by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Tech
Websites that offer pirated movies and music are taking it on the chin as of late. First movie2k.to disappeared (only to be reborn as a dubious duplicate) and now Kickass Torrents, one of the most popular torrent sites on the web, has had its domain name (kat.ph) seized by Philippine officials. According to Torrent Freak:
The action was taken following a complaint from local record labels who argued that the second largest torrent site on the Internet was causing “irreparable damages” to the music industry.
The domain seizure didn’t stop the site of course, it merely moved to a new domain name. A message posted at the new domain explained,
We had to drop Kat.ph as a part of our global maintenance….This was a hard decision, but it was necessary for the further development of KickassTorrents. Stay tuned for more news.
“Global maintenance” seems to be their euphemism for staying one step ahead of the law. At any rate, despite the fact the site has moved to a new domain, the good news in all this is that there seems to be increasing momentum to shutdown, or at least disrupt, websites that facilitate illegal content theft. Of course, if you want to find a site to watch or download movies and support the filmmakers who make them you could go here instead.
Update: Torrent Freak has updated this story and adds the MPAA is targeting the new domain for Kickass Torrents in order to get the site’s homepage links delisted by Google.
… the MPAA appears to be hand-picking torrent sites and streaming portals in an effort to have their homepages de-listed from Google. The new KickassTorrents domain Kickass.to is one of the first casualties of this strategy.
This is good news for all the musicians, filmmakers and authors whose work is routinely ripped off via this site.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics, TV
Some good news from my neck of the woods as California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced that her office had filed charges against 3 brothers who operated pirate websites featuring stolen movies and TV shows. According to a press release issued today, the 3 Bay Area men, Hop Hoang, 26, Tony Hoang, 23, and Huynh Hoang, 20, could face up to five years in prison if convicted. The brothers were arraigned in Alameda County Superior Court yesterday on charges that they operated a website (mediamp4.com) that allowed users access to illegal streams of more than 1,000 copyrighted TV shows and movies. More from the press release:
The three have each been charged with one count of conspiracy, four counts of receiving stolen property and one count of grand theft.
“Digital piracy is theft. It is a serious crime that harms one of California’s most important economic engines – our entertainment industry,” said Attorney General Harris. “This case sends a clear message that the California Department of Justice will investigate digital piracy and prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law.”
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) initially began an investigation into iphonetvshows.net and movieiphone.net and sent a cease and desist letter to Tony Hoang. Thereafter, Tony Hoang and his co-defendant brothers allegedly resumed the illegal operation under a new domain name, mediamp4.com. The Attorney General’s office then initiated an investigation into mediamp4.com, executed a search warrant, seized property used in connection with the illegal operation and filed charges against the Hoang brothers.
Is this the beginning of a positive trend in the battle against online piracy? Last week we saw Mississippi’s AG Jim Hood raise concerns over Google’s links to illegal online activity and now California’s AG Kamala D. Harris steps into the fray. The California investigation was directed by the eCrime Unit of the California Attorney General’s Office, California Highway Patrol, and REACT (Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team) a law enforcement task force located in Silicon Valley specializing in investigating technology crimes and identity theft.
It’s alleged that the brothers earned approximately $150,000 over the past 18 months through advertising and that they drove traffic to the site via Google search ads. Once again this illustrates the ongoing link between the lure of piracy profits via online advertising and these illegal websites. The pirates are not in business for altruistic reasons; they were pirating content because it pays.
Kudos too, to the MPAA that initiated the initial investigation. Let’s not forget that taking down illegal online piracy sites not only benefits Hollywood movie-makers, but also helps independent filmmakers around the globe in the ongoing battle to protect their films from being stolen and monetized by thieves. As MPPA CEO and former Senator Chris Dodd explained,
There are now nearly 80 legal online services in the United States dedicated to providing movies and television shows to viewers. But to realize the enormous potential of these businesses and ensure an Internet that works for everyone, it is critical that government, content creators, the tech community and others work together to stop illegal rogue sites.
I tried to visit the website in question but it’s apparently already been taken offline and the domain parked, but I did find this YouTube “review” for the site which pretty much covers its (former) operations. Watching this review it seems evident that the site was designed to allow users to easily stream or watch pirated content on iPhones, iPads or computers.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPeEjRJ_tiQ&w=560&h=315]
I must say, it was heartening to hear the reviewer note that it is “becoming harder and harder to find good sites.” Let’s hope other state attorney generals get on board. Bit by bit, piece by piece, we are making progress against the black market business of online piracy.
