This site, developed by the MPAA, serves to give consumers a way to find the various legit online streaming services via a simple interface.   It beats Google search any day.  I give it a two thumbs up.

Today I received an email from one of my favorite indie bands, Saucy Monky, announcing Part 2 of their Trophy Girl EP series and asking for support to raise funds for the effort via their fundraising page at the crowd-source funding site GoFundMe.com.  Their pitch is straightforward, describing the project and the perks/rewards for each donation level.  These days I’m sure there are dozens of indie musicians launching similar crowd-funding campaigns every day, but what really struck me about their email was this:

Here are a few things you may or may not know about today’s music business. The convenience of Spotify and Pandora are incredible. We personally LOVE these sites. However, for our entire catalogue, which everyone can listen to for free – anytime, we get paid a few cents a month. Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face” garnered one million plays on Spotify and earned just $167!

Thankfully, people still buy digital downloads on iTunes, but this new movement isn’t the best news for self-financed acts. We used to sell tons of hard copy CD’s on CDBaby.com. Now, no-one buys CD’s online anymore. Only at shows. And that leads to touring costs… bla bla bla. You get the picture.

What we would love to do in return for any contribution, is give something back to you. We’d like to give you something for every penny we earn. All of the exclusives are listed on this site  and also on our website

When I asked Annmarie for clarification on the comment “We personally LOVE these sites” [Spotify and Pandora] she explained:

I love them as a music lover (being able to listen to anything i want), I hate them as a musician coz i can’t make a dime!

Forgive me, but while crowd-source campaigns have their place, can’t we as fans (and consumers) hope for a system that provides musicians (and other creators) with the means to make a decent living from their work rather than have to resort to constant fundraising efforts in order to sustain it?  I don’t need Saucy Monky to “give something back” to me….they’ve given me, and continue to give me, their music (which I’m happy to pay for).  They, and all the other musicians out there, shouldn’t have to do cartwheels and promise me things every time they want to produce a new album.  Their music is the only goody I want.

Somewhere along the way our system got so broken that the true value of the creations we enjoy got lost amid a squabble over whether it was valuable.  Of course it’s valuable–and it’s valuable in ways that go far beyond dollars and cents.  Unfortunately it’s not free–in terms of those same dollars and cents–to actually create most things we value.

Allow me to reference a fundamental concept I learned in my high school economics class–and that is that everything has cost associated with it–even our time.  As such, is it too much for musicians to ask that their time be compensated in some fashion, or should we demand that creating quality music be an all-volunteer endeavor?  Some seem to feel the latter option is A-OK, but I doubt those same individuals would be happy not being paid for the work that they do.  Note that even a if one’s art is truly a “labor of love” it’s a love that does involve labor.

This discussion shouldn’t be framed as artist versus consumer.  Doesn’t everyone share a common interest in providing a sustainable and robust eco-system that can support musicians and nurture their growth?  Such a system could offer a greater diversity in choices as to how, and what, we creative products we enjoy.  Why can’t the innovators in tech align with the innovators in music to offer the public and option where both sides profit?  Can’t we develop distribution methods that satisfy the consumer and the artist?  These aren’t goals that need be mutually exclusive.  Step one is valuing the musicians who make the music.

As for Saucy Monky?  Well, I’ll be making my donation to help ensure that there will be a Part 2 of Trophy Girl, but I won’t give up on the hope that someday in the near future, the band can just do what they do best–give up their full-time day jobs and their part-time work as fundraisers–and focus on making more music for everyone to enjoy.

Here’s their fundraising message in full:

