by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Law, Piracy
Notorious piracy emporium, Pirate Bay is down–for now–after a raid on its servers by Swedish authorities, but what does that mean for the future of piracy?
If you read Caitlin Dewey’s piece in today’s Washington Post “You can take down Pirate Bay, but you can’t kill the Internet it created,” the ship has already sailed and creators may as well give up. Per Dewey:
…even if TPB doesn’t return, the politics and the conventions it advanced — that content should be free, and if you torrent, they can be! — will be very difficult to eradicate.
You may be able to shut down Pirate Bay, but good luck raiding the Internet that Pirate Bay created.
If she’s talking torrents, then yes, we’ll never eradicate them. The laissez-faire attitude of lawmakers over the past decade has allowed online theft to flourish un-checked and spawned a well-entrenched piracy eco-system. However, despite the sentiment Ms. Dewey suggests–all is not lost. Whether The Pirate Bay continues to exist is beside the point.
Content consumers are willing to pay; they just aren’t willing to wait
Consumers of piracy seem driven by two, somewhat separate, catalysts. On the one hand, people download content out of a desire to see, hear, or read it. This is the part of piracy that most people can empathize with, particularly when it comes to a TV show that might not be available where they live. Individuals who want to “stick it to the man” populate the other segment. They download stuff–not because they are necessarily fans–but because they feel entitled to free stuff. “F#*! Hollywood…information should be free” is their battle cry. They have neither appreciation nor concern for those they are stealing from–people who make their living by creating the films, music, and books we enjoy.
Now, obviously there’s not much we can do about the latter group of piracy aficionados, but with regard to the first group–the more important audience–we are doing something. Over the past few years there’s been an effort to develop new outlets to satisfy consumer entertainment demands. Most people who want access are willing to pay a reasonable amount for it. Netflix only costs $8.99 a month, or in modern terms, the cost is approximately = to 4 and a half cups of Starbucks (grande) coffee. In other words, it’s not a budget buster.
Not a Netflix subscriber, well check out the handy new search portal Wheretowatch.com to find out where you can find favorite TV Show or movie. When I searched for the BBC series “Broadchurch” I found I could watch it via Netflix, XBox, Amazon or Target. If I want to watch the acclaimed indie film “Pariah” I can rent or buy via the same outlets in addition to Flixster and iTunes.
The key here is to make it easy to find, reasonably priced and available worldwide. There’s still work to be done in achieving the latter, as territorial broadcast rights and release windows can still be a roadblock, but that is improving and I can see a future, that’s not far off, where day and date releases become the norm and release windows are synchronized across the globe. As I noted in an earlier post on this blog:
…we are seeing an evolution as to how release dates are managed. The notion of “territories” is quickly becoming obsolete–audiences are no longer regional, but global.
As for those who get off on grabbing free stuff (kinda like looters), that’s a mentality that will be difficult to change. The good news is that most people have better things to do than download torrents or click through dozens of ads to watch a crappy stream– so, if creators and distributors can continue to make progress on streamlining access, progress against piracy will continue to be made.
Of course, it also helps when the legal system can gently divert people into taking the legit path. Takedowns of sites like Pirate Bay help this effort. Operators of pirate torrent sites like The Pirate Bay or cyberlockers like Megaupload are not in the piracy business out of altruism–they’re in it to make money. Running a piracy website is profitable and those who do so deserve to be taken out of action. Other cogs in piracy’s profit machine–advertisers and payment processors–should also remain under scrutiny.
It would also help if our lawmakers worked on crafting legislation to help creators protect their livelihoods. Revisiting the terms for DMCA “safe harbor” might be a good place to begin.
Piracy remains a “well-entrenched” threat to a wide-range of content creators, but unlike Ms. Dewey, I am not ready to throw my hands up and say, “I give up.” Neither are most creators I know. We are not blind to the reality of today’s online culture that espouses a “free for me” attitude, but our livelihoods depend speaking out, and fighting back, and we will continue to do so.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
YouTube and Russian “aggregator,” piracy partners in crime?
