Tag Archive: AFACT


Hollywood goes to extremes to protect its interests worldwide. By now it’s public knowledge that MPAA-funded groups are lobbying at the highest political levels, but when it comes to law enforcement they have their ways of being heard too.

In the U.S. the MPAA was the outfit that tipped the authorities off on many of the ‘rogue’ sites that had their domain names seized in the last year. Similarly, in the U.K. the MPAA-funded group FACT carried out most of the investigative work in cases against the operators of the BitTorrent community FileSoup and the streaming site TV-Links.

Today we talk to Gavin “Tex” Warren, a private investigator who worked for the Hollywood backed group AFACT in Australia. While he mostly worked on offline piracy, his inside view allows us to learn more about how the anti-piracy agenda is sold to the outside world.

Warren became a private investigator in 2000, and prior to that he served as a detective in the Australian Federal Police for twelve years. From 2003 until 2008 he worked as an investigator, undercover operative handler and then lead investigator for AFACT. When AFACT moved their priorities from offline piracy to ISPs, they eventually let Warren go.

The Big Score

“Initially AFACT was called the Australasian Film and Video Security Office and was run out of Sydney by Mr Steve Howes,” Warren says, explaining how it all started for him in 2003. “The lead investigator here in Melbourne was another former AFP officer, Greg Hooper.”

“I had an undercover operative who worked for me (name withheld) that I shall refer to as “Short Round”. We were contracted to make purchases of DVDs and back then, VHS tapes of copyright infringing movies. In our first operation which lasted about six months, we had infiltrated a manufacturing “laboratory” and the dodgy sales team at the local trash and treasure market.”

Warren’s team then made so-called ‘trap purchases’ and all the evidence they gathered was then presented to the Victoria Police. The operation resulted in the execution of three simultaneous search warrants, netting about fifteen thousand exhibits, $30,000 cash and a dozen computer towers. It was a great success that was quickly communicated to the media.

“The press were informed and all was tied up in a neat bundle. Column inches were filled, sound bites were created and everyone was happy, except the pirates,” Warren recalls.

“This success ensured that Short Round and I had ongoing work. The AFVSO was subsumed by AFACT soon thereafter. Steve Howes was replaced by Neil Gane, a former British Hong Kong Police Inspector who had been working in Malaysia with the MPAA against piracy.”

Boosting Statistics

“At this time, Short Round and I were trotted out to meet Neil and to show him our equipment and discuss tactics. Mr Gane gave the impression of being very committed to stopping the evil scourge of piracy and was far more media savvy than his predecessor.”

“He was adamant that we needed to boost our statistics to make the media sit up and take notice and that the large numbers would make it easier to get the local Police interested. This was especially difficult to do as local police had no jurisdiction over copyright infringing product and the AFP were desperately short on manpower. We were encouraged to find links to drugs and stolen goods wherever possible.”

“We discussed the formula for extrapolating the potential street value earnings of ‘laboratories’ and we were instructed to count all blank discs in our seizure figures as they were potential product. Mr Gane also explained that the increased loss approximation figures were derived from all forms of impacts on decreasing cinema patronage right through to the farmer who grows the corn for popping.”

Gane understood that the media was an essential tool towards AFACT’s goal of getting tougher copyright legislation in place. And for this purpose, it was a good idea to bend the truth a bit. The results of this recalculation are quite amazing.

“2002 impact estimates were $100 million to today’s figure of $1.36 billion in nine years…. That’s a lot of extrapolating,” Warren says.

Courting the Police

Aside from influencing lawmakers with creative statistics, Warren and his colleagues also had to court the police on a regular basis. AFACT worked with both local law enforcement and the attorney general’s office where they delivered evidence and information to, based on their own investigations.

“Funded solely by MPAA, AFACT lobbies hard for changes to Australian law and enhance the sexiness of their case by making vague references to links to terrorism. Sometimes not so vague. I was instructed to tell police officers that the profit margins were greater than dealing heroin. It was bizarre. A twisted logic that AFACT spewed out with monotonous regularity,” Warren says.

One of the examples Warren gives is that they assumed that all burners and DVD replicators would run 24/7, making these operations appear very lucrative.

“Each burner cranking out ten discs an hour, multiplied by ten dollars per disc is potentially a hundred dollars an hour, multiplied by number of burners by hours in a year gives a yearly potential…. Very pumped up statistics.”

When the local police were convinced about the to need to follow-up on the case, Warren delivered them all the evidence they would need on a silver platter.

