Handy cut-out-and-keep fact-to-remember: this is all about DVD piracy.
Quite important, that.

Next paragraph.

A bit skimpy on details, but in repeating the claim the official Piracy Guide PDF helpfully attributes the "80%" figure to the Organised Crime Task Force.

Yes! The official 2004 Threat Assessment (colossal 5MB PDF) from the OCTF backs this up in the Intellectual Property Crime chapter, p27!

It's a fact! Yay! So the w...

Oh well. Nobody can say whether the paras are passing it up the line or putting it in their pocket, so we can't draw any conclusions about links to terrorism (and there's quite an interesting discussion to be had about whether "paramilitaries" qualify as "terrorists" nowadays rather than "gangsters"), but the "80%" figure is A FACT.

(The OCTF site says

but that's undated, so we'll go with the 2004 report. Moreover, the "80%" figure is NOT attached to a footnote in the PDF explaining it came from the Anti-Counterfeiting Group/Alliance, an earlier incarnation of the "Industry Trust," unlike some other dramatic claims in the chapter, so it is probably the OCTF's own assessment, though not the "two thirds" one.)

Fantastic. The "Industry Trust" is coming through where it's needed. Never mind the unsubstantiated links to organised crime with all that figure-fixing, fact-finessing and big lie-packed lying - terrorism's the important thing, and they've learned their lesson. FACTS FOREVER!

Ah.

The OCTF site has the 2002 numbers only. (Table simplified for quoting.)

So DVDs are, in fact, a significantly smaller problem than dodgy CDs and videogames, and only just squeak ahead of counterfeit clothes. Plus, you'll notice DVDs are lumped in with videos and VCDs. The "Industry Trust's" claim is not a fact.

But wait! These are the 2002 figures. They're the latest ones available on the site, but what about that whopping, brand-new PDF report? The chapter starting on p27 again? Bonzer! (Table simplified for quoting.)

DVDs have indeed shot up in this new, up-to-date table with all its numbers rounded off to look prettier in the report. They're now in second place, just ahead of Clothes and Drink, and way behind Music. Plus, they're still lumped in with Videos and VCDs, and this campaign is all about DVD piracy.

In other words, the "Industry Trust" is making it up again.

Unless... no, no, they couldn't be saying "type" when describing DVDs as the largest haul to mean "round shiny discs" so they could include the CD numbers, could they? No, an absurd suggestion. Rubbish. Forget I mentioned it. They'd never stoop to such a thing. There's no need when you have cast-iron proof that DVD piracy funds organised crime. And terrorists. With balaclavas and machine-guns.

(But how do those "estimated value" numbers stack up, anyway? £2m for 40,000 "videos-DVDs-VCDs"? So each one is worth £50? A supposed "value" of thirty-four quid for videogames (£500,000 divided by 15,000) is roughly in line with retail price; £22 for a music album (£1.8m divided by 80,500) is fairly absurd; but fifty quid for a movie? A whopping 250% of the highest retail price? Eh?

In any event, of course, these are pirate copies which would in reality be sold for a fraction of the retail cost of genuine items- otherwise, who'd buy a knock-off in the first place? - typically around 20-25%. So the value of the goods seized isn't really £7.6m, it's something more in the order of £1.5m. The figures we're being quoted are what the industry perceives as the maximum possible retail loss caused by the pirate sales, not the value of what was seized.)

Just before we crash on, there are two fun bits back on the OCTF site. One is where the diligent Task Force officers attribute a slight dip in CD sales to EVIL DOWNLOADERS because they've been told that's the reason by - yes! - the BPI; the other is regrettably absent from the new report.

(Emphasis added.) In other words, "Counterfeiting's historically been a bit of a problem here in Northern Ireland - read the bits about fuel laundering, they're great - so it's on our radar; but the mainland bobbies have better things to do with their time."

Tch. More or less then what the National Crime Intelligence Service says in its definition of "organised crime" as having to be "serious," which DVD piracy isn't, which is why the "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited" is trying to link it to other, serious, crimes. And terrorism.

 

Back to the "Industry Trust" claims.

Next paragraph.

Interpol. The big lads. The longest arm of the law. Even if they have locked off all the charts of international crime statistics for some reason without telling anyone, when you could freely download them from about 1996 up to a few months ago and find out the comparative levels of crime across the world. And they're right in the middle of this campaign, backing the "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited" all the way.

Oops.

That report The Links Between Intellectual Property Crime and Terrorist Financing is an intriguing read. It's a speech by Ronald Noble, the Secretary General of Interpol, where

Big speech.

You can see why the "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited" cite it to back their claims that DVD piracy is, according to their campaign, literally a mask for terrorism. Ron's going to blast us with DVD piracy facts. There might even be a problem getting him to shut up so he can mention other types of "intellectual property crime."

