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.
Amazon.com offers its users a small way to give back to a favorite charity by using the Amazon Smile portal instead of the regular site. When I make purchase via Amazon, I’m happy to know that .5% of my purchase goes to a charity of a my choice. The key to remember, to have a donation made, is to login through the Smile portal.
Google takes users on a crooked path to another charity that apparently pays for placement
Amazon.com offers its users a small way to give back to a favorite charity by using the Amazon Smile portal instead of the regular site. When I make purchase via Amazon, I’m happy to know that .5% of my purchase goes to a charity of a my choice. The key to remember, to have a donation made, is to login through the Smile portal.
The other day I wanted to buy something and didn’t recall the exact Amazon Smile URL, so used Google search to direct me to the proper link. This would have been fine except for the fact that Google is not really a benign search engine. It’s actually set up as a gigantic for profit enterprise which allows its customers to purchase advertising and influence. Apparently search results for Amazon’s charity portal are apparently also considered fair game.
Google’s opaque results set up to fool users into donating to Boston Medical Center
I discovered this evil design when I searched Google for the “Amazon Smile” site. The top search result took me there all right–but with one big caveat. Upon login, the Google search link nefariously set up a window suggesting I switch from my current charity choice to Boston Medical Center instead. Now, I have no problem with Boston Medical Center earning funds from Amazon users who knowingly choose itas their charity of choice. In fact the medical center is a very worthy charity as they serve many in need of serious medical care , but I do have a problem if money has changed hands in a opaque effort to push me, and others, into switching. Is that fair to my original choice of charity?
Here’s how it worked, as I illustrate using the graphic below: Click the link in the top result and you’re taken to the Amazon Smile login page. All’s good–until you login in. To proceed, you must then either select Boston Medical Center (the highlighted option) as your new charity or confirm your previous charity. My question is why should I be forced to (re)confirm my original charity choice?
I caught on to the scheme quickly, wondering how in hell Boston Medical Center was butting its way into my charity preference, but not every web user will. Let’s face it, some people, particularly older folks, may just click through innocently. After all, the “Yes, change my charity option” is the choice that’s highlighted. Amazon offers this explanation as to why you are being given an option (even though you didn’t think you asked):
You clicked a link from an email or another website indicating you want to set a different charitable organization from the one you selected during an earlier visit. You need to either confirm that you want to change your charity, or keep your previously selected charity.
Problem is, I did not do that. I used Google search and trusted its results. I assume that Amazon remains unaware this is happening.
So, just to summarize. In this world, it’s fair game to siphon off charity dollars that should be directed elsewhere? Google receives payment to rig Amazon Smile search results in such a way that visitors may be tricked into switching. Nothing charitable about that approach is there? In fact, it’s a pretty damn skeevy way to attract donations. Skeevy is, however, Google’s middle name.
For the record, Google claims it labels its ads in search results:
When people search on Google for something they want, they find two types of results: search results and ads. Search results appear as links on search results pages and aren’t part of Google’s advertising programs. Ads appear under an “Ads” label and may be placed in several locations around the free search results.
Nice disclaimer, but when it comes my search for “Amazon Smile” there was NO indication that this result and corresponding link were paid product placements. I guess Google uses different terminology its practice of nesting duplicitous links? This switcheroo is also devious on both Google and Boston Medical’s part. If you want legitimate search results, untainted by the profit motive, Google is truly not the place to go. I wonder if any attorney generals are examining this practice? Perhaps I should ring up the Massachusetts AG and ask?
Bing offers legit search results at the top
For comparison sake I checked out Bing and Yahoo. Bing wins the award for operating as an actual search engine, at least in this case. The Amazon Smile portal is the first result…no questions asked. It’s simple and easy to click and go to the page you actually want.
Yahoo does place a couple advertisements at the top of its results BUT at least they are clearly marked advertisements. Although it seems odd that weather.info is allowed to piggy back on Amazon’s name. After a small spacer, the first genuine search result is a legit linking to the Amazon Smile web portal and doesn’t try and trick you into selecting a different charity.
It’s no surprise that Google manipulates its search algorithm to deploy advertising to fill its coffers, but to do so in such a opaque and deceitful way is pretty awful. Once again Google’s reputation for greed is shown to be well deserved.
Apparently even those who would like to do a little good in the world by donating through Amazon Smile are considered fair game for exploitation by the Google team. Profits above people at every turn. Shame on Google.
Unlike their counterparts in the U.S. who seem content with a creaky DMCA law more than 2 decades old, members of the European Council passed a directive to move copyright law into the digital age:
Unlike their counterparts in the U.S. who seem content with a creaky DMCA law more than 2 decades old, members of the European Council passed a directive to move copyright law into the digital age:
The Council today adopted a directive that modernises existing EU copyright law to pave the way towards a true digital single market. The new rules ensure adequate protection for authors and artists, while opening up new possibilities for accessing and sharing copyright-protected content online throughout the European Union.
It’s refreshing to see the rights of creators be taken seriously in spite of withering, and predictable, pushback from tech interests and their various astro-turf groups. Finally Google and others will actually have to arrange for proper licenses before monetizing the work of others.
Freedom on the internet, as in the real world, will continue to exist as long as the exercise of this freedom does not restrict the rights of others, or is illegal. This means that a user will be able to continue uploading content to internet platforms and that these platforms will be able to continue hosting such uploads, as long as the platforms respect the creators’ right to fair remuneration. Currently, the online platforms remunerate creators on a voluntary basis and only to a very limited degree, because they are not liable for the content they host and therefore have little to no incentive to strike deals with rights holders.
The directive will not censor. By increasing legal liability, it will increase pressure on internet platforms to conclude fair remuneration deals with the creators of work through which the platforms make money. This is not censorship.
Meanwhile, U.S. Congress remains under big tech’s thumb
Too bad our representatives in Washington seem uninterested in tackling this issue. It’s ironic to note that had Congress take action to rein in big tech, by establishing reasonable regulations mirroring those in the brick and mortar world, the institution itself would probably be a much more effective governing entity today. Instead our nation has spun into a miasma of social media manipulation and misinformation. Where Europe has stepped up, the US has fallen further and further behind.
Reasonable rules have always been the hallmark of civilized society and by allowing an entirely new online ecosystem to form (and fester) outside the bounds of legal scrutiny, a Pandora’s box was opened. It may be too late to close it
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
Google takes users on a crooked path to another charity that apparently pays for placement
So, just to summarize. In this world, it’s fair game to siphon off charity dollars that should be directed elsewhere? Google receives payment to rig Amazon Smile search results in such a way that visitors may be tricked into switching. Nothing charitable about that approach is there? In fact, it’s a pretty damn skeevy way to attract donations. Skeevy is, however, Google’s middle name.
