Web “security” provider Sucuri helps online pirates cloak criminal activities
As piracy has evolved and enforcement efforts increase, pirate entrepreneurs have been forced to set up shop in far offshore to avoid the long arm of U.S. law. What’s troubling is how U.S. companies help them evade the law by providing cover for their illegal piracy business while at the same time pocketing their own dirty profits in the process.
Follow along as I take an obstacle course–the type creators face every day trying to protect their work–to see the way U.S. companies–in this case GoDaddy owned Sucuri–help criminals cloak their activities and keep their illegal sites operating smoothly.
Start the hunt with Google Search
While Google claims to have cleaned up its act, the reality is that with a single search I quickly found a website featuring a cache of pirated movies. It wasn’t difficult.
No surprise, the 2nd Google result led directly to a site offering a cornucopia of pirated popular lesbian-themed films and television shows, both Hollywood and indie fare.
I chose an indie feature and with a click began my journey through the maze to uncover where the stream for the stolen movie was actually hosted.
Finding the actual source code is a huge pain….I was forced to click through a series of popup ads–after all, that’s how these online pirates make money. Finally, I used Firefox’s web developer tools to scan through the source code as the movie streamed and eventually uncovered the pirate link I was looking for.
When I clicked that link, I ended up at the actual full stream for the film.
You find the source. Now what?
Turns out the file is hosted on site called “gounlimited.to” but isn’t much help. As I discovered, and Torrent Freak has previously noted, this particular pirate website brags that it ignores the DMCA. and uses that fact as a selling point. Per Torrent Freak, this isn’t the operators only rodeo either, “Faced with a lack of stable ‘takedown resistant’ hosting providers to stream videos from, Bader decided to start one of his own, GO Unlimited.”
Of course, like all piracy sites, this operation is in the business of making money off stolen goods so its content is populated thanks to minions worldwide enticed by a cash rewards with payouts based on the number of eyeballs each illegal upload attracts. It’s the typical cyberlocker scenario. For the record, I will also be contacting PayPal to ask why they remain affiliated with this criminal operation, but I digress….
Since Go Unlimited brags about ignoring the DMCA and offers no contact information, the next step is to investigate registrar and host. The .to domain is popular among shady sites for a reason and information isn’t listed in the typical WHOIS database. The .to domain offers its own search, but offers little in the way of actual information. The registrar cares little about criminal enterprises.
What next? Turns out a U.S. based company, GoDaddy’s Sucuri is listed as the IP provider. Sucuri does business with a pirate website, but explains that its not responsible in its disclaimer (poor spelling aside) this way:
The Sucuri Firewall is a passthrough proxy WAF & CDN service. Sites using our service will point their DNS records at Sucuri IP’s, but all content is actualy (sic) hosted outside of the Sucuri network.
The excuse that they don’t “host” the content is a bit weak considering that the pirated data does flow through Securi servers on their way to the end user. Essentially the excuse goes like this, “We only provide the ingredients used to bake the cake, not the finished cake.”Pretty lame excuse. While perhaps legal, it certainly doesn’t seem moral. The question is, WHY do we allow U.S. companies to do business with sites that ignore U.S. copyright law?
In a further insult, Sucuri lists publisher Harper Collins as one of its customers. Ironic that Sucuri PR folks see no conflict of interest in servicing a piracy operator aside one of its potential victims. (Note book publishers and authors are suffering mightily due to e-book piracy).
So what’s the solution? Once again the DMCA needs to be updated for the 21st century. I’ve written about this issue extensively in the past, and you can read those thoughts here. Clearly, third parties who are knowingly complicit providing infrastructure for criminal enterprises need to be held to greater account when a client ignores the law.
Once again a possible path forward can be found by looking at the European Union. Last month a court in Italy ruled against Cloudflare, ordering the company to cease doing business with an illicit website.
The courts used the EU’s Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, to justify its judgement against Cloudflare. The law cited provides a legal “framework” for electronic commerce. It’s time for U.S. lawmakers to enact similar safeguards for U.S. creators. Participating as a for profit player in the piracy ecosystem should not be a legal business model in the United States.
It’s been more than 7 years since cyberlocker piracy king Kim Dotcom was indicted for copyright infringement by U.S. authorities. He’s fought extradition from New Zealand tooth and nail, but earlier this month his final appeal was denied. Whether he ends up in a U.S. jail will apparently be determined by New Zealand’s Minister of Justice.
