by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
Over the past months, as I’ve journeyed across the web investigating pirate websites I found that many shared something in common (besides stealing content to profit off the work of others). Along with illegal downloads to popular movies, often times the sites deliver pop-up ads for MacKeeper software, a product of Silicon Valley based Zeobit.
Ads and piracy go hand in hand. It’s how pirate sites make money. Ads appearing on such sites run the gamut from Progressive Car Insurance to online sex chat, but more often that not it seems, I’m greeted by an advertisement for MacKeeper.
MacKeeper ad pops up on an illegal download.
Had these ads been an isolated incident, it wouldn’t bother me. Unfortunately as far as MacKeeper goes, it’s not limited to an ad or two here and there. In fact, if you were to asking me the most common advertisement that pops up to fill my computer screen via pirate downloads, it’s MacKeeper. Below are just a few examples that I’ve recently come across after clicking an illegal download link that I was investigating.
MacKeeper’s advertising methods have generated controversy in the past, not because of the fact the company seems happy to partner with pirates, but because of their ubiquity. According to a story published on Cult of Mac, the software itself isn’t particularly popular among Mac aficionados for this reason. The company’s PR director Jeremiah Fowler explained their approach to advertising to the Cult of Mac’s Leander Kahney this way:
Legitimate Mac Users who are annoyed or tired of our advertising campaigns or partner’s campaigns. Do we advertise? Yes! Do we advertise aggressively, I would not like to use that term but we do have a massive advertising presence online! [emphasis added] We have had 15,000,000 downloads of MacKeeper and have a less than 3% refund rate. The reality is that many people are truly happy with the product even if they hate the advertising (and unfortunately some do). The bad part is some people take their hatred for advertising to a level where they dedicate hours of their lives to making MacKeeper a “Forum Punching Bag”… In a perfect world there would be no advertisements on radio, TV, billboards or the internet, but this is not a reality. As long as there are ads, there will be people who hate them.
We believe that we have a great product and we want people to know about it and the only way to do this is to explore every medium of advertisement. [emphasis added] It is like investing everything in to a great restaurant and hiring the best chefs, buying the best food only to hide the location somewhere in the woods and then tell no one about it. Then wondering why no one comes to your restaurant? We are discussing phasing out our ads and trying to please the vocal minority, but we realize that pleasing everyone is impossible.
It’s not the ads or the product that I mind, it’s where their ads appear. Given the fact the MacKeeper ads pop-up more often than not on pirate downloads, I think it’s safe to generalize and say they must send a great deal of money the pirates way. As Mr. Fowler made clear in his conversation with Cult of Mac, the company views its advertising methods as good business. Never mind, it seems, who they are doing business with.
I attempted to reac Zeobit for comment, but as is usually the case with Silicon Valley tech companies, transparency is not part of their business plan. (Updated 4-24-13 in blue) Following the publication of this blog post, I did actually receive an email from Jeremiah Fowler (quoted above). His response included the following:
As you know we are a software company and illegal software pirating is one of the biggest threats to our livelihood and that of our entire industry. Software is vulnerable in the very same ways that an artist or musician would be impacted. It is a fact that when no one buys a movie, album or software application, there will be no money to invest in future projects or research and development. You can quote me when I say In straight terms “we do not support illegal downloading and we think that it sucks”.
These pirate websites are actually partnered with major Ad Networks and Media Buying Agencies and not MacKeeper. We purchase only impressions or click units and the Ad / Media companies dictate on what websites where they will appear and how often they appear on millions of basically nameless websites across their network. The only reason you personally see so many of our ads is because we buy ads that target only your operating system and nothing more. These guys can only filter ads between Mac or PC and very little else. We advertise on a relatively large scale with the biggest networks to make sure that people actually do buy our software and we do not partner with these sites where people will not buy anything anyway because the whole reason they are on that particular site is to steal. It is a total waste of money for our ads to even be displayed on these channels, but that is also why you see ads for insurance and other random things because these companies just have millions of sites in their network and throw ads based on purchased space or clicks. The flaw is in the terms and conditions of what type of sites these ad networks will allow for the delivery or their customer’s ads. As far as being against illegal downloading we are actually on the same team.
While I understand full well that MacKeeper is a software company and that software is as vulnerable to piracy as are other forms of digital content, I find little satisfaction in his explanation as to why the ads so often pop-up on pirate websites. I in fact do use a Mac and ironically actually OWN the MacKeeper software. I’m well aware that today’s browsers can identify one’s operating system (as well as one’s web history), otherwise it’s likely I would see ads for their PC product.
