In supporting Aurous, EFF dismisses musicians’ right to earn a living

In supporting Aurous, EFF dismisses musicians’ right to earn a living

Aurous app makes it easy to steal

EFF comes to new music piracy app’s defense

By now many have heard the news that a much-anticipated “Popcorn Time” for music launched this week.  Dubbed “Aurous,” the new app goads users into downloading the app with the catchline,  Enjoy music how you want to for free.”  Unfortunately, as we all know, music is not free to create, nor should it be free to consume.

Andrew Sampson, developer of Aurous, claims his app is legal and compares its functionality to that of Google’s search engine.  Of course we all know what Google’s record has been when it comes to linking to pirated content.  Sampson told Billboard:

We’re pulling content from sources that are licensed. From a legal standpoint, what we’re doing is okay. All files are streamed from legitimate sources — we don’t host anything. We only share cached results over peer-to-peer…

…There are a lot of sites saying we’re the Popcorn Time of music. That’s not accurate. We can play content from all around the web, and we use a BitTorrent-style technology to share links to content — but not that actual content itself.

The problem is that much of the content on those so-called legit sources is NOT actually licensed. There’s plenty of pirated content on YouTube (one of the sources Aurous uses).  As noted in a piece by Rich McCormick in Verge. 

In addition to potentially acceptable locations, such as official promotional streams and music videos, these services could also draw from sources that would upset record labels: tracks illegally uploaded to SoundCloud, for example, or leaked albums put on YouTube weeks before their street dates. Ads, too, could be stripped out by Aurous, denying labels extra cash per play.

Of course Aurous has its defenders.  Predictably the Electronic Frontier Foundation got into the act with this unfortunate Tweet using the hashtag #SOPApower.

Per usual, folks at the EFF seem to believe there’s something noble in enabling online piracy. As it repeatedly demonstrates through its advocacy, the EFF’s view is that musicians don’t really have the right to earn money off their hard work.

EFF Revenues 2013 - PropublicaI imagine, however, that those employed at the EFF to think up with these insightful Tweets appreciate the paychecks they earn.  According to documents published on Pro Publica, in 2013 the EFF spent $3,402,997 on salaries for its 49 employees. (That averages out to nearly 70k per employee).

For the record the EFF’s total revenue in 2013 was a tidy $9,444,822.  The organization’s net assets were listed over 15 million.  I wonder what additional pro-artist advocacy the Content Creators Coalition could do with 15 million bucks?

Though I certainly don’t begrudge those at EFF the right to earn a decent living by Tweeting about SOPA (an act of  Free Speech) plenty of musicians would undoubtedly be thrilled to earn a salary anywhere close to the EFF 70K average.

That the EFF continues to demonstrate such disdain for artists by defending a piracy app like Aurous right out of the gate isn’t surprising, but it’s also not a strategy based on public good. Rather, it’s a strategy that’s good for the tech industry–an industry built on the credo of take first, (maybe) ask permission later.

EFF’s SOPA perseveration

Because it does the bidding of the tech industry, it’s not entirely surprising to see that the EFF  media team relies on raising the SOPA battle cry again and again.  After all, SOPAs defeated is is generally considered the tech industry’s greatest lobbying win yet.

EFF-tech-defender

Let’s remember that SOPA was introduced in 2011.  Last time I checked it’s 2015.   Despite the fact SOPA is long dead and buried, EFF’s talking points continue to rely on SOPA as a worn out buzzword to rally the troops.   I would caution the EFF powers that be to remember what happened to the boy who cried “wolf” too many times.

Ultimately there’s something unseemly in an organization that boasts net assets of over 15 million dollars working so hard to undermine artists’ (often meager) livelihoods.  Taking down Aurous will NOT “break the internet.”  What it will do is help protect the work of musicians so that they can earn a living wage through the legal distribution of the work.

The RIAA and three major labels, thankfully, have field suit  to shut Aurous down. They’re employing legal means, Aurous will have its day in court.  Despite the implication of EFF’s #SOPApower Tweet no one is asking Congress to pass new SOPA-like legislation.  The suit charges:

“Aurous blatantly infringes the (Major Labels’) copyrights be enabling internet users to search for, stream and download pirated sound recordings.”

