by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
It was too good to be true, of course. A notorious online pirate movie site Movie2k.to went offline last week, but now, less than a week later appears to have been reborn as Movie4k.to. Along with links to thousands of pirated movies the site offered this explanation as to its public mission and its dubious role as protector of a “free” internet:
Nobody should have the power to suppress somebody just because of money!
This site is the result of the need of many Human Beings. Everyone wants Movie2k.to/Movie4k.to back.
We, the Citizens, have to make clear that a “copyright infringement” cannot be compared to a violent crime. How come bootlegger get five years of jail time while child abuser are free on a 22-month probation? That is because money is way more important than an [sic] unique human life.
You cannot suppress the will of the People! One website goes, the next day five new appear. Did not the time come to overthink your marketing concepts and accept the new media?
So: FU Hollywood, FU GVU, FU Anti-piracy and FU Police. But we love Obama!
Thank You to all supporting us! Let’s not give up and fight for our internet freedom! #Movie4k
If fighting for “internet freedom” means hosting a site that rips off filmmakers of all stripes, indie or otherwise, and making money stealing the work of others, then I suppose Movie4k is justified in its swaggering grandiosity. Freedom to steal should not be construed, as it so often is, with freedom of speech. At least the movie4k folks seem to be admitting that the site is in the business of “copyright infringement” as they defiantly give the filmmakers the proverbial finger.
The reasons for move from the Movie2k.to to the Movie4k.to domain remain vague, but it doesn’t seem to have been a move that was voluntary. Hopefully the copy-cat site’s presence as an online emporium of theft (and illicit profit) will be short-lived.
Below is a graphic showing just a random sampling of indie film titles found on the site. These films, produced by independent filmmakers, are the type that don’t often have theatrical releases and depend entirely on back-end revenue to recoup production costs. The links to pirated downloads and streams offered on sites like Movie4k.to make it that much harder for indie filmmakers like these to finance their next film. For consumers this pirate site may offer the lure of “free” access to movies, but at what cost? How many new films won’t be made because ripping off the work of others is so easy? Be careful what you wish for…
If you want to find a site where you can watch your favorite films and support the filmmakers go here.
Movie 4k steals from indie filmmakers
Update: Turns out that movie4k.to may have ripped off the original pirate site and we may have a case of online pirates eating their own. That’s some just desserts!
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
Wondering where you can watch movies online with Movie2k gone?
Mourning the loss of your favorite free (pirate) movie site? Movie2k.to has been offline now for several days and the reasons aren’t entirely clear. There are still ways to watch movies online for free and the International Design Times has compiled a list of those sites here. Of course, unlike Movie2k these are sites that offer a legit (legal) way to watch movies.
Thomas Edison, “Father of Film”
Reading some of the reactions to reports of Movie2k’s shutdown on TorrentFreak it’s clear that some feel entitled to watch whatever they want, when they want, for free. I wonder if they apply that same attitude when it comes to their own work. Do they tell their boss not to bother giving them a paycheck because heck, they should work for free right? Somehow I doubt it.
At any rate I found this comment particularly amusing:
Free movies are possible. Ever heard of commissioning or sponsorship? This is how great works were done before the copyright monopoly came along. Wealthy benefactors wanted works created for them with which they could then share to boost their popularity. Some would profit, some were just nice people with too much money.
Aside from getting it wrong (try reading some cinema history) I’m not sure about you, but I wouldn’t want to depend on 21st century billionaires from Google, Facebook, etc. to determine what’s available for us to watch. Certainly the tech titans are free to create and share content as they see fit, and perhaps that would be preferable to today’s environment where they often use the content of others–often without permission–to fuel their growth. I fear, however, that such a scenario would simply lead to more generic content, driven by Google analytics rather than creative initiative.
The growth of American cinema was, and always has been, driven by business interests. Early on the studios implemented monopolistic practices to protect and grow their investments. It wasn’t until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1948 in U.S. v Paramount Pictures case that the studios’ control of all aspects of the movie production process from creation to distribution (vertical integration) was in fact an oligopoly, and a violation of anti-trust laws.
The court decision was the beginning of the end of the Hollywood studio system and changed the business of making and distributing movies. The decision, coupled with the introduction of television, paved the way for a more “independent” and creatively diverse cinema to emerge. Do we really want a return to the day when only the most powerful–those who can afford to underwrite a multi-million dollar movie production–determine what we watch? I don’t think so.
