by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy
Yes Charles, online piracy does pose a threat to the health of independent film
Charles Judson, a self-described “Writer, Film Critic/Consultant,” raised some eyebrows–mine included–with a piece published this week on cinematlmagazine.com which featured the headline, ” Is Piracy a Danger to Independent Film? Part 1: The Search-In Which I Can’t Find Much of Anything” It’s a (sort-of) rebuttal to the recent post on indiewire.com “Here’s How Piracy Hurts Indie Film,” co-authored by Creative Future’s Executive Director Ruth Vitale and Tim League Founder/CEO of Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in which they examined how online piracy undermines independent filmmakers:
The fact is: pirate sites don’t discriminate based on a movie’s budget. As long as they can generate revenue from advertising and credit card payments—while giving away your stolen content for free—pirate site operators have little reason to care if a film starts with an investment of $10,000 or $200 million. Whether you’re employed by a major studio or a do-it-yourself creator, if you’re involved in the making of TV or film, it’s safe to assume that piracy takes a big cut out of your business.
In his piece Mr. Judson appears to be skeptical of their assertions and goes to great lengths to prove them wrong. He recounts conducting his own (unscientific) online research to determine the extent to which independent films are pirated online. His first mistake was limiting his searches for listings on Kickass Torrents:
Let’s start with something easy to test that first claim, we’ll do that by using Kickass Torrents to search for films that screened at Sundance this year. We’ll use the films from the U.S. Documentary (16), U.S. Dramatic (16), and Premiere (19) sections. With 51 films listed and this being six months after their initial screenings, it should give us a strong picture.
His findings lead him to draw this questionable conclusion with a caveat: “So far though, it doesn’t appear that pirates have much interest in indie films. Not to the extent they do mainstream releases.” 
Mr. Judson also asks, “ If piracy is a threat, why is [it] so hard to find films that have been screening and available in various forms since January?”
The answer to Judson’s query is simple: he’s looking in the wrong place.
Aside from the fact Judson’s focus on Sundance-screened films is myopic (a selection that fails to reflect a true cross-section of American independent film) his use of KickAss Torrents as a bellwether for online piracy is simply naive. Though torrents garner much attention, it’s a big mistake to view this type of pirated download as the only game in town. 
In fact, for many niche indie films the threat of piracy comes not from torrents, but from cyber-locker (and even Google-hosted) pirated movie downloads and streams that provide a viewing experience akin to Netflix. On this blog I’ve documented numerous examples of online pirates who ply their wares by providing consumers with convenient (and free) movie watching experiences.
Why use Wolfeondemand.com when you can find your favorite LGBT films on a Blogger-hosted pirate site that offers hundreds of titles for free?
As a matter of fact I searched for a few of the titles on Judson’s list (those he found torrents for, and some he did not) and easily found dozens of non-torrent links to pirate streams and downloads. A few links had already reported for “copyright infringement.”
Streams and download links to indie films are easy to find if you know where to look
In those cases, the filmmakers or their distributors were obviously working to protect their productions. But links for other movies on his list (see graphic above) were still active and ripe for download or streaming. While I don’t claim my results are scientific, they do lend credence to the fact hat today’s piracy has moved beyond torrents.
Finding Cyberlocker downloads for films Judson found no torrents for was easy
Mr. Judson’s conclusions about piracy’s (non) impact based on searching for torrents is not only questionable, but also relies on fuzzy math.
It’s a given that indie films aren’t pirated to the same extent that major Hollywood releases are, but so what? That’s really beside the point isn’t it? The financial hit piracy can have on an indie film made on a shoe-string budget can be just as great, percentage-wise, as piracy on a blockbuster film like Expendables 3.
Indie filmmakers don’t generally have deep pockets and have often begged from others and borrowed from themselves in order to make their films. Every penny earned on the backend counts. Just this week filmmaker Zach Forsman wrote a piece for FilmSchoolRejects.com where he recounted his experience with online piracy and the damage it caused:
Six weeks after Down and Dangerous was released domestically on iTunes and VOD, our distributor estimated that it had sold 10,000 streams and downloads, topping out at number 13 on the iTunes Thrillers Chart. Not too shabby. By that time, torrents of the movie had been downloaded at least as many times. Now it would be ridiculous to count all 10,000 downloaded torrents as lost revenue. But if only 10% of those could have been converted to legit sales, that’s another $7,000 we could have grossed. Not a massive amount of money, but to an outfit that crowd funded a $38,000 budget to make the sucker, it’s significant.
The piracy of “Raid 2” is not limited to torrents
Judson tries to split hairs a bit acknowledging that , “Having someone pick your pockets to the point you are losing money isn’t a good. It’s a path that will make funding that next feature, and making a living while developing that feature, impossible.” Yet, based on his research, he appears to be skeptical that online piracy is damaging to indie filmmakers:
Shouldn’t it be a concern that every minute a filmmaker spends policing piracy, is a minute they aren’t promoting their film to the audience that will pay for their film? If piracy is a threat, why is so hard to find films that have been screening and available in various forms since January?
