The fight against movie piracy is a fight FOR diversity
It’s no secret that Hollywood has a long way to go when it comes to diversity and a new report released today by the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative at USC’s Annenberg School shows just how far. Echoing findings of a similar study issued last winter by UCLA’s Bunche Center, today’s report finds that women, minorities and LGBT characters are not only rare–but often insignificant in Hollywood films. The findings include:
Of the 4,610 speaking or named characters on screen, only 19 were coded as LGBT across the 100 top films of 2014.
Only 30.2% of the 30,835 speaking characters evaluated were female across the 700 top‐grossing films from 2007 to 2014. This calculates to a gender ratio of 2.3 to 1. Only 11% of 700 films had gender‐balanced casts or featured girls/women in roughly half (45‐54.9%) of the speaking roles.
Only 17 of the 100 top films of 2014 featured a lead or co lead actor from an underrepresented racial and/or ethnic group. An additional 3 films depicted an ensemble cast with 50% or more of the group comprised of actors from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds.
In 2014, no female actors over 45 years of age performed a lead or co lead role. Only three of the female actors in lead or co lead roles were from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds. No female leads or co leads were Lesbian or Bisexual characters.
The report is a must-read, but how does it have anything to do with the topic “movie piracy” or the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)? Well, given that Hollywood is clearly doing a pretty lousy job telling the diverse stories of our society at large, where can audiences watch films that reflect our lives? Look no further than the narratives created by a diverse cornucopia of independent filmmakers.
Pirate sites around the globe feature stolen LGBT movies
Unlike those in Hollywood, indie filmmakers are not well-funded and often have to cobble together lean production budgets using a variety of sources from credit cards to crowd-funding. Without the deep pockets of the studios, these filmmakers often go deep into the red to create their not-so-mainstream films.
So, when it comes to assessing piracy’s damage, indie filmmakers, like their counterparts in music, are often the most vulnerable. As I noted in a 2013 blog post about the negative impact piracy has on LGBT cinema:
Unlike studio-backed films, these titles usually don’t get a theatrical release and so are totally dependent on back-end revenue (VOD, DVD, TV) to recoup production costs and pay off debts. Parasitic pirates, who themselves profit from piracy, erode this much-needed revenue stream.
This brings me to the EFF and a recent blog post by Mitch Stoltz, a Senior Staff Attorney there. In response to recent efforts by the movie industry to shut down a group of piracy-for-profit websites based offshore, Stoltz sounded the alarm by dusting off the well-worn SOPA canard and cries of “censorship” and “abuse.” His love of the word “abuse” was so strong, in fact, variations of the term appear 9 times in his piece.
Isn’t it time for those at the EFF and others who yell “SOPA” each time the movie industry takes legal action against online pirates to shut the hell up? What is abusive is the way online piracy (for profit) is allowed to flourish, made sacrosanct by tech apologists.
Why can’t we differentiate between websites engaged in theft for profit and legit ones? Are we (and the courts) really that stupid? When it comes to other illegal activity online we manage to differentiate between the good guys and the bad…drugs, child porn, etc.
Piracy is not free speech, it’s theft.
Asking that pirate sites be shut down for criminal activity (movie piracy) is no different. Despite the hyperbole, it’s also not an attack on “free speech.” In fact, ridding the web of pirates actually strengthens “free speech” by helping make sure that oft-marginalized subjects and stories brought to the screen by indie filmmakers are not muted.
Why can’t the EFF find value in protecting the diversity of free speech found in film?
…the EFF routinely muddies the waters and conflate valid concerns over online privacy and free speech rights with copyright holders’ efforts to protect their work from infringement. Protecting rights within all three realms is important and doing so effectively, despite EFF rhetoric to the contrary, need not be a mutually exclusive process. The EFF approach to protecting “rights” in the digital age has always has been disingenuous. Gin up hysteria in order to push an anti-copyright agenda–an agenda, covertly built on the interests of the tech industry and NOT the community at large.
So, back to the issue at hand…lack of diversity in film. I would argue that the fight against online piracy is also a fight FORfilmmakers who create diverse films. It’s also a fight for the jobs of all those involved in making them.
