by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
Photo via http://commons.wikimedia.org/
Piracy apologists love to pull out the Robin Hood card in order to justify their theft. After all who cares about all those rich people in Hollywood right? Wrong….a fact which the MPAA’s Chris Dodd pointed out in piece published in Variety this week:
Two million people get up every morning in all 50 states to go to work in good-paying jobs. Few will ever walk a red carpet, but their jobs are in jeopardy because of piracy.
When we talk about stolen property like pirated films or shows, I think the assumption is these are wealthy people, so what difference does it make if I steal from them? There’s not an understanding that 96% are hard-working, middle-income families paying mortgages and trying to educate their kids.
Like any other industry, the American film industry depends on its worker bees to make its products. In turn, those workers depend on a healthy film industry for their paychecks.
In fact, one of the reasons Hollywood became such a successful cog in the U.S. economy was because the studio system that emerged in the early part of the 20th century was really a factory system modeled after Henry Ford’s automobile assembly line. In Hollywood’s studio system, each worker played a specific role in the film production (or manufacturing) process.
At their peak, Hollywood studios were producing hundreds of movies each year. Last year, the six major studios produced only 120 movies. Contrast that with the 204 produced in 2006. Fewer films means fewer jobs on the production line for Hollywood’s 96%.
Looking back, it’s also worth noting that a thriving movie industry allowed some of the greatest American movies of all time to be made. As noted in Wikipedia:
Many film historians have remarked upon the many great works of cinema that emerged from this period of highly regimented film-making. One reason this was possible is that, with so many films being made, not every one had to be a big hit. A studio could gamble on a medium-budget feature with a good script and relatively unknown actors: Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles and often regarded as the greatest film of all time, fits that description.
The more income studio’s generate, the more chances they can take to finance less mainstream movies. When losses due to online piracy undermine the industry, it also undermines the diversity of choices that movie lovers appreciate. In lieu of funding less mainstream fare, studios stick with formulaic flicks that generate big bucks opening weekend (before piracy can dilute audiences). The sad thing is that we won’t know what we’re missing because it’s not made. In the future films like Citizen Kane may never see the light of day.
Of course, new ways of producing and distributing films online are taking hold, but even the new guard is suffering from the scourge of online piracy. As Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote in a recent letter to shareholders, “Piracy continues to be one of our biggest competitors.” He pointed to Popcorn Time, a platform that makes viewing pirated films as easy as watching one on Netflix as evidence of the damage being done.
Online piracy not only diminishes livelihoods, but consumer choices and unless we can limit the losses, the picture will only grow dimmer. In the end, we may well be left with only cute cat videos on YouTube to entertain us. Piracy hurts everyone.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy
For those of you who still depend on the Chilling Effects search to find your pirated content, don’t worry, the DMCA database is still alive and well, ready to offer you a streamlined way to find illegal content online. Earlier this month Torrent Freak headlines claimed that the archive had “censored itself” and warned that the move was “a telling example of how pressure from rightsholders causes a chilling effect on free speech.” Hyperbole much? Here’s the truth.
Chilling Effects has, for the time being, de-indexed “individual notice pages” from search engines results. In a blog post, the move was explained this way:
Given increased public attention on the project, the wide variety of notices and types of claims that we catalog, and the sheer number of notices included in Chilling Effects’ database, we decided to take the interim step of de-indexing the site’s individual notice pages from search engines’ search results. Now that we have taken this step, we are hard at work building new tools and workflows that will allow us to better achieve the balance we are constantly seeking to strike between our dual missions of transparency and educating the public (on the one hand) and the strongly-felt concerns of those who send takedown notices (on the other).
Sounds nice, but the real impact of this move on creators’ rights is minor. Neither Torrent Freak nor Chilling Effects mentioned that the “balance” the folks at Chilling Effects are trying to strike includes continuing to operate a search engine that provides a direct line to illegal content.
Chilling Effects is a Where to Watch for pirated movies
In fact, it’s so easy to use that Chilling Effects’ search engine should be called a “Where to Watch” for pirate movies. I’ve written about this fact before, but given the recent hyperbolic hullabaloo I’d thought I’d take another look to see if anything has really changed? The answer is NO.