When a bad guy steals your car stereo, to turn it into easy money, he often turn it over to a “fence” in exchange for quick cash. Wikipedia explains this criminal workflow this way:
A fence is an individual who knowingly buys stolen property for later resale, sometimes in a legitimate market. The fence thus acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen. As a verb, the word describes the behaviour of the thief in the transaction: The burglar fenced the stolen radio. This sense of the term came from thieves’ slang, first attested c. 1700, from the notion of such transactions taking place under defence of secrecy.[1]
The fence is able to make a profit with stolen merchandise because he is able to pay thieves a very low price for stolen goods…
It’s no surprise that in this digital age, criminals have turned their attention to dealing in stolen digital goods. Instead of car stereos thieves steal movies, music, etc. and, using the web advertising, convert it into income. It’s low risk way of making money and there’s a myriad of ways it can be done.
Deposed cyberlocker king Kim Dotcom did it with his Megaupload piracy pyramid scheme, but there are plenty of others who have perfected variations of this illicit business model along the way. Many, seemingly legit companies like Google have perfected the infrastructure and revenue formula so as to make it routine, right under our noses.
Most consider Google’s YouTube to be a raging success. After all, where else can you find the best cat videos or latest PR packages from ISIS terrorists in one place? It’s also a great place to “fence” stolen movies and music.
YouTube’s ads are ubiquitous and generate billions in profits, estimated to be over 1.9 billion for Google in 2013 alone. YouTube users can also share in (some of) the revenue if they set up an AdSense account and choose to monetize their uploads. According to a report in Barron’s, YouTube users make out pretty well:
…YouTube will bring in $5.9 billion in revenue this year, rising to $8.9 billion by 2016, with 53% of that paid out to users who provide the clips.
In cases where users upload work they actually own rights to, it’s great. Problem is, a lot of those people collectively pocketing 3.1 billion–in many cases–don’t own what they upload. These leeches set up channels, upload pirated content, and make money. Of course, YouTube as enabler-in-chief still pockets the majority of the profits, rightful ownership be damned.
When placing a myriad of advertisements adjacent or on videos, YouTube makes ZERO effort to vet the content for ownership. It doesn’t require any proof that uploaders own rights; it just assumes they will honor copyright law. Yeah, just like a fence assumes that every car stereo he receives wasn’t stolen from someone else.
When posed with the question as to whether it can “determine copyright ownership” YouTube justifies this hands off approach with this carefully crafted response:
YouTube isn’t able to mediate rights ownership disputes. When we receive a complete takedown notice, we remove the content as the law requires. When we receive a valid counter notification we forward it to the person who requested the removal. After this, it’s up to the parties involved to resolve the issue in court.
Mediating a dispute once something is uploaded is NOT equivalent to vetting content ownership prior to upload, yet YouTube apologists continue to claim that to do so would “stifle innovation” and “limit free expression” online. I’m not entirely sure how cracking down on thievery stifles innovation, but it makes for a good soundbite doesn’t it? How would vetting certain content before users are allowed to profit from it limit anything, aside from criminal behavior? Oh right, it could lower profits. That’s what this is really about.
YouTube claims be the broadcaster for the 21st century, yet can you imagine NBC airing a movie and earning income from advertising in the process without having cleared the rights prior to doing so? When my documentary aired on various PBS stations I had to document ownership and submit detailed paperwork that verified I had permission to use various works of music used throughout the piece. When we produced our feature film we had to purchase errors and omissions insurance and license all the music used in order to protect the rights of other creators.
These practices are the cost of doing business in the creative world yet YouTube doesn’t have to do the same? Why are companies like YouTube, that generate income by screening created by others, considered exempt from standard broadcast practices? Why is their bad business behavior exempt? Why are such practices on internet considered sacrosanct?