There’s no question Hollywood needs to do a (much) better job when it comes to including women, minorities and LGBT in roles on camera and off, but in its perhaps own inadvertent way–by taking aim at online pirates–the industry is helping make sure that audiences worldwide will continue have access to independently produced films, rich with a myriad of characters and stories.
While Stoltz and his tech-influenced ilk continue to demonize Hollywood’s efforts against piracy, I will continue to applaud them for taking action. They are fighting the good fight against piracy for all filmmakers. Meanwhile I will continue to advocate for a Hollywood that better reflects the world around us. The two are not mutually exclusive.
RATS are used by hackers to install malware that takes over computers of unsuspecting internet users. According to the “Selling Slaving” report by the DCA, their targets are often the young:
…are actively looking to take over the computers, called “slaving,” of young girls and boys—and then selling that information online. In effect, they are selling access to our children’s bedrooms.
How does the growth of this illicit spying activity link back to YouTube? As is the case with terrorist recruiting videos, YouTube also offers unsavory creeps a worldwide portal that makes it easy to spread their criminal wares via video. To add insult to injury, these videos are often monetized, meaning YouTube and the hackers not only spread information on this unsavory activity, but also make money from it.
The tutorials included many that showed how to use and spread RATs; links where ratters could download the malware; and examples of RATs successfully deployed showing victims’ faces and IP addresses…Roughly 38 percent of the tutorials for the best-known RATs had advertisements running alongside the videos. The advertising we found included well-known car companies, cosmetics, and even tickets to New York Yankees’ baseball games. YouTube’s parent company, Google, is positioned to get revenue from the sharing of these malicious tutorials that target innocents. –DCA report
The fact Google is making money off garbage is nothing new, but lately a number of online businesses (like Reddit) have been forced to reexamine their “anything goes” policy when it comes to what content to allow online. The question is to ask in the case of YouTube RATS is why can’t Google do a better with housekeeping?
There has been no shortage of discussion about how legacy media companies will find their way forward in the digital age. But in trying to recalibrate their identities, Gawker and Reddit are demonstrating that digital media companies are struggling to manage a difficult transition of their own — from financially underachieving, if popular, start-ups to thriving, mature businesses.
“This feels like a moment of reckoning to me,” said Vivian Schiller, the former head of news at Twitter who was previously an executive at The New York Times. “We’re moving from the early days of ‘We’re free to write or post whatever we want,’ to the reality of building a business.”
With this latest DCA report in mind, and the fact that other dubious YouTube users earn income off the filth they spread, one wonders if Google will make better business decisions going forward. The DCA reports suggests a way forward for YouTube’s parent:
A solution exists, but it will require Google to change the way it approaches this issue. When Google is serious about solving a problem, it assigns a human team to do what an algorithm clearly can’t. Bringing in human teams helped block tens of thousands of search queries for child pornography and to ensure the quality of apps on Google Play. Hacking victims deserve the same concern and protection. Google should assign a human team to reviewing these videos and immediately cease advertising on such video platforms. These victims should not be clickbait and ad revenues from slaving tutorial videos can’t be worth the pain and suffering they cause. [emphasis added]
However, if past history is any indication, Google will likely continue to deflect and dodge. If they do, they risk further damage to its brand. The DCA report ends with this observation and a quote from a Ratter’s victim asking that Google do more to eradicate this insidious infestation on YouTube:
If Google continues to sell ads beside slaving videos, can it claim Internet freedom as a defense? If one of the world’s most admired companies takes a stand against slaving, others will follow. Perhaps the best advice on how the company could handle that question came from Cassidy Wolf, who said she would tell Google: “They need to put themselves in (the victim’s) shoes… and imagine if it was their daughter that was being watched in their room and now its being promoted on YouTube and the people that are doing this are making money of this and Google is making money off of this. Honestly, I would just tell them to put themselves in the victim’s shoes and imagine if this was happening to them.”
Once again, the ball is in Google’s court.
*full disclosure-I’m a member of the DCA’s Advisory Board
Protecting private data from online theft is not the same as protecting copyrighted content
Update 8/20/15-The hackers have released the hacked data after Ashley Madison’s parent company did not comply with their demand that the site be closed. It appears, once again, Avid Media’s lawyers are misusing the DMCA in order to prevent the hacked (private) data from being widely disseminated. The post below explores why the DCMA is not the solution.
Original story from 7/21/15: In news first reported by investigative journalist/blogger Brian Krebs, hackers broke into a database containing customer data for web hook-up site Ashley Madison and threatened to post it online. Stealing customer or employee private data is always a bad thing, but what makes this particular hack particularly notable is that Ashley Madison’s business is based on promoting and enabling infidelity among couples. The company’s mantra is “Life is short. Have an affair,” and in order for customers to fool around on their mates without repercussions, anonymity is clearly key. I imagine there are more than a few Ashley Madison clients who are sweating big-time right about now.
Ashley Madison’s clientele are not the only ones at risk of having their online escapades outed. The hackers, who identify as The Impact Team, actually targeted the entire database for the site’s parent company, Toronto-based Avid Life Media (ALM). ALM also operates two other online hook-up sites, CougarLife.com and EstablishedMen.com.
According to Krebs, the hackers were motivated by the websites’ failure to comply with its $19 “full delete” feature, whereby a customer’s information is (supposedly) scrubbed from its database upon request. As Krebs reports:
“Full Delete netted ALM $1.7mm in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie,” the hacking group wrote. “Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real name and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”
Desperate to protect brand, lawyers fight Ashley Madison hackers with dubious use of DMCA law
ALM confirmed that the hack took place and told CNBC it has managed to take down all the personal information that hackers posted online.
“Using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), our team has now successfully removed the…posts related to this incident as well as all Personally Identifiable Information (PII) about our users published online,” ALM said in an emailed statement.
Is the DMCA really the right (and legal) way to fight the Ashley Madison hackers? The DMCA was designed to give creators a means to safeguard their copyrighted creations from online thieves in the digital age but does it extend to hacked data too?
When Jennifer Lawrence’s personal photographs were stolen by a hacker and posted online her lawyers used the DMCA to block their spread since technically, she (and other women who were victimized by the photo theft) owned the copyright for the stolen pictures. In the case of the Ashley Madison hackers, company lawyers claim that ALM “owns” their customers’ content and thus have legal grounds to send DMCA takedown notices to prevent it being published online. Although I’m not legal expert, it seems like a stretch.
The DMCA, old and broken as it is, is the only tool creators have to protect their work. When ALM lawyers send takedown notices in situations like this only serves to muddy the waters and give critics of the law ammunition to attack it.
The DMCA is not a band-aid to be applied in every case of online theft
One can understand why ALM is moving quickly to protect their business model, but shouldn’t the DMCA be reserved for clear instances of real copyright infringement? Can the operators of Ashley Madison really claim to own the photographs and biographical material of its clients?
I suppose the issue will eventually end up in a court of law but in the meantime why doesn’t Congress to step up to the plate and tackle issues surrounding digital hacking, cyber abuse and privacy? No matter what does or does not happen on Capitol Hill, it’s clear that companies (and governments) ultimately need to do a better job encrypting databases to protect them from determined hackers.
Using the DMCA is a dubious solution to a vexing problem. As D.E. Wittkowe noted today in an opinion piece for the Christian Science Monitor:
Copyright law is supposed to protect creative works in a marketplace so that creating and selling these works can be profitable. Protecting these intimate expressions as goods in a marketplace fails to address what’s wrong about wrongfully publishing them. It’s wrong because it’s an invasion of privacy and a violation of trust, not because it threatens someone’s profits.
Google could learn a thing or two from VIMEO about how to run an efficient DMCA takedown system
Love it or hate it, for now the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is the law of the land when it comes to safeguarding creative content online. The law, passed nearly 20 years ago, is woefully outdated, but for now, it’s the only tool creators have to protect their work from online thieves. Unfortunately, not every company in the business of “user generated content” approaches DMCA compliance the same way.
Google, a company that makes billions each year in ad revenues generated via trafficking in dubious content, has set up a takedown system that ensures the sending of a DMCA takedown notice is an onerous and inefficient task. After all, the harder Google makes it, the more discouraged creators will become, and the more money continues to flow into its coffers…
Anyone who’s made music or a movie probably has had experience with sending a DMCA takedown request to Google in some form. Whether it’s removing pirated music on YouTube, or requesting the takedown of pirated movies off Blogger sites, creators must tackle a haphazard and convoluted patchwork of online forms in order to get their work removed from Google’s online products.
