ADVERTISEMENT

Simultaneous group-blocking of sites diminishes piracy, research shows

Dr Brett Danaher.

Dr Brett Danaher, a visiting research professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, was in Sydney Tuesday night, presenting new research on the impact of court-ordered blocking of pirate sites at an event hosted by the Australian Screen Association (ASA).

Danaher has three criteria by which to evaluate the effectiveness of site blocking – whether it decreases visits to the blocked sites, whether it decreases total piracy, and whether it increases legal consumption. 

“Measuring the causal effect of piracy website blocking is difficult", he said. "We studied three waves of court-ordered ISP site blocking in the UK using a dataset on actual Internet user behaviour,” said Dr Danaher.

Danaher's research has found that while blocking just one major piracy site does not reduce piracy or increase legal sales, simultaneously blocking a number of popular piracy sites caused a meaningful decrease in total piracy and a significant increase in legal consumption of video content.

In November 2014, 53 popular video piracy sites were blocked in the UK, a move which meaningfully reduced total piracy and led to a six percent increase in traffic to paid legal streaming sites (as well as a 10 percent increase in traffic to free legal streaming sites like Channel 5). 

“There appear to be diminishing returns to additional waves of site blocks, and yet these waves may also serve to prevent a return to the prior status quo”, Danaher said.

John Jarratt, whose Wolf Creek series is about to launch on Stan, said: “You’d put a lock on your door if someone kept breaking in and stealing your DVDs, so why not put a block on the portals and stop the buggers who operate the sites stealing our digital DVDs?”

Executive Chairman of the Australian Screen Association Paul Muller said, “Disabling pirate websites via the courts is one tool we can use that we know will have an impact on piracy. However this is part of a bigger strategy that includes better legislation, a strong education program, continuing to make legal content available and affordable and the overall desire for people to want to do the right thing."

“Changing people’s attitudes and behaviours is a long running process. Just like it took a long time for people to look differently at smoking, it is going to take people a long time to think differently about piracy".

  1. This is a bullshit report taken uncritically from a news release. At least I read the research. Please publish this…

    EIGHTY PERCENT IGNORE MASSIVE SITE-BLOCKING EFFORT

    LAURIE PATTON | May 12, 2016

    This week a “visiting academic” from the US addressed a hand-picked audience at an event hosted by the Australian Screen Association, which represents the international film and TV content and distribution industry, including the Hollywood studios.

    The headline in an article in Forbes the next day claimed that “New Research Debunks Myth That Piracy Site Blocking Does Not Work”.

    The correct headline was “EIGHTY PERCENT IGNORE MASSIVE SITE-BLOCKING EFFORT”.

    A huge site-blocking exercise in the UK was cited as resulting in a 22 percent drop in total piracy. Hardly a great result. What’s more, the increase in content viewed on legitimate streaming sites went up by a measly 10 percent.

    When you actually read their report it turns out, as the authors concede, that there is a diminishing return from increasing the number of sites blocked. What’s more they “could not definitively determine how many of the 53 blocked sites subsequently reappeared as proxy or mirror sites”.

    There are as many as 400+ ISP’s in Australia. It is ludicrous to think that we can stamp out “piracy” with site-blocking. Serious offenders with a modicum of technical knowledge will always find a way to access what they want, lawfully or unlawfully.

    Overseas experience has found that when you block an infringing site it will often reappear, within days, with a different IP address and/or another name. It’s called “whack-a-mole”.

    There is ample research evidence showing that most people are willing to pay if they can get the content they’re after. Some surveys have found that the people who “pirate” are also among the most active legal downloaders.

    Netflix has enjoyed considerable success since entering our market last year, and our two local SVOD platforms – Presto and Stan – are both signing up reasonable numbers of subscribers. This tells you that there is pent up demand for the very content that, otherwise, is unsurprisingly subject to “piracy”.

    As Prime Minister Turnbull has said: “Rights holders’ most powerful tool to combat online copyright infringement is making content accessible, timely, and affordable to consumers”.

    This was also the view taken by the Productivity Commission earlier this month when it recommended an end to ‘geoblocking’, whereby Australians have been price-gouged on overseas video and audio content for decades.

    Village Roadshow recently told Fairfax media that taking legal action against unlawful downloaders “helped educate people about the threat that piracy imposes on the creative industry”. This perhaps belies what could be their ulterior motive for heading to the courts. So we are going to inconvenience ISP’s and see everyone’s Internet access fees increase as a consequence of the costs of implementing site-blocking, all for a bit of PR?

    BTW, there is no evidence that supporting site -blocking has anything to do with protecting the local industry. Quite the contrary.

    We need to educate people about the rights of content creators and encourage them to access content from legitimate sites. But first, we have to ensure that the content they want to watch is available at reasonable prices. #WeAreNotTheProblem

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *