Kim Dotcom Circles the Drain (But Still Has More Than He Deserves)

It’s goodbye grand mansion and hello to plain old penthouse living for Kim Dotcom, the piracy magnate of Megaupload infamy, who is currently holed up in New Zealand.

On the run from US authorities since his piracy site was shuttered in 2012, times are clearly getting tough for the self-styled “online entrepreneur,” as he fights extradition to face charges in the United States and racks up legal costs believed to be in the millions of dollars. That makes the $1 million a year mansion near Auckland an unjustifiable expense, evidently, although it would be fair to say that any luxury is unjustifiable for a man who made his fortune by exploiting original works without the permission of their creators.

For those misdeeds, Kim Dotcom’s day of reckoning seems to be much closer as we close the year than it did when 2015 began.

Back in September, Dotcom attended an extradition hearing in Auckland that  accused him and his site of “simple fraud,” making millions of dollars by ignoring copyright and Megaupload’s responsibility to compensate creators for the intellectual property shared via the company’s servers.

Worse still, Dotcom and his cohorts encouraged this behavior by rewarding those who shared the most content, putting the site high on the FBI’s piracy hit list.

At September’s hearing, the court heard from US authorities that Megaupload had paid out more than $3 million in such rewards, driving even higher levels of copyright infringement on a global scale.  One user alone made $50,000 over a five year period, demonstrating just how long Dotcom was able to profit from his illegal online venture before finally being shut down in 2012.

Now, his chickens are coming home to roost.

It has taken another three years to reach this point thanks to the self-imposed exile in New Zealand. Nonetheless, it shows that there really is no hiding place for those who engage in piracy, particularly when it’s on a commercial scale. It is not a legitimate business, those who run such sites are not entrepreneurs, and any ill-gotten gains will eventually be reclaimed in damages.

So spare a thought for poor old Kim as we approach the holiday season, but don’t make it a sympathetic one. Firstly, we hope that the creators will soon see justice done in 2016 and have Kim Dotcom answer for his exploitation of their work.

And, in the true spirit of giving, let’s hope that the authorities in Auckland see fit to offer the U.S. a gift and hand him over for the holidays. A late present is certainly better than never receiving one (unless your name is Kim, of course!)

Redefining Copyright Law on Both Sides of the Atlantic

If there’s one thing that most creators can agree on, it’s that copyright law could use a spit shine for the digital age. For all the good its underlying principles do in terms of protecting original creative works, technology is fast outpacing its application.

United States - European Union map

United States – European Union map (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The practical ability of authorities to pursue piracy advocates and curb copyright infringement is limited by the outdated provisions of some areas of copyright law. Those laws were crafted for a time when consumers got online via a noisy modem and could barely download an album without dedicating a day to the activity, making illegal file sharing a major effort, and streaming unlicensed content completely out of the question.

Fast forward a little more than a decade and we have blazing fast connections with the bandwidth to access any form of content via all kinds of channels, legal or otherwise. Torrent sites and apps like Popcorn Time are the new challenge to rightholders, and it’s not a fight that’s easy to win with copyright enforcement as it stands.

English: Congressional portrait of Congressman...

English: Congressional portrait of Congressman Bob Goodlatte, 112th Congress. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thanks to dedicated advocacy from creative rights advocates, US lawmakers know this is an issue and have been working hard to better understand how they can craft copyright law for the digital generation and beyond.

Few are more prominent in this policy making endeavor than the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, whose name is now synonymous with the two-year-long review of US copyright law that condluded earlier this year.

This week Goodlatte was back in action, conducting a ‘listening tour‘ that stopped in both Silicon Valley and Los Angeles, with the aim of obtaining wider views on the myriad demands on US copyright law. Some excellent coverage of  the viewpoints heard can be found under the #CopyrightListening stream on Twitter.

A selection of those comments shows how important many creators view the modernization of copyright law:

Copyright Listening comments on Twitter

Over in Europe, things are even more complicated.

Flag of the European Union

Flag of the European Union (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With 28 member states that make up the European Union (EU), copyright must cross more than just borders, working with multiple languages, varying cultural values, and different approaches to creativity. Nonetheless, the EU is planning a broad review of copyright in 2016, encompassing everything from a single digital market to more coordinated anti-piracy efforts.