For Google, protecting innovation means protecting profits
It’s no wonder the powers that be at Google/YouTube fight tooth and nail against any effort to rein in this copyright-evading cash cow. Since enforcing copyright would put a serious dent in YouTube’s profits, you can bet that Google will move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening. Their apologists (and lobbyists) have mastered the spin that warn enforcing copyright (in a meaningful way) is a threat to innovation. In Google parlance innovation is merely a code for growing profits.
Other companies profit too. The graphic below illustrates how the Russian aggregator, Quiz Group, either creates its own pirate puppet users, or works with them to game the YouTube monetization system by monetizing pirated movies. By joining Quiz Group YouTube users don’t need an AdSense account. In exchange for giving up 20% of any income earned, they can easily earn money when by uploading illegal content.
Ford, Microsoft, CVS, LinkedIn, Dodge, North Face, Geico and more put money in pirate pockets
On its website, Quiz Group lays claim to 5 BILLION monthly views and more than 15,000 channels. I can only imagine how many of those billions of views come from stolen goods. Advertisements, 30 seconds and longer, from LinkedIn, Ford, Dodge Ram trucks, North Face stream before the full-movie appears. Cha’-ching…money, money, money…
This pirated movie was uploaded by a user who’s part of Quiz Group, a Russian aggregator that makes monetizing YouTube videos easy.
Surely YouTube has received thousands of DMCA notices linked to videos monetized by Quiz Group, but since it only penalizes individual users (and not the masterminds) Quiz Group can continue to rake in the dough alongside Google.
Quiz Group sports its own YouTube page and claims to be “YouTube certified” and on its own website recruits with this claim, offering to cut through any copyright red tape:
…we are aware of all the problems you may face around YouTube and we know the best solutions as well. We understand how it hurts, having third party claims, facing conflicts and resolving strikes. We have been through all these stories many times and learned our lessons based on the most complicated scenarios. We have converted our experience into effective tools, you may move forward smoothly and with a high confidence, grow really fast within YouTube environment.
Clearly YouTube’s standards aren’t particularly high if they allow a shadowy this Russian piracy-for-profit model to thrive. Perhaps YouTube’s standards for “certification” mandate moneymaking over respecting copyrights owned by others ?
I attempted to “join” Quiz Group to determine how they vet affiliates. In order to be considered, I had to give them access to a Google account. It took only seconds, but not surprisingly I was rejected for not having enough subscribers (10) nor views (1,000) within the last month.
Of course I’d like to speak with a Google representatives to ask why the company develops, and sustains business relationships with self-described “YouTube” channel aggregators like Quiz Group but folks at company headquarters won’t pick up phones or respond to emails from people like me. Stonewalling is another corporate skill they’ve mastered with virtual moats encircling their shiny corporate offices in Mountain View.
After all, why shouldn’t Google look the other way when this criminal enterprise is mutually beneficial?
For the record, I easily found other YouTube users linked to Quiz Group engaged in the same scheme (see example below). Given it took me only a couple searches to find them, I don’t imagine it’s stretching the truth to assume that a good number, if not the majority of Quiz Groups affiliates are in the business of making money off pirated uploads.
I wonder how North Face, Dodge, Amazon, Microsoft, Airborne, Geico, LinkedIn, CVS and Ford feel about their advertising appearing on these stolen movies? Are they OK with YouTube, Quiz Group and this pirate making money off stolen movies (and them)?
Why don’t advertisers pressure Google to do better? YouTube could start by applying the 3 strikes policy to those, like aggregators like Quiz Group, that routinely monetize infringing content, not just penalize the (often fake) users that upload it. There are also numerous other technological safeguards that could be implemented to prevent this abuse so why don’t advertisers demand better?
We constantly hear from representatives their industry, how concerned they are about ad sponsored piracy abuse. But, as I’ve noted repeatedly on this blog, so far the advertiser’s words are a million times louder than their actions. Industry reps could exert pressure to ensure ad profits go to rights holders, but it would require some effort–obviously more than they seem willing to give.