Search results removed from Google are replaced by direct link to DMCA notice containing original pirate link.
Not only does the Chilling Effects database search engine make it easy to find pirated movies, its benefactor Google, still includes referral links to when its search results are removed due to DMCA notices. For both sites it’s business as usual.
As I wrote in an earlier post, here’s how Google makes sure users are not inconvenienced by DMCA removals:
- Search for a free (pirated) movie
- Review results and find one removed due to a DMCA notice, the link replaced by this statement:
- Click the link “read the DMCA complaint.”
- Arrive at a list that includes the missing pirate link along with a bunch of others infringing links (courtesy of Chilling Effects)
- Click one of the listed pirate links and go directly to (free) movie
Chilling Effects own search provides users with an uncluttered path to piracy.
Finding pirated music and movies via Google search requires persistence since one has to comb through various types of results to find actual live links. In contrast, hop over to Chilling Effects and voilà , most every result is a stripped down list of URLs reported for piracy. It’s a simple and direct path to pirate URLs that, in fact, are vetted by rightholders (via their DMCA notices).
After the Torrent Freak headlines hit the web I went to Chilling Effects and did a search for the recently released “Boyhood.” Using Chilling Effects’ search results, it only took me a couple of minutes to find a streaming version of the film online. Google and Chilling Effects remain partners in piracy, having perfected a shell game that makes a mockery of creators’ rights and the DMCA.
For now, Chilling Effects remains what it has long been–a site where pirate links are eternal.
by Ellen Seidler | Film
This year’s white-washed Oscar nominations mirror Hollywood’s everyday business practices
Oscars nominations were announced earlier this week and for many were an embarrassment than a celebration of filmmaking achievements over the past year. Looking at the list of nominees it would appear that congressional Republicans have taken over the Academy too. While the list of films nominated for Best Picture seems worthy enough, when looking at the rest of the field, it becomes a shocking display of homogeneity. Diversity among the nominees non-existent and it’s certainly not for lack of deserving talent. Social media even responded to the nominations with a trending #OscarsSoWhite hashtag.
For many, the most egregious oversight was that neither “Selma” director Ava DuVernay nor British actor David Oyelowo, who plays Martin Luther King, Jr received nominations in their respective categories. “Selma“ has been universally acclaimed by critics (and audiences) alike. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle describes Oyelowo’s performance this way:
There are times when watching David Oyelowo in “Selma” that it’s really easy to believe you’re looking at Martin Luther King Jr. Aside from the accidents of age, size and appearance, Oyelowo has studied King’s gestures, not only his public manner — his dramatic use of his arms and hands — but his more private side, the weary yet determined quality he had in one-on-one interviews.
In the movie’s more private moments, Oyelowo even sounds like King…this is a remarkable performance, remarkable not only in its force, but in its strength and precision. Oyelowo is reason alone to see “Selma,”
Had she received a nomination for Best Director Duvernay would have been the first African-American woman to be so honored. Of course, Best Director is a category that over the years has become the poster child for snubbing worthy female candidates.
In the 87 year history of the Oscars only 4 women have ever been nominated for Best Director.
Yes, you read that correctly–only 4 out of 435 nominees for Best Director have been women and only one, Katheryn Bigelow, director of the Oscar-winning Best Picture film Hurt Locker , has ever won.
With regard to Selma having been limited to only two nominations, Best Picture and Best Song, some have pointed to controversy over inaccuracies in the portrayal of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the film as a possible reason. However, if we’re playing the accuracy card, one could easily make similar criticisms about the Oscar nominated film “The Imitation Game.” Films depicting historical events routinely stretch and shape the truth to make for a more compelling and efficient story. As L.V. Anderson noted in Slate:
The Imitation Game takes major liberties with its source material, injecting conflict where none existed, inventing entirely fictional characters, rearranging the chronology of events, and misrepresenting the very nature of Turing’s work at Bletchley Park. At the same time, the film might paint Turing as being more unlovable than he actually was.
It annoys me to no end when films fudge with historical facts. Rewriting history should not be viewed as a laudable storytelling technique, but in terms of the Oscars, the “The Imitation Game” didn’t seem to suffer any consequences by doing so. In fact the film received 8 nominations overall and acting nods for both lead actor Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley in a supporting role.
