents mentioned that cheaper legal services would help, as would stronger penalties for online pirates. At the moment, rightsholders are mostly focused on enforcement efforts to tackle the problem. In addition to going after pirate sites and services, they hope to introduce site blocking legislation to the United States. That has the potential to deter some casual pirates. According to the survey, an emphasis on the potential negative effects of piracy could help. Among the U.S. respondents who indicated that they had never pirated anything, malware threats and potential negative effects on the industry were frequently mentioned as reasons. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. There's More to Copyright Than Financial Incentives, Internet Archive Argues in Court Ernesto Van der Sar, 23 Apr 07:23 PM The non-profit Internet Archive (IA) aims to preserve digital history for generations to come. The organization literally archives key parts of the Internet, copying older versions of websites to preserve them for future generations. This information becomes more and more valuable as time passes by. IA has plenty of other archive projects too. For example, it operates a library that offers a broad collection of digital media, including books, which patrons can borrow upon request. Thousands of libraries have digital lending services but IA's approach is different. The organization doesn't license authorized digital copies from publishers; instead, its books are scanned and digitized in-house. Each copy can only be loaned to one person at a time, to mimic the lending attributes of physical books. Lawsuit and Appeal Internet Archive believes that its approach falls under fair use but publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House disagree. They filed a lawsuit in 2020 equating IA's controlled digital lending operation to copyright infringement. Earlier this year a New York federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement. The court's decision effectively put an end to IA's self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit. IA is not letting go without a fight and in December the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment. Among other things, IA argued that its lending activity causes no financial harm is substantially different from the ebook licensing market. Fearing a 'Napster moment' for books, the publishers rejected the notion that outsiders can run their own digitization programs and operate distribution platforms, without rightsholders being involved. Rightsholders should remain in control of all digital copies to be monetized on their terms. Both sides were supported by amicus briefs from interested parties, a clear indication of what's at stake in this dispute. Before the court case moves forward, however, IA replied to the publishers' Napster comments and other critiques. IA Points Out 'Critical Misconceptions' The Archive maintains that its lending service is fair use. The organization points out that the publishers have several misconceptions about its service. IA points out that it doesn't lend out digital copies without limits. For each physical book, it will only lend a single digitized copy at the time. This fixed "owned-to-loaned ratio" sets it apart from many of the copyright-infringing services mentioned by the publishers.. "Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read or copy or to peer-to-peer file-sharing by companies like Napster. Neither practice is based on use of a library's lawfully acquired physical copy, and neither ensures that only the one person entitled to borrow the book (or recording) can access it at a time." IA further notes that it has no profit motive, which differs from companies that resell digital copies without permission. In addition, the enormous work that goes into digitizing the books makes it hard for others to do the same, so fears of a flood of similar services are overblown. "[B]ecause of the huge investment required to operate a legally compliant controlled lending system and the controls defining the practice, finding fair use here would not trigger any of the doomsday consequences for rightsholders that Publishers and their amici claim to fear," IA writes. Libraries Have Broad Missions The brief goes on to counter the publishers' "cramped" view of what libraries are for. Libraries are not just outfits that lend physical books to people nearby; their missions are much broader. IA says that libraries make books available to a broad public, no matter their social status or location. They also preserve books for future generations and ensure that readers can enjoy books without giving up their privacy. "Libraries provide readers more egalitarian access to a wider range of books, overcoming socioeconomic and geographic barriers by sharing resources with other libraries through interlibrary loans." "They also build permanent collections to preserve books, including older editions, for future generations. And they protect reader privacy, preventing disclosure of patron records that could chill access to information," IA adds. IA's lending service advances this mission and was launched, in part, because the current ebook licensing schemes are seen as too restrictive. A "Copyright" Balancing Act The parties broadly agree on what the lending program entails and how it operates from a technical perspective. However, it's the purpose and consequences that mostly determine whether a service is 'fair use', and here they have diametrically opposing views. The publishers have argued that IA offers digital copies of their books without permission, which directly competes with its legal licensing business. IA, in turn, doesn't deny that copyrights play a role but stresses that its controlled lending is fair use. The reply highlights several arguments to make this point and concludes that the scale clearly tips in its favor. The reply brief notes that the lower court didn't properly balance the interests required by copyright law, largely overlooking the benefits the service has to the public at large, while strongly focusing on the financial aspect of copyright instead. "[The District Court] decision barely mentions copyright's ultimate purpose of 'promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts'. Publishers do not deny that IA's use serves this purpose; instead, they ask the Court to ignore that service and focus instead on copyright's financial incentives for creativity." IA cites the Warhol Supreme Court case which made clear that fair use is a balancing act