Those who think we can sustain a diversity of cinematic voices by demanding that they be “free” to watch are naive. Most films worth watching won’t be free to create. While we’re certainly moving into an era where mechanisms for securing production funds are evolving (i.e. crowd-source funding) we must encourage an environment where filmmakers can determine–for themselves–the best way to disseminate their creative work. Demanding a distribution framework where all content must be offered free of charge would inevitably undermine the both the quality and variety of films available.
Understanding and appreciating the historical context for cinema’s evolution over the past century provides a useful paradigm as to the possibilities for shaping film’s future. In the meantime, for those who would like to explore current cinematic offerings, here’s another source to find films online: Wheretowatch.com. Happy viewing!
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Politics, Tech
The Silicon Valley giant debates, deflects and downplays its role in facilitating and profiting from online piracy
Google’s ongoing role in facilitating (and profiting from ) online piracy was back in the spotlight this week thanks to a debate held this past Tuesday, May 28th, at the University of Westminster in London. The debate,“Follow The Money: Can The Business Of Ad-Funded Piracy Be Throttled?” was sponsored Music Tank, a university business network and included musician (and blogger) David Lowery; BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) boss Geoff Taylor; Theo Bertram, Google UK policy manager ; Alexandra Scott, public policy manager at the Internet Advertising Bureau in the UK; and James Barton, artist manager at The Blue Team.
The presence of a Google representative at a debate on this issue was itself newsworthy, and I might add, overdue. The evening’s discussion on the issue of ad supported piracy (summarized by Musically.com here) seemed to be focused on two main questions: who was responsible and what could be done about it.
David Lowery opened the evening’s discussion and framed a central problem with ad-sponsored piracy this way:
If the future of music really is access to songs rather than owning as many as we do nowadays, those services are all advertising-supported, and they’re competing with these illegitimate sites for these ads…Spotify and Pandora should have probably rightfully got that advertising money.
This is a key point. Online piracy harms content creators (across all disciplines) because it dilutes the market for legitimate consumption and siphons income away from creators and to the pirates (and their enablers). Online advertising revenue gives online pirates an advantage. The thieves can monetize stolen content at zero cost while the creators, who’ve expended capital to create the content, are forced to compete against free versions of their own product. Without income from online advertising, online piracy would not be viable on the scale that it is today.
When it was Google’s turn, per usual, Google was Google as Theo Bertram carefully paid lip-service to the notion that the search giant is proactive in the fight against piracy–citing how much it cost them to implement Content ID on YouTube (30 million) and assuring the audience that “If people have got content up there that is unlicensed and infringing, that would be a breach of our rules,”
Sure, it’s a “breach” of Google’s rules, but the point is, so what? As I have explained numerous times–when confronted with users who routinely and repeatedly break the rules–Google often looks the other way. I would have liked to ask Mr. Bertram how many times does it take for a Blogspot.com pirate site to be reported before Google will remove it? Just how many times does a YouTube user making money for themselves and Google off stolen content have to be reported before the account is terminated? Google refuses to say.
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Google may have created a “transparency report” that lists takedown requests received for its web searches, but when it comes to the inner workings of how it polices Blogger, AdSense and YouTube there’s little transparency–just continued obfuscation.
While Google’s equivocation was not unexpected, equally frustrating was Alexandra Scott’s attempt to explain why online ad services are so inept when it comes to keeping content off illegal sites:
This is a huge industry. We’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of players here. It’s not always obvious to those players where that advertising is going. There’s a huge amount of work that we’re undertaking to address that.
Often those middlemen are helping to make advertising more efficient, more targeted and more relevant…I don’t think we want to do away with that, because that innovation is helping to drive the business… Obviously there are concerns about where that advertising is going to appear… It’s not something that’s easy to address: there’s no one-size fits all.
Yep, there it is again, that word “innovation” which–in today’s debate about piracy–is habitually employed as shield by those who wish to avoid taking action (or responsibility) for their role in it. In their world it seems that “responsibility” and “innovation” are considered to be mutually exclusive concepts.
Pop-up ads found on a Google-hosted Blogger website in March of 2013 including a number of name brands.
The oft-used ad industry excuse that “it’s not always obvious to those players where that advertising is going…” is also growing old. As I’ve pointed out many times, advertisers in the print and TV industry are keenly aware of where their ads appear and what editorial/entertainment content they partner with. How is that these same advertisers allow this editorial control to go missing on the internet? Is this “innovation” at work or are advertisers so desperate not to miss out on potential customers that blanketing the web with their promotions is seen as the only way to compete in this brave new world? Scott tried to address this conundrum, but ultimately fell back on the same, tired excuse:
Coca-Cola may say ‘we only want to work on a white-list basis, we only want to appear against certain publishers…They don’t want to be going on these sites. They’re just not always aware of the issue. They don’t necessarily know it’s happening until there’s a crisis… I don’t think that people actively seek out these sites to go and advertise on… Eyeballs isn’t the only thing for advertising: it’s all about context.