Not that Google will listen to me, but I’m going to offer some suggestions for simple ways the company could improve the takedown system. Part I will focus on Blogger, Google’s online website platform that’s become the favorite of many pirate entrepreneurs due to its ease of use.
As a creator, when you discover a pirate website hosted by Google’s Blogger (on blogspot.com) is offering pirated copies of your music or movie, to get it removed you usually have to send a DMCA notice to Google.
Here’s where Google turns what could be a relatively easy task into a huge time suck. First, in order to find the correct online form for Blogger you’re forced to click through a myriad of radio-buttons on Google’s Removing Content From Google page. When you finally do manage to click your way through to the proper form (it takes 7 clicks) you’ll waste more time carefully filling in each and every section. Note, your browser’s auto-fill function won’t work particularly well here. Finally, after you complete the form and click send, you can only wait (and hope) that the content will be removed. It can literally take weeks and sometimes it never gets removed.
Here’s where it gets particularly annoying. Many companies, take the video-hosting site Vimeo, for example, give rights holders several ways to send a takedown notice: email, a web form or snail mail. When sending a DMCA to Vimeo (and many other sites) I use a template I created (with an attorney’s help) that makes it easy to copy and paste infringing links into a DMCA takedown email. It’s not only quick, but I have a record of the notice in my sent email box. For indie content creators fighting online piracy, email is by far the most efficient way to send and record DMCA notices. As far as I’m concerned, Vimeo earns a gold start for DMCA takedown efficiency.
Vimeo provides a shining example of good DMCA takedown practices:
Vimeo accepts email submissions. It’s quick and efficient–a godsend if you have to send notices routinely (as many musicians and filmmakers do).
You have a copy of the DMCA notice you sent and proof of when it was sent.
You receive an email confirmation from Vimeo that the material has been removed and their message includes a copy of your original DMCA notice.
Vimeo provides a reference # so that if there are any issues with your notice, you can easily follow-up with the real person that signs the email receipt.
Meanwhile, over at Google, things aren’t so straightforward. Each time I send a DMCA takedown to Google via its web form, if I want to keep a copy, I’m forced to create a PDF copy of web form. Even then some of the entries don’t show up. For the rights holder it’s an imperfect and time-wasting process. Google has intentionally created a takedown process that impedes creators at every step.
Google’s Blogger takedown procedure is a joke:
Google requires users navigate through a series of buttons (7 clicks) to get to the DMCA web takedown form.
Google requires you fill in the entire form each time you need to sent a takedown notice.
Google does not give you a copy of the form you sent, only a brief acknowledgement that you sent something signed by the mysterious “Google Team.”
Sender never receives notification infringing material has been disabled.
Because of their business practices, Google does have to deal with tons of takedown notices every day. It’s a mess of its own making and they certainly have the financial resources to deal with it responsibly. Google reps insist a web form is the only way to make sure they receive the information required in a DMCA notice. However, their refusal to accept emails (that could be read by a bot) forces indie artists who routinely send takedown requests to its web maze.
Since users are forced to use a DMCA web form, there’s certainly NO justifiable reason Google can’t respond with an email confirmation that includes the original takedown notice. After all, that’s an automated process and would require ZERO resources on their part. Google chooses not to do so because they want to make the process as opaque and complicated as possible. While it complies with the letter of the law, Google has refined a system whereby creators are discouraged from exercising their legal rights at every turn.
Google’s DMCA practices are designed to impede rights holders every step of the way
Vimeo quickly sends an email confirming removal
Along with the email, Vimeo includes the original DMCA notice
Google makes users jump through hoops to send a DMCA notice, doesn’t provide a copy, and offers no confirmation that any action has been taken
Google includes a case number in the subject heading of the email, but don’t bother trying to contact Google using it. The “Google Team” won’t respond. So what’s the case number good for? Not much.
As for turnaround time-when I send VIMEO a notice within hours the content has been removed (and I receive an email confirmation along with a copy of my notice). With Google it can literally take weeks…and sometimes nothing happens…ever.
In order to improve the DMCA system on Blogger I would ask for the following:
Offer a direct link to the Blogger DMCA takedown form
Allow the form to be auto-filled and if one has a Google account information the form would be pre-filled with the appropriate information
Send an email receipt that includes a copy of the DMCA notice
Send confirmation when the infringing content has been disabled
Remove content in a timely manner. This means days, NOT weeks.