There are also tons of YouTube pirates who bypass third party aggregators and pocket cash directly via their own AdSense accounts. This isn’t the first time I’ve written about this scenario on YouTube. Time passes, but nothing changes.
Here’s a pirated copy of Paramount’s “Sliver” starring Sharon Stone. The film has been viewed over a million times earning profits for YouTube and the user who uploaded it without permission.
YouTube finds a Safe Harbor to protect its piracy profits
Aside from the advertisers, the only other way to exert pressure to change can come from Washington. Is this dirty profit scenario was what lawmakers had in mind when they crafted the “Safe Harbor” provisions of the DMCA. It’s one thing to offer service providers (like YouTube) protection from legal liability from “consequences of their users actions”, but does that also mean it’s OK to (knowingly) profit from illegal activity?
The DMCA states services providers have to “terminate” accounts of repeat infringers, but in the meantime let the tainted profits flow? It’s OK to be a criminal as long as you don’t get caught? This seems to be Google/ YouTube’s modus operandi.
I wonder if Congressman Darrell Issa, in his new role as chair of the subcommittee on the Internet, Courts, and Intellectual Property,will hold hearings on these types of nefarious business practices? He’s repeatedly voiced concern over patent trolls, what about pirate trolls? It’s been reported that discussion regarding copyright will remain the purview of the full committee, so perhaps such discussions will be handled there.
Until something changes, YouTube’s eco-system will remain a cesspool rather than a legitimate and laudable business model. For all the great stuff streaming on its pages, there’s a lot of s*&^ too…and because it’s YouTube practices business are intentionally nubilous, those who do follow the rules–like filmmakers and musicians–continue to be victimized. YouTube is the Wild West, a swamp of online fraud, where profits soar, often for those who are least deserving–morality be damned…
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
Google’s anti-piracy pledge fails to pass muster
Yesterday I wrote a blog post expressing skepticism about the promises made in Google’s latest update to its self-serving “How Google Fights Piracy” report. The report made headlines thanks to word that Google finally appears ready to move against the plethora of pirate links found via its search engine. In its report Google made this claim:
In October 2014, we have improved and refined the DMCA demotion signal in search results, increasing the effectiveness of just one tool rights holders have at their disposal…
In addition to removing pages from search results when notified by copyright owners,Google also factors in the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site as one signal among the hundreds that we take into account when ranking search results. Consequently, sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in search results. This ranking change helps users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily.
Well, it’s October of 2014–October 21st to be exact–and this morning I used Google search to check out how things are going with its new “demotion” algorithm for search. I chose to look for Gone Girl, a movie that was released earlier this month and is still screening in theaters. Using the search terms: “gone girl” watch free online it literally took me a couple seconds to find a a link to an active copy of the film streaming online listed on page one of Google search’s results.
What’s the threshold for Google’s “new” algorithm to work its magic and demote results for this pirate website? It’s worth noting that Google is careful to insert the equivocation “may” into its promise that “Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in search results.” [emphasis added]
Given the number of complaints, one has to ask the question why is this site even allowed to remain listed Google search results at all? In its report Google provides this dubious explanation as to why only links are removed rather than ban entire site:
While we use the number of valid copyright removal notices as a signal for ranking purposes,we do not remove pages from results unless we receive a specific removal request for the page. Even for the websites that have received the highest numbers of notices, the number of noticed pages is typically only a tiny fraction of the total number of pages on the site. It would be inappropriate to remove entire sites under these circumstances. [emphasis added]
I challenge anyone to find a single page on watch32.com that offers up anything besides infringing links? This website’s ONLY function is to make money by offering up pirate links to popular movies. There’s nothing legitimate about it and there would be nothing “inappropriate” about removing the ENTIRE SITE.