“In my time at AFACT we developed relationships with various police officers (detectives) and would work our cases up to a stage where we could present them with enough information, intelligence and evidence that most of the work was done. This is called a ‘walk up start’.”

“Police on the other hand would sometimes find large quantities of copyright infringing material whilst executing warrants, eg: drug warrant executions would invariably turn up some dodgy DVDs and I would get a call to come and identify the product and prepare a brief of evidence for prosecution.”

“It was a matter of educating the police officers what to look for. In this vein, I would regularly deliver half day seminars to police on their training days. It was a good system and had the effect of increasing their prosecutions and my investigations statistics. Collaboration had such a dark overtone. Cooperation is my preferred term,” Warren says.

Like many other private investigators Warren is a former police detective. And although the statistics may have been pumped a little, Warren was always careful to act within the boundaries of the law when it comes to his investigative work.

“The PI license is relatively difficult to obtain and easy to lose, therefore we tend to shy away from any activity that would jeopardize our livelihood. The key to efficient and effective investigations is to know all aspects of the various legislations that cover things such as Surveillance Devices, hidden cameras etc. At no time did I authorize or condone the breaking of any laws or rules.”

“Undercover operations, to be used in evidence, need to be squeaky clean. The last thing any investigator needs is to have evidence thrown out of court because of the breach of legislation, or compromise by way of entrapment,” Warren told TorrentFreak.

Bye Bye PI

At the end of 2007 Warren had a meeting with Neil Gane, who just returned to AFACT after serving as the Australasian Operations Manager for the MPAA for a brief while. Gane told Warren that AFACT would be focusing more on ISPs and online piracy instead of the street work Warren did.

Warren was still welcome to submit a tender for piecemeal work at an hourly rate, instead of daily. However, he later learned that his partner and former friend, Short Round, had undercut him, and was working on an as-needed basis for AFACT.

This ended Warren’s ‘career’ in the anti-piracy business. In the years that followed he continued to monitor what AFACT was up to, and he still can’t help but crack a smile when he reads about the disastrous piracy statistics AFACT tells the media about. And so do we.

Source: Private Anti-Piracy Investigator Spills The Beans

flattr this!

The Full Bench of the Federal Court in Australia has just dismissed the movie industry’s appeal against last year’s judgment which found that ISP iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringements of its file-sharing customers.

Represented by anti-piracy group AFACT, nearly three dozen Hollywood and local studios took iiNet to court in 2008. In a 2009 trial the ISP was accused of doing nothing to stop its customers downloading films and TV shows but in February 2010 the Federal Court decided that iiNet was not responsible for their activities. An appeal was heard later that year and today the decision was handed down.

Justice Emmett said that the Court continued to agree that the rights of the movie companies had been infringed but could not find in their favor.

“While I disagree with the primary judge’s reasoning in significant respects, I am nevertheless of the opinion that his Honour’s decision to dismiss the proceeding was correct,” the ruling reads. “In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed.”

The ruling itself is an absolutely huge affair and will take a considerable time to digest, but at this early stage it seems quite clear that even after two years of legal battles, this fight is probably still not over.

“Even though the Copyright Owners are not entitled to the relief claimed in this proceeding, it does not follow that that is an end of the matter. It is clear that the questions raised in the proceeding are ongoing,” the ruling reads.

“It does not necessarily follow that there would never be authorisation within the meaning of s 101 of the Copyright Act by a carriage service provider, where a user of the services provided by the carriage service provider engages in acts of infringement such as those about which complaint is made in this proceeding.

“It does not necessarily follow from the failure of the present proceeding that circumstances could not exist whereby iiNet might in the future be held to have authorised primary acts of infringement on the part of users of the services provided to its customers under its customer service agreements.”

Nevertheless, on the thorny demand by AFACT that iiNet should have blindly sent out warnings and suspend customer accounts based on the information it provided, the ruling is clear.

“I do not think [iiNet] could reasonably be expected to issue warnings, or to terminate or suspend particular accounts, in reliance upon any such notice in circumstances where it has been told nothing at all about the methods used to obtain the information which lead to the issue of the notice,” it reads. “Nor should it be up to the respondent to seek out this information from a copyright owner who chooses not to provide it in the first place.”

iiNet chief executive Michael Malone said he was “relieved” at the outcome.

“Our original contention was upheld that we don’t believe we ever authorised or did anything to encourage customers to breach copyright,” he said. “We’ve won at the lower court, we’ve won at the Federal Court now in the appeal, but all this legal action hasn’t stopped one customer from downloading anywhere in Australia.”

“Same as we said last time, invite the rights holders back, let’s make the content available legally and legitimately so customers can get access to it, and let’s find a better way to be able to police those who don’t do the right thing.”