Wow!

Let's count how many times the speech refers to DVDs! I've packed an extra pencil.

Yes.

The speech contains this number of references to DVDs:

One.

In the paragraph about Kosovo.

That's the only time DVDs come up in Ron's speech. Once. As part of a random list of counterfeit items. In Kosovo. Which entertainingly seems to be without copyright laws anyway ("Occurs openly... limited enforcement due to... significant legal loopholes...") so it's without Interpol's purview. Who don't have any evidence about the whole Kosovo-counterfeit-terrorism-funding anyway, though it is "suspected."

What does come up a lot, reflected in the way the "Industry Trust" latches on to it at every opportunity, is the "paramilitary groups" in Northern Ireland. But Ron, like the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force, can't work out whether the paras are really just gangsters playing on the kudos ("... the increasing resemblance of these groups to organised crime groups..."), and certainly can't tie them into terrorist funding. (Post-Good Friday, he probably didn't think it was worth looking into the direct US sponsorship of the IRA permitted by successive US governments as Duncan Campbell astutely mentioned on the radio.)

Other examples are equally feeble - "Sympathizers and militants of these (North African) groups may engage in a range of criminal activity including IPC"; charitable donations which would obviously include all other donations to that charity; "One counterfeiting case has been reported in the media where there are alleged connections to al-Qaeda" (could you rewrite that with 8% more uncertainty? Cheers) which concludes "In general, it is possible that funds generated through IPC are remitted to al-Qaeda indirectly through zakat-based (a religious duty to give money) giving. Although given the cash-based nature of this giving it is difficult to establish the provenance of the funds."

The two concrete examples, a single Chechen CD bust four years ago, and a Hezbollah smuggling ring, are still shot through with "suspected", "thought to be", "information suggests", "allegedly", "Interpol files do not mention involvement in IPC", etc. In short, as Ron says,

The evidence is not there. Ron's worried that we don't know anything for sure, and sensibly recommends looking into this sort of thing to find out, but, in his speech to the Congressional Committee, he has no trouble telling investigators that the evidence is not there.

What's important from our point of view, jumping back to the "Industry Trust" citation

is the speculative section of the speech, "Future evolutions." Ron's strong, decisive opening sets the flavour.

He's taking his professional experience, and he's having a punt. And it's this section the "Industry Trust" quote comes from - the one where Ron hasn't proven any terrorist links, says Interpol and other agencies could do a lot more to find out if there are any, and speculates about "future evolutions."

Okay. The "Industry Trust" says

Ron's words in context are

The "Industry Trust" is blatantly omitting the context of Ron's words, which is that he's making a guess. His speech, which is about trying to determine whether or not "the links between intellectual property crime and terrorist financing" exist - and he carefully indicates there is no evidence - is misrepresented by the "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited" as stating a fact.

The "Industry Trust" is making up something Interpol did not intend.

Next and final paragraph.

If you've read the Five Live transcript (and, of course, listened to the MP3 for corroboration - I could have invented it all) you'll have noticed two interesting general points. I don't have the time to add the running commentary that I was projecting at the screen while typing it up, but Lynn Faulds-Wood and Ian Grant, the representatives of the copyright industry, individually, crucially, went into reverse gear.

After Duncan Campbell has spoken for the first time ("Yeah, I think it's an extremely irresponsible campaign. I'm not disputing the link with organised crime or even disorganised crime, but I think linking it to terrorism in that way, and at this particular moment in our history, is extremely irresponsible..."), LFW is invited to respond. She says

Except no, we're not. "Who's REALLY behind DVD piracy?"; "Terrorist groups sell pirate DVDs to raise funds"; "Traders in pirate DVDs are part of a wider criminal network. Think about where your money is REALLY going"; ""People traffickers force immigrants to sell pirate DVDs on the streets."

The STATED PURPOSE of the "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited's" campaign, which LFW launched and speaks for, is to attack DVD PIRACY. Not counterfeiting in general, DVD PIRACY specifically and singly, as unprovenly practised by her mystery man in Pakistan she brings up lots and lots of times.

So LFW's either forgotten who employs her (do we know if the "Industry Trust" pays its spokespeople, by the way?) or she's trying to wriggle out of DC's line of fire. Or she's accidentally let the cat out of the bag. Who knows?

Ian Grant ("head of enforcement at the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry") is extremely keen on the terrorism angle. ("We're not saying that all music piracy is the result of organised crime, but it's firmly entrenched. So it wouldn't surprise me if terrorist groups, which is probably the most... very base sort of sense of organised crime, if they were involved, they'd go down the same route"; "Well, I certainly don't have any evidence to show that al-Qaeda are involved in music piracy, or any other types of intellectual property infringement. But because of the vast profits that are there, and organised crime groups need money, because they need money to support their activities, so it would be an obvious way to go") etc etc.