Google’s report also tries to rebut charges that it’s a popular and convenient way for people to find free (pirated) content making the claim that more people search for “Katy Perry” than search for “Katy Perry free.” So what? No one is saying that the majority of searches on Google aren’t legit. What we are complaining about is the fact that sites like watch32.com are still show up in Google’s search results. It’s like a store selling merchandise and pointing out that only one aisle offers stolen goods. There’s no excuse. The fact is that by including criminal sites like these in its results Google is aiding and abetting the pirate economy.
As I noted yesterday, there is good reason to be skeptical of Google’s shiny new piracy report. The company’s record speaks for itself. Actions speak louder than words, and so far Google’s bark against pirates is much bigger than its bite.
Update 10-30-14: Traffic to some major pirate/torrent sites has reportedly been diminished post-algorithm change. I’ve written about that development here, but fact is there are still pirate sites to be found in first page of search results on Google.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy, Tech
Google releases another self-serving piracy report
On Friday Google announced an update to last year’s “How Google Fights Piracy” that included this claim:
In October 2014, we have improved and refined the DMCA demotion signal in search results, increasing the effectiveness of just one tool rightsholders have at their disposal.
Given that last year’s report was little more than a puff-piece designed to deflect growing criticism that Google is, in fact, a major enabler of online piracy--and profits from it in various ways–this new report seems to be more Silicon Valley search giant spin.
Google’s piracy report begins by crowing about how many billions artists have made thanks to its YouTube platform. No mention, of course, how many billions Google has pocketed thanks to said content and the billions more it continues to earn off the millions of infringing video and music clips posted annually to the site. Take a look at YouTube any day of the week and you’ll find infringing content laden with advertisements. Where does that profit go? It ends up in the pirate’s pockets and Google coffers.
Yes, the company has instituted a Content ID system but remember it did so only after enormous pressure (and lawsuits) from those whose work was being ripped off right and left. Even that system puts the burden on creators to sign up and constantly monitor YouTube for infringements. Not every creators has the wherewithal, or the time, to act as a security guard for their own work. Wouldn’t we prefer they be creating more music or films?
Google uses the report to pat itself on the back for testimony given last March by Google’s Senior Copyright Policy Counsel Katherine Oyama before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet:
In our testimony, we note our own experiences with the notice-and-takedown process, and highlight its importance in a developing media landscape where online platforms are creating more and more opportunities for creators every year.
Great, so you’re helping create an online landscape that offers more opportunities to creators….sure, if you’re a creator of cat videos.
She also gave a rosy assessment of how well the DMCA works for everyone:
The DMCA’s shared responsibility approach works. Copyright holders identify infringement and,if they choose, request its removal. Upon notification, online service providers remove or disable access to the infringing material. This approach makes sense, as only copyright holders know what material they own, what they have licensed, and where they want their works to appear online. Service providers cannot by themselves determine whether a given use is infringing.
Perhaps the last line should read, “Service providers have chosen not to make any attempt to determine whether a given use is infringing even after its reported as being such.” As the RIAA noted in a point by point rebuttal rebuttal of her testimony:
The DMCA did not intend for service providers like Google to get away with indexing rogue sites again and again after clear notice of rampant
infringement, creating an endless source of frustration for copyright owners.
There’s no doubt that the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA has given companies like Google the freedom to build a business model dependent, to a large extent, on copyright infringement to fuel its growth. It’s a landscape where content creators are at a distinct disadvantage from the get go. In the online world, filmmakers, musicians and other creators–and not the uploader–have to prove they are the rightful owners of uploaded content. In what other universe are property owners at such a disadvantage? If Google wants to use another company’s software in one of its products, do its engineers just take it when another company owns rights to it? Probably not. They seek a license (or buy the company outright).
But I digress…back to Google’s updated report. Google touts how efficient and streamlined its online content removal process is and notes that 80 companies have access to a “trusted submitter” program which streamlines the process of notice and takedown:
In addition to the public content removal web form for copyright owners who have a proven track record of submitting accurate notices and who have a consistent need to submit thousands of URLs each day, Google created the Trusted Copyright Removal Program for Web Search (TCRP). This program streamlines the submission process, allowing copyright owners or their enforcement agents to submit large volumes of URLs on a consistent basis. There are now more than 80 TCRP partners, who together submit the vast majority of notices every year.
