The Infringing Website List (IWL) has been a crucial tool in the fight against online piracy since its inception in 2014. Managed by law enforcement agencies, the IWL serves as a resource for advertisers, warning them about websites that facilitate copyright infringement. By avoiding advertising on these sites, advertisers can deprive pirate operators of crucial revenue, ultimately leading to the shutdown of these illicit platforms.
Despite the effectiveness of the IWL in disrupting the operations of pirate sites, the UK government is puzzled by the continued existence of over 1,500 websites listed on the platform. This discrepancy raises questions about the efficacy of current enforcement efforts and highlights the challenges associated with combating online piracy.
To address this issue, the UK government is seeking a partner to investigate why these listed sites are still in operation. By identifying the factors contributing to their persistence, authorities aim to develop more targeted strategies to combat online piracy effectively.
The investigation into the continued operation of listed pirate sites underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to combat copyright infringement in the digital realm. As technology continues to evolve, law enforcement agencies must adapt their tactics to stay ahead of infringers and protect the rights of content creators.
The efforts by City of London Police and the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) to combat online piracy through the Infringing Website List (IWL) highlight a concerted approach to deprive pirate sites of revenue and disrupt their operations. Launched in 2014, the IWL serves as a tool for identifying and targeting websites suspected of facilitating copyright infringement.
When PIPCU identifies a site as potentially illegal, it may engage directly with site operators, warning them of potential legal consequences and urging them to cease their infringing activities. The threat of prosecution under various laws, including the Fraud Act 2006 and the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, is used to encourage compliance.
The IWL, supported by major rightsholders and international groups, is shared with brands, advertising companies, and agencies to inform them about the risks associated with advertising on pirate sites. By boycotting these platforms, responsible companies can protect their reputation and deprive pirate sites of advertising revenue.
Currently, the IWL contains around 1,530 domains, including popular torrent and streaming sites such as RARBG, 1337x, and Fmovies. While the list undergoes constant updates with new additions and removals, an estimated 6,039 domains have appeared on the list since its inception, suggesting a significant impact on the online piracy landscape.
The UK government’s interest in obtaining data on IWL-listed pirate sites underscores the importance of understanding the effectiveness of enforcement efforts and exploring ways to improve anti-piracy strategies. Despite the challenges posed by the dynamic nature of online piracy, initiatives like the IWL demonstrate a commitment to safeguarding intellectual property rights and combating digital piracy.
A tracking portal, providing data on advertising streams for requested websites, which are considered to be involved in copyright infringement.
“This tender is being run by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the contract will vest with and be paid for by the IPO. The benefit and outcomes of the services will be delivered by the supplier to the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), who are a strategic partner of the IPO,” the tender reads.
“The initial term of the contract shall run from the date of award (following this tender process) to 31 March 2024. This is anticipated to be 15 or 16 months.”
Data Sought By The Government
The Intellectual Property Office lists several minimum requirements for its portal, including the following:
• Total amount of adverts and estimated advert impressions across IWL domains
• Total number of brands and total number of advert intermediaries
• Total IWL domains that have advertising on them
• Advert campaign type e.g., major brands, gambling, adult, or sponsored
• Ability to click on a domain and get a screen shot of the domain and the advert
• Data must be visually represented though charts and diagrams.
• Being able to focus on one or selection domains
• Being able to focus by campaign type, e.g., brands or gambling
• Being able to focus on a particular brand
• Provide a quarterly report in a particular area such as gambling adverts
The specifications suggest that in addition to measuring the volume of ads keeping pirate sites afloat, the IPO may need data to support measures against specific industry sectors, perhaps through education, persuasion, or other means delivered by strategic partner, PIPCU.
The tender indicates that while the IPO will be paying the bill, all services will be delivered to PIPCU. The initial contract is expected to run for 15 or 16 months, with an option to extend up to 25 months.
The maximum budget for the initial term is £5,500 (including VAT) per month and while all companies will need to endure the bidding process, it seems more than likely that White-Bullet will pick up the contract.
The company specializes in this kind of work and recently won a new contract to maintain the database behind the Infringing Website List.
The notion of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) engaging in restorative justice as a means of addressing online piracy is indeed intriguing, especially given its reputation for stringent enforcement actions. While PIPCU is widely recognized for its efforts to blacklist sites, dismantle streaming piracy operations, and seize domains associated with counterfeiting, the idea of adopting a softer approach through early intervention raises questions about the unit’s broader objectives.
Restorative justice, a concept gaining prominence in UK government circles, aims to facilitate dialogue between offenders and victims to address harm and explore opportunities for rehabilitation. However, reconciling this approach with the realities of online piracy, where site operators often demonstrate non-compliance and resistance to legal measures, presents significant challenges. The suggestion that PIPCU would extend invitations for constructive dialogue with infringing site operators seems improbable given the legal complexities and entrenched interests involved. While the landscape of anti-piracy enforcement may evolve over time, the prospect of reconciling opposing interests in the piracy ecosystem remains uncertain.