For a company like Google that can take us to the top of Mt. Everest with the click of a mouse it’s beyond comprehension as to why they can’t offer content creators a better way to utilize the DMCA process. Google periodically publishes puff PR pieces extolling the myriad of ways it supposedly tackles piracy, but in reality helps maintain the status quo where the rights of online thieves are held in higher regard than those of creators. Of course for Google impeding the legal rights of creators is good for business. Profits ahead of people is the key to Google’s success.
Next week-Part II-YouTube’s DMCA CMS takedown, another inefficient mess for rights holders.
Tim Wu, the legal scholar credited with coining the oft used term “net neutrality” was hired by Yelp to conduct research into Google’s search algorithm. Wu, along with Harvard Business School professor Michael Luca and researchers at Yelp, examined whether Google gives consumers the best results. The results don’t look good. Per Recode.net:
Google knowingly manipulates search results according to a research paper published Monday from several academics. The study presents evidence that the search giant sets out to hamper competitors and limit consumers’ options. The paper lands as Google prepares to release its response to the European Union investigation, which rests on similar claims about Google’s comparison-shopping product.
Meanwhile, in the EU a new website Focus on the User (http://www.focusontheuser.eu/) has been set up to publicize the issue, charging, “Google+ is hurting the Internet. Europeans have the power to stop it.” Along with a rundown of the various ways Google manipulates search results to favor its own product via Google+ the website offers a video explainer (below).
2. 40 State Attorneys Generals file amicus brief in support of subpoena process to investigate Google
Attorneys General from 40 states have filed in amicus brief in support of Mississippi’s AG Jim Hood’s efforts to subpoena Google. In the brief they ask a U.S. Appeals Court to overturn a preliminary injunction issued last March by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate that blocked Hood’s efforts to investigate Google’s anti-consumer business practices. From the brief:
As is evident from the letters of record signed by multiple Attorneys General, Mississippi is not the only state with concerns about Google’s consumer practices. (See ROA.1199-1200, ROA.1243-1244, ROA.1245-1246). Mississippi, like every state, is entitled to address these concerns through further investigation utilizing proper tools, including administrative subpoenas. Mississippi, like every state, also is entitled to review information gathered pursuant to its investigation and make decisions about actions to take—or not take—to enforce its consumer protection laws for its citizens. Google may challenge Mississippi’s Subpoena consistent with state law. But Google should not be allowed to bypass state subpoena review processes and derail a legitimate state consumer protection investigation by filing premature declaratory judgment lawsuits and obtaining sweeping preliminary injunctions in federal court. Both the law and public policy counsel against it.
3. Google accused of eavesdropping
According to an article published in The Guardian, Google is also under fire from privacy advocates for incorporating technology into its Chrome browser that allows eavesdropping.
“Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room,” said Rick Falkvinge, the Pirate party founder, in a blog post. “Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by … an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.”
Scott Cleland, a noted Google critic, points out that it’s business as usual in comments posted on his Precursor Blog:
This is not an isolated incident. It is a part of a broader Google pattern of behavior.
What should be big news and scandalous here is that the company that has gathered the most Internet users in the world based upon public representations of being pro-privacy and open — is secretly engaged in widespread wiretapping.
June Gloom for Googleiath
Earlier this month Google was slapped down by a Canadian appeals court, Its judges were not impressed by Google’s specious “free speech” arguments and affirmed a lower court ruling mandating Google remove certain search results (linking to illegal products) on a worldwide basis.
As regulators in Europe continue to tighten the vise, perhaps this summer will be a turning point in efforts to hold Google accountable for its bad business practices. Stay tuned…
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
Annenberg School shows just how far. Echoing findings of a similar study issued last winter by UCLA’s Bunche Center, today’s report finds that women, minorities and LGBT characters are not only rare–but often insignificant in Hollywood films. The findings include:
This brings me to the EFF and a recent blog post by Mitch Stoltz, a Senior Staff Attorney there. In response to recent efforts by the movie industry to shut down a group of piracy-for-profit websites based offshore, Stoltz sounded the alarm by dusting off the well-worn SOPA canard and cries of “censorship” and “abuse.” His love of the word “abuse” was so strong, in fact, variations of the term appear 9 times in his piece.