The Academy’s persistent tunnel vision with regard to issues involving race and gender is not all that surprising given its makeup. A 2012 LA Times piece described its demographics this way:
Oscar voters are nearly 94% Caucasian and 77% male, The Times found. Blacks are about 2% of the academy, and Latinos are less than 2%.
Oscar voters have a median age of 62, the study showed. People younger than 50 constitute just 14% of the membership.
In 2013 the Academy attempted to address the fact that its membership is overwhelmingly white and male by naming Hollywood marketing executive Cheryl Boone Isaacs as its first African-American president and only the third woman to hold the position. Friday, responding to the backlash to this week’s nominations, she told the AP;
In the last two years, we’ve made greater strides than we ever have in the past toward becoming a more diverse and inclusive organization through admitting new members and more inclusive classes of members…And, personally, I would love to see and look forward to see a greater cultural diversity among all our nominees in all of our categories.
Truth is, the lack of diversity reflected in this year’s Oscar nominations is a natural by-product of Hollywood’s entrenched homogenous business culture. In order to make true progress on this front, those who operate Hollywood studios must reexamine how they do business at every level. There needs to be a commitment to creating a culture of inclusiveness and opportunity, from hiring production assistants to filling vacancies at the executive level.
For those interested in actual data, I recommend reading the 2014 Hollywood Diversity Report-Making Sense of the Disconnect published by UCLA’s Bunche Center for African-American Studies. Through its Race and Hollywood Project the Bunche Center has taken a leading role in researching the ramifications of Hollywood’s less-than-inclusive business practices through its Race and Hollywood Project. In the 2014 report’s conclusion, its authors, Dr. Darnell Hunt, Dr. Ana-Christina Ramon, and Dr. Zachary Price, make this observation:
When confronted with abysmal diversity numbers, industry decision makers often resort to the “small pool” argument as justification for the situation: “There is a shortage of diverse talent out there.” Meanwhile, the lack of diversity in how the industry celebrates excellence works to reinforce this idea.
Behind the scenes, the decision makers responsible for the high-stakes productions that constitute Hollywood routinely surround themselves with people with whom they feel comfortable–people who think (and often look) like them. The combination of these factors creates a vicious cycle that virtually guarantees the marginalization of diverse talent in the industry.
graph-Celluloid Ceiling Project
The Celluloid Ceiling Project, sponsored by San Diego State’s Center for the Study of Women in Television & Film, also provides discouraging evidence of Hollywood’s repeated failures. Researchers there have found that the numbers of women working as directors, writers, executive producers, editors and cinematographers has actually declined in the period from 1998 to 2013. Women are losing ground in Hollywood, not gaining.
It’s a vicious cycle, where progress seems to be virtually non-existent. Academy president Boone Isaacs appears more upbeat, assuring the A.P. that Academy is, “committed to seeking out diversity of voice and opinion.” Despite her optimism, evidence shows that so far, it’s commitment that rings hollow.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Law, Piracy
Notorious piracy emporium, Pirate Bay is down–for now–after a raid on its servers by Swedish authorities, but what does that mean for the future of piracy?
If you read Caitlin Dewey’s piece in today’s Washington Post “You can take down Pirate Bay, but you can’t kill the Internet it created,” the ship has already sailed and creators may as well give up. Per Dewey:
…even if TPB doesn’t return, the politics and the conventions it advanced — that content should be free, and if you torrent, they can be! — will be very difficult to eradicate.
You may be able to shut down Pirate Bay, but good luck raiding the Internet that Pirate Bay created.
If she’s talking torrents, then yes, we’ll never eradicate them. The laissez-faire attitude of lawmakers over the past decade has allowed online theft to flourish un-checked and spawned a well-entrenched piracy eco-system. However, despite the sentiment Ms. Dewey suggests–all is not lost. Whether The Pirate Bay continues to exist is beside the point.