I say good luck.  Aurous is an app designed to facilitate theft and, last time I checked, that’s illegal.

 

Megaupload was not like Dropbox

Megaupload was not like Dropbox

images-1RIAA Sues Kim Dotcom and Megaupload for copyright infringement

Today the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) followed the music studios and filed suit against online piracy king Kim Dotcom and his defunct Megaupload cyberlocker website.  The RIAA’s suit charges that Kim Dotcom and his Megaupload cronies, “willfully engaged in, actively encouraged, and handsomely profited from massive copyright infringement of music on the Megaupload service…”

According to a story in Ars Technica, Dotcom’s attorney, Ira Rothken claims that the pirate cyberlocker was simply a cloud-based storage site, sharing a legit business model with cloud-based storage sites like Dropbox.

We believe that the claims against Megaupload are really an assault by Hollywood on cloud storage in general as Megaupload used copyright neutral technology and whatever allegations they can make against Megaupload they can make against YouTube, Dropbox, and others. And we believe that at the end of the day that the court will find their claims to be without merit and that the court will find that Megaupload and the others will prevail.

Nice try, but what a lie.  The business model that Dropbox and other legit sites follow bears no resemblance to the piracy for profit machine run by Dotcom.  The RIAA’s complaint points out one major difference:

Megaupload made money in two ways: premium subscriptions and online advertising.  Megaupload charged “premium” users subscription fees ranging from a few dollars per day up to approximately $260 for a lifetime subscription.  In exchange for payment, premium users would receive faster access to infringing files, including Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, on Defendants’ computer servers.  Premium users of the site were able to download and upload files with few, if any, limitations…With respect to online advertising, the infringement-driven traffic on Megaupload and its associated websites increased the volume of online advertising impressions and transactions, leading to higher revenues.  Online advertising on Megaupload and its associated websites, which was heavily dependent on the popularity of copyright infringing content to attract website visits, yielded more than $25 million for Defendants.

The other important difference is fundamental to pirate cyberlocker’s pyramid-style business scheme.  Megaupload and other sites modeled after it (Filesonic, Fileserve, etc.) were dependent on a pirate army to spread their offerings (download links and streams) to forums across the web.  After all, without traffic, there was no money to be made and the way to drive traffic to the site was to spread the word and entice web users to visit the site and download infringing content.  Dropbox and other legit UGC sites DO NOT OFFER INCENTIVES for users to upload (pirated) content.  I wrote it about it on popuppirates.com in a blog post “Cyberlockers: Explaining Piracy’s Profit Pyramid.”  Though my post is several years old, given Rothken’s claims, it’s worth revisiting:

First of all, make no mistake, the vast majority of today’s piracy is driven by the thing that has motivated mankind since time began—the desire to make money.  If you take the time to spend a few minutes online exploring websites engaged in piracy (most people who speak out on the issue don’t seem to bother) you’ll quickly recognize that money is at the center of everything.

Mediafire download link (for flm-Unhappy Birthday) featuring Google ads.

If the ads aren’t hitting you squarely in the face, or the offers of high-speed, high quality downloads don’t spark suspicion, then perhaps it’s time to clean your glasses.  How ‘bout I take you on a tour?

Let’s begin with the sites that serve as the lynchpin for today’s online pirates.  No, I’m not going to talk about Pirate Bay or other notorious P2P (peer to peer) sites.  No need for that.  Consumers are all about convenience, and it’s not particularly convenient to download torrents and reconfigure the numerous file parts in order to view a movie.  Today it’s all about the one-stop shopping experience, and for that there’s no better storefront than the cyberlockers where, with the click of a mouse, you can download (or watch) your favorite film.  You’ll likely find other items on your wish list (e-books, music, software, and more) available for easy download as well.