The latter is particularly timely, as studies continue to show that piracy sites are significantly motivated to conduct their operations by the profits received from advertising and subscriptions. A key paragraph in the leaked correspondence on the EU’s plans makes specific mention of targeting this problem:

“[Anti-piracy measures] can deprive those engaging in commercial infringements of the revenue streams (for example from consumer payments and advertising) emanating from their illegal activities, and therefore act as a deterrent.”

All of this is music to the ears of rightsholders, who must often feel like they’re protecting their work with one hand tied behind the back.

Even when a creator knows where their work is being taken without permission and where to report it, the hit-and-miss complaint procedure and temporary nature of takedown notices makes for a time-consuming process. That’s time that most creative folks will tell you they’d rather spend, well, creating!

None of which is to say that copyright law is ineffective, but that its authority and enforcement measures must adapt as quickly as the technology that defines content distribution. Creators on both sides of the Atlantic will be hoping that their elected representatives can find a way to craft legislation that safeguards their work for generations to come.

BREIN Seeks to Define Streaming Piracy Crime in EU Court

Although it seems obvious to those of us with any sense of respect for intellectual property, the question as to whether viewing pirated content from a streaming site is illegal remains a gray area around the world.

That’s certainly true in the European Union (EU), where the region’s Court of Justice could soon rule on the legality of streaming unlicensed video content.

The court’s consideration arises thanks to the hard work of BREIN, a Dutch anti-piracy organization with a strong history of standing up for creative rights. Earlier this year they issued a dozen injunctions against some 128 sites engaged in copyright infringement and successfully took down a number of them.

Now, on the back of a case in the Dutch court system that was also brought to trial by BREIN, the very definition of piracy in the region could be redefined.

The issue arises because Europe has a gray area in its definition of copyright infringement, which holds that any unlicensed content held on a temporary basis does not breach intellectual property rights. In a world of digital downloads, which are clearly intended to remain on a hard drive for some time, this gap was not so important. As bandwidth increases around the world and streaming becomes the primary way we consume videos and music online, however, it quickly becomes a crucial definition to clear up.

The case is intriguing not just because it highlights a question that seems like simple common sense to most creators (yes, if someone takes my registered work without compensating me, it violates my rights). It’s also interesting as it stems from a legal challenge BREIN raised against not a piracy site or app, but manufacturers of hardware. The equipment in question comes pre-loaded with software that makes it easy to access unlicensed content with just a few clicks. Worse yet, it actively promotes this fact in order to sell more units.

Not unlike the successful action against VPN providers in New Zealand earlier this year, it appears that BREIN has a sound basis for its complaint against the defendants.  

In both cases, the ability to access copyrighted content for free is used as a key selling point for the hardware. This goes beyond simply being an intermediary that facilitates copyright infringement which is bad enough, and takes us into the realm of actively promoting and profiting from piracy. It is arguably the lowest form of content theft because, as seen in the case of Megaupload and its owners, led by Kim Dotcom, those behind the piracy promotion typically make a lot of money without ever compensating the creative talent that fuels their business model.

Not content to just address key anti-piracy issues with the EU’s highest legal authority, BREIN is also considering legal action against individual content thieves using Popcorn Time, piracy’s latest poster child platform. While going after the larger intermediaries who make piracy possible is typically a more effective approach, the threat posed by Popcorn Time could be such that individual law suits are explored to deter would-be pirates. A spokesperson for BREIN said as much when the possibility was raised, and this type of action is not without precedent in other parts of Europe.

Given the proliferation of affordable streaming services, it might seem unbelievable that we still face the problem of growing piracy in 2015. Unfortunately, there are still those who believe that simply getting online entitles them to take anything they want without paying for it. For that reason, the fight against piracy has to continue at all levels, and without organizations like BREIN, it would be a lot harder to steer consumers towards legal streaming channels.

British High Court Blocks a Who’s Who of Piracy Sites

UK courts of justice

Royal Courts UK Crest – Photo Credit: Wikimedia

After three years in operation, a list of websites blocked by order of the British High Court reads like a who’s who of online copyright infringement.

Including such infamous piracy sites as Popcorn Time, isohunt, Bittorrent, and The Pirate Bay, the project has yet to hit 100 names, but still sums up the massive battle facing rights holders around the world.

As well as the hard work of the British Phonographic Institute (BPI), which makes up the majority of the block requests, further interest is to be found in claims from the likes of Cartier and Montblanc, clearly concerned about counterfeit watches being sold online, and the Football Association, which manages the viewing rights to Britain’s lucrative Premier League soccer games.

Both represent premium international brands, albeit in very different consumer markets, being undercut by sites that trade on their reputation but contribute nothing to its maintenance.

This diverse group of plaintiffs typifies the piracy problem; whether physical product or digital goods, any online intermediary that takes intellectual property without paying for the privilege damages the long-term viability of the brand and business that created it. 

The United Kingdom is, of course, a friend and similarly-minded market to the United States when it comes to intellectual property protection, so it comes as no surprise to see several claims from the Motion Picture Association of America upheld and enforced by British court order.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said of many countries that host piracy sites, hence the ongoing  drive to “name and shame” not only the companies who play a major role in international copyright infringement, but the nations that let them get away with it.

The companies themselves also face a stark choice between legitimacy and piracy, as Alibaba is now finding out from its history on that same list of notorious markets. Facilitating counterfeit operations presumably did its growth no harm when it operated primarily to a domestic audience in China. Now that its hopes to continue the rapid expansion of the past year rest in the US, however, the ecommerce giant is having to lobby extra hard to erase that black mark(et) from its past.

Sadly, most piracy sites involved in content theft face no such problems. They hold no aspirations of becoming legitimate media sites, only a desire to operate outside the law long enough to make a name for themselves in piracy circles, attract enough attention to score some ill-gotten ad revenue, then disappear once they’re blocked, only to rise again under some alternative name.

The UK court’s list reminds us of both the progress and ongoing problems in the fight to protect intellectual property. Hopefully it won’t have to get too much longer to keep the major piracy sites out of business permanently.



Whether Carrot or Stick, Copia Is Using It to Flog a Dead Horse

It’s always entertaining to watch someone attempt to turn an old idea into a revolutionary one, so imagine our delight – or dismay, if anyone takes it seriously – to read a Techdirt article doing just that. Better yet, doing so under the guise of a carefully researched “report!”

If you don’t have the heart to wade through yet more head-in-the-sand, piracy apologist schtick, here’s the hypothesis: where legal streaming services launch, piracy drops.


Mind = Blown, right?

This unremarkable conclusion is communicated in a thoroughly clichéd way, within a report entitled “The Carrot or The Stick: Innovation vs. Anti-Piracy Enforcement.” The document is commissioned by The Copia Institute, a Google-backed think tank which appears to receive its thoughts from the tech lobby, pretty them up in Powerpoint with some clip art, before labeling them “innovative” and releasing them into the wild.

Less an innovative think tank, more recycled arguments from a stagnant thought pool.

To take this case directly, though, let’s neuter one false premise from the outset; enforcing intellectual property law and encouraging innovation are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the former supports the latter by giving inventors and artists some degree of confidence that they will be able to make a living from their groundbreaking ideas, without someone taking them without permission.

Nor does the fact that innovation makes exciting and legal new services available for our entertainment needs mean that there’s no place for anti-piracy initiatives. There will always be those who seek to profit from content that isn’t theirs to sell, and there will always be a niche of technologically-able users who have no qualms about circumventing legal safeguards to get take what they want for nothing. As we see in the cases of Kim Dotcom/Megaupload and The Pirate Bay’s founders, anti-piracy protection is key to bringing down the illegal side of the content equation. This actually aids legal services, who understand the need to compensate creators,  because they aren’t subject to unfair competition from those who feel no need to respect intellectual property law.

From there, the entire argument falls apart, because each area must be dissected on its own merits, with little or no correlation to the other. Yes, there must be a drive to innovate and launch new entertainment services. Yes, there should be legislation in place to prevent unauthorized services vying with those that legally source their content. But the two can live side-by-side, even symbiotically, without detracting from the other. Disagree with the effectiveness of specific anti-piracy programs, by all means, but don’t try to tell us that the existence of legal services means that all efforts to curb the illegal ones should be killed.

The idea that the entertainment industry is opposed to innovation and fails to launch services that consumers want is no longer just a tired argument, it’s on the side of the road, wheezing and, we have to hope, just about ready to quit the race.

Most mainstream consumers have not yet arrived at the streaming station, but everyone from cable companies to online-only startups is now introducing. From the MPAA itself, which so often bears the brunt of criticism , the Where to Watch initiative helps to guide viewers to the content . Such a sound idea that companies like Apple and Amazon, often held up as the height of tech innovation, are just now beginning to integrate Universal Search options into their streaming solutions!