However, the fact that browsers are smart and “Ad Networks and Media Buying Agencies” partner with these sites, does not absolve Zeobit (or any advertiser) from responsibility in when it comes to the issue of brand-supported piracy. It’s easy to blame the messenger, but why aren’t these companies demanding more oversight on behalf of ad servers? Certainly Zeobit is not the first company to employ the “we can’t control where our ads appear” excuse. I’m asking why not?
As I told Mr. Fowler in my response to him, when companies advertise in print publications, they are acutely aware of where their ads are placed and what editorial content appears next to them. When it comes to the internet, however, these same companies seem content to participate in an online free-for-all where the goal of saturating web visitors with ads for their products–no matter what site the ads are linked to. I must point out one obvious exception to this–somehow these ad servers do avoid porn sites, so their must be some vetting/filtering going on at some level. Why can’t this happen for sites that are engaged in promoting (illegal) downloading? If companies that pay for advertising are against online piracy, why not withhold their business from ad servers that do “partner” with such sites?
Ironically, the company touts its belief in “social responsibility” on its website’s front page. It seems that their view of “social responsibility” does not extend to creator’s rights. It’s shameful that the company doesn’t take action to prevent their ads from subsidizing what is, essentially, illegal activity.
For the record, Zeobit receives an A- on the Better Business Bureau’s review website. From my perspective, the company should receive an F when it comes advertising accountability. Per usual, profits trump ethics.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Tech
As Google has grown to dominate internet search and online advertising, the company has repeatedly lobbied against legislative efforts to protect copyright owners from piracy in the name of keeping the internet “open” and “free” from censorship. During the debate over SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) the company led the astroturf charge against the proposed bill saying:
Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet. So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our US home page.
The company even went so far as to obscure it’s search logo with a dramatic swath of black and provided a link so that visitors could “tell Congress not to censor the web.” 
Despite the hyperbole, many of those who create content for a living understood that Google’s campaign was not born out of a desire to protect the greater good, but rather to protect it’s massive online advertising profits that risked being diminished should illicit websites be subject to takedown. During the SOPA hysteria Google played puppeteer in orchestrating the movements of not-so-grassroots campaign to defeat the legislation. Sadly, few who opposed SOPA took the time to understand Google’s role in encouraging and sustaining online piracy (along with other nefarious online sites offering counterfeit products and pharmaceuticals) and, while the bill had its flaws, thanks to Google and other tech-driven memes, there was little interest in building consensus about how to effectively and reasonably attack the growing problem of online theft.
As was pointed out by Scott Cleland in a Forbes piece, for Google, organizing opposition to SOPA was a business decision, pure and simple:
Google led, orchestrated, politically-framed and set the political tone for much of the Web’s opposition to pending anti-piracy legislation, SOPA/PIPA, because rule of law and effective enforcement of property rights online represent a clear and present danger to Google’s anti-property-rights mission, open philosophy, business model, innovation approach, competitive strategy, and culture.
So, today, when I read this account in Wired.com about Google’s insistence that those who purchase a Google Glass (“Explorer” edition) be prevented from selling, loaning, or transferring them to another person, I had to laugh. Let me get this straight, when it comes to creative content online (including pirated material)–it’s fine to sell, loan or “transfer” it to another (and make money by doing so thanks to Google’s AdSense) but if I want to sell or loan my Google Glass to my pal, I can’t???? Hmmmm….crazy, but apparently true according to the Terms of Services published by Google.
According to the LA Times:
Google says that these terms are specifically for the early version of Glass, so they may change by the time the device goes on sale to the general public. But for now, Google says it simply wants the first users to use the device, not anyone else.
So, it’s OK for Google to decide what happens to their products, but it’s not OK for creative artists to decide what happens to theirs? Guess what’s good for the Creative Goose ain’t OK for the Google Gander. In both instances what seems only to matter is Google’s bottom line. No surprise really, but their hypocrisy is truly a sight to behold.
Google’s philosophy is one of openness, or so they claim on their blog:
At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important.
I guess their belief in “open systems” doesn’t apply to tangible goods. When it comes to property rights, Google’s approach is indeed “subjective.”
Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Product Management who wrote the post goes on to add:
So if you are trying to grow an entire industry as broadly as possible, open systems trump closed. And that is exactly what we are trying to do with the Internet. Our commitment to open systems is not altruistic. Rather it’s good business, since an open Internet creates a steady stream of innovations that attracts users and usage and grows the entire industry.
And here’s the kicker:
Finally, we must always give control to the user. If we have information about a user, as with IBA, it should be easy for the user to delete that information and opt-out. If they use our products and store content with us, it’s their content, not ours.[emphasis added] They should be able to export it or delete it at any time, at no cost, and as easily as possible. Gmail is a great example of this since we offer free forwarding to any address. The ability to switch is critical, so instead of building walls around your product, build bridges. Give users real options.
Yeah right, give users “real options” except when it comes to selling or sharing their super-cool, nifty (and expensive) Google Glass. I’d be fine with Google dictating licensing terms for their products, if only they were fine with me doing the same. Hypocrisy, thy name is Google.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
The fact that online piracy has flourished over these past few years is nothing new. Neither is its co-dependence on an ever-efficient distribution network, largely developed and maintained by an assortment of tech enterprises based in Silicon Valley . Up to this point, Facebook’s role in enabling this plague of piracy has, for the most part, generally been minimized, if not ignored entirely. But given the ever-expanding influential reach of world’s #1 social network, perhaps it’s time to take a closer look at the site’s role as a purveyor of pirated content.
In the past I’ve written about the popularity of Google’s blogger platform among pirate entrepreneurs because it offers both an easy (and free) way to distribute stolen movies and make money via online ads. How does Facebook fit into this equation? Well, just as legit businesses use Facebook to gain customers, pirate profiteers around the world also utilize its popularity to attract users to their illegal websites. Check out any pirate site on blogspot.com, or anywhere else on the web for that matter, and you’re likely to find a link to the site’s Facebook pages (as well as other social networking sites like Twitter).
The Facebook page (shown below) for the FilmesYouTube site (shown above) boasts more than 166k “likes.” The Facebook page sends visitors to the pirate website, and also features numerous posts which link directly to easy-to-use, active streams and download links for a variety of popular movies.
Facebook links directly to full stream of pirated movie starring Tom Cruise.
Depending on one’s preference, one can either watch the movie online or download a copy. Either way it’s free–the only inconvenience being a pop-up ad or two.
Facebook links to full stream (and download links) to GI Joe.
In this example, it appears that this Facebook pirate has also been busy creating multiple websites that also link to mirrored Facebook pages. If one notes the “likes” listed on this page, you’ll find links to several other “free” movie sites setup in a similar fashion. This redundancy may be in part due to concerns that one or more of these pirate sites could go offline. However, given the fact this particular page boasts 166K “likes” it appears this fan page has been active for some time.
The common thread between the Facebook pages and the pirate websites is that both generate income from advertisements. The more visitors, the more money for Facebook and, in turn, the more traffic to the pirate sites which,in turn, generates more ad profits for the online pirate entrepreneur. Who’s left out of this equation?-the content creator of course.
When I viewed the above page it featured “sponsored ads” promoting Capitol One and Discover credit cards, along with political PACS and Ancestry.com. Do these entities realize that the sponsored advertising they’re paying Facebook for appear adjacent to pirate links to bootleg, illegal movie downloads? I doubt it.
As for advertising on the actual pirate web site (which translates into motive and money for the pirate) I found ads for Amazon.com and others served up by the Ad Council, a U.S. based non-profit whose mission is to “deliver critical messages to the American public.”
Perhaps the time has come for the Ad Council to add anti-piracy messages to their slate of “critical” messages for the American public?
Like Google, Facebook offers rights holders the opportunity to send DMCA takedown requests to have these illegal links removed. Unfortunately, Facebook mirrors Google in another way–when it comes to DMCA notices, usually only individual posts are removed, not the infringing page.
It’s been my experience that when I’ve reported infringing content to Facebook via a DMCA only the post with the pirate link is removed. The Facebook page, with dozens more pirated offerings, remains online. I can understand if only a single link is reported, but what about a site that’s repeatedly reported for copyright infringement? From what I’ve seen such sites generally remain online. If it’s obvious that the page is dedicated to promoting pirated content, why leave it online?
I’ve asked Google this same question, if a site is reported for promoting infringing (illegal) downloads why not remove it? Surely Facebook has the staff to investigate and determine whether a site exists purely to traffic in stolen content. If not, why not? Why is it OK for a company with the reach and financial resources of Facebook to look the other way? Their censors often seem all to eager to remove photos of breastfeeding mothers or LGBT movie advertising. Why not go after pages that are trafficking in illegal content?