Saucy Monky News May 2013 Hi Everyone!As you know, the music business days of huge record deals & publishing advances are long gone. Nowadays, bands & artists survive through the love of their fan base, their friends, and believers in their music, using fundraising sites such as Pledgemusic, Kickstarter and Gofundme.comWe are about to release Part 2 of our Trophy Girl Series, worldwide on June 25th! Once again, we had an amazing opportunity to make a (soon to be released) video for our new single “Do I have Your Attention?” with emerging filmmaker Justin Birquist from In Vitro Films! We need your help in raising funds to cover costs for the filming process, the mastering of the record, and once again, hiring our PR company to help us promote and market these amazing assets (of which we are so proud!).So we are back with more fun fundraising exclusives! Please considering purchasing one of them so we can hire a publicity team to promote our upcoming new release TROPHY GIRL Part 2.  Here’s a sample of what we have on offer:1. Karma $5 Donation For An Om Chant In Your Honor2. Saucy Monky will entertain you and your friends in your very own living room! 3. We will send you a lipstick kissed poster!4. We will sing Happy Birthday to your loved one on video.5. Buy an advance download of our EP before it’s released6. Annmarie and Cynthia will be your Tour Guides in LA8. Join Annmarie and Steve for a fun night in Vegas!! 9. Saucy Monky will record and produce your song. 10. Get a thank you credit on our Full Length release Click Here To Go Directly To Our Fundraising Site (and listen to a snippet of “DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION?”) Thanks to you guys and our fundraising campaign last year, we were able to finance an amazing video (“AWKWARD”) and release the first part of our Trophy Girl collection with the help of a few amazing publicists & PR companies. Boy, did it make a HUGE difference. “AWKWARD” now has 27,500 and counting views. This is an incredible achievement for an indie band on the rise. We have had reviews and write-ups in dozens of US publications, internet mags, and music sites abroad. Including the Advocate, NME, Glaad, Autostraddle, HotPress and many more. We even ended up on Playboy radio, and the Kato Kaelin show! Here are a few things you may or may not know about today’s music business. The convenience of Spotify and Pandora are incredible. We personally LOVE these sites. However, for our entire catalogue, which everyone can listen to for free – anytime, we get paid a few cents a month. Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face” garnered one million plays on Spotify and earned just $167! Thankfully, people still buy digital downloads on iTunes, but this new movement isn’t the best news for self-financed acts. We used to sell tons of hard copy CD’s on CDBaby.com. Now, no-one buys CD’s online anymore. Only at shows. And that leads to touring costs… bla bla bla. You get the picture. What we would love to do in return for any contribution, is give something back to you. We’d like to give you something for every penny we earn. All of the exclusives are listed on this site  and also on our website One of our favorite returns and options for contributions are HOUSE CONCERTS. You can get a glimpse of our set & what that might look & sound like here: Saucy Monky Acoustic Living Room Sessions If you have any ideas on what you’d like from Saucy Monky that aren’t listed (now keep it clean ), please feel free to e-mail us at info@saucymonky.com with your idea (this e-mail goes directly to the band). Also, if you plan on booking a house concert, please drop us a note first. We have increments ranging from $5-$5,000 and every cent goes a long way (as Mother Teresa said, “every drop makes the ocean”). If you buy a reward, we promise we won’t disappoint. All our love and gratitude for your ongoing support, xo Annmarie and Cynthia on behalf of Saucy Monky   Our Website  Facebook Youtube Twitter

Starting today, we’re launching a pilot program for a small group of partners that will offer paid channels on YouTube with subscription fees starting at $0.99 per month. Every channel has a 14-day free trial, and many offer discounted yearly rates. For example, Sesame Street will be offering full episodes on their paid channel when it launches. And UFC fans can see classic fights, like a full version of their first event from UFC’s new channel. You might run into more of these channels across YouTube, or look here for a list of pilot channels. Once you subscribe from a computer, you’ll be able to watch paid channels on your computer, phone, tablet and TV, and soon you’ll be able to subscribe to them from more devices.

While this announcement is potentially good news in that it offers content creators large and small new ways to monetize their work, unless YouTube purges pirates from the site, it’s is a business model that remains tainted.

I’ve written previously about the various ways YouTube enables (and reaps profit) from movie piracy.  With the latest announcement paid YouTube channels, I thought it worth looking at yet another example of their dirty laundry.   This time it’s an Argentina-based website that uses popular movie trailers on YouTube to attract customers to its online store selling bootleg DVDs and video games.

I came across the illegal site when I viewed a trailer the French indie film “Tomboy” uploaded to YouTube.  The user had uploaded a number of trailers to his YouTube channel and in the description for each, included a link to his illegal website.  To add insult to injury, the trailers featured not only a link to the bootleg site but included a its own splashy animated logo edited in.

Here’s the description translated from Spanish:

www.xtopsite.com where you can find the last extrenos on DVD
new http://www.xtopsite.com
Pre release movies 20000 retro releases and unpublished
4000 concerts in Argentina and worldwide with the best sound
1500 Complete TV series, so you can finish watching it so steep that you got
20000 MP3 bands and musicians to upload your best technology
20000 programs to make the impossible possible
20000 playstation xbox360 wii chipiadas for your consoles to play online against worldwide
shipments at home just as fast in 24 hours on market
The best prices, the best quality, over 15 years as leaders in the market $ 3. – C / u cd $ 5 – c / u dvd
Promo: if pedis 100 units or more makes you a discount of% 25. -
orders effected only by form: http://www.xtopsite.com

When I navigated to the website, I found this, a virtual storefront that looks legit enough, but isn’t. How could I tell? Well, the first clue was the DVD for the film “42″ which just recently appeared in theaters. ”42″ is not scheduled to be released on DVD until this summer, August 2013.

The movie “42″ will be released on DVD and Blu-ray in August of 2013.

This site also sells (bootleg) Xbox games, along with advice for finding cracked serial numbers online.

Here’s the specific advice (translated from Spanish):

Clearly these pirates are using YouTube as a means to advertise and drive traffic to their illicit business.  Since it’s based in Argentina, they can operate openly with little fear of closure  since the country is notoriously lax on piracy.  An article published on smartplanet.com sums it up pretty well:

Argentine websites and physical markets questioned for distributing pirated and counterfeit material shows how relaxed local attitudes are toward intellectual property. Students regularly buy photocopies of entire college texts rather than pay for the book, while several Buenos Aires parks fill on weekends with vendors openly selling pirated computer software.

