Last month the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) published a seventy-page, comprehensive report titled, “Taking the Profit Out of Intellectual Property Crime.”
The report offers an analysis of the criminal profit engine that drives audio-visual (AV) piracy and offers recommendations on what can be done to curb it.
Over the next four (4) posts, IPPI Blog.com will provide a synopsis to each of the four sections in the report and offer our own observations.
They divided the report into four sections:
I. Trends in Piracy and Organized Crime
Audio-visual Piracy: Key Trends and Patterns
IP Crime is Organized Crime: Piracy, Organized Crime Networks and Individual offenders
II Revenue Models
III The Role of Financial Disruption in Tackling IP Crime
Strengthening Financial Investigation
Demand Reduction: Consumer Education
IV Conclusion and Recommendations
The authors assert that although they based the content on its analysis of the UK piracy experience, its recommendations can be applied globally.
Right from the start of the report, it makes some intriguing observations that place the international criminal piracy problem into context.
Such as the view that although the perception may be that the same organized crime gangs operate interchangeably between counterfeiting and piracy, (because we are prone to lump trademark and copyright infringement into the same IP Crime barrel) the report found, “There is little evidence to suggest piracy and counterfeiting is carried out by the same actors. Moreover, both trades differ in their means of monetization and enablers (both legal and illegal.)
“This means the measures required to investigate and disrupt piracy are often distinct from those needed to combat counterfeiting.
“This report therefore looks at the strategies and tools that could facilitate the financial disruption of piracy as a standalone subject, focusing on the infringement of film, TV and live sports content.”
It also asks what ‘follow the money’ means, “There is no standard definition of ‘follow the money’.
“The European Commission’s use of the term focuses on disrupting all opportunities for financial gain, whereas the UK’s IPO IP Enforcement Strategy primarily refers to the identification, seizure and recovery of criminal gain from IP crime.
“This report follows the definition used by the European Commission, which the authors take to include asset identification, seizure and recovery activities.”
WHAT IS THE REPORT’S CONCLUSION?
“It concludes that whole-of-system financial disruption efforts are needed to tackle piracy.
“Every financial transaction in the piracy ecosystem represents an opportunity for disruption, yet very few financial institutions appear to understand their exposure to this crime type.”
The next post will dive into the research and analysis detailed in the first part of the report: Trends in Piracy and Organized Crime
Disclaimer: IPPIBlog.com is offered as a service to the professional IP community. While every effort has been made to check information in this blog, we provide no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, with regard to content provided in IPPIBlog.com. We disclaim any and all liability and responsibility for the qualification or accuracy of representations made by the contributors or for any disputes that may arise. It is the responsibility of the readers to independently investigate and verify the credentials of such person and the accuracy and validity of the information provided by them. This blog is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice.