by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright
If you’re wondering where my earlier post about ads disappearing from clicktoview.org, I apparently spoke too soon. As of this evening the advertising was back–major name brand advertising video ads again displayed adjacent to sex ads. Solarmovie.so is also involved as original source of the link and it’s not clear how or if the ad revenue is shared between the two pirate sites.
When I checked a link for the newly released “Carrie” I came across these ads (note the ads alongside the sex ad are actually videos that play): Bounty paper towels, Vicks (official sponsor of the NFL starring Saints’ quarterback Drew Brees), Best Buy, Hyundai, Crest, and Dannon Oikos Yogurt. There were more video ads that played, but I’m running out of room….
If anyone cares to look at the source code for all of this garbage, here’s a PDF I created. Another interesting thing to note, if you click on the button “get streaming link” you’ll end up on this page (see below) that requires you view ads courtesy of Geico, Best Buy & Domino’s Pizza before putting in a captcha code in order to finally arrive at the pot of gold, a pirated stream of the Carrie re-make.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Ads for Adidas, Acura, Bertolli, Crest, Charmin, Domino’s, Ford, Geico, Hellmann’s, Lowe’s, Panera, Papermate, PG&E, Post and more share space with sex ads
I know I sound like a broken record, particularly when writing about online advertisers’ ongoing refusal to do something about their role in ad-sponsored online piracy.
In writing about this issue I’ve repeatedly pointed out that in the world of brick and mortar publishing, companies are extremely picky about ad placement and exert careful control over what editorial content appears beside them.
Apparently, in the world of online advertising, such vigilance is of little concern. It’s a literal free-for-all where companies, desperate to squeeze every penny out of their ad budgets, contract with multiple ad networks to blanket the web with their promotions. Advertisers willingly abdicate their control over ad placement in favor of market saturation. With this in mind I’m sharing a sample of some vulgar, sex ads found on pirate download links that show up aside ads featuring popular, brand-name products.
Do these companies really want their products promoted pages linking to pirated copies of Gravity, beside ads that read “First Free Find & F**k Site” or a chat window featuring well-endowed “Molly” who teases, “I wanna f**k now?”
Ad Industry Best Practices?
The ad industry and ad service providers have made a show of agreeing to voluntary “best practices” agreements to fight ad-sponsored piracy, but despite their talk and White House support, not much has changed. Take a look at the graphic below…What kind of industry “best practices” do these ad placements represent?
Can these advertisers really pretend that it’s not worth taking action? Piracy profiteering is alive and well and the ad dollars of advertisers like these play a significant role.
These companies work hard to protect and promote their brand’s image and so seeing Charmin toilet paper advertised aside a“First Free Find & F**k” ad seems more akin to pimping than promotion and it’s certainly does not complement their fuzzy, family bear campaign.
The bottom line is that these ads are not good for business unless, of course, you’re in the business of online piracy or selling sex. If that’s the case, then these ads are the lifeblood that sustains you while simultaneously sucking the life out of the content creators whose work your steal. 
It’s a sick and twisted illicit economy and legitimate advertisers better start taking their “best practices” seriously and voluntarily remove their brands from these ad networks unless they want their products associated with images like this.
**Note, I will be adding to the “Advertiser Hall of Shame” slide show (below) as I come across new examples. Unfortunately, I imagine I will be making updates often.
Dove’s “self-esteem” ad
Kraft
Aveeno
Duracell
Best Foods ad
Natural Choice
Windows
Bounty
Vicks
Luvs Diapers
Duracell Batteries
Crest Pro Health
Swiffer
Best Buy
Febreze
Greenies
Alaska Airlines
L.L. Bean
Nokia
Motorola (a Google Company)
General Electric
Microsoft Windows Phone
Castro Motor Oil
Target
Hot Pockets
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics
Google’s had a great week. On the heels of robust 3rd quarter revenue of 14.9 billion (net income of 2.97 billion), shares of its stock soared over the $1,000 mark for the first time in history making lots of folks in Mountain View (and investors everywhere) very happy. Yet while Google’s stock may have surged to new highs, it seems not much has changed when it comes to its anti-piracy priorities.