What about those of us who don’t have access to this TCRP program? There are plenty of content creators who find their work pirated repeatedly on various Google platforms, from Blogger to search, who are forced to send in DMCA notices via a web form over and over again. (FYI this “efficient” form doesn’t even allow for auto-fill of submitters name and contact information). I’ve written about how inefficient Google’s takedown procedure is for those of us who aren’t “trusted submitters” and frankly, it sucks. I included this slide show in a post I wrote earlier this year explaining just how difficult it was to remove pirated content from Google’s Blogger platform. Efficient is not an adjective I would use.
[rev_slider Google_DMCA_circus]
In another demonstration of how Google is adept at transforming a sow’s ear into a silk purse, the report touts the rise in takedown requests as a great thing, not a sign of just how rampant online theft is on Google platforms:
Since launching new submission tools for copyright owners and their agents in 2011, we have seen remarkable growth in the number of pages that copyright owners have asked us to remove from search results. [emphasis added] In fact, today we receive removal requests for more URLs every week than we did in the twelve years from 1998 to 2010 combined. At the same time, Google is processing the notices we receive for Search faster than ever before—currently, on average, in less than six hours.
Rather than celebrate how they’ve responded to a growth in the number of takedown notices received and processed (not something to brag about IMHO) why not work toward creating an online environment where it would not be necessary for rights holders to send DMCA notices time and time again, often for the same pirate website and duplicate infringing links? As the RIAA noted in its response to Oyama’s testimony:
… we’ve sent more than 2 million notices to Google regarding illegal site mp3skull.com, and yet Google still lists mp3skull at the top of search results when users search for an artist’s name + song title + ‘download.’ Google still has a lot of work to do in this area.
In its report Google repeats its tired claim that “search is not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites.” Maybe in Google’s world, but not in the real one. As the MPAA study, Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy points out:
Search is an important resource for consumers when they seek new content online, especially for the first time. 74% of consumers surveyed cited using a search engine as either a discovery or navigational tool in their initial viewing sessions on domains with infringing content.
No matter how Google frames it, the basic truth is that Google search remains a path to piracy, a fact even piracy websites acknowledge and as I noted in an earlier blog post.
In its sidebar, the website (primewire.ag) has posted a poll asking this question: How did you find us through our new name?
According to the results users turned, in large numbers, to that tried and true source for pirated content worldwide, Google search. Nearly 200,000 (29.88 %) users chose Google as their path to the site, second only to word of mouth which took top honors at 43%. While the poll is not scientific, it does provide more anecdotal evidence to what most believe to be true, Google is a major sign post on the path to online piracy. Even when pirate sites run into trouble with other pirates hacking and stealing their domains (ironic isn’t it), leave it to Google to come to the rescue.
Yes, Google still does have a lot of work to do in this area. Until then, reports like the “update” released last week mean nothing beyond fuel for the PR spin machine. The proof is in the pudding and right now the ingredients are still in the box, on the shelf, waiting for Google to get real in the fight against online piracy (for profit).
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
It’s a tired old tale, but one that bears repeating over and over again. Google’s search engine is the go-to resource for those seeking pirated content online. There’s a long line of Google critics, myself included, who decry the search giant’s defiant and arrogant attitude in response to requests that it modify its search engine to mitigate damage done to content creators by online pirates.
James Murdoch, co-COO of 21st Century Fox has added his voice to calls for change, speaking out at a TV conference in Cannes. According to a report in The Guardian, Murdoch took issue with Google’s response to News Corp CEO Robert Thomson’s recent characterization of Google search as “a platform for piracy” in a letter sent to an EU commissioner.
“There’s no question that they can do more. A lot more. Certainly Google’s not right in saying they’re doing more than anyone. That just isn’t true,” he said.