Part of Argentina’s fertile culture of piracy is inspired by a belief that intellectual property rights can be sacrificed in the name of helping the poor and forgotten against large corporations; part is caused by Argentina’s lax enforcement of intellectual property laws; and the rest comes from the country’s isolating economic policies, where import restrictions and high import taxes make buying genuine foreign goods prohibitively expensive.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has placed Argentina on its “watch list” citing copyright infringement as one concern, “However, serious problems persist, including widespread availability of pirated and counterfeit goods, an inefficient judicial system, and a failure to adjudicate civil and criminal cases and impose deterrent level sentences…overall levels of copyright piracy continue to present a problem, as reflected, for example, in a reported growth in piracy over the Internet.”

So while the United States is concerned that Argentinian authorities inaction against IP theft and piracy, a U.S. based company like YouTube help them facilitate it without a problem? As a business that abides by U.S. law, should YouTube/Google do more to prevent an illegal enterprise from using their website to promote/distribute illegal goods?

According to YouTube’s own “Terms of Service”  (and I assume U.S. law) the company bears no responsibility in these situations:

The Service may contain links to third party websites that are not owned or controlled by YouTube. YouTube has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for, the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third party websites. In addition, YouTube will not and cannot censor or edit the content of any third-party site. By using the Service, you expressly relieve YouTube from any and all liability arising from your use of any third-party website.

In addition to their “Terms of Service” YouTube offers users a bit more guidance via their “Community Guidelines,” but here, the only reference discouraging “illegal” activities are “Dangerous Illegal Acts” like bomb making and sniper attacks.  Nothing about operating illegal bootleg/counterfeiting operations.

Is the situation any different with YouTube’s parent company Google?   Not really since Google’s terms of service follows the same murky (though apparently legal) path.

If the bootleg site is in Iran, Cuba or the Sudan, it seems Google may be forced to act, otherwise, despite lip-service that frowns on “dangerous and illegal” activities, linking to illegal businesses is A-OK.  If I’m interpreting the verbiage correctly,  bootlegging DVDs is not dangerous per se (which obviously it’s not), then the illegal part is moot.  Though Google terms state that users aren’t allowed to create websites, ” that have the primary purpose of redirecting visitors, acting as a bridge page, or driving traffic to another website” it appears that the company does little to stop this activity, at least on YouTube.

Commercial Activity

You may use Google Sites to create websites for your business or to promote your products or services, unless you are in Cuba, Iran, or Sudan. There are some commercial uses we don’t allow. We don’t allow websites that have the primary purpose of redirecting visitors, acting as a bridge page, or driving traffic to another website. We also don’t allow websites that have the primary purpose of profiting from displaying ads from any publisher network, such as sites created with little or no unique content and exist only to display ads.

Copyright

It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. More information about our copyright procedures can be found on this page: http://www.google.com/sites_dmca.html

Unlawful Use of Service

Our products and services should not be used for unlawful purposes or for promotion of dangerous and illegal activities [emphasis added]. Your account may be terminated and you may be reported to the appropriate authorities.

The U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (I.C.E.) has been seizing web domains as part of an ongoing effort to battle counterfeiting across the globe.  Perhaps its time to examine the mechanisms by which U.S. companies indirectly aid such criminal enterprises as well?  Why not engage some of our own companies in a discussions aimed at reducing their role in enabling these criminal activities?

On another front, why not enlist the YouTube community in helping to report these questionable sites?  YouTube has a system whereby users can flag material deemed to be in violation of “rules:”

Users report content that may violate YouTube’s rules by flagging it. YouTube’s rules are outlined in ourCommunity Guidelines. YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When a video is reviewed and determined to violate our Community Guidelines we remove it.

YouTube seems to have no problem allowing its users to flag innocuous kissing scenes from lesbian/gay tv shows and movies, why not give its “community” an easy way to flag material actually links to illegal content–content that does harm?  According to YouTube’s community guidelines:

We Enforce These Guidelines

Okay, this one is more about us than you. YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate our Community Guidelines. When they do, we remove them. Sometimes a video doesn’t violate our Community Guidelines, but may not be appropriate for everyone. These videos may be age-restricted. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination. If your account is terminated, you won’t be allowed to create any new accounts. For more information about how the Community Guidelines are enforced and the consequences of violating them, please visit the Help Center.

At present, it’s pretty much impossible notify YouTube about the illegal linking scenario I’ve described in this post because 1) it’s not a “dangerous and illegal act” 2) it doesn’t infringe “my rights.”  When I tried to flag the trailer and alert YouTube that this YouTube channel linked to a counterfeit site I was met with a form that required information (like an actual hyperlink to the law being infringed) and legal standing that I don’t posses.

Clearly YouTube doesn’t want to be deluged with false claims, but making an option available for users to report a legal issue that does not involve one’s own trademark or copyright would help.

There may be other technological ways to vet questionable links.  Google seems to achieve wonders with its search algorithms.  Why not utilize technology to ferret out links to dubious websites posted on their pages?  Google regularly labels sites as “compromised” on search results.  Of course, when it comes to others attempting to crackdown on criminal websites listed via their search engine Google likens this to an attack on “free speech.”