In the meantime, MEGA, founded in in 2013 to replace his shuttered Megaupload.com, is till in business and continues to host infringing conent uploaded by online pirates everywhere. The company is supposedly worth $210 million and, while Dotcom himself claims no direct involvement, conveniently his wife remains a primary shareholder. It’s a murky and twisted enterprise–but is that really a surprise?
In June, the site averaged 12 million visitors per day and it’s a safe bet most weren’t there for legit reasons. Aside from piracy, much of the traffic appears porn related. Visitors from Brazil, Mexico and the United States lead the pack.
Easy to find, watch and download pirated movies, music and books on MEGA
From the start, Kim Dotcom has claimed MEGA is perfectly legal. Supposedly, since the files are encrypted end to end, operators can claim ignorance as to what exactly is being shared. However, it’s not the truth. I easily found, and was able to view, pirated movies without a so-called encryption key. No account required.
Via link posted on Twitter I viewed Bird Box on MEGA without encryption key.
If one does want to actually download the files all that’s required is a free account and installing an app….easy as setting up an account on Netflix.
Google, YouTube, Facebook & Twitter help spread pirated content
In order draw traffic to the site, MEGA users depend on the usual intermediaries like Google, YouTube and Facebook to spread (illegal) links. Today, in the process of writing this post, I did a quick search for the recent hit Captain Marvel. Within seconds–thanks to Google and Facebook–I found a pirated copy hosted by Mega.
From Google to Facebook to a full stream of Captain Marvel
Viewing other content, like HBO’s hit “Big, Little Lies” or, as mentioned above, Netflix’s “Bird Box” (thanks Twitter), were also only a couple clicks away.
In addition, I quickly discovered episodes of the BBC/HBO production “Gentleman Jack” (via YouTube) and historian Anne Choma’s audible companion book (which I reported publisher and thankfully it’s been removed).
Link pirated episode on Mega found via YouTube
The full episode of Gentleman Jack can be screened simply by clicking the MEGA link found in the YouTube description. Piracy made easy.
In yet another example, thanks to Twitter I found a link that offered me season one of the subscription TV series “Vida” streaming on MEGA without any key required. No matter what anyone says, MEGA seamlessly offers tons of pirated content.
First season of Vida on MEGA available to stream for free
Of course, per usual, it’s not just Hollywood blockbusters and HBO fare that continue to be victimized. Independent creators, particularly those without deep pockets for anti-piracy defenses, also lose precious income to online thieves enabled by MEGA.
Why do people bother to pirate? As always, the incentive is the money they earn from ads. Pirates upload content to MEGA, post links on places like Twitter or Facebook and cash in when users click through ads on an intermediary site in order to get to view the actual link. I’ve been writing about this business model for nearly a decade and sadly, little seems to have changed.
It remains to be seen whether Kim Dotcom ends up behind bars in the U.S.–but no matter his fate, there’s little doubt that the online piracy eco-system he helped build continues to flourish, creators rights be damned. The role played by intermediaries like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter in the U.S. cannot be ignored either.
YouTube users claim Fair Use as a defense for uploading full copies of pirated movies
There was a lot of talk about fair use and takedown abuse at last week’s U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 roundtables in San Francisco. Many of those who spoke, bemoaned how poor, innocent uploaders were victimized, time after time, by malicious DMCA takedowns.
It’s a tried and true talking point, convenient, but disingenuous all the same. Some of us, myself included, tried to make the point that creators, whose work is routinely (and massively stolen), are often (doubly) victimized bymalicious fair use claims.
I thought I’d share an example of this that occurred just this week on YouTube. On Tuesday a full-copy of the Swedish indie film “Kyss Mig” (all 147 minutes of it) was uploaded to YouTube by a user aptly named “Free Movies.” As an added flourish, the user-name included the notation, “free movies bitches.”
In this instance YouTube’s Content ID system worked as intended. The Content ID user (an indie film distributor) had set the system to block uploads of a certain length in its territories. Even though the video was a full, pirated copy of the film, it wasn’t taken down, it was simply blocked. So far, so good right?