“The problem with Google … Actually, let’s not personalize this. The problem with search-driven discovery, if the content is there and it’s illegal and you’re just selling clicks as a big ad network, you have every incentive for that illegal programming to be there. That’s fundamentally not really good enough.”
No, it isn’t good enough. As I wrote last week, Google’s claim that it’s a leader in the fight against piracy is gobbledygook. Of course Google, being Google, can say pretty much anything its wants since content creators are powerless in the face of its corporate largess and lobbying. A recent story in the Washington Post, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” shined a spotlight on the search giant’s growing domination (and control).
The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google — once a lobbying weakling — has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence.
(Read the e-mails between Google and GMU officials)
That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects.
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.
When even big corporate entities like News Corp and 21st Century Fox appear powerless in the face of Googleiath’s growing dominance, you know we’re in trouble. Perhaps the European Union will punish Google for anti-trust violations, but even threats of a 6 billion dollar fine are unlikely to change Google’s scorched earth business practices and tainted profits. As its influence expands and evolves, so too does the moral code by which it operates. Problem is, it’s a code of Google’s own making.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy, TV
Online piracy is not a victimless crime
A couple weeks ago the New York Times published a profile of Hana Beshara, founder of the notorious pirate web emporium known as NinjaVideo. The site was shuttered in 2010 and Ms. Beshara, who pocketed around $200,000 from her enterprise was sentenced to 22 months in prison for conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement. She was released last year after serving 16 months and, according to the Times piece:
She acknowledges that some of her colleagues were upset when they learned she received much of the profit from NinjaVideo, but says it wasn’t out of line with her role as the voice of the site. “People took issue with the fact that I got paid,” she said. At any rate, in her opinion, the money was insignificant. To this day, she argues that the movie business is so big that skimming a little off the top doesn’t hurt anybody. She likes to say that NinjaVideo was operating in a “gray area.”
Characterizing the business of online piracy for profit as a “gray area” may be how thieves like Ms. Beshara rationalize their criminality, but in reality it’s theft–and because it’s theft–that means there ARE victims.
These actual victims of online piracy were pretty much ignored in the NY Times piece, but thankfully Dawn Prestwich, a writer for AMC’s and Netflix’s “The Killing” provided some perspective in a guest column published this week in Variety. Ms. Prestwich pointed out that piracy’s damage extends far beyond the front offices in Hollywood.
When Hana made a TV episode available for free on her website, that was worth the equivalent of thousands of downloads that weren’t watched on a legal site. And when that happened, the entire production team that collectively created the content was adversely impacted – from the most junior production assistant on up. All positions within the hierarchy became devalued.
Ms. Prestwich takes her analysis one step further television fans may inadvertently threaten the very survival of their favorite shows when they download episodes from illegal sources rather than legit streaming sites like Netflix:
…when the audience pays for creative content, they are voicing their support with their dollars. They are saying: “this show/film/whatever has personal value. I enjoy it. It’s worth paying for.” That not only helps me as a writer, it leads to further investment in the shows audiences like.
Creating quality content costs money and doesn’t it make sense that if we want to be able to consume something we should be willing to pay something to support its creation. A newly released study by the research firm KPMG,
“Film and TV title availability in the Digital Age” confirms what most of us already know to be true–consumers these days have a
myriad of legit ways to find great films and television shows online.
As of December 2013, 94 percent of the most popular and critically acclaimed films were legally available in the U.S. through online video-on-demand (VOD) services. The same study also finds that that 85 percent of the most popular and critically acclaimed television titles were available in the U.S. through online video services. This study is the latest reminder that today it’s easier than ever to watch the shows and movies you love legally online. –MPAA
For the cost of a couple lattes at Starbucks you can have a monthly subscription to a streaming service like
Netflix or Amazon Prime. Seems like a small price to pay to support those who create the works we enjoy.
Notorious piracy emporium, Pirate Bay is down–for now–after a raid on its servers by Swedish authorities, but what does that mean for the future of piracy?