Malone went on to state that the overall problem of deciding to what extent ISPs can be held liable will have to be solved by the government.

AFACT boss Neil Gane was clearly disappointed at the decision.

“It cannot be right that, in effect, the ISP, who has the power to prevent copyright infringement online and admitted they were taking place, does not share the responsibility to stop them,” he said. “Copyright infringement now goes on unabated on the Internet.”

While Justice Emmett and Justice Nicholas dismissed the appeal, Gane said he was encouraged that Justice Jagot had sided with the movie industry.

“We take heart however, that Justice Jagot found for us and that Justice Emmett said that we were successful on many grounds.

“We will be taking our time now to examine the judgment in detail and consider all of our options.”

It is widely believed that the case will now proceed to Australia’s High Court.

TorrentFreak

AFACTShould Internet service providers be held responsible if customers use their services to share unauthorized movies, TV shows and music? It’s a question that has been asked dozens of times worldwide during the past several years and one that Australia should be a little closer to having an answer to on Thursday.

Tomorrow, a full bench of the Federal Court of Australia will announce their decision on whether an earlier ruling on the issue should stand or be overturned. The former would mean that ISPs and file-sharing subscribers can cautiously crack open a bottle of bubbly. The latter and opposite outcome is the one favored by the entertainment industries.

The epic legal battle dates back to 2008, when AFACT – the Hollywood-backed Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft – began legal action against ISP iiNet. AFACT claimed that the Perth-based ISP had authorized the copyright infringements of its BitTorrenting subscriber base by failing to stop them from sharing unauthorized material.

AFACT had monitored iiNet users in their allegedly illicit activities and sent corresponding infringement notices to the ISP. When iiNet failed to suspend or terminate customer accounts on the basis of these notices (which were based on untested AFACT-gathered evidence), the fight was on.

After close to a month in court during October and November 2009, with countless documents perused and a parade of witnesses heard, the Court was adjourned. For close to three months both sides had to wait for the decision of Justice Cowdroy.

In early February 2010 his ruling came, but for AFACT and the near three dozen movie and TV show companies supporting it in the case, the news was bad.

Although Justice Cowdroy agreed that the studio’s copyrights had indeed been infringed upon, he decided that iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringing activities of its subscribers and therefore could not be held responsible for their actions.

“It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement … [iiNet] did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring,” Justice Cowdroy said in his judgment.

BitTorrent networks were outside the control of the ISP, Cowdroy said, adding that the ISP was covered under so-called “safe harbor” provisions.

AFACT executive director Neil Gane described the ruling as “a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,” and late February 2010 he announced that AFACT would appeal.

“The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were
occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them,” Gane said. “In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorization of copyright infringement.”

The waiting since last year’s appeal seems to have gone on forever but is set to end tomorrow. Will it be victory for iiNet, ISPs and subscribers everywhere? Or will copyright holders be the ones celebrating? Tune in to find out.

TorrentFreak

Following on from other DDoS attacks in recent days, yesterday another wave took down the website of AFACT, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft. This latest assault, carried out in the name of Operation Payback, also had some very serious unintended side-effects. According to AFACT host Negregistry, other sites it hosts were affected too. AFACT said those sites, some belonging to the government, numbered nearly 8,000.

During the last couple of weeks we’ve reported almost daily on the effects and aftershocks of Operation Payback. This action, largely consisting of coordinated DDoS attacks against those chasing down online piracy or seeking to profit from it, has taken in a number of significant targets.

Although the attacks against the MPAA and RIAA websites generated the most headlines thus far due to their profile in the United States, the attack with the most consequences was that against the UK’s ACS:Law, the notorious law firm that with its partners seeks to turn alleged infringements of copyright into a cash business. That business is now in shreds after ACS:Law bungled an attempt to bring its site back online and published its own email database to the public.

Last night, as first reported by Slyck.com, Operation Payback took aim at a new target, AFACT – the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft. Although it took a little while for the site to go down, the attack eventually achieved its aims but now it seems that it also generated some serious unintended side-effects.

According to an announcement by AFACT’s host, Netregistry, “A DDoS attack began to take place at approximately 8:30AM AEST, with a group of hackers attacking the firewall by flooding it with connections attempting to take down all servers.”

Although referring to those charging their Low Orbit Ion Cannons as hackers is something of a stretch, and even though the attacks were eventually dealt with by Netregistry, according to Neil Gane from AFACT nearly 8,000 other websites were also taken down in the attack.