You’ve probably heard the term “cloud based storage” floating around a lot lately.  Well, thanks to companies like Apple, and the recent launch of their cloud based offering called “iCloud,” the notion of storing files online via a virtual hard drive is gaining ground.  Cyberlockers have been providing this “service” for nearly half a decade now, and while there is legitimate activity taking place via some cloud-based storage sites like Drop Box and Yousendit, there are many others whose business model is predicated on content theft.  The now disabled Megaupload.com is a good example of the latter variety. (Read the indictment for a step-by-step tour through the inner-workings of their criminal enterprise.)

How does an illicit Megaupload-like business model  work?  Well, if you want to understand how cyber lockers work 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.

At any rate, if you journey to the cyberlocker of your choice–Megaupload, Filesonic, Fileserve, Filefactory, Uploading, Uploadstation, Mediafire, Megashares, Sockpuppet, Putlocker, etc. you will see enticements offered encouraging visitors to join this type of  profit pyramid.

Cyber lockers offer CASH for uploads.

Why do they do this?  Well the cyberlocker business model depends on traffic.  In order to drive traffic to their site they need content that will attract visitors.  What better carrot than popular movies, books or music?  Never mind copyright, there’s the “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA that allows the cyberlocker operators to essentially look the other way (plead ignorance) when it comes to the content that affiliates upload.  In fact, if uploaders did abide by a site’s published Terms of Service, the cyberlockers would quickly be out of business.

In other words, cyberlockers depend on an army of affiliates to do the dirty work for them.  It’s a scenario that enables the cyberlockers to shield themselves from legal liability, while their servers are simultaneously receiving thousands of  (stolen) files every day–fresh content  sure to attract new (and returning) customers.

So, in order to set this eco-system into motion, the cyberlockers lure their minions.  Uploaders can earn rewards, which usually start at around $35 per 1,000 downloads.  Simply put, the more downloads you generate for your file, the more money you earn.

Cyberlockers are booming thanks to profits from piracy.

 

That fact sets in motion the next level of piracy—the viral spread of the download links.  The affiliate armies take their links and post them on download (Warez) forums far and wide.  The more these links are “shared” across the web, the more money made.

Click to for PDF with 36 posts of viral links.

To further ensure their earnings, these cyberlocker affiliate pirates—I’ll refer to them as CAPs from now on–usually upload their stolen files to multiple cyberlocker sites.  This is called ‘mirroring” and what it means is that if a link is disabled on one cyberlocker site you can easily find the identical file on another.  Each CAP generally has affiliate accounts with multiple cyberlockers so that their illicit income won’t suffer if some links are disabled.

Since they are paid per download to maximize profits, CAPs often break a film file into several parts.   An average size for an uploaded film is around 700 MB (HD films can easily be double that size) but if divided into smaller chunks, requiring multiple links, and thus multiple downloads,  the CAP can earn more download points.  There’s a trade-off to this approach, however, as it can dissuade downloaders who prefer the convenience factor of downloading a “single” file.

Film download broken into several links in order to maximize profits.

Some sites like Megavideo (the streaming partner site to Megaupload) offer visitors the ability to watch an entire film streaming online with no download wait time.  Watch the film, and if you like it,  you can add it to your “collection” and download a copy for later viewing.

So, now that it’s pretty easy to understand how so much illegal content gets uploaded to the cyberlocker sites, let’s look for a moment how site operators turn that traffic into actual income.

At the top of the list is online advertising. Click a cyberlocker download link and you will arrive at a page like this.

Cyber locker site streaming the film “Unhappy Birthday” with Netflix ads serviced by Google.

There’s a link or stream for a  film and there are ads.  Various companies serve these ads, but one can’t ignore the fact that Google and other U.S. based ad servers like AdBrite are ubiquitous on the cyberlockers.   For the record, the ads seen on the image above and below are served by Google, though now that they’ve changed their icon and obscured their connection to them, it’s more difficult to tell.  In any case, no matter who serves the ad,  the cyberlocker makes money and the ad service provider makes money.  The creator gets squat.

Another cyber locker stream with more ads (provided by Google).

In addition to ad income, cyberlockers derive profit by offering “subscriptions.”  In this instance users pay a fee, averaging around $9.00 per month, that enables high-speed downloads on the website.  This means instead of waiting a half hour to download a full film, the entire process takes only 3 minutes.  For those who are repeat customers, this may be money well spent.  In this instance the cyberlocker site is making money and the payment processors (Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and the like) are making money.  Again, the content creator earns ZERO.