I’ve tried to contact Facebook to ask for clarity on the criteria, if any, they have for removing pages and will update this post if I should receive a response. Given my past experiences with inquiries to Facebook, I’m not optimistic that I’ll hear back anytime soon. The “community standards” that define what type of “expression is acceptable” is conveniently vague when it comes to copyright and intellectual property:
Before sharing content on Facebook, please be sure you have the right to do so. We ask that you respect copyrights, trademarks, and other legal rights.
Facebook is careful to point out, however that the decision as to whether to remove content reported for violating their terms is entirely up to them.
The link between piracy’s advertising profits and those of so-called legit entities like Google (including YouTube, AdSense, Blogger & search) and the corporations they service ads for has been well-documented so that fact that Facebook is a part of this web of illicit profit is no real surprise. However, it’s worth asking once again, why isn’t something being done?
The notorious Pirate site Movies2k even boasts it’s own Facebook page.
How is that mainstream tech companies like Google and Facebook–and those who pay to advertise with their networks–continue to look the other way and ignore their role in providing both a motive, and a means, for this illegal activity to occur? The obvious answer is that profit trumps morality when it’s a matter of making millions. In this era, and until the law adapts, there’s little to no risk in skirting U.S. law in order to maintain their cash cows. Clearly the fact that this is tainted revenue doesn’t matter to these companies or their stockholders. With the amount of lobbying muscle they’re displaying in Washington these days, things appear unlikely to change any time soon.
Updated (4-16-13) to add the response I received from Facebook. Just as I suspected, nothing but boilerplate verbiage. Here it is:
Facebook may “stand ready” to respond, but in my experience, they don’t do much else.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy
5/9/15-Update:
A recent blog post explaining why I sent the Chilling Effects database a DMCA takedown notice has generated a lot of traffic to this post from 2013. While the original post is worth reading, if you’re interested in a more up-to-date perspective on Chilling Effects–and its role as an efficient search engine for pirated movies, music and books–you may want to read this more recent post: Does Chilling Effects make a mockery of the DMCA?
In effect, the database acts a shadow site for pirate links removed from Google search. Using Chilling Effects to search for pirated movies and music is actually easier that using Google. Using Google, one has to search through various results in order to actually find valid links. Meanwhile, search results on Chilling Effects provide results that offer infringing links in a convenient, clean lists. Great for would-be thieves–not so great for content creators.
Here are two additional, more recent Chilling Effects related posts that explore the relationship between Google and the efficiency of using the Chilling Effects database as a de facto search engine to find infringing music, movies, books, and more.
Back to original post published on 4/10/13:
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been in the news lately as the target of DMCA takedowns by copyright holders whose say by that by compiling a database of takedown notices for pirate links Chilling Effects is, in fact, making it easier for the public to find pirated content online. According to Wired.co.uk:
As part of its transparency policy, Google publishes every takedown notice it receives from either copyright holders or government bodies. As TorrentFreak has pointed out, that means Google has built up a pretty huge database of pirated material, which effectively undoes the point of a takedown notice — to make copyrighted material harder to find. Now companies such as 20th Century Fox and Microsoft want Google to take down their own takedown notices.
What exactly is the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse and more importantly, WHO actually funds them? It’s important to understand that the clearinghouse is actually tied to the web of the Google machine. If you look at the sites “about” page, you’ll find the following:
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a unique collaboration among law school clinics and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Conceived and developed at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society by Berkman Fellow Wendy Seltzer, the project is now supported by clinical programs at Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics, and the EFF.
Google provides funding to the The Berkman Center and it’s various enterprises (including Chilling Effects). Fact is, this operation isn’t exactly the unbiased public interest clearing house is purports to be and its “cease and desist” database is routinely used by Google in a manner clearly designed to discourage rights holders from sending DMCA takedown notices.
At any rate, I first came across the Chilling Effects website in 2010 when I began sending (lots of) DMCA takedown notices to Google requesting the removal of pirated copies of our film from Blogger hosted websites and pirate sites with our film that featured Google AdSense ads. Given the current news, I thought it worth re-posting a piece I wrote for my popuppirates.com site that discusses whose rights really gets “chilled” by the Google-Chilling Effects merry-go-round.