While Ms. Scott tried to explain why ad sponsored piracy is a difficult nut to crack, Mr. Bertram seemed more than willing to direct most of the responsibility for ad placement on the clients themselves:
…the only way you get that scale is if you get the big brands…Thus, the responsibility lies with brands to take responsibility, even though there is more work to do for Google in policing how and where ads are served on its network.
It’s not Google’s job to go around the web to declare whether sites are legal or illegal, but if Coca-Cola comes to us and says here’s a list of 500 dynamic sites, and we don’t want you to place ads on those… that’s a slightly different thing. It’s almost a marketing thing for the brand…Getting them to say ‘I’m going to be really clear with you: I don’t want you to put advertising on these sites, I do want you to put advertising on these sites’.
Mr. Bertram also returned to Google’s (not-so-effective) efforts to lower search results for sites known to offer illegal download links:
We’re trying to dampen that in the search results…so we are doing a bit of that. I am an optimist, in that search will get better, and be able to serve people with the results exactly that they want, and to do so utterly lawfully as well.
One nagging question that wasn’t addressed is was how much revenue Google generates from its connections to online piracy (and counterfeit product sites) via its various entities (AdSense, Blogger, YouTube, search, et al). It’s a significant question in this debate , but unfortunately wasn’t addressed.
Tap dancing aside, I suppose it’s a sign of progress that Google was willing to send a representative to the debate. There finally seems to be a growing recognition that ad money is a driving force behind online piracy. As I wrote three years ago when I began blogging about this topic:
Online piracy isn’t about altruism, it’s about income. Today’s technology allows web pirates to steal content and monetize that content with a click of a mouse. Meanwhile, “legit” companies encourage and facilitate this theft while also profiting from it (ad service providers, advertisers and payment processors). The time has come for reasonable measures to be taken to discourage this theft. Content creators and consumers will benefit. Only the pirates and those who profit from their theft will lose.
In the process of scouring the web for the thousands of illegal download links and online streams of our film (more than 55,000 documented to date) I quickly discovered that various, theoretically legit companies, seemed to be (indirectly) generating income through the placement advertising on websites featuring streams and download links to pirated films. In addition, and most troubling, is that fact these ads generate income for operators of these pirate websites and add to generous profit totals for ad providers.
At the end of the debate, Geoff Taylor noted that some progress was being made in efforts to tackle the problem, “to their credit Google and the IAB are working very closely with the music and film industries.”
Blue Team manager James Barton also struck a hopeful tone:
How refreshing that finally in 2013 we’re able to have a conversation with members of big tech and big music industry where we can find common ground, and look for a pragmatic solution to the piracy problem…
Perhaps it’s a matter of putting lipstick on a pig, but after watching this play out over these past three years, it appears we still have a long way to go. Recognizing there is a problem is step one, now let’s do something about it.
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
Notorious pirate site Movie2k.to is gone…at least for now
Much to the chagrin of many on Twitter, the popular pirate movie portal http://www.movie2k.to is offline thanks, it seems, to a court order issued in the UK. According to a story in Torrent Freak earlier this month, a number of UK ISPs were served with a court order that requires them to block the sites or be legally liable for the infringement that occurs. It’s not clear at this point how that effort has affected the site’s availability in places like the United States.
No matter the reason, this is good news for filmmakers. Not only did Movie2k.to list illegal download links for thousands of films, but the site also ignored DMCA takedown requests.
Since the site itself didn’t respond, sending notices to Google was the only way content creators could take action to prevent their work from being stolen. In February when I checked the Google transparency report for Movie2k.to I found the search giant had received 37,764 takedown requests to have related search results removed.
At the time I demonstrated how the popular film “Silver Linings Playbook” download links were easy to find via Google search on Movie2k.to.
Dozens of download links to pirated copies of Silver Linings Playbook on Movie2k
It’s important to note that studio films were not the only ones victimized by Movie 2k. The site offered links to illegal streams and downloads of hundreds of indie films too.
Whether its disappearance is permanent remains unknown. For now, however, there’s cause to celebrate as another pirate site bites the dust….
Update: On Saturday, June 1st Torrent Freak is reporting that another popular pirate site, letmewatchthis.ch has gone missing too. Again, it’s unclear as to why this is happening, but suffice it to say that it’s good news for filmmakers.
