Most BitTorrent files illegal: study
-
IF it were possible to scoop up an armful of files shared on BitTorrent, the overwhelming majority of it would be illegally copied or pornographic.
A study, funded by Village Roadshow and conducted by the University of Ballarat's Internet Commerce Security Laboratory (ICSL), sampled a thousand BitTorrent files and found that 89.9 per cent of them were illegal and, of the remainder, 8.2 per cent was porn.
Village Roadshow is a member of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, currently leading the charge against iiNet in a landmark online copyright stoush in the Federal Court.
Movies and television files made up around 72 per cent of the sample and the study found that a million computers were being used to share or "seed" the most popular movie title on the network. The next most popular title was seeded more than 500,000 times.
If the pornographic titles in the sample were also deemed to have been copied illegally then 98.1 per cent of files shared using BitTorrent would infringe copyright.
Taking the oft-quoted rule of thumb that file-sharing absorbs about half of all internet traffic the study suggests that illegal file sharing is happening on such a vast scale as to make film and TV copyright virtually meaningless.
Neil Gane, executive director of AFACT, which welcomed the study today, said: "It may be a legitimate software but, as we have always maintained, it is the preferred software for sharing unauthorised copyright content."
According to AFACT, previous research has focused on the volume of files distributed on file sharing networks but this study is the first to analyse the legality of the files being shared.
The study has been aired in a climate of growing public hostility between AFACT and its opponent in the most important internet copyright trials currently taking place in Australia - and, arguably, the world - Perth-ISP iiNet.
The two have been engaged in a bitter Federal Court battle in which AFACT is attempting to get a landmark decision which would see ISPs held liable for their customers' online copyright infringements. Federal Court Justice Denis Cowdroy ruled against AFACT in a ruling handed down February but the federation will appeal the decision to a full bench of the court next month.
The public stoush started Wednesday when AFACT head Adrianne Pecotic accused internet providers of ignoring pleas to help copyright owners crack down on online piracy during an address at the Media and Broadcasting Congress in Sydney.
That prompted iiNet regulatory chief Steve Dalby to publish a letter describing Ms Pecotic's words as "poor attempts" to paint AFACT as the voice of reason that "belied their ongoing negative and unproductive behaviour".
"During the hearings in October last year, correspondence between the two industry representatives (IIA and AFACT) was tabled as evidence. This correspondence showed a genuine desire by the IIA to explore the issues presented and an absolute ‘smack-down' by AFACT in a letter signed by Adrienne Pecotic. AFACT are quite dishonest when they call for cooperation," Mr Dalby wrote.
It's understood that AFACT is planning a rebuttal.
ICSL is funded by the Victorian state government, IBM, Westpac, the Australian Federal Police and the University of Ballarat.
From The Australian.
-
That reminds of another study conducted some years ago. I can't remember the group but they found that over 95% of homosexuals were gay! LOL… :rotfl:
I hope taxpayer dollars are not paying for these studies. ::)
-
That reminds of another study conducted some years ago. I can't remember the group but they found that over 95% of homosexuals were gay! LOL… :rotfl:
I hope taxpayer dollars are not paying for these studies. ::)
no shit sherlock! lol
-
Yeah but this could be a facade for the basis of laws against P2P sharing
-
Yeah but this could be a facade for the basis of laws against P2P sharing
Legal or illegal, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The best they can do is acknowledge that it happens and find a way to deal with it. Look at the music industry: alot of people 'illegally' download music, but if the artist is popular, the tours sell out, albums are still sold, and money is still made. Taylor Swift's fans are the most computer savvy demographic of all, and yet she still does very well. And Radiohead put their last album online and told people to download and pay what they wanted. It was an amazing album and I gave them 15 bucks for it. Gladly.
-
There have been plenty of studies that show that piracy helps the entertainment industry.
I have pirated several albums of people I never heard of before, many of which I now buy all their albums. The same thing with tv and movies.
I also pirate video games and then try them on my computer. If I like the game, then I buy it for either my xBox 360 or my PS3.