For now, it seems Google has no legal obligation to worry about its role in facilitating illegal activity like bootleg DVD sales.  After all, sharing links to infringing streams and downloads is allowed to fly under the radar, so is it any surprise other savvy pirates link to their sites selling bootlegged copies?  Moving forward, one can only hope Google representatives begin to acknowledge this problem and begin to develop efficient and thoughtful ways to deal with it.  If Google wants YouTube channels to become a legitimate and profitable means of distribution for content creators, why not get rid of those YouTube users whose activities undermine the livelihoods of these same creators YouTube is attempting to woo?

As part of his campaign to get out his (version of the) truth he’s published a “white paper” called “Megaupload the Copyright Lobby and the Future of Digital Rights.”   

In it he claims the case against him “represents one of the clearest examples of prosecutorial overreach in recent history.”  He takes particular aim at the White House, claiming his arrest was “propelled by the White House’s desire to mollify the motion picture industry in exchange for campaign contributions and political support.”

He goes on to claim that it’s a case of him and “digital rights advocates, technology innovators and ordinary information consumers on the one side, and Hollywood and the rest of the Copyright Lobby on the other.”  He characterizes his highly profitable pirate website as a wonderful public service, with piracy only a minor concern.

Megaupload operated for seven years as a successful cloud storage business that enabled tens of millions of users around the world to upload and download content of the users’ own choosing and initiative. The spectrum of content ran from (to name just a few) family photos, artistic designs, business archives, academic coursework, legitimately purchased files, videos and music, and – as with any other cloud storage service – some potentially infringing material. [emphasis added]

How about some real truth about Megaupload?  Until its  takedown in January of 2012 it was the largest and most profitable repository of pirated content in the world. Contrary to claims made in his “white paper” Dotcom’s business model was dependent on content theft to drive traffic to, and generate income for, the site.  The pirated content on Megaupload included music, movies, e-books and more–and represented the creative work of artists, filmmakers, authors and musicians across the spectrum.

For Kim Dotcom it’s easy to create propaganda that points to the big, bad MPAA or RIAA as the enemy…after all they are in the business of making money right?  Well, the fact is, so is Mr. Dotcom and, unlike Hollywood, he doesn’t play by the rules.  Why invest in content (and employ thousands to make it) if you can just steal it?

As an independent filmmaker I’ve had plenty of opportunities to witness first hand the piracy supported by Mr. Dotcom’s illegal enterprise, and it wasn’t pretty.  Our film, like thousands of others, was easy to find on Megaupload as a free download or streaming in HD, complete with subtitles in various languages.  Meanwhile it could be also be streamed or downloaded (with subtitled versions) on legit sites like iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Busk Films and others portals worldwide.

The difference between these legit online distributors and Dotcom’s Megaupload was that we earned income from our film’s distribution on the legit sites while it was Mr. Dotcom (and his uploading minions) that profited from our film on Megaupload.  For indie filmmakers like us who don’t have theatrical releases, back-end distribution is the only way to recoup expenses.  Megaupload’s pirated offerings forced filmmakers like us and other content creators to compete against FREE versions of their own creations.  How crazy is that?

Despite his splashy spin minimizing the amount of “infringing material” disseminated through Megaupload (and Megavideo), the fact is that without stolen content, he would not be the “Mega” millionaire he is today.

How did the illicit Megaupload business model become a profit machine?  Well, it’s helpful to think of a company like Amway.   Amway’s business success popularized the multi-level marketing style pyramid business model (or scheme ) whereby the operators at the top of the pyramid recruit people to work for them.  They, in turn, recruit more workers who, in turn, sell products to the public.  Those at the top make money only if they can recruit, and keep, enough people below to do the actual work.  Those doing the bulk of the work earn money, but at a much lower rate than those at the top.  It’s the trickle up theory of profits.

Megaupload’s business was predicated on offering enticements to users (uploaders) to join this type of piracy-4-profit pyramid. This approach was essential to maximizing the number of visitors to the site.  Another essential part of this equation was making sure the UCG (user generated content) that would attract eyeballs.  Sorry, but your ” family photos, artistic designs, business archives” wouldn’t do the trick.  No what better UGC carrots than popular movies, books or music?  Dotcom didn’t seem too worried about copyright thanks to the “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA that allow UGC sites to easily look the other way (plead ignorance) when it came to vetting infringing content.

In order to set this eco-system into motion, Megaupload lured its worker bees.   Simply put, the more downloads users generated for each file, the more money/rewards they earned.  These rewards precipitated the next, and most insidious stage of piracy—the viral spread of infringing links.  With dollar signs in their eyes, Megaupload’s affiliate armies took their links and posted them on web Warez forums far and wide.  The more Megaupload links they “shared” across the web, the more money they made.

Pirate forum search results for new indie film showing more than 300 posts “sharing” download links.

In other words, Megaupload created, and was dependent on, an army of affiliates to do the dirty work for them.  The scenario enabled Megaupload (and dozens of cyberlockers modeled after them) to shield themselves from legal liability, while their servers were simultaneously receiving thousands of (stolen) files every day–fresh content sure to attract new (and returning) customers.

Though the site claimed to respond to takedown requests, Megaupload was in fact playing a shell game, by not removing the actual infringing files and instead generating fresh links to replace those removed via the DMCA process. When Megaupload was first taken down in 2012 I wrote a blog post about this and put together a short video demonstrating how this worked (below).

Megaupload Unmasked from fastgirlfilms on Vimeo.

It’s also important to remember the impact Megaupload’s business model had on encouraging and sustaining piracy profiteering across the web.  It’s takedown marked a significant turning point in the fight against online piracy profiteering. As I wrote in an earlier post in response to the launch of Kim Dotcom’s new site Mega:

…when U.S. law enforcement took his popular Megaupload offline a year ago, it  marked a significant  turning point in the battle against online piracy.   Since then real progress has been made.   Copy-cat sites that modeled the success of Dotcom’s business model closed their doors.  At the same time, more options for timely and legitimate online distribution of movies and music emerged–options both profitable for creators and affordable for consumers. Advertisers and payment processors have also stopped partnering with some remaining pirate cyberlocker sites, diminishing their profits and popularity.  Other companies, such as Google, have also had to address their role in aiding, abetting and profiting from piracy.  Overall, the lure of online piracy as a cottage industry has been greatly diminished.

Kim Dotcom is not Robin Hood and he’s not a hero.  He’s a (wealthy) thief who, thanks to technical know-how and a black market business acumen, was able to exploit the work of content creators across the globe for his own, personal gain.  Dotcom’s lies cloaked as “truth” may gain him sympathy from his acolytes, but it won’t change the fact that stealing from others isn’t sharing, it’s theft.

Theft is a big problem. I know this is a really controversial subject, but for people who think everything on the internet should just be totally free all I can say is, good luck. When you try to have a life and raise a family living off something you create…

There’s a great quote from Steve Jobs:

“From the earliest days of Apple I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software we’d be out of business. If it weren’t protected there’d be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs. If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear creative companies will disappear or never get started. But there’s a simpler reason: It’s wrong to steal. It hurts other people, and it hurts your own character”.

I agree with him. I think that what people go to the movies for has changed since 9/11. I still think the country is in some form of PTSD about that event, and that we haven’t really healed in any sort of complete way, and that people are, as a result, looking more toward escapist entertainment. And look, I get it. There’s a very good argument to be made that only somebody who has it really good would want to make a movie that makes you feel really bad. People are working longer hours for less money these days, and maybe when they get in a movie, they want a break. I get it.

But let’s sex this up with some more numbers. In 2003, 455 films were released. 275 of those were independent, 180 were studio films. Last year 677 films were released. So you’re not imagining things, there are a lot of movies that open every weekend. 549 of those were independent, 128 were studio films. So, a 100% increase in independent films, and a 28% drop in studio films, and yet, ten years ago: Studio market share 69%, last year 76%. You’ve got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you’ve got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie. That’s hard. That’s really hard.

You can find the transcript of his entire address here or listen to it or watch below:

State of Cinema: Steven Soderbergh from San Francisco Film Society on Vimeo.

Ads and piracy go hand in hand.  It’s how pirate sites make money.  Ads appearing on such sites run the gamut from Progressive Car Insurance to online sex chat, but more often that not it seems, I’m greeted by an advertisement for MacKeeper.

MacKeeper ad pops up on an illegal download.

Had these ads been an isolated incident, it wouldn’t bother me.  Unfortunately as far as MacKeeper goes, it’s not limited to an ad or two here and there.  In fact, if you were to asking me the most common advertisement that pops up to fill my computer screen via pirate downloads, it’s MacKeeper.  Below are just a few examples that I’ve recently come across after clicking an illegal download link that I was investigating.

MacKeeper’s advertising methods have generated controversy in the past, not because of the fact the company seems happy to partner with pirates, but because of their ubiquity.  According to a story published on Cult of Mac, the software itself isn’t particularly popular among Mac aficionados for this reason.  The company’s PR director Jeremiah Fowler explained their approach to advertising  to the Cult of Mac’s Leander Kahney this way:

Legitimate Mac Users who are annoyed or tired of our advertising campaigns or partner’s campaigns. Do we advertise? Yes! Do we advertise aggressively, I would not like to use that term but we do have a massive advertising presence online! [emphasis added] We have had 15,000,000 downloads of MacKeeper and have a less than 3% refund rate. The reality is that many people are truly happy with the product even if they hate the advertising (and unfortunately some do). The bad part is some people take their hatred for advertising to a level where they dedicate hours of their lives to making MacKeeper a “Forum Punching Bag”… In a perfect world there would be no advertisements on radio, TV, billboards or the internet, but this is not a reality. As long as there are ads, there will be people who hate them.

We believe that we have a great product and we want people to know about it and the only way to do this is to explore every medium of advertisement. [emphasis added] It is like investing everything in to a great restaurant and hiring the best chefs, buying the best food only to hide the location somewhere in the woods and then tell no one about it. Then wondering why no one comes to your restaurant? We are discussing phasing out our ads and trying to please the vocal minority, but we realize that pleasing everyone is impossible.

