This is an update on the latest developments in the war against online pirates.1. PIPCU arrests owners of unlicensed sites Last month, PIPCU shut down an illegal karaoke website site,
This is an update on the latest developments in the war against online pirates.
1. PIPCU arrests owners of unlicensed sites
Last month, PIPCU shut down an illegal karaoke website site, karaoke-world.co.uk, following a referral from PRS for Music, and also arrested the owner of the site. The website was a BitTorrent tracker and did not host any infringing files itself. However, it effectively required its users to infringe copyright because the rules allowed any account to be disabled if it did not "seed" files for at least 24 hours (i.e. upload any file that was downloaded).
A week later, PIPCU arrested "one of the Internet's biggest uploaders" of digital media content for World Wrestling Entertainment ("WWE") and the Ultimate Fighting Championship ("UFC"). The WWE and UFC obtain significant revenue from TV-focused content, which is available lawfully on TV, pay-per-view and online. PIPCU has estimated that the infringing files were downloaded more than 2 million times and have cost the industry millions of pounds.
We note that PIPCU was launched in 2013 as a specialist unit of the City of London Police that is dedicated to protecting UK industries from IP crime. It obtains funding from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), with the most recent injection of £3 million set to fund it through to 2017. PIPCU is continually pursuing infringers, and earlier this year suspended over 2,000 illegal websites selling fake luxury goods as part of a special operation conducted in partnership with brands, brand protection organisations and internet registries.
2. The Pirate Bay and Blocking Orders
The Pirate Bay website, which lists catalogues of files that are shared via trackers, has been the subject of blocking orders since 2012 requiring several UK ISPs to restrict access to the site. In an escalation of this practice, six of the major UK ISPs are now blocking proxies to these websites, and aggregators of proxy websites where their sole or predominant purpose is to give access to the illegal sites. (A proxy website is one that mirrors the content and the functionality of, say, a blocked website, but is hosted through a different IP address than the blocked website). The original High Court blocking orders allow copyright holders to update the list of domains to be blocked so proxy websites to The Pirate Bay such as proxybay.net, pirateproxy.net are now included. The Pirate Bay is still not giving up the fight, however, and is attempting to avoid the blocking orders by switching its hosting access to HTTPS-only. It has also re-opened user registrations, which were disabled after the police raid late last year.
In the meantime, the BPI has secured further injunctions requiring ISPs to block subscriber access to 17 major MP3 download websites, taking the total sites being blocked to over 100. This approach is supported by the IFPI is its latest Digital Music Report, which advocates simultaneously blocking several leading sites as opposed to targeting individual sites. The IFPI report suggests that blocking orders are very effective when applied to a number of major sites in this way.
3. IPO study on penalties for online copyright infringement
The IPO has produced a report, Penalties Fair?, which concludes that there is a case for increasing the sanctions available for online copyright offences. In 2002, the maximum penalty following a conviction for physical copyright infringement was changed from two to ten years, making physical copyright infringement a serious arrestable offence. However, for online copyright infringement, the maximum available penalty is still two years, which makes the crime a summary offence.
PIPCU has noted that the current regime makes it difficult to stigmatise online copyright infringement and could mean that prosecutions for online offences are not pursued.
The report therefore suggests that there is logic in treating serious online infringement as serious crimes and increasing the maximum custodial sentence available. The report states that establishing the principle that online offences can be serious and arrestable would almost certainly facilitate action being taken against the worst offenders.
1. PIPCU arrests owners of unlicensed sites
Last month, PIPCU shut down an illegal karaoke website site, karaoke-world.co.uk, following a referral from PRS for Music, and also arrested the owner of the site. The website was a BitTorrent tracker and did not host any infringing files itself. However, it effectively required its users to infringe copyright because the rules allowed any account to be disabled if it did not "seed" files for at least 24 hours (i.e. upload any file that was downloaded).
A week later, PIPCU arrested "one of the Internet's biggest uploaders" of digital media content for World Wrestling Entertainment ("WWE") and the Ultimate Fighting Championship ("UFC"). The WWE and UFC obtain significant revenue from TV-focused content, which is available lawfully on TV, pay-per-view and online. PIPCU has estimated that the infringing files were downloaded more than 2 million times and have cost the industry millions of pounds.
We note that PIPCU was launched in 2013 as a specialist unit of the City of London Police that is dedicated to protecting UK industries from IP crime. It obtains funding from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), with the most recent injection of £3 million set to fund it through to 2017. PIPCU is continually pursuing infringers, and earlier this year suspended over 2,000 illegal websites selling fake luxury goods as part of a special operation conducted in partnership with brands, brand protection organisations and internet registries.
2. The Pirate Bay and Blocking Orders
The Pirate Bay website, which lists catalogues of files that are shared via trackers, has been the subject of blocking orders since 2012 requiring several UK ISPs to restrict access to the site. In an escalation of this practice, six of the major UK ISPs are now blocking proxies to these websites, and aggregators of proxy websites where their sole or predominant purpose is to give access to the illegal sites. (A proxy website is one that mirrors the content and the functionality of, say, a blocked website, but is hosted through a different IP address than the blocked website). The original High Court blocking orders allow copyright holders to update the list of domains to be blocked so proxy websites to The Pirate Bay such as proxybay.net, pirateproxy.net are now included. The Pirate Bay is still not giving up the fight, however, and is attempting to avoid the blocking orders by switching its hosting access to HTTPS-only. It has also re-opened user registrations, which were disabled after the police raid late last year.
In the meantime, the BPI has secured further injunctions requiring ISPs to block subscriber access to 17 major MP3 download websites, taking the total sites being blocked to over 100. This approach is supported by the IFPI is its latest Digital Music Report, which advocates simultaneously blocking several leading sites as opposed to targeting individual sites. The IFPI report suggests that blocking orders are very effective when applied to a number of major sites in this way.
3. IPO study on penalties for online copyright infringement
The IPO has produced a report, Penalties Fair?, which concludes that there is a case for increasing the sanctions available for online copyright offences. In 2002, the maximum penalty following a conviction for physical copyright infringement was changed from two to ten years, making physical copyright infringement a serious arrestable offence. However, for online copyright infringement, the maximum available penalty is still two years, which makes the crime a summary offence.
PIPCU has noted that the current regime makes it difficult to stigmatise online copyright infringement and could mean that prosecutions for online offences are not pursued.
The report therefore suggests that there is logic in treating serious online infringement as serious crimes and increasing the maximum custodial sentence available. The report states that establishing the principle that online offences can be serious and arrestable would almost certainly facilitate action being taken against the worst offenders.