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
As the pirate world turns….
The mystery (and confusion) deepens over the fate of the popular pirate movie site Movie2k.to. Two weeks ago it suddenly disappeared from the web. Speculation was that it had something to do with efforts in the UK to block pirate websites. A few days later the site appeared to be reborn as movie4k.to but now, according to a report on a German-language site www.20min.ch the real site is now found at movie2k.tl and the site owners claim movie4k.to is a fraud. Imagine that, a pirate site subjected to fraudulent behavior. Karma….oh, but I digress. Here’s the skinny (translated badly from the original German):
Recently, Movie2k.to than Movie2k.tl again on the net. The operators claim to be the real Movie2k. At the same time they warn other websites Movie2k look confusingly similar. A name is not mentioned, but apparently Movie4k is meant. There, one could be captured viruses, write the supposedly real Movie2k operators.
The virus problem generally applies to free download and streaming portals: “The problem is the integration of advertising banners, the malicious code redirects or contain” says Marc Rubin of the Swiss Pirate Party.
Despite similar design, there is a marked difference between the two competing streaming sites: English-language series and porn movies no longer offers Movie2k.tl the time being.
What’s particularly rich in this story is that it appears, from what I can tell reading the translated account, it seems that the movie2k.to site was actually pirated by the operators of movie4k.to. I must admit, you have to chuckle just a bit when pirate sites start eating their own. Here’s more from the 20min.ch story:
The question remains in the room, why the supposedly real Movie2k-founder no longer use their old web address. An explanation: In Movie4k.to and Movie2k.tl it could be to free-riders, who want to benefit from the popularity of the name. A similar assumption has MarcRubin of the Pirate Party: “. Anyone can copy web content, embed the links to the movie streams and can refer to its own Internet address on” Mostly supervising a team a site like Movie2k. “Maybe there were quarrels and one of the sides is an offshoot,” speculated the pirate.
No matter how this all plays out, it’s nice to see a pirate website getting a taste of its own medicine.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy
Business models may be evolving, but the need for action against online piracy hasn’t
Unless you’re Rip Van Winkle, and as zombie-soaked Netflix binge viewers will attest, it’s become pretty clear that changes are afoot in Hollywood and beyond. Now some of Hollywood’s biggest players are chiming in to confirm it.
During a panel on the Future of Entertainment at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. producer/director Stephen Spielberg grabbed headlines when he predicted there’d be a “meltdown” in the movie industry Spielberg was joined on the panel by producer/director George Lucas and Don Mattrick, President of Microsoft’s Interactive Entertainment Business. According to Variety, both filmmakers predicted a shift in Hollywood’s business model:
“They’re going for the gold,” said Lucas of the studios. “But that isn’t going to work forever. And as a result they’re getting narrower and narrower in their focus. People are going to get tired of it. They’re not going to know how to do anything else.”
Spielberg noted that because so many forms of entertainment are competing for attention, they would rather spend $250 million on a single film than make several personal, quirky projects.
Spielberg said that his own recent successful film “Lincoln” was almost an HBO project rather than a theatrical release and that in the future, such projects would most likely end up on TV, not in cinemas. He added:
…there’s eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There’s going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that’s going to change the paradigm.
His comments do not really come as a surprise. With the advent of VOD and other distribution options, more and more filmmakers, indie and established, are eschewing theatrical release and moving toward these new outlets. Many view it as liberating.
Producer/director Jane Campion’s recent 7 part mini-series, “Top of the Lake” that premiered in March on the Sundance Channel, (and is now streaming on Netflix) typifies the trend–one that’s opened new creative avenues for filmmakers. In an interview with Vulture.com earlier this year, Campion explained:
It goes back to being influenced by some very early brave television makers, like David Milch of Deadwood. I remember seeing that show and going, “Oh my God, they are making this on television?” It made me reassess my view of what was possible anywhere. It felt like they were able to be braver and have a dialogue with the audience which was a lot more vigorous in a way than with film, where it feels like you have to pander to the audience a bit more to get them out of their houses. There’s all these people sitting at home with their beautiful flat-screens already waiting for something exciting to happen. I thought I could have a place there. I could try, anyway.
