We've pointed out many times in the past the "unintended" consequences of certain activities, and it looks like the entertainment industry's worldwide effort to push for more and more industry-favorable copyright laws is causing serious problems elsewhere. Apparently, Anders Ahlqvist, who runs the Swedish IT crime unit is noting that the response to the IPRED law in Sweden (pushed by the entertainment industry to crack down on unauthorized file sharing) means that it's now more difficult for him to do his job. Part of the issue, of course, is that various ISPs responded to the law by seeking to protect their users' privacy by deleting log files. Of course, that probably means it's only a matter of time before the industry pushes for new data retention laws, despite evidence that more data retention can actually make life trickier for law enforcement as well. Still, at some point people need to recognize that the entertainment industry's single-minded focus on "stomping out file sharing" rather than adding value through new business models has some serious costs elsewhere.

For many years, we've seen the entertainment industry make totally bogus and unsubstantiated claims about file sharing sites being hotbeds of child pornography in an effort to get them to regulate or shut down those services. Of course, the actual evidence shows that file sharing porn is no worse than what's on the wider internet. But that doesn't stop the entertainment industry from making such bogus claims -- and it seems like they're gleefully admitting it these days. Jamie Love points us to an account of an event in Sweden, entitled "Sweden -- A Safe Haven for Pirates?" put on by the US Chamber of Commerce, where someone from the Danish "Anti-Piracy" group spoke out about how great child pornography is, because it makes it easy for them to get politicians to block or shut down file sharing sites.

"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium [Johan Schluter] declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".

Of course, this is no surprise, but having him say so directly is a bit surprising. He goes on to admit that the entertainment industry is planning to use child porn as a wedge to demand "a giant filter" for copyright:

"One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they understand."

Of course, those filters don't actually work, and using them to force entire sites to be blocked, despite them having a relatively tiny proportion of such content isn't just dishonest and underhanded, but dangerous. We're all in favor of trying to stop child porn, but you do that by focusing on the source, not by putting up filters willy-nilly in a misguided attempt to get politicians to also protect your business model.

Either way, it's incredibly disgusting to have anyone claim that child porn is "great," just because it can be improperly exploited for the sake of protecting another industry's business model. That he's basically admitting that he doesn't remotely care about stopping child pornography, but prefers to use it to his advantage is downright sickening.

A bunch of folks have sent over the story that TorrentFreak posted about Warner Bros. UK looking to hire a technology-savvy student for a year to be on its "anti-piracy" team. The job involves finding file sharing sites, monitoring them, and sending takedown notices. Fun stuff. But what caught my eye is that the job pays £17,500 for 12 months (or about $26,000). Considering that the industry pushes to fine people more than that amount per file shared, it certainly seems to be cheaping out to offer so little to the knowledgeable student they're hiring. If file sharing is really "costing" the industry so much, wouldn't the industry actually pay well to stop it?

It's been somewhat amusing over the last day or so to see a bunch of our usual critics all submit the same exact story with some sort of triumphant "I told you so!!!!!" (usually in less friendly language). It's a report that music sales are up in Sweden following the strict anti-piracy law that went into effect earlier this year. The claim is that this is proof that the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BPI/etc strategies work. To them, this is clear, irrefutable evidence that draconian measures to crack down on unauthorized file sharing really does make people buy. That would be quite interesting if true, but our friends employed by these companies might want to wait a bit before breaking out the champagne over a dead cat bounce.

First, there are some who are questioning the actual numbers. So far, the only numbers have come directly from the IFPI, who hasn't provided much in the way of detail (and have a long history of publishing questionable, fact-challenged numbers). In fact, the very lack of detail would likely indicate that there are extenuating circumstances here. And, when we're talking about Sweden, it has to also be noted that services like Spotify (which dragged the labels kicking and screaming into the modern world) were just launched at the very end of last year. So, it could be that it was one of these more modern services that helped convince people to buy music rather than any crackdown. But, of course, the bigger question is whether or not any boost is sustainable. It was reported that there was a drop in file sharing after the Swedish IPRED law went into effect (though, again, many argue that the "drop" was simply because more people started using encryption and those who measure file sharing traffic had no way to deal with it, so pretended they all stopped). Yet, it didn't take long for the traffic numbers to bounce back up.

And that's the issue. If your entire business model is based on whacking people with a stick and telling them what they can't do, you may get brief moments of compliance, but at the first chance they get to go back to a more consumer-friendly system, they will. So while our friends in the entertainment industry will likely misread this situation into believing that its strategy of pissing off pretty much everyone makes business sense, let's wait and see how this works out in the next year or so. Dead cat bounces can fool lots of folks, but there are very few industries that succeed by basing their future on such things.