Cyber lockers cash in on selling subscriptions for high speed downloads.

In order to boost its subscriptions cyber lockers again turn to affiliate rewards.  Remember those forums where the CAPs go to spread their viral seed?  Well, many, if not most of those forum operators also have relationships with the cyberlockers and are an integral part of the piracy profit pyramid.  For every individual they “refer” who becomes a cyberlocker affiliate, they earn a referral fee.   Thanks to unfettered access to free content and income,  the eco-system of online piracy continues to thrive and grow.

HD-BB an online forum where viral cyberlocker links are spread.

 

Click image for PDF of some forum threads.

HD-BB is just one example of such a forum.   The forum operators boast of the high-quality “rips” shared by its members.  If you drill down into forum posts you’ll quickly discover that moderators only allow users to post links to specific, “approved” cyberlockers that the forum has a relationship with.  There are also links that direct users to the various affiliate options ensuring that the forum earns its fair share.  The forum makes money, the cyberlocker makes money and the creator of the content makes ZERO.

This is what I know.

Now that this black market business model is entrenched as a way of doing business around the globe, what can be done to stop it?  Well, I’m afraid that nothing can stop it–piracy will never disappear entirely–but something can be done to mitigate its effects.  This can happen if we can encourage the majority of websites at the center of this illicit cyberlocker eco-system to become (more) legitimate.

Cutting off the money that feeds this pirate profit pyramid is one part of the equation, but there’s also another component that may be equally important.  It’s a solution that it’s already working right in our own back yard.

I look to YouTube’s solution to piracy as an imperfect, but reasonable fix.  Let’s meet the pirates halfway.  Why not ask them to set up Content Management Systems (CMS) like the one YouTube has? A system like this would allow content owners to determine the fate of their work.  A CMS system basically allows for the fingerprinting of content so that infringing content can be instantly identified upon upload to the cyber locker site.

Dashboard for Youtube’s “Content Management System.”

The content owner could then determine, as they do on YouTube, whether to remove the content, monetize the content, or block it in certain territories.  In this scenario the cyberlocker can still earn money off uploaded content, but only at the discretion of the content owner.  Users will also be less inclined to post infringing content in the first place.  It’s a solution  that allows the content owner to take back control from the pirates (thieves)  and earn income off files that previously were simply stolen.   In this equation, at least everyone gets a piece of the pie.

It’s at this point that the false “piracy is good for business” refrain parroted by piracy apologists begins to gain some traction and some truth.  If piracy’s black market business model can be remolded  into a practice that can financially compensate the content creator–and restore their control of the content–perhaps it could become better for business.

The problem is that cyberlockers are not going to adopt a CMS system just to be nice.  Youtube,  a U.S. company, was forced to act under threat of ongoing litigation and legislation.   The only way today’s crop of cyberlockers can be forced to institute similar content ID systems is if their current business model becomes unsustainable.  For that to happen, like Youtube,  they too will need to face the threat of litigation and/or the long arm of the law.

Dotcom’s attorney can blather on all he wants about poor Dotcom, but it’s nothing more than disingenuous nonsense.

 

 

Creativity still thrives, but no thanks to SOPA’s defeat

Creativity still thrives, but no thanks to SOPA’s defeat

google-propagandaCreativity ‘Continues to Thrive,’ in spite of SOPA’s defeat, not because of it

In a post marking the anniversary of SOPA’s defeat (Stop Online Piracy Act) Google asks users share a graphic to celebrate.   “Since we combined our voices to stop SOPA, creativity has continued to thrive — both on and off the web.”  Their celebratory note also includes this caveat:

Of course, piracy remains a major concern and Google does its part to fight it, but, two years after SOPA, it’s clear that the Internet has been really good for creativity and entertainment.

Frankly, I’ve never heard artists or entertainers make the argument that the internet isn’t “good” for creativity or entertainment.  Yet, during the SOPA debate, as red herrings flew, content creators became the enemy in and us  vs. them debate as hyperbolic and often mendacious rhetoric echoed across the web.

