Question: What is the Federation Against Copyright Theft?

Raymond Leinster: To start with, we are part of the American major picture studios' global anti-piracy programme, managed on their behalf by the Motion Picture Association.

So we fit in as one of the national programmes within that network.

Our principal funding comes from the US; our UK board consists of other major organisations including BSkyB for example.

We represent the UK affiliates, the interests of the American film industry, assisting statutory agencies and have 48 members of staff. We're the biggest outside the States and in terms of negative impact of counterfeit goods the UK is the worst affected region outside the US.

Question: When was it formed?

Raymond Leinster: In 1983. It arose mainly, through the prolific counterfeiting of the film ET, which was really the first film to be pirated on a large scale and from this a program was put in place.

Question: Is the threat greater now than in 1983? How has it changed?

Raymond Leinster: Yes. In my view it's endemic throughout the UK.

Concerning the international perspective on terrorism, we have no information that shows it's being supported by this type of crime in the UK.

Chinese organised crime in the UK has a national network for manufacturing and distributing film and is the most prominent influence on film piracy in the UK.

A lot of the individuals involved will invariably have a strong orientation towards broader criminality which has been proven through research with the police.

There is also the more entrepreneurial type who generally hasn't got a broader interest in criminality and manufactures for discreet groups such as friends and colleagues.

Research shows that this impacts on the sales of films on the public market.

Question: Has there been an explosion of piracy since the advent of online trading websites?

Raymond Leinster: Yes, such websites are prolific and have generated large counterfeit profits.

We are delighted that the courts recognise the seriousness of abusing access to websites and that tough sentences are being issued.

Earlier this year an individual received six months following confiscation procedures. We hope this acts as a strong deterrent.

Question: How closely do you work with the government and police to tackle copyright theft?

Raymond Leinster: As a trade association we actually have no statutory part whatsoever, so if we're in partnership with Customs and the police, etc, we are there to bring our industry techniques to bear.

We would be able to do nothing if it wasn't for agencies willing to engage against film piracy so our relationship with the police and government is developing.

Increasingly we are working with these bodies, especially with the police who are at the hard end of the criminality.

The issue of controlling film piracy to protect the commercial sector has become less prevalent. It has now also become an opportunity to fulfil corporate goals in community safety and reducing the crime rate.

We are delighted that there are perceptible changes in how the police investigate its impact on the wider community.

We have a very active partnership with Kent Police which led in the dismantling of a Chinese crime led factory and continue to work with police investigations.

Question: Do you think the police and the government take this issue seriously enough then?

Raymond Leinster: Yes, but there is rarely enough in fighting piracy of this type.

There have been strong perceptible changes in police law enforcement and the public's perceptions of these issues.

People are prepared to appear before courts and analysis shows that 40 per cent of those investigations show evidence of further criminality and non-intellectual property crime.

Police have benefited from investigating one form of criminality to uncover other forms.

Through pro-active relationships with the police we have presented a case to show piracy as a crime type and have invested heavily in analytical capabilities to prove this.

We have engaged communication expertise and are dedicated to understanding the sceptical messages that the media and public convey and presenting evidence based strategies.

It can be a struggle trying to change people's perceptions and question whether film piracy is responsible for negative consequences in their communities.

Question: Do you think that the public take this seriously enough? Do you think yourselves and the government can make it clear that there are these links to wider criminality?

Raymond Leinster: There is considerable change in evaluating the intellectual property crime and the creative industries.

It has been said that the creative industries are the wealth generators for the 21st century.

Lord Sainsbury has also made public statements in terms of the value of intellectual property. He also heads up the UK Patent Office.

The government, in appointing him to be the lead in developing an enforcement agenda, has changed the landscape for many trade associations, which has been a very positive move.

The implementation of strategy within government is key and equally our industry realises we have work to do.

We've invested heavily in a whole range of skills, focusing not just on investigators but understanding crime types - one of these initiatives is the creation of a film body within the police, where criminal motivation is analysed.

We believe we are up to the challenge for tackling organised crime, enforcing the law and delivering a stronger rationale to the public at large for considering their continued purchase of counterfeit goods.

We have also exploring the possibility of training dogs to detect counterfeit DVDs in coalition with the Motion Pictures Association.

Our hotline number is 0845 60 34567 and we encourage the public to give us any information.

Question: Do you work closely with global associations?

Raymond Leinster: As more counterfeit goods are being made within the UK, our relationship with Customs has diminished.

This is now a UK-based problem as DVDs are being manufactured in factories here.

There are cases of violence and intimidation, as a result of those dealing in counterfeit goods protecting their own commercial interests, and a whole host of other criminal activities that the public would be concerned about.

We cannot afford to avert our eyes any longer as to what this is generating and fostering.