Aussie Study: 98.1% of BitTorrent Files Illegal

[nsane.forums]

Researchers from the University of Ballarat survey content on BitTorrent networks also find that “of the torrents in the top three categories (Movies, Music and TV shows), there were no legal torrents in the sample.”

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has released the results of an “academic research” paper it funded via the University of Ballarat and unsurprisingly the findings are in keeping with its long battle against BitTorrent traffic and its users, the paper concluding that as much as 98.1% of BitTorrent traffic is illegal.

For years now AFACT has been trying to get ISPs to become copyright cops and filter P2P traffic on their networks, a proposal ISPs have long rejected. It once even tried to denigrate illegal file-sharers even further by suggesting that biker gangs had become involved in illegal downloading and that the the practice had become more lucrative than dealing heroin.

Fed up with inaction by ISPs, AFACT sued iiNet back in 2008 and tried to hold it responsible for “allowing” its customers to use BitTorrent to download files illegally. It eventually lost the case this past February, but immediately filed an appeal, noting that the “judgment that has left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers and represents a serious threat to Australia’s digital economy.”

iiNet noted its dismay that “we feel like we’ve wasted a year when we should have spent the time and money [on developing a content distribution model].”

Now AFACT is back at again with a study titled “Investigation Into the Extent of Infringing Content on BitTorrent networks” in order to tout “academic research” which it claims “gives a clear insight into the nature of traffic on [the] Bit Torrent network.”

Researchers took a measly 1,000 torrents from 19 of the “most popular” BitTorrent trackers and examined what percentage of them were infringing.

Some of the key findings:

- 89.9% of all torrents within the sample were found to be infringing both by the number of files and total downloads.

-The top two categorized torrents were movie and TV shows making up 72.4% of all torrents. There were no legitimate movies or TV torrents in the sample.

-The top two movie files were being seeded more than 1 million times each. The third most popular movie file was being seeded more than 500,000 times.

- 9.9% of torrents were responsible for 90% of the total seed population.

-Only 1 non-infringing torrent (an open source program) was found in the most popular 100 torrents.

The researchers also noted that the 89.1% figure excluded pornographic torrents whose legality could not be verified. If one assumed that all of the pornographic titles were infringing the overall figure would increase to 98.1%.

“All it takes is an internet connection and the BitTorrent software to efficiently distributing large files amongst users,” said Neil Gane, Executive Director of AFACT. “It may be a legitimate software but, as we have always maintained, it is the preferred software for sharing unauthorized copyright content. The research found that movies and TV shows made up 72% of all torrent traffic yet not one copy was legitimate.”

That may be so, but it’s insane to argue that ISPs should somehow try and ban the BitTorrent protocol or filter BitTorrent traffic simply because a majority of a mere 1,000 torrents were infringing. If AFACT really wants to fight illegal file-sharing it ought to do as iiNet suggested and develop a better content distribution model.

Furthermore, it’s hard to believe that it found no "legitimate movies or TV torrents" following the popularity of "Pioneer One," the so-called "TV series without a TV." How did that not make it onto the list? It’s obvious the researchers did their best to come to a conclusion that AFACT bought and paid for to further its agenda.

The truth doesn’t seem to matter to AFACT, and iiNet has repeatedly emphasized their disconnect from reality.

“AFACT have made it very clear – their idea of cooperation is for ISPs to disconnect our customers when they demand it,” it says. “If we don’t do their bidding they’ll tie ISPs up in the courts.”

“We will happily sit down with any and all content owners to discuss ways to make their desirable content available to our customers, legally and commercially. We’ll do that individually, or as part of industry initiatives, but that needs to be done in good faith and with a genuine desire for success,” it adds.

View: Original Article