We were just talking about how the justice system in Spain seems at least somewhat more reasonable on the subject of file sharing, and here's yet another example. A court has overturned injunctions on two file sharing sites and fined the anti-piracy group that brought charges against them in the first place for "acting in bad faith." The case was dismissed because the court realized (yet again) that linking to infringing material is not infringing itself. But, the "bad faith" part involved the anti-piracy group, SGAE, tricking the operator of the sites into believing that two SGAE employees were representatives of the court and had the right to search his home and confiscate computer hard drives. We've seen such things allowed elsewhere, so it's nice that the Spanish courts are letting private anti-piracy groups know that they are not law enforcement.

We were a bit surprised, recently, to hear at a WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) meeting that they actually appeared to be taking more of an evidence-based approach to copyright, rather than just assuming that "more is better." And now, the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry, gave an interview where he explained why he thought that high fines and jailtime weren't the answer to piracy. He's exactly right, which is a bit surprising. But as you read the details, it sounds like he might be right for the wrong reasons -- which isn't all that surprising.

It's not that he thinks that the better approach is for companies and content creators to adjust their business models -- but that he's afraid the draconian punishment schemes are basically a PR nightmare for WIPO's continuing fruitless effort to convince people that infringement is evil:

"I don't believe we are going to win this, (to) find the solution by putting teenagers in jail," Gurry said in an interview on a visit to India. "I think that is not going to win public sympathy."

"Part of the battle here is to sensitise the public to the fact that there is a real issue involved. It is not simply a victimless crime...."

Amusingly, the whole reason the RIAA kicked off its lawsuit strategy was based on similar thinking: that it was an "education" campaign that would convince people that there was "harm" done from file sharing. Of course, it didn't work. At all. And no education campaign is going to work, because it's just the basic nature of economics. If the technology has made the product infinite, it's not a moral issue or a legal issue: it's a business model issue. The answer is to change business models, not hope and pray that you can somehow convince people that it's "bad" to do something that obviously can be done quite easily.

So, yes, Gurry is correct that draconian punishment has created a massive PR backlash that has helped make things even worse, but an education campaign isn't going to make a difference. Only a business model change can fix a business model situation -- and we're already seeing that happen just fine in many parts of the world. It's not an education campaign that will help the content industry. It's smarter business models.

Earlier this year, the RIAA dumped its longterm anti-piracy partner MediaSentry and hired DtecNet instead. MediaSentry had lots of problems in terms of credibility, but it appears that DtecNet may be even worse. It recently came out with a report claiming that file sharing decreased massively after The Pirate Bay went down temporarily. Not surprisingly, this report is getting some press attention. The problem? The report appears to be based on a nearly comical misunderstanding of how BitTorrent works. TorrentFreak details numerous basic mistakes in the report, nearly all of which suggest the claims made by DtecNet have little, if anything, to do with reality. Considering that DtecNet is going to be leading the charge for the RIAA in any future lawsuits and various "three strikes" plans, the fact that it doesn't seem to understand how BitTorrent works suggests problems ahead.

For years, the entertainment industry has pushed a propaganda line in its "education" programs that are used in schools: "if you haven't paid for it, you stole it." Of course, that's not actually true. But, if the entertainment industry wants to claim that, shouldn't it live by those rules too? Apparently, the managing director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, that's currently involved in numerous lawsuits against file sharing sites, is happily talking up the fact that he now has possession of a laptop from a "hacker" and that it was confiscated from that hacker. So, clearly, BREIN didn't pay for it. Doesn't that mean it was stolen by their own definition? While the police may have the right to confiscate goods, BREIN is not the police. It's a private industry organization, that claims it's against theft, but doesn't seem to mind participating in "getting things without paying for it" when it has the chance.

John was the first of a few to send in a collection of 15 years worth of "anti-piracy commercials" that run at the beginning of films, put in place by the movie industry, who has only just realized that perhaps they should offer up a more positive message to customers who just paid good money to watch a movie, rather than accusing them all of being criminals. Most of these commercials are so over the top as to be hilarious. "The pirates are out to get you. Don't let them brand you with their mark. Piracy funds organized crime... piracy funds terrorism... and will destroy... your future enjoyment." It makes you wonder if the folks making these commercials actually thought they'd be effective.

A new antipiracy law went into effect in Sweden on Wednesday, allowing copyright holders to demand the IP addresses from ISPs if a court finds that there's evidence of illegal activity -- and, as News.com notes, internet traffic took a major dip in Sweden, though it's not entirely clear if the two things are connected (though, it notes a similar dip occurred, back when The Pirate Bay was taken offline a few years ago). Not surprisingly, some audio book publishers wasted no time in trying to use the law, filing lawsuits to get information on certain file sharers. Sweden, as many of you know, has had very consumer-friendly copyright laws for quite some time. The departure from this (and the introduction of other new laws that are being pushed) has come from massive international pressure, usually starting with the American entertainment industry. It will be worth watching how the country reacts to increased and more draconian copyright rules.