The tech titan has long been the target of anti-piracy activists like myself for its role in enabling and profiting from online piracy. The company’s culpabilities are many, but Google’s search engine has drawn much heat lately so it’s not surprising to see its flacks on the warpath fighting back spinning studies to counter that claim. In a recently published report “How Google Fights Piracy,” authors went so far as to claim that,“Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.”
I dissected that report’s disingenuous findings in an earlier blog post, but after yesterday’s financial news, I decided to conduct a little piracy “reality check” and discovered not much has changed at Google other than its stock price.
I came to this not-unexpected conclusion this morning after doing three quick searches using the search term “watch ________ online” (filling in the blank with a movie title). As my first “test” search I chose a Hollywood blockbuster, The Hunger Games. I put “watch Hunger Games online” into search and up popped the results shown below.
The first result was a paid Netflix ad and the second listing is a largely a spam site. However, when I clicked on the third result I found the entire film streaming online (for free). FYI this pirate website, VIOOZ seems impervious to DMCA requests…at least I couldn’t find were to send a request and WHOIS database results were a dead-end. It should also be noted that VIOOZ.co seems to have supplanted VIOOZ.eu, the domain name change being yet another example online pirate entrepreneurs’ never-ending game of hide-and-go-seek.
My second search was for another hit movie, “Ted.” While not on the same the scale as “The Hunger Games,” the Seth MacFarlane directed film was a box office smash bringing in a record 54.1 million its first weekend, a record for an R-rated comedy. As for the Google search results, what’s interesting is that it brought be to a site, http://www.primewire.ag/ which appears to be yet another reincarnation of 1Channel.ch which became letmewatchthis.ch–a chameleon-like black market online piracy operation that makes money from ads on its site.
Like most pirate websites–the more clicks, the more money they make. The site boasts links to 53,695 items, and that’s a lot of carrots to drive traffic and dollars their way.
Note in the screen capture shown below, in the left margin there’s a “support this site” plea–below it, an advertisement promoting a CBS sports broadcast for NCAA college football. Sadly this is yet another example of a major American brand indirectly sending cash the pirate’s way.
Other ads pop up any time you click anything. At any rate when I clicked through the results for “Ted” I immediately came to a link for a pirated download on the pirate cyberlocker Sockshare.com.
Checking the Google transparency report for primewire.ag I found that Google has received requests to remove more than 4,000 results (links) the site became active this past June. Like the VIOOZ site, this pirate portal ignores DMCA requests. Particularly cheeky is the verbiage contained in the website’s “intellectual property” statement:
Intellectual Property – General
1Channel.ch respects the rights of others, and prohibits the use of referenced material for any purpose other than that for which it is intended (where such use is lawful and free of civil liability or other constraint) and in such circumstances where possession of such material may have any adverse financial, prejudicial or any other effect on any other third party.
1Channel.ch is copyrighted, and all rights are reserved, as those are of the proprietors and those of the partners websites material referenced within. Anyone found imitating the site or stealing content from the site will be liable to prosecution. [emphasis added]
My morning’s third search was for the recent indie film, “A Perfect Ending.” Using the same search criteria, the top result led me straight to a pirated stream of the full movie online at VIOOZ.
My results are, of course, anecdotal. However, given the fact that Google’s top results (using obvious search terms) led me straight to pirated copies of these movies, it would seem my findings undercut repeated claims by Google, and their paid surrogates, that search isn’t a significant factor in leading consumers to pirated content online.
The tech-funded Computer and Communication Industry Association’s (CCIA) Vice President of Law & Policy Matt Schruers recently authored a study that claimed, “Search Engines Aren’t A Major Tool For Finding Copyright-Infringing Content.” Oddly the actual link to the study has been taken offline, but its author made his thesis clear when he said:
The available evidence suggests that search engines are not a particularly relevant tool for finding copyright infringing sites, or for infringing sites to find users.
I would suggest that Mr. Shruers clarify what he meant by “available evidence?” The evidence I found via quick searches was readily “available,” and pretty damning.
As its stock continues to climb, there’s no denying that Google is a giant among giants–but with success comes responsibility. There is no magic bullet, but admitting one has a problem is the first step in finding a solution. For real progress to be made, Google needs to stop employing evasive maneuvers to deflect blame and begin to devote more of its vast resources and innovative technology to implement real solutions to the piracy problem that its search engine helps sustain. To do so would be in everyone’s best interests, consumers and creators alike.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Politics, Tech
Piracy apologists would have us believe that it’s actually the content creators who are to blame when their movies, music and books are pirated. The rhetoric is always the same old, same old–a stale mantra of “outdated business models” and blame the victim verbiage.
This predictable tripe reemerged today on a new website called PiracyData.org that published (splashy but false) new data that supposedly supports the idea that piracy is Hollywood’s fault. According to a story in today’s Washington Post, the site was created by members of a libertarian “think tank” called the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a software engineer:
Piracydata.org was created by two tech policy researchers at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank, and by Matt Sherman, a software engineer based in New York. The team’s leader, Jerry Brito, says he got the idea for the site after a hearing in which major content holders criticized Google for failing to do enough to combat piracy. That criticism came despite the fact that Google has taken a number of steps to prevent illegal sharing of copyrighted works.
It should be noted that Brito’s Twitter account links to page on the Mercatus Center’s website featuring a book he co-authored, “Copyright Unbalanced, From Incentive to Excess.” Hmmm, not exactly a neutral party. On piracydata.org he and his co-authors posed this question:
Do people turn to piracy when the movies they want to watch are not available legally? We’re building a dataset to help answer that question.
The single web page includes a large graphic listing the week’s top ten torrented downloads and highlights the fact the finding the movies via legit sources online is difficult, if not impossible. Their takeaway? Piracy is the fault of the distributors, not online thieves. Too bad their original graphic (and data) contained errors–a fact belatedly pointed out by the Washington Post’s Timothy B. Lee in his story which featured the provocative headline, “Here’s why Hollywood should blame itself for its piracy problems.” Lee updated his piece (and changed his headline):
Correction: The original data supplied to us by PiracyData.org was inaccurate. It showed 1 movie available for rental and 4 available for purchase. In fact, 3 are available for rental and 6 are available for purchase. We regret the error…
It’s a shame Lee didn’t also disclose his former ties to the libertarian Cato Institute and Google.
In a statement, the MPPA added , “More than half of the films they cite are in fact available to stream or download, including films they claim are not,” Their spokesman also pointed out that the popular series “The Walking Dead” was pirated 500,000 times within 16 hours even though it was available for free steaming via AMC’s website.
One would think researchers working at an institution like George Mason University would be a tad more careful to verify their findings before posting them on the web…or maybe not. Perhaps accuracy was left on the cutting room floor in favor of a more pernicious agenda. To understand what I mean it’s worth taking a harder look at the Mercatus Center and its mission.
…Our mission is to generate knowledge and understanding of the institutions that affect the freedom to prosper and to find sustainable solutions that overcome the barriers preventing individuals from living free, prosperous, and peaceful lives.
Ironic that their mission includes the phrase “freedom to prosper.” I guess that applies to prosperous thieves like Kim Dotcom, and not those who make their livings creating content (films, music, books, and more). Piracydata.org’s founders seem to take umbrage at the the ongoing criticism directed toward Google for it’s lack of accountability and transparency regarding its role in profiting from and enabling online theft. Apparently the site’s founders aren’t offended by the fact that Google has made millions off stolen and counterfeit products over the years.
It’s too bad that piracydata.org isn’t more transparent about its sugar daddy. Like many of the astro-turf anti-copyright entities this one’s tentacles can be traced back to Google, the supposedly aggrieved party whose persecution by anti-piracy advocates that inspired the site’s creation in the first place. Brito makes no bones of his allegiance to Google’s position and was quoted in Politico story saying:
“When movies are unavailable, illegal sources may be the most relevant search results…Despite what the content industry might like to see, search engines are just telling it like it is.”
The Mercatus Center was founded in 1978 by the Richard Fink, who currently serves as an executive vice president and a member of the board of directors for Koch Industries, Inc. He also happens to lead the firm’s lobbying operations in Washington. The center receives 54% of its funding from foundations and according to sourcewatch.org donors include the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council, aka ALEC. What Silicon Valley tech giant is active in promoting ALEC’s agenda? Google is, at least according to this story published on the Daily Beast this past August:
The American Legislative Exchange Council once faced a backlash for its support of Stand Your Ground and voter ID laws, losing Coca-Cola and Kraft as members. Now the advocacy group is working with companies such as Google, Facebook, and Yelp, and taking more civil libertarian stances on technology issues than it has in the past…
…ALEC’s communications and technology task force, which includes representatives from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo. (The first two companies have not previously been reported to be involved with ALEC and have not responded to requests for comment.)
Google does mention its cozy relationship with the libertarian mission on its public policy page:
Our U.S. Public Policy and Government Affairs team provides support to a number of independent third-party organizations whose federally-focused work intersects in some way with technology and Internet policy. While this list is continually evolving, some examples of these organizations are: … Mercatus Center…
Given Google’s link to the Mercatus Center’s funding (and its libertarian philosophy) is it any wonder their new astro-turf site blames big, bad Hollywood for piracy instead of the thieves who steal and monetize its movies. Piracy is flourishing not because of Hollywood’s failure, but because criminals can make money monetizing stolen content.
Piracydata.org’s data dump is clearly yet another attempt by Google, and its stealth lobbyists (dressed as academics) to muddy the debate and undermine the rights of content creators. Dueling “studies” created using lobbyist’s cash is nothing new—but please, at least be honest about who’s funding the research OK? That would really be “telling it like it is.”
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Publishing
Late last month ad industry executives from around the country attended the annual Advertising Week convention in New York. Included among the events was a panel “Digital Media Value Under Attack: It’s Worse than You Thought.” Nebulous title aside, it was basically a discussion focusing on the role that advertising plays in supporting online piracy. Rick Cotton, NBCUniversal’s Senior Counselor for IP Protection, pretty much summed it up when pointed out that, “No one has asked the blunt question of whether you want your ad associated with a pirate site…Advertisers should not want their ads to be in that environment. It’s getting more risky to be in business with criminal websites.”
Bob Liodice, CEO of ANA (Association of National Advertisers) agreed and suggested the industry needs to be accountable for its role in monetizing piracy.
“It makes us all shake our heads, wondering how we can wrap our arms around this. We have theft going on here.” Liodice believes that one problem is that no one has taken “ownership” of the piracy problem. “We have to create a level of collaboration in order for the [advertising] industry to own the issue.” Liodice stressed that collaboration has to be “systematized” and that the industry has to make it “personal.”
I know it’s only been a couple of weeks, but the advertising industry has been aware of the problem for a long time and yet nothing changes. Despite lip-service to the contrary and July’s White House’s announcementt of a much-hyped–but essentially toothless–anti-piracy “best practices” pact by online ad servers Google, Microsoft, Yahoo AOL and others, the sad fact is that advertisements from major American companies continue to adorn (and make money for) pirate web pages.
Below is just a sampling of ads that popped up when I looked for (and found) pirated streams of a recent indie film “White Frog.”
Why is it still acceptable for online advertisers to get away with this? Why is their money still filling pirate coffers at the expense of content creators? Online ad service providers and their clients seem to have no difficulty fine-tuning technology to sniff out web user’s product preferences. Why can’t they sniff out pirate pages and block their ads from appearing there? Do the head honchos at Snickers or USA Today know that their logos are plastered across stolen goods? Do they care? Why isn’t Disney, an entertainment giant, making sure that their dollars don’t end up in pirate pockets?
I can’t really think of any excuse for these major brands to be in the business of paying pirates to promote their products. Clearly the powers that be don’t care enough to demand change. For them, it’s all about the money, morals be damned…
For content creators whose work is routinely stolen and monetized by others perhaps its time to really pay attention. I know I won’t be putting snickers in any trick or treater’s plastic pumpkin this Halloween.
