Report: Six Strikes Anti-Copyright Scheme Costs Millions a Year to Operate

Two years ago the MPAA and RIAA teamed up with five major Internet providers to put together a voluntary (for ISPs, not their customers) "six strikes" anti-piracy plan. The interested parties founded the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), incorporated as a non-profit company in Delaware. While the goals of the CCI have been pretty transparent, its finances have been mostly shrouded in secret. At the time of its founding, ISPs joining the scheme and copyright owners agreed to evenly share the cost of the organization and the scheme.

Today we know a little more about how the company is financed and how it seems to be run by those operating from a financial standpoint.

According to the CCI's most recent tax filing – obtained by TorrentFreak – covering the first eight months of the company’s operations to June 30, 2012, ISPs and copyright holders paid a total of $1,377,633 in membership dues, putting the yearly cost at right around $2 million per year to keep the company afloat.

So where is all the money going? Well here's a breakdown, via TorrentFreak:

– The CCI pays Executive Director Jill Lesser – the only key employee working there – a modest $43,750 during the first eight months of 2012.

– Lesser indirectly earns a bit more from CCI from her consulting firm JAL, which the CCI paid $193,750 during the same eight-month period.

– Around $144,093 was paid to PR firm Glover Park Group.

– Resource Global was paid $125,691 for its consulting services, as well as $102,928 in legal fees.

TorrentFreak notes that rights holders and ISPs share the $2 million in membership dues, and that the costs listed previously do not apply to actions by copyright holders and ISPs incurred when tracking down infringers and processing the notices.

TorrentFreak contends that "copyright holders and ISPs are likely to spend double or triple the previously mentioned $2 million on the entire six-strikes system."

Source: TorrentFreak


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Well of course. Adapting might mean spending money and admitting that they're wrong, and for them all the money should be going in and they should never be wrong.

  2. 0
    RedMage says:

    This the part that gets under my skin. It's one thing to protect your intellectual property, but it's another to actually prioritize reducing piracy over MAKING MONEY. 

    Consider the Pirate Bay. The sheer amount of money thrown at trying to shut that site down is dizzying to think about. More than a decade of legal fees, police salaries, court salaries, legal briefings and filings, and public relations campaigns – all for what? The site was shut down for a whopping three days during that police raid and they've had to change their domain extension a few times. 


    Countless millions of dollars, thrown into a black hole by a content industry that's desperate to maintain dominance over its own profit makers rather than adapting to new markets and providing a quality service for people.

  3. 0
    sqlrob says:

    I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.

    There was an old Mad magazine story about vampires that sucked blood out of toes. Of course that wasn't particularly sanitary, so they used hole punches and straws.


  4. 0
    Left4Dead says:

    We here at Resource Global love our company brand.  We're so generic, we even have a generic dress code and our website is generic and everything, absolutely everything, about us is generic.

    -- Left4Dead --

  5. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    All more reason to move to a copy right system that focus on revenue generation vrs one based on distribution where talking about it something copy righted is a crime..

Leave a Reply