The simple fact is that the entertainment industry is working hard every day to update its production and distribution to reach consumers when and where they want to watch. Most are willing to compensate them for this effort, be it in the form of subscription fees, one-time charges, or simply watching a few ads during their content.

There’s a section of the online environment, however, that tasted piracy early on and now refuses to give up the notion that they are entitled to take any content they want, without ever having to pay anything. As much as piracy apologists like Techdirt, appropriately named, try to sling mud on the creative industry for being dinosaurs and deliberately holding back innovation, real world products simply don’t let that stick.

Cheapskate (You Ain't Gettin' Nada)

An honest approach to piracy apologism? — Cheapskate (You Ain’t Gettin’ Nada) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rather than conduct “research” into the glaringly obvious to support their own ends, it would be refreshingly honest to hear something else we already know from this crowd: “we’re cheap and we don’t to pay people to create things that entertain us.”

It won’t make the attitude any more easy to stomach, but at least the arguments will finally come from a place that can be logically, if not legally justified.



After Marathon Negotiations, TPP Agreement is a Reality

If it seems like you’ve been hearing TPP this and Asia trade deal that every few months for years now, you wouldn’t be wrong.

A summit with leaders of the member states of ...

A summit with leaders of the member states of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) — (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations have been ongoing for some five years now, but the agreement was confirmed by all 12 participants today, marking the largest trade deal ever signed. It now awaits ratification by governments in each country, which include Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Taken together, the countries involved make up forty percent of global trade and a combined population of some 800 million people.

Viewed through those numbers – and understanding that the agreement covers everything from the agriculture and automotive sectors to pharmaceuticals and entertainment. The last two in particular have perhaps unexpectedly overlapping interests, with intellectual property rights at the forefront of negotiations for drug patents and movie copyright.

With such a vast marketplace in play and the potential to synchronize creative rights across some key countries, it’s no surprise that the agreement’s announcement is welcome news for North America’s creative sector.

Echoing the sentiments of movie makers around the country, MPAA Chairman and CEO, Senator Chris Dodd, had this to say about the agreement:

“Enacting a high-standard TPP is an economic priority for the American motion picture and television industry, which registered nearly $16 billion in exports in 2013 and supports nearly two million jobs throughout all fifty states. We look forward to reviewing the agreement’s final text.”

The proposed agreement creates a robust environment in which to ensure creativity is protected, and brings profits only to those who work hard to bring us the kind of movies and television productions that we enjoy every day. It sets a firm foundation for creators to sell and distribute their work, with less worry that international infringement will prevent them from taking the proceeds and channeling them into new productions.

Unsurprisingly, longstanding opponents of this landmark trade agreement are once again trotting out their familiar mix of hyperbole and confused hysteria. The myths are as many as those who believe the negotiating behind closed doors marks the TPP out as some kind of clandestine discussion, when in reality the final version will now face public and political scrutiny in every country that it will effect.

This is to say nothing of the many distributed earlier version that have already made the rounds after previous meetings between the participating nations, which have served to make the agreement a comprehensively reviewed document, even before it was anywhere near a reality.

As every media outlet explains, the TPP provisions will now face the full review that each respective member’s democratic process allows for. The negotiations were behind closed doors because they were just that, negotiations. If sufficient opposition exists in any participating nation, the agreement will not be ratified and will be forced to reconsider any sticking points.

If not, and if every government successfully explains to its citizens just how valuable the deal will be to their economic prosperity and protection of intellectual property, we will all witness an historic trade agreement that stands to secure and boost economies around the Pacific Rim for years to come.

Kim Dotcom Extradition Hearing Highlights Fraud on a Global Scale

The long-awaited extradition hearing of Kim Dotcom finally got underway last week, as a court in Auckland, New Zealand began to listen to arguments in favor of sending the piracy figurehead to the USA to face justice.

It’s no secret that Dotcom has polarized public opinion over the months and years since his file-sharing service Megaupload was shut down by US authorities in 2012. To some, he is the face of the “information wants to be free” argument, suffering persecution for their cause. To others, including the creators on whose back his company Megaupload crassly profited, he is simply a fraudster who has managed to evade the law… until now.