Wrong…This YouTube user didn’t seem to think the rights holder had the right to block the full, infringing copy and promptly disputed the block. S/he stated the reason as being:
Approval from copyright Holder is not required. It is fair use under copyright Law.
The user also added a note: “I don’t need to explain.” Clearly Free Movies didn’t bother to read YouTube’s information on disputing a claim or its explainer on fair use.
Despite all the testimony at last week’s roundtable about fair use–and how copyright holders seek out to punish those who claim it using malicious takedowns–it’s worth pointing out, yet again, that for every legit “fair use” claim, there are also false, and rather malicious, abuses of that defense. It’s a fact conveniently overlooked by the anti-copyright apologists.
Bogus “fair use” claim on YouTube
Take a gander below at the actual screen caps documenting this bogus “fair use” claim. Hopefully, officials considering DMCA reforms will acknowledge that creators can be twice victimized by abusive fair use claims.
I did in fact “reinstate” the claim (on behalf of the indie distributor I work for) so we’ll have to wait and see if this user goes on to file a counter-notice. If s/he does so, the film, in its entirety, will return to YouTube even though it’s CLEARLY infringing because we don’t have the financial resources to enforce the removal in federal court.
I’ve had the same thing happen after full pirated copies of our film were uploaded to YouTube. For creators trying to protect their work it’s a lose, lose…Perhaps YouTube should require it’s users to review “fair use” and “copyright” before they are allowed to uploaded content of a certain length? Why should creators be twice victimized while uploaders walk away unscathed?
The threat of malware could turn people away from piracy
Last week the Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA)* released a study that found websites offering free, pirated content were rife with malware. According to the report, 33% of content theft sites exposed users to malware. Every month 12 million U.S. visitors to these sites open themselves up to the theft of personal data, or worse.
To assess the impact that this malware threat might have on American’s web surfing habits the DCA conducted two surveys on December 10-13.
The first examined behavior and opinions of 1,000 Americans, while the second focused on 500 Americans aged 18-29 (an age group more likely to partake in piracy). The main takeaway–once people realize malware is a threat–is that respondents would be much less likely to visit these sites.
Fifty-three percent of Americans aged 18-29 acknowledge having visited content theft sites, nearly three times as much as the overall population.
Seventy percent said that they knew these websites illegally offered content, while 13 percent said they knew it was “wrong” but weren’t sure if it was illegal or not.
Sixty-three percent said that if visiting these content theft websites exposed them to malware they would steer clear of them in the future.
Figures for all age groups show an even great aversion to the malware risk with 82% reporting they’d steer clear of such websites. This, coupled with the growing influence (and traffic) of legit streaming sites like Netflix give some cause for optimism in the ongoing battle against online pirate profiteers. Below are more results from the survey.
*Disclosure-I’m a member of the Digital Citizens Alliance Advisory Board
Piracy erodes audience options-forces studios to make fewer films
The movie industry makes record profits so piracy doesn’t matter after all.…that’s the gist of many headlines following MPAA Chief Chris Dodd’s recent speech at Cinemacon’s Las Vegas convention last week where he said, “the state of our industry has never been stronger.” We’ve seen this phenomenon before. Positive news about record global box office revenue is twisted into justification for the pro-piracy mantra that piracy doesn’t hurt filmmakers.
These rosy 2015 box office figures were first announced in January. Then, as with now, piracy apologists pounced on the message as proof piracy doesn’t negatively impact the movie industry. Even those writing about it took note of the repetitive nature of their particular meme as Techdirt’s Mike Masnick noted in a January post:
We seem to end up posting stories like this every year, but it just keeps on happening. Hollywood whines and whines and whines about how piracy is killing the movie business… and then announces yet another record year at the box office.
The idea that record profits prove piracy doesn’t matter both simplistic and naive. Sure, Hollywood (and studios throughout the world) are making movies….big movies, blockbuster movies, superhero movies, sequels galore…remakes of movies that have already been made. Such fare performs well at the box office. However, if one drills deeper, beyond the totals, it’s easy to find proof that online piracy is corroding filmmaking in a way that undermines both consumers and creators.
Piracy diminishes both the number–and diversity– of films being made, both inside and outside Hollywood.