between the interests of the public and rightsholders. In this case, it believes that the balance favors its lending service. "Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The district court's failure to consider the latter contravenes decades of precedent recognizing that rewards are a secondary consideration, while promoting availability is primary," IA informs the court. "Here, the record shows that the balancing act between these purposes is better served by allowing the use than by preventing it," IA concludes. — A copy of the Internet Archive's reply brief, submitted at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. New Piracy Shield Legal Challenge Filed at Italy's Council of State Andy Maxwell, 23 Apr 02:43 PM Since its launch early February, Italy's Piracy Shield system and its operators have been at the center of a series of controversies. From blocking innocent platforms and bizarre public denials claiming that never actually happened, to the leaking of Piracy Shield source code online and claims that didn't happen either, a more difficult debut would be hard to imagine. Yet with legitimate complaints from negatively-affected members of the public being given short shrift, and access to information requests pushed aside, the groundwork is in place for additional controversy further down the line. AGCOM Issues its First Piracy-Shield Related Fine Without assistance from Italian ISPs, blocking pirate services would be impossible in Italy. Against the wishes of many, however, their role in the system is enshrined in law. When the Piracy Shield system churns out domains and IP addresses to be blocked, ISPs must ensure that none of their customers can access them within 30 minutes. Associated costs are the ISPs' burden too, as are the fines they face for non-compliance. Rightsholders, meanwhile, face no sanctions whatsoever for their own blunders. ISP association ASSOProvider has protested this imbalance from the beginning; it represents smaller companies likely to be disproportionately affected by the imposition of additional costs. Last year, ASSOProvider mounted a legal challenge and predictably ran into the combined might of telecoms regulator AGCOM and Piracy Shield's corporate backers, including top-tier football league Serie A. The challenge failed to stop the launch of Piracy Shield but when predictions of over-blocking became reality, ASSOProvider filed an official information request to obtain data relating to the program thus far. AGCOM's response was to fine ASSOProvider for obstructing its Piracy Shield supervisory activities; specifically, for not providing a list of the ISPs it represents, despite AGCOM already being well aware of their names. That the first fine linked to the new anti-piracy regime targeted non-pirates hasn't gone unnoticed. ASSOProvider seems to have drawn energy and motivation from it, contrary to the intended effect. New Legal Challenge Filed at the Council of State Working with the Sarzana Law Firm of Rome, ASSOProvider will now challenge the legality of the regulatory provisions underpinning the AGCOM-supervised Piracy Shield. "The dozens of reports from users, businesses and associations, whose rights have been unjustly violated, have convinced the Association to continue its battle for legality and the protection of citizens' rights on the internet," an announcement from Sarzana & Associati reads. "In recent months the Association had already requested the list of access inhibition measures implemented through the platform, especially since the inhibitions seem to have also involved subjects completely unrelated to piracy activities," it continues, referencing the access to information request filed last month. The Consiglio di Stato ('Council of State') is the body that ensures public administration in Italy complies with relevant law. The specifics of ASSOProvider's challenge will appear in due course but since the Council has jurisdiction over all administrative authorities in Italy, the association will seek a robust review and a positive outcome. Giovanbattista Frontera, President of the Board of Directors of ASSOProvider, says its aims are clear; greater transparency in order to identify the critical issues that can compromise the battle against internet piracy. "The association I represent intends first of all to thank the free press and the countless 'straight-backed' journalists who covered the Piracy Shield affair with professionalism and independence, in an objectively difficult context. What happened to completely innocent individuals who had nothing to do with piracy is there for all to see," Frontera says. "ASSOProvider will continue to invoke the principles of legality and protection of rights before the Judiciary, as it has always done and will not be afraid to report the errors of the system before all possible jurisdictions and institutions, in compliance with the law." Predictable Action By Legal Streaming Services Piracy Shield typically aims to prevent consumer access to pirate IPTV services, especially those that provide access to live sports broadcasts. Subscribers to these services typically mention the expense of legal services as a driving factor; paying a fraction of the cost for a pirate product is clearly more attractive than paying perhaps ten times more. Depending on opinion, legal services are over-priced because football in general lives beyond its means, they simply like to profiteer, or because of thieving pirates. If these people paid their fair share, companies could reduce their prices to all, some have claimed. As we've heard from AGCOM and Serie A since Piracy Shield launched in February, the system works; pirates are getting blocked left and right, and pirate services are having big problems servicing customers in Italy. If that is indeed true, it would be interesting to know the background to Sky's decision to increase the price of its sport and football packages in Italy. DDaY reports that annual subscribers will see the sport component increase from 16 euros to 22 euros, a total of 90 euros per month. The football package will increase from 5 euros to 8 euros per month. Those who subscribe to the Open offer will see the sports pack increased from 20 euros to 26.90 euros per month, with football increasing from 5 to 8 euros per month. If it's true that Piracy Shield is definitely working, those who predicted falling prices appear to be wrong. In theory, at least. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers. ©2024 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company