As for Hollywood, the move toward bigger films guaranteed to bring in big bucks at the box office is nothing new. As theater-going audiences know, the tried and true trend of sequels and blockbusters is where it’s at. Niche films that have a dubious box office value are relegated to limited runs or bypass theatrical release altogether. Spielberg and Lucas’ remarks only confirm the obvious. In his NY Times magazine piece last summer, “How Does the Film Industry Actually Make Money,” Adam Davidson explained:
People have predicted the demise of the film industry since the dawn of TV and, later, the appearance of VHS, cable and digital piracy. But Fabrizio Perretti, a management professor at the Università Bocconi in Italy, says that Hollywood is now actually destroying itself. Because it’s harder to get financing and audiences, companies are competing to make bigger, costlier films while eliminating risk, which is why ever-more movies are based on existing intellectual property. Eighteen of the all-time 100 top-grossing movies (adjusted for inflation) were sequels, and more than half of those were released since 2000.
With quality entertainment available at the touch of a remote in one’s living room, why bother with a movie theater at all? George Lucas made this prediction:
You’re going to end up with fewer theaters, bigger theaters with a lot of nice things. Going to the movies will cost 50 bucks or 100 or 150 bucks, like what Broadway costs today, or a football game. It’ll be an expensive thing. … (The movies) will sit in the theaters for a year, like a Broadway show does. That will be called the ‘movie’ business.”
“There’ll be big movies on a big screen, and it’ll cost them a lot of money. Everything else will be on a small screen. It’s almost that way now. ‘Lincoln’ and ‘Red Tails’ barely got into theaters. You’re talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can’t get their movies into theaters.
The small screen and VOD options are generating new viewing habits like binge-viewing and time shifting and have created an increased demand for fresh, long form programming. While these changing business models will influence what we see, and where we see it, there are certain questions that remain–including what the impact of digital piracy will be?
Sunday’s season finale for HBO’s hit series “Game of Thrones” became the most widely pirated TV episode ever. For some, the rampant piracy simply represents a sign of success, but can the same be said for productions that don’t fall into the massive hit category?
For indie filmmakers, these emerging business models provide both promise and peril. As we move forward into this brave new world of cinema, we need to find a way to protect content creators from the ravages of digital theft. To that end, the actual method of distribution doesn’t matter as much as a creator’s ability to reach an audience and earn a living. If left un-checked, digital piracy will continue to undermine artists and audiences alike. Our brave new world of engaging VOD content risks becoming predictable and homogenous.
A “meltdown” as Spielberg called it, is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as what emerges is a vibrant model that fosters innovation, and is viable for audiences and creators alike. Filmmaking has always been a marriage of business and art, but as hearings on copyright reform in Congress approach, let’s hope lawmakers understand that no matter the business model, artists remain at the core of our creative culture, and theirs are livelihoods are worth protecting.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Surprise, surprise…Google is once again in the spotlight for its role in linking to websites that promote illegal activities. In a statement released Thursday, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood charged that the search giant facilitates commerce in counterfeit goods and drugs online. Hood is co-chair of the National Association of Attorney General’s intellectual property committee. In the press release issued by his office, he outlined the issues:
…Google’s search algorithm often leads to sites known to sell counterfeit goods being at the top of the Google search results. Additionally, attorneys general are concerned that some of the sites selling counterfeit goods are advertising with Google.
“On every check we have made, Google’s search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games,” said Attorney General Hood. “This behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior.”
Hood sent a letter to Google’s Chief Executive Officer Larry Page inviting him to attend a national meeting of the attorneys general on June 18 in Boston to address the group’s concerns, categorized as follows:
- Content Removal – Google claims to only remove content from its search results in a narrow set of circumstances. The phrase “narrow set of circumstances” seems misleading. Google’s own policies on child exploitation state, “we block search results that lead to child pornography. This is a legal requirement and the right thing to do.” However, Google also removes other types of content. For instance, Google removes content from its German portal that glorifies the Nazi party on google.de or insults religion on google.co.in in India. Why will Google not remove websites or de-index known websites that purport to sell prescription drugs without a prescription or provide pirated content? Content removal can be done, but it appears Google is unwilling to remove content related to the purchase of prescription drugs without a prescription or the downloading of pirated movies and songs.