Re-blogged from popuppirates.com:
Chilling Effects Website
If you send a DMCA notice to Google to report pirated content you’re likely to receive an email response that includes a stern warning (see example below) that a copy of your DMCA notice will be forwarded to the Chilling Efffects Clearinghouse for publication on their website. Why? Well, according to the C.E.C. they maintain a “Cease and Desist” database in order to document what they refer as “the chill.” According to their website, this is done because “Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users.”
Apparently those operating the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse see no need to differentiate between the illegal activities of “online pirates” from those of legitimate “online users”
For Google, these emails are clearly an ill-conceived attempt to intimidate those whose rights have actually been infringed. As I mentioned earlier in my blog, it’s ironic that the only thing being “chilled” in this scenario is the legitimate right of content creators to earn a living through their work.
Email re: Chilling Effects
Apparently our complaint was legitimate, despite being posted on the C.E.C. website.
Examples of our Fast Girl Films DMCA notices sent to Google ending up on the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse website.
For the record, the DMCA notices (above) led to the infringing content being removed. Here’s what the reported pages looks like now….
Blogger site with content removed due to copyright infringement.
As it turns out, each and every one of our DMCA complaints to Google (posted on C.E. C.) have been legitimate and legal. And so it goes….
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, TV
HBO’s programming president Michael Lombardo recently spoke to Entertainment Weekly about the massive piracy of their hit series “Game of Thrones” and in doing so gave pro-piracy apologists a glorious soundbite:
“I probably shouldn’t be saying this, but it is a compliment of sorts…The demand is there. And it certainly didn’t negatively impact the DVD sales. [Piracy is] something that comes along with having a wildly successful show on a subscription network.”
Lombardo’s hubris was magnified as he went on to stick his foot further down his throat by adding:
“One of my worries is about the copies [downloaders are] seeing,” Lombardo said. “The production values of this show are so incredible. So I’m hoping that in the purloined different generation of cuts that the show is holding up.”
Come again…He’s more worried about production values than piracy? I’m sorry, but a man with the stature and success of Mr. Lombardo should know better than to blabber on in such a thoughtless way about an issue, that for many filmmakers, cannot afford to be taken so lightly. Sure, it would be great if everyone had the reach and resources of HBO, but the fact is we don’t, and for us–no matter how you spin it–piracy is not a positive. The arrogance Lombardo showed in blithely dismissing piracy’s impact on HBO’s bottom line did a huge disservice to the many content creators for whom piracy negatively impacts both their bottom line and their livelihoods.
For HBO, the popularity of “Game of Thrones” translates into mega-bucks. Embracing worldwide piracy of the show as a sign of success is a choice made by HBO and, more significantly, it’s a clearly a choice they can afford to make. If only we should all be so lucky. Mr. Lombardo should have considered the impact of his words on an online audience that does not necessarily appreciate nuance. He should have known that by inferring that piracy’s impact on “Game of Thrones” was positive, his choice of words would only serve to propagate the false narrative that piracy is somehow “good for business.” It’s a generalization that will, thanks to Lombardo’s glib comments, likely be applied to other pirated movies, music and art. If it’s good for HBO how can it not be good for everyone else?
Mr. Lombardo attempted, rather meekly, to put the genie back in the bottle when he (sort of) qualified his remarks to EW by saying, “We obviously are a subscription service so as a general proposition so we try to stop piracy when we see it happen, particularly on a systematic basis when people are selling pirated versions.” Clearly, however, the damage had been done as the meme that “HBO says piracy is a compliment and doesn’t hurt sales” spread like wildfire across the web.
I wrote this the other day in my post “Pick a Side, But Don’t Call it Piracy” in response to the band Ghost Beach’s lame “artists for or against piracy” campaign, but it’s appropriate to repeat here:
When artists choose to give their work away, they’re not choosing to support piracy, they’re choosing to offer their creations to the public at no cost. It’s a distribution decision any artist is free to make, but please don’t call it piracy…
I’m sure Mr. Lombardo has a nice car, hefty bank account, and few financial worries. Too bad the same can’t be said to the many creative artists, independent and otherwise, who aren’t so lucky.
This week, Mr. Lombardo clearly made himself into an April Fool…
Over the past months, as I’ve journeyed across the web investigating pirate websites I found that many shared something in common (besides stealing content to profit off the work of others). Along with illegal downloads to popular movies, often times the sites deliver pop-up ads for MacKeeper software, a product of Silicon Valley based Zeobit.