SOPA anniversary aside, this week marked another milestone– 100 Million takedown requests to remove search links to pirated music have been sent to Google.  Note this total only includes takedown notices sent by the music industry.  Don’t forget to add those millions sent to Google for pirated movies, photographs, books, and more.

If piracy is really a “major concern” for Google why do illegal sites still dominate in searches for music and movies?  Here’s a graphic that is a tad more “balanced” than the one Google wants you to share.

google-sopa

Below is another graphic that worth considering when reading about Google’s rather disingenuous statements about their concerns re: online piracy.  Yes, creativity continues to thrive online, but just image what could happen if Google actually took serious steps to stop supporting online piracy?  It would be nice to see the trend lines in the chart below going down rather than steadily climb.

Screen Shot 2014-01-17 at 7.00.12 AM

RIAA asks (again) why Google doesn’t discourage online piracy

RIAA asks (again) why Google doesn’t discourage online piracy

google-circle-piracy

Google’s foot dragging in fight against online piracy is in spotlight again.

In a piece published today in The Hill, “Google’s 100 Million Notices,” the RIAA’s Chairman and CEO  Cary Sherman asks (again) why the Silicon Valley behemoth isn’t doing more to fight online piracy and police pirate links in search results:

In fact, when a user searches for virtually any prominent artist and song and “mp3,” the first result served up by Google’s own auto-complete function is usually mp3skull.com — a site that’s received more than two million music piracy notices and is among the top offenders on Google’s own public listing of sites receiving the most piracy notices. More broadly, rogue sites we analyzed managed to appear on page 1 of search results over 98% of the time in the searches we conducted.

What’s even more frustrating is that a significant portion of our piracy notices are repeat notices for the same song found on the same illicit site. So the enforcement system we operate under requires us to send a staggering number of piracy notices – 100 million and counting to Google alone—and an equally staggering number of takedowns Google must process. And yet pirated copies continue to proliferate and users are bombarded with search results to illegal sources over legal sources for the music they love.

It’s a question many of us have been asking Google for very a long time.   Sherman offers up “five point plan” that Google could (and should) easily implement to mitigate its role as a gateway to illegal downloads online:

Our five-point plan is simple, straightforward and readily achievable by Google and others in search:

  • fulfill the admirable promise to demote sites receiving extensive numbers of piracy notices
  • make sure that the “take down” of a song is meaningful – not repopulated online two seconds later
  • educate users by identifying authorized sites with a consumer-friendly “icon”
  • stop leading users to illegal sites through autocomplete
  • give your repeat offender policies some teeth

In reality Google’s so-called updates to its search algorithms (announced in August of 2012) have been (unsurprisingly) more “bark” than “bite.”

Take a look at the results I got today when I did a quick Google search for indie film “Kyss Mig” using the terms word “download” and the movie’s title.  The first page of results chock full of illegal links and torrents on notorious pirate sites like Pirate Bay and Primewire.ag.

google-search.001

When it comes to piracy Google search functions a lot like Google maps–but instead of helping folks find the closest gas station it leads them straight to pirated movies, music and more.  There’s really no excuse…

 

 

 

Is Bitcoin the new pirate currency of choice?

Is Bitcoin the new pirate currency of choice?

pirate-bitcoin-logo

Online Pirates are the latest criminals to turn to Bitcoin to fill their coffers

Last week the Creativity Tech blog reported on the RIAA’s warning about the growing popularity of the peer-to-peer “crypto-currency” Bitcoin among online pirates.

The bitcoin, you may recall, is the purely digital currency which is traded and derived ultimately from the value of complex data work completed by computers online. They are not backed by a government or bank. The RIAA asserts that the use of bitcoin as payment for pirated content has made it difficult if not impossible for government to track and to seize such assets from infringing sites as they are able to do with traditional national currencies.