It’s not the ads or the product that I mind, it’s where their ads appear.   Given the fact the MacKeeper ads pop-up more often than not on pirate downloads, I think it’s safe to generalize and say they must send a great deal of money the pirates way.  As Mr. Fowler made clear in his conversation with Cult of Mac, the company views its advertising methods as good business.  Never mind, it seems, who they are doing business with.

I attempted to reac Zeobit for comment, but as is usually the case with Silicon Valley tech companies, transparency is not  part of their business plan.  (Updated 4-24-13 in blue) Following the publication of this blog post, I did actually receive an email from Jeremiah Fowler (quoted above).  His response included the following:

As you know we are a software company and illegal software pirating is one of the biggest threats to our livelihood and that of our entire industry. Software is vulnerable in the very same ways that an artist or musician would be impacted. It is a fact that when no one buys a movie, album or software application, there will be no money to invest in future projects or research and development. You can quote me when I say In straight terms “we do not support illegal downloading and we think that it sucks”. 

These pirate websites are actually partnered with major Ad Networks and Media Buying Agencies and not MacKeeper. We purchase only impressions or click units and the Ad / Media companies dictate on what websites where they will appear and how often they appear on millions of basically nameless websites across their network. The only reason you personally see so many of our ads is because we buy ads that target only your operating system and nothing more. These guys can only filter ads between Mac or PC and very little else. We advertise on a relatively large scale with the biggest networks to make sure that people actually do buy our software and we do not partner with these sites where people will not buy anything anyway because the whole reason they are on that particular site is to steal. It is a total waste of money for our ads to even be displayed on these channels, but that is also why you see ads for insurance and other random things because these companies just have millions of sites in their network and throw ads based on purchased space or clicks. The flaw is in the terms and conditions of what type of sites these ad networks will allow for the delivery or their customer’s ads. As far as being against illegal downloading we are actually on the same team.

 

While I understand full well that MacKeeper is a software company and that software is as vulnerable to piracy as are other forms of digital content, I find little satisfaction in his explanation as to why the ads so often pop-up on pirate websites.  I in fact do use a Mac and ironically actually OWN the MacKeeper software.  I’m well aware that today’s browsers can identify one’s operating system (as well as one’s web history), otherwise it’s likely I would see ads for their PC product.  

However, the fact that browsers are smart and “Ad Networks and Media Buying Agencies” partner with these sites, does not absolve Zeobit (or any advertiser) from responsibility in when it comes to the issue of brand-supported piracy.  It’s easy to blame the messenger, but why aren’t these companies demanding more oversight on behalf of ad servers?  Certainly Zeobit is not the first company to employ the “we can’t control where our ads appear” excuse.  I’m asking why not?  

As I told Mr. Fowler in my response to him, when companies advertise in print publications, they are acutely aware of where their ads are placed and what editorial content appears next to them.  When it comes to the internet, however, these same companies seem content to participate in an online free-for-all where the goal of saturating web visitors with ads for their products–no matter what site the ads are linked to.  I must point out one obvious exception to this–somehow these ad servers do avoid porn sites, so their must be some vetting/filtering going on at some level.  Why can’t this happen for sites that are engaged in promoting (illegal) downloading?  If companies that pay for advertising are against online piracy, why not withhold their business from ad servers that do “partner” with such sites?

Ironically, the company touts its belief in “social responsibility” on its website’s front page.  It seems that their view of “social responsibility” does not extend to creator’s rights.  It’s shameful that the company doesn’t take action to prevent their ads from subsidizing what is, essentially, illegal activity.

For the record, Zeobit receives an A- on the Better Business Bureau’s review website.  From my perspective, the company should receive an F when it comes advertising accountability.  Per usual, profits trump ethics.

As Google has grown to dominate internet search and online advertising, the company has repeatedly lobbied against legislative efforts to protect copyright owners from piracy in the name of keeping the internet “open” and “free” from censorship.  During the debate over SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) the company led the astroturf charge against the proposed bill saying:

Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet. So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our US home page.

The company even went so far as to obscure it’s search logo with a dramatic swath of black and provided a link so that visitors could “tell Congress not to censor the web.”  

Despite the hyperbole, many of those who create content for a living understood that Google’s campaign was not born out of a desire to protect the greater good, but rather to protect it’s massive online advertising profits that risked being diminished should illicit websites be subject to takedown.  During the SOPA hysteria Google played puppeteer in orchestrating the movements of not-so-grassroots campaign to defeat the legislation.  Sadly, few who opposed SOPA took the time to understand Google’s role in encouraging and sustaining online piracy  (along with other nefarious online sites offering counterfeit products and pharmaceuticals) and, while the bill had its flaws, thanks to Google and other tech-driven memes,  there was little interest in building consensus about how to effectively and reasonably attack the growing problem of online theft.