The latter is the case that the prosecution will make as they try to make the case that the self-styled “Bond villain” of piracy has crimes to answer for in the United States. The early appeals have been for the judge to disregard the distractions raised by Dotcom’s offline antics, from luxurious mansion-living of his Antipodean exile to his poorly-executed political career. Instead, prosecutors point to the “simple scheme of fraud” perpetrated by the service’s founder and his three cohorts at Megaupload.

That scheme includes not just offering unlicensed content for download, as is bad enough and so many sites continue to do. No, Megaupload was much more manipulative in its climb to the top of the piracy site standings.  The site created a reward structure that incentivized subscribers to seek out popular content and share it, in exchange for features and financial benefits depending on the demand for what they offered. The site was not innovative, as its owners claimed, nor was it making the requested and required steps to remove unlicensed content that Dotcom told authorities were in progress.

Consider the gall of offering something that others work hard to create, without paying for the privilege to make it available, then making users pay for that access without passing anything on. Throw in the profits from advertising and you have hundred of millions of dollars generated, for doing nothing more than creating a cloud storage system full of content you have no right to offer.

The case of Kim Dotcom typifies both the difficulty that authorities face in protecting home-grown talent on the global stage and the progress that can be made when national organizations work together to ensure that no-one is out of reach.

Although the distraction and theater surrounding Dotcom means it has taken years to get to this point, and will take longer still to get him to the US to answer the charges against him, the results will speak for creators everywhere. Intellectual property is protected by copyright law and that law forces piracy advocates .

Even when it takes years, the case of Kim Dotcom and the fate of his peers shows that there is nowhere for piracy profiteers to hide, regardless of how long it takes to make them face justice.

Live Streaming Apps Are the Latest Way for Piracy to Leap Borders

In a world where data flows across international borders even more fluidly than the rivers and waterways that tend to form them, it’s hard for creators to control how and where their work is released.


Nonetheless, geographical restrictions do exist to provide some measure of regulation in the digital ecosystem; designed to maintain strategic release windows in the multi-faceted movie world, for example, or to allow artists to test the waters in certain markets before expanding their work to others. Whatever the reason, it should be enough to say that a creator has the right to release what she makes on her own terms, from which audience respect should extend to abiding by any restrictions included in that creative agenda.

As we recently examined with the geo-block hacking trend in New Zealand and Australia, however, that isn’t always the case. Next it could be the turn of live streaming services to curb creative rights, as apps like Periscope and Meerkat make it harder for international release schedules to be respected.

The potential for piracy across live streaming apps was raised almost immediately when they first rose to prominence earlier this year. After standing out at the annual technology tussle of South By Southwest, users were quick to corrupt the video streams with unlicensed broadcasts of the much-hyped Pacquiao-Mayweather fight in May. The event provided an instant audience eager to seek out any source for the bout, in real time, and with no free moment or motivation to verify the legality of the broadcaster — most were, of course, unlicensed and completely in breach of copyright law.

Live streaming piracy adds another layer of difficulty to tracking and taking down content thieves. By its very nature it is Immediate, tough to ; if the DMCA takedown process for permanently posted content feels like Whac-a-mole, this is the same game cranked up to full speed when it comes to live streaming

Unsurprisingly, rightsholders are rising to the challenge of curbing unlicensed use of their work on these new channels.

Twitter’s recent ‘Transparency Report’ reveals a groundswell of takedown notices against its new service Periscope, with the number only expected to surge if the company fails to keep its house clean.  Already those request numbers are in the thousands, with the app having only a small, early adopter user base. Given the millions of takedown notices filed with Google in any given period, Twitter can hopefully see the value in preventing a more serious piracy problem before it begins.

What’s clear is that every new technological leap brings a new challenge to the protection of intellectual property and its release on the international stage. Live streaming apps offer users the opportunity to share their view of the world in real time, quickly and easily, which is an outstanding advance. It can be great fun and will undoubtedly add to the immersive experience of social networks.

What live streaming must not do is be allowed to bypass the compensation system for creators and rightsholders when their content is distributed via these new channels. In fact, a business and growth opportunity exists for the likes of Periscope and Meerkat, in that they could choose to negotiate official deals to broadcast such content and take advantage of their unique position to satisfy in-the-moment demand right from the outset.

Whether or not a service is willing to realize this vision remains to be seen, but all live streaming providers can be certain that creators will not sit on the sidelines if and when their work is offered without their permission, be it at home or streamed across international borders.