Content consumers are willing to pay; they just aren’t willing to wait
Consumers of piracy seem driven by two, somewhat separate, catalysts. On the one hand, people download content out of a desire to see, hear, or read it. This is the part of piracy that most people can empathize with, particularly when it comes to a TV show that might not be available where they live. Individuals who want to “stick it to the man” populate the other segment. They download stuff–not because they are necessarily fans–but because they feel entitled to free stuff. “F#*! Hollywood…information should be free” is their battle cry. They have neither appreciation nor concern for those they are stealing from–people who make their living by creating the films, music, and books we enjoy.
Now, obviously there’s not much we can do about the latter group of piracy aficionados, but with regard to the first group–the more important audience–we are doing something. Over the past few years there’s been an effort to develop new outlets to satisfy consumer entertainment demands. Most people who want access are willing to pay a reasonable amount for it. Netflix only costs $8.99 a month, or in modern terms, the cost is approximately = to 4 and a half cups of Starbucks (grande) coffee. In other words, it’s not a budget buster.
Not a Netflix subscriber, well check out the handy new search portal Wheretowatch.com to find out where you can find favorite TV Show or movie. When I searched for the BBC series “Broadchurch” I found I could watch it via Netflix, XBox, Amazon or Target. If I want to watch the acclaimed indie film “Pariah” I can rent or buy via the same outlets in addition to Flixster and iTunes.
The key here is to make it easy to find, reasonably priced and available worldwide. There’s still work to be done in achieving the latter, as territorial broadcast rights and release windows can still be a roadblock, but that is improving and I can see a future, that’s not far off, where day and date releases become the norm and release windows are synchronized across the globe. As I noted in an earlier post on this blog:
…we are seeing an evolution as to how release dates are managed. The notion of “territories” is quickly becoming obsolete–audiences are no longer regional, but global.
As for those who get off on grabbing free stuff (kinda like looters), that’s a mentality that will be difficult to change. The good news is that most people have better things to do than download torrents or click through dozens of ads to watch a crappy stream– so, if creators and distributors can continue to make progress on streamlining access, progress against piracy will continue to be made.
Of course, it also helps when the legal system can gently divert people into taking the legit path. Takedowns of sites like Pirate Bay help this effort. Operators of pirate torrent sites like The Pirate Bay or cyberlockers like Megaupload are not in the piracy business out of altruism–they’re in it to make money. Running a piracy website is profitable and those who do so deserve to be taken out of action. Other cogs in piracy’s profit machine–advertisers and payment processors–should also remain under scrutiny.
It would also help if our lawmakers worked on crafting legislation to help creators protect their livelihoods. Revisiting the terms for DMCA “safe harbor” might be a good place to begin.
Piracy remains a “well-entrenched” threat to a wide-range of content creators, but unlike Ms. Dewey, I am not ready to throw my hands up and say, “I give up.” Neither are most creators I know. We are not blind to the reality of today’s online culture that espouses a “free for me” attitude, but our livelihoods depend speaking out, and fighting back, and we will continue to do so.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
YouTube and Russian “aggregator,” piracy partners in crime?
When a bad guy steals your car stereo, to turn it into easy money, he often turn it over to a “fence” in exchange for quick cash. Wikipedia explains this criminal workflow this way:
A fence is an individual who knowingly buys stolen property for later resale, sometimes in a legitimate market. The fence thus acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen. As a verb, the word describes the behaviour of the thief in the transaction: The burglar fenced the stolen radio. This sense of the term came from thieves’ slang, first attested c. 1700, from the notion of such transactions taking place under defence of secrecy.[1]
The fence is able to make a profit with stolen merchandise because he is able to pay thieves a very low price for stolen goods…
It’s no surprise that in this digital age, criminals have turned their attention to dealing in stolen digital goods. Instead of car stereos thieves steal movies, music, etc. and, using the web advertising, convert it into income. It’s low risk way of making money and there’s a myriad of ways it can be done.
Deposed cyberlocker king Kim Dotcom did it with his Megaupload piracy pyramid scheme, but there are plenty of others who have perfected variations of this illicit business model along the way. Many, seemingly legit companies like Google have perfected the infrastructure and revenue formula so as to make it routine, right under our noses.
Most consider Google’s YouTube to be a raging success. After all, where else can you find the best cat videos or latest PR packages from ISIS terrorists in one place? It’s also a great place to “fence” stolen movies and music.
