The business and politics of piracy

Teenage boy using computer

The subject of online piracy arouses strong emotions, both from the creative industries and from web libertarians. But the fierce debates about the extent of the problem and what should be done have been short of one thing - data.

So there should be a welcome for a big piece of research into piracy sites and how they are funded. This study was undertaken by the security firm Detica on behalf of two organisations which might not seem natural bedfellows, Google and PRS for Music, which represents songwriters.

And what it shows is exactly what you might have suspected - that piracy is big business. The study identifies six different business models for online copyright infringement, and finds that advertising and subscription are very professionally integrated into many of the sites. Often, you will see the logos of well-known payment services on sites. The study found that many featured adverts from leading brands, though Google was keen to point out that the vast majority of the ads were not provided by the recognised networks from the mainstream industry.

According to a report which sometimes struggles to speak plain English, the two fastest growing business models are Live TV Gateway and P2P community. The first turns out to mean sites offering unauthorised access to live television streams, principally Premier League football.

Traffic to these sites - as measured by page views - is up 61% over the last year, with many visitors arriving from a social network.

P2P community refers to file-sharing sites providing, says the report, a "well-organised range of content types offered free to the user". This sector of the "industry" is heavily dependent on advertising and donations, with 86% of sites featuring adverts.

The report is packed with charts and numbers, though disappointingly short on individual case studies or big figures for the overall size of the industry. I did though find one really interesting number buried deep in the document. In talking about some of the methodology used, the researchers describe one site in their study as having 15 times the ad revenue of a licensed advertising-supported service.

It turns out that total advertising revenues for licensed music services in the UK have been flat for some time at around £12m per year. No wonder services like We7 have failed to make much headway. Will Page, chief economist at PRS for Music, says the research is a reminder of just how tough it is for legal services: "There are only so many willing advertisers with only so much ad-spend and only so many sets of eyeballs which they can reach. Advertisers are wanting to reach music fans, and both legal and illegal are competing for them."

But what is really interesting about this piece of research is the politics behind it. Google is in a battle with the BPI, the body which represents the music labels, over the shape of government legislation on piracy. The BPI says many consumers find copyright-infringing material through a Google search. It says the company makes money from advertising around search results, and wants piracy sites to be pushed further down the results, below legitimate music offerings. Google isn't keen to play around with its search algorithm.

The search company, the BPI, and other parts of the internet and creative industries are taking part in government roundtable discussions about the battle against piracy. The research on the piracy sites was commissioned to inform the roundtables.

Now Google is stressing that the message from the study is "follow the money". If you want to do something about piracy, go after the advertisers and the credit card firms rather than worrying too much about search.

PRS for Music, which takes a more moderate line on this issue than the BPI, said it hoped the research would "enable a more targeted and ultimately successful approach to tackling online copyright infringement." But I get the impression that the songwriters trade body is a bit nervous about the way that Google has spun the report as showing that search is not too relevant.

The government has told both sides - the internet firms and the creative industries - that if they cannot come up with a voluntary code to tackle piracy there will have to be legislation. After the publication of this report, everyone seems to agree that copyright infringement is a very lucrative business - but they seem no nearer to an agreement on what exactly to do next.

Rory Cellan-Jones Article written by Rory Cellan-Jones Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent

Kickstarter - now just a store?

How Pebble's new smartwatch is taking Kickstarter by storm

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Rory


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 137.

    If you dig a little deeper into this, what you'll find is, that a lot of the companies that are now involved in anti-file sharing campaigns were the main distributors of file sharing software when those technologies came out. You could obtain several of the most prominent P2P programmes on CNet for example. Follow the CNet money and you'll hit irony.

    You reap what you sow, as they say.

  • rate this

    Comment number 136.

    The record companies are just a distribution channel that used to be able to charge a premium on their product because of substantial up front costs of making vinyl records. Itunes et al are faster and more convenient and the day is coming when artists will sell online directly and cut the middle man. People will always make music, people willingly pay to be entertained.

  • rate this

    Comment number 135.

    Avatar was one of the most widely downloaded films of all time. It broke, and continues to break records for film earnings.

    My kid has hundreds of £s of merchandise from a certain animated automobile film and I've never bought the DvD.

    George Lucas back in the 70s\80s didn't make his fortune from the Star Wars movies, but from the merchandising rights.

    Pattern anyone?

  • rate this

    Comment number 134.

    russellhorwood. All too often though, the personwho came up with the idea doesn't even get the credit. The one who steals it gets all of that.

    That is probably the real bone of contention.

    My comments about the FBI are about the fact that what they are up to is far worse that the original infringements. I wonder if that data even exists any more, or if it was been destroyed.

  • rate this

    Comment number 133.

    Just legalise file sharing. Problem solved.


Comments 5 of 137


Features & Analysis

BBC Future

(US Navy)

The world’s noisiest spy plane

The Soviet giant that still soldiers on


  • TomatoesClick Watch

    The smart garden that fits inside your house and provides fresh healthy food

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.