As was pointed out by Scott Cleland in a Forbes piece, for Google, organizing opposition to SOPA was a business decision, pure and simple:

Google led,  orchestrated, politically-framed and set the political tone for much of the Web’s opposition to pending anti-piracy legislation, SOPA/PIPA, because rule of law and effective enforcement of property rights online represent a clear and present danger to Google’s anti-property-rights mission, open philosophy, business model, innovation approach, competitive strategy, and culture.

So, today, when I read this account in Wired.com about Google’s insistence that those who purchase a Google Glass (“Explorer” edition) be prevented from selling, loaning, or transferring them to another person, I had to laugh.  Let me get this straight, when it comes to creative content online (including pirated material)–it’s fine to sell, loan or “transfer” it to another (and make money by doing so thanks to Google’s AdSense) but if I want to sell or loan my  Google Glass to my pal, I can’t????  Hmmmm….crazy, but apparently true according to the Terms of Services  published by Google.

According to the LA Times:

Google says that these terms are specifically for the early version of Glass, so they may change by the time the device goes on sale to the general public. But for now, Google says it simply wants the first users to use the device, not anyone else.

So, it’s OK for Google to decide what happens to their products, but it’s not OK for creative artists to decide what happens to theirs?  Guess what’s good for the Creative Goose ain’t OK for the Google Gander.  In both instances what seems only to matter is Google’s bottom line.  No surprise really, but their hypocrisy is truly a sight to behold.

Google’s philosophy is one of openness, or so they claim on their blog:

At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important.

I guess their belief in “open systems” doesn’t apply to tangible goods.  When it comes to property rights, Google’s approach is indeed “subjective.”

Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Product Management who wrote the post goes on to add:

So if you are trying to grow an entire industry as broadly as possible, open systems trump closed. And that is exactly what we are trying to do with the Internet. Our commitment to open systems is not altruistic. Rather it’s good business, since an open Internet creates a steady stream of innovations that attracts users and usage and grows the entire industry.

And here’s the kicker:

Finally, we must always give control to the user. If we have information about a user, as with IBA, it should be easy for the user to delete that information and opt-out. If they use our products and store content with us, it’s their content, not ours.[emphasis added] They should be able to export it or delete it at any time, at no cost, and as easily as possible. Gmail is a great example of this since we offer free forwarding to any address. The ability to switch is critical, so instead of building walls around your product, build bridges. Give users real options.

Yeah right, give users “real options” except when it comes to selling or sharing their super-cool, nifty (and expensive) Google Glass.  I’d be fine with Google  dictating licensing terms for their products, if only they were fine with me doing the same.  Hypocrisy, thy name is Google.

In the past I’ve written about the popularity of Google’s blogger platform  among pirate entrepreneurs because it offers both an easy (and free) way to distribute stolen movies and make money via online ads.  How does Facebook fit into this equation?  Well, just as legit businesses use Facebook to gain customers, pirate profiteers around the world also utilize its popularity to attract users to their illegal websites.  Check out any pirate site on blogspot.com, or anywhere else on the web for that matter,  and you’re likely to find a link to the site’s Facebook pages (as well as other social networking sites like Twitter).

The Facebook page (shown below) for the FilmesYouTube site (shown above) boasts more than 166k “likes.”  The Facebook page sends visitors to the pirate website, and also features numerous posts which link directly to easy-to-use, active streams and download links for a variety of popular movies.

Facebook links directly to full stream of pirated movie starring Tom Cruise.

Depending on one’s preference, one can either watch the movie online or download a copy.   Either way it’s free–the only inconvenience being a pop-up ad or two.

Facebook links to full stream (and download links) to GI Joe.

In this example, it appears that this Facebook pirate has also been busy creating multiple websites that also link to mirrored Facebook pages.  If one notes the “likes” listed on this page, you’ll find links to several other “free” movie sites setup in a similar fashion.  This redundancy may be in part due to concerns that one or more of these pirate sites could go offline.  However, given the fact this particular page boasts 166K “likes” it appears this fan page has been active for some time.

The common thread between the Facebook pages and the pirate websites is that both generate income from advertisements.  The more visitors, the more money for Facebook and, in turn, the more traffic to the pirate sites which,in turn, generates more ad profits for the online pirate entrepreneur.  Who’s left out of this equation?-the content creator of course.

When I viewed the above page it featured “sponsored ads” promoting Capitol One and Discover credit cards, along with political PACS and Ancestry.com.   Do these entities realize that the sponsored advertising they’re paying Facebook for appear adjacent to pirate links to bootleg, illegal movie downloads?  I doubt it.

As for advertising on the actual pirate web site (which translates into motive and money for the pirate) I found ads for Amazon.com and others served up by the Ad Council, a U.S. based non-profit whose mission is to “deliver critical messages to the American public.”  

Perhaps the time has come for the Ad Council to add anti-piracy messages to their slate of “critical” messages for the American public?

Like Google, Facebook offers rights holders the opportunity to send DMCA takedown requests to have these illegal links removed.  Unfortunately, Facebook mirrors Google in another way–when it comes to DMCA notices, usually only individual posts are removed, not the infringing page.