The virtual currency,  has drawn increasing scrutiny  from government officials for its potential use by criminals.  Mary Shannon Little wrote about this worry in a recent Huffington Post piece:

Even before FinCEN’s regulations, the FBI last year issued an internal report warning that the anonymous bitcoin payment network was a growing haven for money laundering and other cyber-criminal activity including terrorism financing, human trafficking, kiddie porn, illegal internet gambling, and theft of the bitcoins themselves from their anonymous owners’ virtual wallets. In the report, the FBI notes that because bitcoin combines cryptography and a peer-to-peer architecture to avoid a central authority, law enforcement agencies will have more difficulty identifying suspicious users and obtaining transaction records.

While the long-term viability of Bitcoin may be uncertain, for now it does appear that online pirates view the “currency”  as a new way to exchange money beyond the reach of regulation.  As the RIAA’s letter pointed out, the Pirate Bay began accepting Bitcoin donations in April and from the looks of it, the notorious pirate website is not alone.

voxindiebitcoin-pirate-x264-bb1Just this week I received some emails (below) from an online pirate movie forum x264-bb that I’ve written about in the past.   The first email announced that the website’s PayPal account was terminated and the second informed users about the x264-bb’s new “donation” procedure using Bitcoins.

 

voxindiebitcoin-pirate-x264-bb1voxindiebitcoin-pirate-money2Apparently the pirate forum’s users are not responding positively since site administrators sent this email update today:

Dear XXXXX,

We do understand its additional hassle to purchase Bitcoin for donations, however it is the safest method and best one currently for safe keeping of donated funds.

For PayPal or Credit Card users, if you have any problem with the guide on the Official Bitcoin Donation page, don’t fret! :DThis is an extremely straight forward guide available for PayPal & Credit Card users here: http://bitcoinwithcard.com/buy-bitcoinspaypal-credit-card/

Please check it out, any amount of donation works now for donation!!! We need your help right urgently right now!!!  Without funding, we will not be able to push through this crisis! Come on now, please help us if you can! [emphasis added]

Discussion @ Official Bitcoin Donation Page: http://www.x264-bb.com/x264-bb-news-center/227827-read-bitcoin-donation-available-now.html

Thank you from the bottom of our heart!

Warm Regards,

x264-United aka djXpire

Forum Administrator

www.x264-BB.com

Awww, poor guys.  It seems they’re struggling a bit now that PayPal has pulled the cash rug out from under them, but even users of the pirate forum seem cautious when it comes to paying for Bitcoins.

voxindiebitcoin-pirate-plea1

Ironic, but you can apparently pay for the Bitcoins using PayPal or a credit card?

Meanwhile one of the administrators tries to convince users that supporting the pirate movie forum via Bitcoin donations is really a great way to go:

Bitcoins is something that Paypal nor any financial institute can control. 100% perfectly safe for the website to keep funds and keep the website going for a long time to go!!!

voxindiebitcoin-pirate-plea1

Here’s another exchange between a forum administrator “x264-United” and a moderator “”Reisin” who suggests Google Checkout as better alternative.

voxindiebitcoin-pirate-plea1

Reisen: Fileparadox went with google checkout, maybe we should consider it as an alternative.
My biggest worry with bitcoins is the fact they are pretty unstable (silk road for example, although it bounced back).
Paypal’s biggest appeal was its simplicity for end user, with bitcoins is a bit more complicated and this might scare away some people who dont wanna spend their time getting into subject.

In the other hand its independence as DJ mentioned and being under google’s radar, since google already dipping their fingers in everything. I wouldn’t be surprised if one day they would go sheriff of the internet full time, its something they already trying anyway.

x264-United: Reisen, warez indexing sites are losing Google Checkout as well…. 
Instead of discouraging donors, please be more positive and encourage members to pick up a new “knowledge” for donation.
This is by far the safest method now!!!

Bitcoin’s lack of traceability aside, the fact is that pirate forums are in the business of making money and when they can’t get paid via payment processors like PayPal they’re forced find alternatives.  Bitcoins are already popular with online criminal enterprises like the recently busted Silk Road so it’s  not surprising to see the crypto-currency gain favor among web pirate operations as well.

Perhaps online pirates’ cozy embrace of the same cyber money favored by drug dealers, pornographers and other web criminals will erode the idea that online pirate entrepreneurs are not criminals. In this case it’s safe to say that a pirate should be known by the company he keeps…