- Auto Complete – Google claims in its April 19th letter that “the predictions that appear in auto complete are an algorithmic reflection of query terms that are popular with our users and on the internet. Google does not manually select these terms or determine what queries are considered related to each other.” This statement is misleading. For example, a user cannot type in “free child” and receive an auto complete of the words “porn” or “pornography.” Google blocks an auto complete of the phrase “free child porn.” However, the phrase “buy oxycodone online” is autocompleted with the words “no prescription cod.” Google states in its April 19th letter that removing generic terms such as “prescription” or “online” is vastly overbroad. The issue is not about these words as stand-alone search terms, but phrases that facilitate known illegal behavior. For example, if you type in “buy oxycod,” the auto complete will provide “buy oxycodone online no prescription cod” as one of the choices. Another example is typing in “watch movies free so” and auto complete supplies “watch movies free solar.” Solarmovie is a known rogue website. The suggested search term by Google, “solar,” results in extensive sites containing infringing content on the first page of results. Can Google not remove phrases from auto complete such as “buy oxycodone online no prescription cod” or “watch movies free solar” without removing stand-alone terms?
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notices – Google has repeatedly stated that “sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results.” However, websites that continue to appear very prominently in Google search results are the same websites highly listed on Google’s Transparency Report. For example, single searches for a popular new DVD released film results in the website torrentz.eu on the first hit of the search. Torrentz.eu has received over 2,103,239 URL removal requests according to Google’s Transparency Report.
- Role of search engines in curbing sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals – Google does not mention the role of “search” at all in response to this question implying that search is not an issue of concern despite what is mentioned above. Moreover, Google does not mention its platform YouTube and the role of search and advertising on YouTube in promoting illegal activities. For example, users can search for and view videos purporting to sell prescription drugs without a prescription and other illegal activities all while viewing paid advertisements. What steps is Google taking to address advertising in conjunction with illicit videos on YouTube?
If reading this triggers a sense of deja vu, don’t worry– you’re not crazy. Less than 2 years ago, in August of 2011, Google agreed to a 500 million dollar settlement with the U.S. Justice Department over online advertisements for illegal Canadian pharmacies. According to the NY Times:
Google entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the government last week over the use of its AdWords program by Canadian pharmacies that helped them sell prescription drugs in the United States in violation of a federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 331(a). That law prohibits causing the “introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.
In addition to its role facilitating the trafficking of illegal and counterfeit drugs, Google’s ongoing relationship to illegal pirate movie sites has also been well established. Not only does the search giant continue to feature pirate websites high in its search results, but its YouTube and Blogger sites have also become efficient tools in online theft’s infrastructure.
In his statement Mr. Hood pointed out Google’s reluctance to regulate its own offerings and asked, as so many have before him, why is it that Google manages to block certain auto-complete phrases related to child porn or the Nazi party (on their German portal Google.de) but fails do so when it comes to other illegal, counterfeit content online?
The question of what companies like Google can and/or should do when it comes to illegal or harmful content was brought into sharp relief recently when another Silicon Valley giant, Facebook, was scrutinized for its refusal to act against pages that promoted misogynist and violent “hate speech” against women.
The NY Times featured a piece By Tanzina Vega and Leslie Kaufman “The Distasteful Side of Social Media Puts Advertisers on Their Guard” that examined the balance between free speech and civic responsibility. They aptly noted: “With the money, they are discovering, comes responsibility,” According to the story, YouTube officials claim to be pro-active when it comes to controlling where advertising appears:
YouTube also has mechanisms that give advertisers some control over where their brands appear. “When we become aware of ads that are showing against sensitive content, we immediately remove them,” Lucas Watson, the company’s vice president for video online global sales, wrote in an e-mail. “We also give advertisers control to target specific content, and they can choose to block ads against certain content categories or individual videos.”
The key here is “when we become aware.” The real question for YouTube and Google’s other services (search, Blogger, AdSense) is why isn’t the company pro-active to prevent these abuses rather than reactive? Preventing abuse of its products is not censorship; it’s the responsible thing to do.
via http://www.fairsearch.org/
Google’s reluctance to take decisive action seems to demonstrate that despite half-billion dollar fines and ongoing scrutiny from governments around the world, profits remain paramount, no matter the source.
Unfortunately, these days it seems that Google’s not alone in looking the other way. Just last month shipping giant UPS had to cough up a 40 million dollar settlement for knowingly distributing shipments for illegal online pharmacies.
Enabling trafficking in illegal products is illegal. The time for Google to clean house is long overdue. The question is, will it do so voluntarily or will it have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table? If past is prologue then my guess is that it will be the latter.