YouTube’s ads are ubiquitous and generate billions in profits, estimated to be over 1.9 billion for Google in 2013 alone. YouTube users can also share in (some of) the revenue if they set up an AdSense account and choose to monetize their uploads. According to a report in Barron’s, YouTube users make out pretty well:
…YouTube will bring in $5.9 billion in revenue this year, rising to $8.9 billion by 2016, with 53% of that paid out to users who provide the clips.
In cases where users upload work they actually own rights to, it’s great. Problem is, a lot of those people collectively pocketing 3.1 billion–in many cases–don’t own what they upload. These leeches set up channels, upload pirated content, and make money. Of course, YouTube as enabler-in-chief still pockets the majority of the profits, rightful ownership be damned.
When placing a myriad of advertisements adjacent or on videos, YouTube makes ZERO effort to vet the content for ownership. It doesn’t require any proof that uploaders own rights; it just assumes they will honor copyright law. Yeah, just like a fence assumes that every car stereo he receives wasn’t stolen from someone else.
When posed with the question as to whether it can “determine copyright ownership” YouTube justifies this hands off approach with this carefully crafted response:
YouTube isn’t able to mediate rights ownership disputes. When we receive a complete takedown notice, we remove the content as the law requires. When we receive a valid counter notification we forward it to the person who requested the removal. After this, it’s up to the parties involved to resolve the issue in court.
Mediating a dispute once something is uploaded is NOT equivalent to vetting content ownership prior to upload, yet YouTube apologists continue to claim that to do so would “stifle innovation” and “limit free expression” online. I’m not entirely sure how cracking down on thievery stifles innovation, but it makes for a good soundbite doesn’t it? How would vetting certain content before users are allowed to profit from it limit anything, aside from criminal behavior? Oh right, it could lower profits. That’s what this is really about.
YouTube claims be the broadcaster for the 21st century, yet can you imagine NBC airing a movie and earning income from advertising in the process without having cleared the rights prior to doing so? When my documentary aired on various PBS stations I had to document ownership and submit detailed paperwork that verified I had permission to use various works of music used throughout the piece. When we produced our feature film we had to purchase errors and omissions insurance and license all the music used in order to protect the rights of other creators.
These practices are the cost of doing business in the creative world yet YouTube doesn’t have to do the same? Why are companies like YouTube, that generate income by screening created by others, considered exempt from standard broadcast practices? Why is their bad business behavior exempt? Why are such practices on internet considered sacrosanct?
For Google, protecting innovation means protecting profits
It’s no wonder the powers that be at Google/YouTube fight tooth and nail against any effort to rein in this copyright-evading cash cow. Since enforcing copyright would put a serious dent in YouTube’s profits, you can bet that Google will move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening. Their apologists (and lobbyists) have mastered the spin that warn enforcing copyright (in a meaningful way) is a threat to innovation. In Google parlance innovation is merely a code for growing profits.
Other companies profit too. The graphic below illustrates how the Russian aggregator, Quiz Group, either creates its own pirate puppet users, or works with them to game the YouTube monetization system by monetizing pirated movies. By joining Quiz Group YouTube users don’t need an AdSense account. In exchange for giving up 20% of any income earned, they can easily earn money when by uploading illegal content.
Ford, Microsoft, CVS, LinkedIn, Dodge, North Face, Geico and more put money in pirate pockets
On its website, Quiz Group lays claim to 5 BILLION monthly views and more than 15,000 channels. I can only imagine how many of those billions of views come from stolen goods. Advertisements, 30 seconds and longer, from LinkedIn, Ford, Dodge Ram trucks, North Face stream before the full-movie appears. Cha’-ching…money, money, money…
This pirated movie was uploaded by a user who’s part of Quiz Group, a Russian aggregator that makes monetizing YouTube videos easy.
Surely YouTube has received thousands of DMCA notices linked to videos monetized by Quiz Group, but since it only penalizes individual users (and not the masterminds) Quiz Group can continue to rake in the dough alongside Google.