While (most) Hollywood studios did make a lot of money in 2015, the truth conveniently omitted from the post in Torrent Freak is that they did so by producing fewer films. After all, the studios are in the business of making money for their shareholders and to that end–in this age of unchecked piracy–fewer chances can be taken on movies that won’t draw huge crowds. The Hollywood films that are being made are those that are sure bets to overcome digital theft and still make money.In 2015, the top 5 films made 20% of the revenue.
Evidence of the less is more trend is everywhere. Earlier this month it was reported that Warner Brothers would produce fewer films, focusing instead on “tentpole” productions. According to a recent story in The Hollywood Reporter:
Warners long has been known for its commitment to filmmaker- and star-driven projects, but sources see signs of a change in culture, though the studio denies there is one. Several executives and agents say Warners seems to be greenlighting fewer homegrown movies as it focuses on silos that echo those that generate so many hits for Disney (Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar and Disney Animation). In Warners’ case, the silos are DC Comics, Lego and a planned franchise spun off from the Harry Potter series.
In March, Variety reported on a report “Another Memo to Hollywood. Prediction? Pain.” Written Creutz, an analyst for research firm Cowen and Company, Cruetz told Variety’s James Rainey that Hollywood’s future looked “increasingly dire” due to shrinking audiences.
Creutz says the industry’s woes are demonstrated by the fifth consecutive year in which domestic box office demand “has taken a step function lower.” The fight for remaining audiences has become increasingly fierce as “the market appears to be condensing into fewer, but bigger, hits,” as studios crank out more films in the $100 million-plus budget range…
…Creutz offers a welter of stats to back up his contraction argument: “Last year, over 25% of total box office came from just five films, well above the average of roughly 16% from 2001-14 and the prior peak of 19% in 2012.” He called this a “consistent phenomenon.”
Consumers should be worried that, over the last decade, the number of films Hollywood’s produced has dropped precipitously. What this means is fewer choices for audiences. Films that tell stories about characters (people) who are neither CGI super heroes nor animated characters are quickly becoming an endangered species.
David Gritten examined Hollywood’s move toward producing fewer films for a piece in The Telegraph:
BUT EVEN SUPPOSING THE STUDIOS ARE RIGHT: THAT FEWER FILMS ARE BETTER, BIGGER FILMS MAKE MORE SENSE, THAT COMMERCIALLY TESTED AND TRIED MATERIAL IS THE PRUDENT WAY TO GO, THAT TEENAGERS WILL ALWAYS BE THE MOST PLIABLE AUDIENCES – WHERE’S THE VICTORY IN THAT?
EVEN IF CURRENT STUDIO THINKING IS PROVED RIGHT AND IN THE LONG TERM, BLOCKBUSTERS ENABLE THEM TO RAKE IN REVENUE AND LOOK WALL STREET SQUARELY IN THE EYE, CONSIDER WHAT’S BEEN LOST. HOLLYWOOD WILL BE CHURNING OUT A PREDICTABLE SERIES OF DULL, MONOTONOUS, SPECIAL-EFFECTS HEAVY, DRAMATICALLY INCOHERENT MOVIES FOR A RELATIVELY SMALL SEGMENT OF THE CINEMA-GOING AUDIENCE. THE STUDIOS MAY SURVIVE: BUT WHAT A DIMINISHED INDUSTRY THEY’LL BE PRESIDING OVER.
Online piracy’s corrosive impact on content creation not limited to theatrical releases
Of course, piracy is but one factor in a complex potpourri of influences provoking shifts in the movie business. As distribution models continue to evolve in this digital age the rise of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, et al has certainly been felt. Yet, even as viewing choices shift away from theaters to streaming outlets, these producers are not immune from piracy’s damage effect. Streaming’s top dog Netflix has teamed with digital protection firm Vobile to safeguard its digital content (and subscriber base) from online thieves. Whether productions are destined for theatrical release or for viewing in the comfort of ones own home, content producers still need to generate revenue in order to thrive.
Piracy’s apologists who chortle that Hollywood should adopt new business practices as a response to piracy are getting their wish. Under duress Hollywood is adapting, but at what cost to us–the viewing public? Evolving to to meet the 21st century digital world is inevitable, but should it be illegal theft that dictates how such change will manifest itself?
With this type of evolution, in the end, we will be the losers. It’s difficult to appreciate how much we’re truly missing if it’s never made…
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