“A lot of these sites are small Australian businesses and Government web sites,” Gane told ITnews. “They have been affected by this senseless act.”

Currently Operation Payback is showing few signs that it is running out of steam. One has to wonder though. Although some will argue that there is a strong need for civil disobedience to draw attention to a cause where perhaps few are listening, things can easily take a different turn.

Although we have no cast iron evidence other than his comments, it’s believed that ACS:Law’s Andrew Crossley called in the police last week after he was harassed at home. He has since used the word ‘criminal’ to describe the actions against his website and few will disagree that taking down 8,000 websites, even temporarily and/or accidentally, is a serious affair. When some of those sites belong to a government, questions start to get asked.

Will Operation Payback continue as promised or will it stop of its own accord? Will it be stopped by force? Is it even possible to stop it by force, any more than it’s possible to stop people sharing files? Time will tell but one thing is certain. If Operation Payback was designed to generate attention, it has done that, in a very, very big way.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Another day, another anti-piracy campaign. This one, from the MPA and AFACT-backed Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation, is trying a slightly different approach. Instead of accusing people outright of being movie and TV show pirates, it cuts them some slack and treats them like children instead. It seems that some people just don't know they are pirates.

The relatively new Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation (IPAF) was created by the Australian movie and TV industries to “promote the value of the industry by raising awareness, understanding and appreciation of intellectual property, and its role and value in society.”

Members of IPAF include Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), Motion Picture Association (MPA), Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia, Australian Visual Software Distributors Association and various cinema owners and DVD rental outlets such as Blockbuster.

Last year IPAF embarked on a campaign to educate Australia’s children on the evils of copyright infringement in an attempt to “motivate a change in attitudes and behavior to reduce public demand for illegal copies of film and television programs.”

While many anti-piracy groups take a fairly aggressive angle when sending their message, IPAF take a more softly-softly approach. If AFACT is bad cop, IPAF is his gentler, more reasonable-sounding counterpart.

Good cop has just launched his new nationwide anti-piracy campaign with the unusual title of ‘Accidental Pirate’.

“New research, released just today, revealed that 34% of Aussies see piracy as stealing or theft but then regularly do it by burning, buying or downloading illegal or unauthorised copies of films or TV programs,” explains IPAF. “In other words, 1 in 3 of us do something that we don’t agree with. So to describe this disconnection between actions and beliefs, we coined the phrase ‘Accidental Pirate’.”

Right. So people know piracy is ‘wrong’ but because they still carry on it’s an ‘accident’? That doesn’t seem to fit very well does it?

Accidental Pirate

You can see what IPAF are trying to do though, it’s just badly executed. If you’re going to educate people on the premise that they didn’t know that their actions were ‘wrong’ in the first place (so as not to immediately antagonize them), at least don’t patronize them. “There, there, you know it’s wrong but let’s just pretend it was an accident, eh?” Please.

So what does the campaign have to say. Well, it’s pretty much standard stuff. The campaign’s homepage is running a Flash questionnaire with five questions that readers have the chance to answer. Getting a question right gets a round of applause from the assembled cinema audience, but getting one wrong gets a big X and a short lesson in copyright.

Questions 2, 3 and 5 all involve copying or buying pirated copies of real DVDs and the legalities of that. People don’t ‘accidentally’ believe that pirate DVDs are legal – do they?

Questions 1 and 4 involve file-sharing but if the industry IPAF claims to protect would simply get their act together, these questions wouldn’t even be necessary.

Question 1: Your favorite TV show has just aired overseas. It won’t be shown here for months. While browsing the web you notice it’s available for download for free. Do you download it?

Every time TV-show downloaders in Australia are asked why they do what they do, one of the top answers is always because they are treated like second-class citizens when it comes to release dates. Why do their favorite series take months to appear officially down under? Whatever the reason, it’s a very, very poor one, and no surprise people turn to BitTorrent.

Question 4: You’re browsing the Internet and come across a free download site. You notice a movie that’s just hit the cinemas here. Do you download it?

If people find those then, yes, they probably would. The movie industry is always very clear – if you see a brand new movie on the Internet it’s illegal, because we (stubbornly) don’t offer this service. This type of piracy could be all but wiped out by offering people a legal alternative at a reasonable price in their own homes.

Quiz aside, it’s all pretty much standard stuff. Movie industry people and actors rolled out to make ‘accidental’ pirates feel sorry for the little guy in the film-making world.

You can take the questionnaire for yourself. If you get any ‘wrong’ move directly to the back of the class, put you hands on your head and please try to do better in the future. And stop accidentally downloading torrents. The movie industry depends on it.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.