Quiz Group sports its own YouTube page and claims to be “YouTube certified” and on its own website recruits with this claim, offering to cut through any copyright red tape:
…we are aware of all the problems you may face around YouTube and we know the best solutions as well. We understand how it hurts, having third party claims, facing conflicts and resolving strikes. We have been through all these stories many times and learned our lessons based on the most complicated scenarios. We have converted our experience into effective tools, you may move forward smoothly and with a high confidence, grow really fast within YouTube environment.
Clearly YouTube’s standards aren’t particularly high if they allow a shadowy this Russian piracy-for-profit model to thrive. Perhaps YouTube’s standards for “certification” mandate moneymaking over respecting copyrights owned by others ?
I attempted to “join” Quiz Group to determine how they vet affiliates. In order to be considered, I had to give them access to a Google account. It took only seconds, but not surprisingly I was rejected for not having enough subscribers (10) nor views (1,000) within the last month.
Of course I’d like to speak with a Google representatives to ask why the company develops, and sustains business relationships with self-described “YouTube” channel aggregators like Quiz Group but folks at company headquarters won’t pick up phones or respond to emails from people like me. Stonewalling is another corporate skill they’ve mastered with virtual moats encircling their shiny corporate offices in Mountain View.
After all, why shouldn’t Google look the other way when this criminal enterprise is mutually beneficial?
For the record, I easily found other YouTube users linked to Quiz Group engaged in the same scheme (see example below). Given it took me only a couple searches to find them, I don’t imagine it’s stretching the truth to assume that a good number, if not the majority of Quiz Groups affiliates are in the business of making money off pirated uploads.
I wonder how North Face, Dodge, Amazon, Microsoft, Airborne, Geico, LinkedIn, CVS and Ford feel about their advertising appearing on these stolen movies? Are they OK with YouTube, Quiz Group and this pirate making money off stolen movies (and them)?
Why don’t advertisers pressure Google to do better? YouTube could start by applying the 3 strikes policy to those, like aggregators like Quiz Group, that routinely monetize infringing content, not just penalize the (often fake) users that upload it. There are also numerous other technological safeguards that could be implemented to prevent this abuse so why don’t advertisers demand better?
We constantly hear from representatives their industry, how concerned they are about ad sponsored piracy abuse. But, as I’ve noted repeatedly on this blog, so far the advertiser’s words are a million times louder than their actions. Industry reps could exert pressure to ensure ad profits go to rights holders, but it would require some effort–obviously more than they seem willing to give.
There are also tons of YouTube pirates who bypass third party aggregators and pocket cash directly via their own AdSense accounts. This isn’t the first time I’ve written about this scenario on YouTube. Time passes, but nothing changes.
Here’s a pirated copy of Paramount’s “Sliver” starring Sharon Stone. The film has been viewed over a million times earning profits for YouTube and the user who uploaded it without permission.
YouTube finds a Safe Harbor to protect its piracy profits
Aside from the advertisers, the only other way to exert pressure to change can come from Washington. Is this dirty profit scenario was what lawmakers had in mind when they crafted the “Safe Harbor” provisions of the DMCA. It’s one thing to offer service providers (like YouTube) protection from legal liability from “consequences of their users actions”, but does that also mean it’s OK to (knowingly) profit from illegal activity?
The DMCA states services providers have to “terminate” accounts of repeat infringers, but in the meantime let the tainted profits flow? It’s OK to be a criminal as long as you don’t get caught? This seems to be Google/ YouTube’s modus operandi.
I wonder if Congressman Darrell Issa, in his new role as chair of the subcommittee on the Internet, Courts, and Intellectual Property,will hold hearings on these types of nefarious business practices? He’s repeatedly voiced concern over patent trolls, what about pirate trolls? It’s been reported that discussion regarding copyright will remain the purview of the full committee, so perhaps such discussions will be handled there.
Until something changes, YouTube’s eco-system will remain a cesspool rather than a legitimate and laudable business model. For all the great stuff streaming on its pages, there’s a lot of s*&^ too…and because it’s YouTube practices business are intentionally nubilous, those who do follow the rules–like filmmakers and musicians–continue to be victimized. YouTube is the Wild West, a swamp of online fraud, where profits soar, often for those who are least deserving–morality be damned…