Then Duncan Campbell speaks ("... irresponsible campaign...") and Ian (and LFW) bang the chain off the bike in their eagerness to back-pedal.

So the the official, public face of the "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited" and the chief bruiser for the record industry want you to stop copying discs because the money goes to EVIL TERRORISTS, unless they're asked to prove that, at which point that wasn't what they said at all, and the "Industry Trust's" "Who's REALLY behind DVD piracy?" campaign is about something else entirely. (And it was only ONE of the ads anyway. Are they going to pull it then?) (Or maybe two.)

There is a point to this.

DVD piracy, remember? What the "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited's" campaign is all about. The piracy of DVDs. Lynn's Pakistan Indian Crimelord. Dee Vee Dees.

Let's just see that quote, again from Ron Noble's Interpol speech, in context. (It's again in the "future evolutions" section.) I've omitted the footnote references - they're links on the real page.

Spot it? Let's carry on the quote to the end.

The "Industry Trust's" quote says "discs." The real quote says "CDs." The "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited" has switched "CDs" for "discs" so we'll think Interpol is talking about DVDs when, in fact, they're talking about something entirely different. The "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited" is so confident of its cast-iron case linking DVD piracy to drug trafficking/organised crime/terrorism/blowing up babies with bombs that it is taking what Interpol says and lying about it.

STOP! HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!

So.

Sooo.

What have we learned over this long weekend?

Whether or not there's a case to be made for linking DVD piracy to terrorism (or even organised crime) is irrelevant. The "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited" have with deliberate calculation made their case with twisted facts, misrepresented quotes, altered numbers, changed statistics and plain old straight-in-the-face honest-to-goodness lies, repeatedly. We've seen them omit sources, falsify evidence, present "proof" by having "Industry Trust" members internally support each other's claims, exaggerate, conflate and lie big lying lies with their lying liars' lips.

And that's their case. That's the best they have. And they've put their case to us in those terms anyway. Why bother investigating competently? We're just some idiots who need to be told what to do.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT DVD PIRACY IS LINKED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER WITH TERRORISM. FOR THE "INDUSTRY TRUST FOR IP AWARENESS LIMITED" TO SAY OTHERWISE IS A BIG GIANT LIE.

So.

Sooo.

So why would they do it? Why go nuclear and throw all the DVD PIRACY = TERRORISM switches and commission huge posters with guns and balaclavas (but, tellingly, not sinister bearded foreigners with fizzing black bombs) and cinema ads and television ads and celebs and consumer advocates and everything? What's the point?

The point is, of course, that they've seen what happened to music, and they're not going to let it happen to films. I don't mean music piracy - as everyone knows, there's no objective evidence of the adverse effects of MP3s and P2P (but quite a bit of evidence that they actually encourage sales). No, it's the changed perception of music that has the movie companies shaking like big scared babies and, like big scared babies, hitting out with crying spite.

MP3s and so on cracked the facade of the music companies and the audience boiled. Why are albums so expensive? Where's the "re-investment"? Why are you locking up my legitimately purchased music? Why are you treating your customers like criminals? How come your locked-up online tracks cost the same as buying them in a shop? Why are profits and sales up, up, up but you're lying that you're on the verge of bankruptcy? Why are you suing children? Why is a band only legitimate if you own it? How, exactly, is home taping killing music?

There was no way the movie companies were going to see this happen to them. They didn't want to go anywhere near that quagmire. They like everything just the way it is, thanks, and they're busy buying the laws to keep it like that.

But in the meantime. In the meantime how do you, as a fiscally responsible movie mogul, prop up your business (and maybe hurry those laws along)? What, exactly, do you do? You know your customers are idiots, you hate them and wish they were dead except as a hand on a spring glued to a wallet. Wait a minute - if you make people afraid, you can make them do anything. What's the one guaranteed way to frighten the public? Yes! Of course! If you have anything to do with dodgy DVDs, you're funding terrorism. DVD PIRACY BLOWS UP BABIES WITH BOMBS. Bingo! Do a word-replace on that brochure about organised crime. Get me incorporation papers for something falsely neutral and deceptively educational like, I dunno, the "Industry Trust for IP Awareness Limited." Somebody nobble Jonathan Ross.

Perhaps most importantly, we've learned complete bemusement. Why is the media swallowing this rubbish? How come some idiot on a forum wasting a few days typing stuff into Google can show up a big list of large lies? Where's Duncan Campbell's counterpart on The Sun, ringing up the "Industry Trust" and getting them to cite their sources? Where the hell is the journalism?

Funny thing is, I heard someone was so angry about this, they went out and blew up a building.

THE "INDUSTRY TRUST FOR IP AWARENESS LIMITED" CAUSES TERRORISM. FACT PROVEN WITH EVIDENCE.