It’s been my experience that when I’ve reported infringing content to Facebook via a DMCA only the  post with the pirate link is removed.  The Facebook page, with dozens more pirated offerings, remains online. I can understand if only a single link is reported, but what about a site that’s repeatedly reported for copyright infringement?  From what I’ve seen such sites generally remain online.  If it’s obvious that the page is dedicated to promoting pirated content, why leave it online?

I’ve asked Google this same question, if a site is reported for promoting infringing (illegal) downloads why not remove it?  Surely Facebook has the staff to investigate and determine whether a site exists purely to traffic in stolen content.  If not, why not?  Why is it OK for a company with the reach and financial resources of Facebook to look the other way?  Their censors often seem all to eager to remove photos of breastfeeding mothers or LGBT advertising.  Why not go after pages that are trafficking in illegal content?

I’ve tried to contact Facebook to ask for clarity on the criteria, if any, they have for removing pages and will update this post if I should receive a response.  Given my past experiences with inquiries to Facebook, I’m not optimistic that I’ll hear back anytime soon. The “community standards” that define what type of “expression is acceptable” is conveniently vague when it comes to copyright and intellectual property:

Before sharing content on Facebook, please be sure you have the right to do so. We ask that you respect copyrights, trademarks, and other legal rights.

Facebook is careful to point out, however that the decision as to whether to remove content reported for violating their terms is entirely up to them.

The link between piracy’s advertising profits and those of so-called legit entities like Google (including YouTube, AdSense, Blogger & search) and the corporations they service ads for has been well-documented so that fact that Facebook is a part of this web of illicit profit is no real surprise.  However, it’s worth asking once again, why isn’t something being done?

The notorious Pirate site Movies2k even boasts it’s own Facebook page.

How is that mainstream tech companies like Google and Facebook–and those who pay to advertise with their networks–continue to look the other way and ignore their role in providing both a motive, and a means,  for this illegal activity to occur?  The obvious answer is that profit trumps morality when it’s a matter of making millions.  In this era, and until the law adapts, there’s little to no risk in skirting U.S. law in order to maintain their cash cows. Clearly the fact that this is tainted revenue doesn’t matter to these companies or their stockholders.  With the amount of lobbying muscle they’re displaying in Washington these days, things appear unlikely to change any time soon.

Updated (4-16-13) to add the response I received from Facebook.  Just as I suspected, nothing but boilerplate verbiage.  Here it is:

Facebook may “stand ready” to respond, but in my experience, they don’t do much else.

As part of its transparency policy, Google publishes every takedown notice it receives from either copyright holders or government bodies. As TorrentFreak has pointed out, that means Google has built up a pretty huge database of pirated material, which effectively undoes the point of a takedown notice — to make copyrighted material harder to find. Now companies such as 20th Century Fox and Microsoft want Google to take down their own takedown notices.

What exactly is the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse and more importantly, WHO actually funds them?  It’s important to understand that the clearinghouse is actually tied to the web of the Google machine.    If you look at the sites “about” page, you’ll find the following:

The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a unique collaboration among law school clinics and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Conceived and developed at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society by Berkman Fellow Wendy Seltzer, the project is now supported by clinical programs at Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics, and the EFF.

Google provides funding to the The Berkman Center and it’s various enterprises (including Chilling Effects).  Fact is, this operation isn’t exactly the unbiased public interest clearing house is purports to be and its “cease and desist” database is routinely used by Google in a manner clearly designed to discourage rights holders from sending DMCA takedown notices.

At any rate, I first came across the Chilling Effects website in 2010 when I began sending (lots of) DMCA takedown notices to Google requesting the removal of pirated copies of our film from Blogger hosted websites and pirate sites with our film that featured Google AdSense ads.  Given the current news, I thought it worth re-posting a piece I wrote for my popuppirates.com site that discusses whose rights really gets “chilled” by the Google-Chilling Effects merry-go-round.

Re-blogged from popuppirates.com:

Chilling Effects Website

If you send a DMCA notice to Google to report pirated content you’re likely to receive an email response that includes a stern warning (see example below) that a copy of your DMCA notice will be forwarded to the Chilling Efffects Clearinghouse for publication on their website.  Why?  Well, according to the C.E.C. they maintain a “Cease and Desist” database in order to document what they refer  as “the chill.” According to their website, this is done because “Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users.”

Apparently those operating the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse see no need to differentiate  between the illegal activities of “online pirates” from those of legitimate “online users”

For Google, these emails are clearly an ill-conceived attempt to intimidate those whose rights have actually been infringed.  As I mentioned earlier in my blog, it’s ironic that the only thing being “chilled” in this scenario is the legitimate right of content creators to earn a living through their work.

Email re: Chilling Effects

Apparently our complaint was legitimate, despite being posted on the C.E.C. website.

Examples of our Fast Girl Films DMCA notices sent to Google ending up on the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse website.

For the record, the DMCA notices (above) led to the infringing content being removed.  Here’s what the reported pages looks like now….

Blogger site with content removed due to copyright infringement.

As it turns out, each and every one of our DMCA complaints to Google (posted on C.E. C.) have been legitimate and legal.   And so it goes….