Australia Sees a Shift Towards Legal Streaming Services

Netflix has only been around in Australia for six months but it is already showing signs of steering online viewers back to licensed content. Along with home-grown peers like Presto and Stan, the company that launched down under back in March has helped to usher in a tangible drop in piracy, according to consumer group Choice.

Reliefmap of Australia

Reliefmap of Australia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The organization focused on two main areas: Australians who identify as “regular pirates” and those who have engaged in at least one unlicensed content act – downloading or streaming – in the past year.

In Choice’s follow up to its 2014 study those numbers dropped by three and six percent respectively, showing minor but not insignificant shifts against acts of piracy, given the short time frame in question.

Extending out to several years, if these trends continue then the signs for legal streaming – and the compensation such services bring for rightsholders – are promising. 

At this early stage, there is a lot of room for legal streaming services to expand into the public consciousness. Every subscription to a legitimate service means a consumer contributing to the creative economy and less likely to take from that same pot by accessing content from unlicensed sources.

The arrival of international services like Netflix should also spur competition among native platforms, encouraging spending on exclusive content and original titles that resonate with Australian audiences.


We need look only to the North American ecosystem to see the benefits of widespread legal streaming success. It’s not just Netflix with Emmy Awards for House of Cards and critical acclaim for new series like Narcos (both of which Australians can now access in full, as an aside). Whether the investment in new productions by Hulu, the launch of a dedicated streaming service by HBO, or the Amazon investment in Top Gear presenters that CEO Jeff Bezos himself has described as “very, very, very expensive,” it is clear that not only does legal streaming support creative production, it actually drives that creativity to the next level as competing services try to outdo each other to attract more subscribers.

As we covered in our recent spotlight on Scandinavia, no single anti-piracy tactic should stand alone if we expect to see success. Each must be supplemented by a strong national stance against piracy sites, and education for the public as to how they can avoid unlicensed content and support creativity through legal channels. The final leg of that stool involves competitive and attractive streaming services, however, and the increased availability of those services in Australia seems to support that as an important element to curb piracy, even at this early stage.

Denmark is the Latest Front in Scandinavia’s Stand Against Piracy

20 prominent piracy sites have been blocked by a district court in Denmark, in the latest move from a Scandinavian country fighting back against online piracy. The action stems from the continued hard work of Rights Alliance, who earlier this year achieved a block on 12 other important sites in Denmark’s piracy ecosystem.

Flag of Denmark ("stutflag" version)

Flag of Denmark (“stutflag” version) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Similar blocks have been achieved around Europe this year, leading to a feeling of renewed impetus in the creative community that the fight back against those who trade on their work without permission

Even against that backdrop of increased activity across the continent, there is something especially satisfying about seeing progress made in Scandinavia. The region is very much at the forefront of music streaming, in both legal and unlicensed channels, making it something of a symbolic battle in the wider war to stamp out content theft.

The Pirate Bay logo

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Two of the most recognized names at both ends of the spectrum, Spotify on the legal streaming side and The Pirate Bay on the illegal side, both started in Sweden. The tug of war between each side has been tumultuous in recent years but there are now signs that legal streaming is forging ahead, while illegal sites face an uphill battle against increasingly vigilant authorities.

And it isn’t just blocks and punishment of piracy that Denmark is focusing on to curb illegal activity.

Back in May, the Danish Ministry of Culture announced important new partnerships with prominent technology companies and ISPs, aimed at promoting ethical content consumption online.

That initiative focused more on non-legislative solutions, such as working with ISPs to weed out sites that facilitate piracy and encouraging digital advertising networks to shut off the flow of ad income to piracy sites, which the Digital Citizens Alliance continues to report as a key motivator for those who trade on unlicensed content.

In this microcosm of the streaming content world we see in play the three pillars of the anti-piracy fight that can make a difference across the macro environment:

  • 1) Legal alternatives to piracy sites,
  • 2) Initiatives to educate consumers about those sites and explain the damage that piracy sites do to creators, alongside partnerships to cut off ad revenue,
  • 3) Punitive measures to deter owners of piracy sites and the ability to take them offline if they persist in sharing unlicensed content.

There has been an imbalance in the past, due to a lack of legal streaming sites in the mainstream consciousness and limited efforts to cut off ad revenue to their illegal peers. Now, with all three pillars firmly established and gaining traction, it looks like creators will finally be able to push back on the pirates, with Scandinavia showing us the way forward.