…If indie filmmakers are going to be recruited to join a battle against illegal downloads, if doing this “better serves audiences and artists,” we better be damn sure it’s time well spent.
Of course an indie filmmaker’s time would be better spent making new films, BUT if your work is being ripped off right and left by online pirate profiteers, the sad truth is that it does impact the bottom line. Views lost to piracy can be the difference between paying off production debts or not. Those losses can mean the difference between making another movie or finding a day job.
I’d suggest that the skeptical Mr. Judson take a look at the video embedded below to learn just how pervasive online piracy is, even for small indie films (btw, none of the pirate links mentioned in the video are torrents). Frankly, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that piracy takes a toll on filmmakers both large and small.
Follow the Money: Who Profits from Piracy?
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google
Watch Disney’s hit Frozen online for free, thanks to Google
Google says it’s trying…really…to get tough with online piracy, but actual evidence continues to tell a different story.
When is enough really enough? When will Google really do something to stop the flow of tainted money into its coffers? Why does the Silicon Valley behemoth still get a free pass when it comes to profiting off content theft? Why is OK that the company not only profits from piracy, but, in order to ensure the continued flow of money, actually PROVIDES online pirates with (free) infrastructure from which to operate their illegal businesses?
How is Google’s business model–by any measure–OK? When will authorities step in to strip Google of its “safe harbor” protections? Isn’t there ample evidence that, despite the lip-service and lobbying to the contrary, the company grows fat by stealing from the hard work of others? I suppose the current trend of inertia and avoidance will likely continue as politicians in Washington will be too busy playing games at Google’s new DC lobbying offices to actually take overdue action against the greedy Goliath.
Google dares to applaud its efforts in the fight against piracy boasting, “Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.” Makes for a good talking point, but should score a big time four Pinocchio #FAIL.
If Google’s efforts against piracy constitute “leadership” then we really are in trouble. Google’s “leadership” on this issue is a charade, and actually should be characterized as this 
. If Google really wanted to raise standards across the industry it wouldn’t be difficult. If it can spend millions to build a shiny new lobbying center in Washington and spend millions more to wine and dine politicians, it can certainly spend a few bucks to hire more staff to review and remove Blogger sites engaged in online piracy and vet AdSense account holder’s regularly to make sure they are meeting “terms of service.” It could also easily provide advertisers with real data as to which sites displayed their advertising so these companies could be held accountable and provide a further line of defense against piracy profiteers.
For now, in case you need any reminder about just what a lousy job Google’s doing “raising standards across the industry” here’s just one more example of a Google-hosted Blogger website I came across today that features Google advertising alongside stolen movies. Google makes money. The advertisers gain customers. The creators get ZERO. It’s absurd.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Law, Piracy
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
London Police turn tables on web pirates
In a nice twist of karma, the London Police have stepped up their battle against online piracy sites, fighting fire with fire, by placing banner ads on pirate sites warning users to stay away. Since advertising revenue drives the engine of online piracy this latest initiative by the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) as part of their “Operation Creative” anti-piracy campaign is more than a little ironic.
…police banners are now replacing a wide range of legitimate brand adverts on infringing websites. The pop-up will inform the user that the website is under investigation by the City of London Police unit for copyright infringement and will advise the user to exit the website.
Launched this past March, the goal of Operation Creative is to “disrupt and prevent websites from providing unauthorised access to copyrighted content, in partnership with the creative and advertising industries.”
London police are placing banner ads like this on known pirate websites to warn visitors that the site is not legit and is offering up illegal files
This latest anti-piracy gambit comes on the heals of PIPCU’s shutdown of a number of infringing websites. The PIPCU’s Andy Fyfe explained this latest initiative to insert police warnings into banner ads on pirate sites:
This new initiative is another step forward for the unit in tackling IP crime and disrupting criminal profits. Copyright infringing websites are making huge sums of money though advert placement, therefore disrupting advertising on these sites is crucial and this is why it is an integral part of Operation Creative.
This work also helps us to protect consumers. When adverts from well known brands appear on illegal websites, they lend them a look of legitimacy and inadvertently fool consumers into thinking the site is authentic.
Operation Creative specifically targets the scourge that is ad sponsored piracy:
The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) based in the City of London Police has today called upon advertisers and brand holders to continue to support its work to tackle Intellectual Property crime following the launch of its Infringing Website List (IWL). The IWL, the first of its kind to be developed, sets out to disrupt the advertising revenues on illegal websites globally.
This unique initiative forms part of the unit’s ground-breaking Operation Creative, designed to disrupt and prevent websites from providing unauthorised access to copyrighted content, in partnership with the creative and advertising industries. The IWL is an online portal providing the digital advertising sector with an up-to-date list of copyright infringing sites, identified by the creative industries and evidenced and verified by the City of London Police unit, so that advertisers, agencies and other intermediaries can cease advert placement on these illegal websites.
Disrupting advertising is a vital part of Operation Creative, as advertising is a key generator of criminal profits for websites providing access to infringing content. A recent report by the Digital Citizens Alliance estimated that in 2013 piracy websites generated $227million from advertising.
Kudos to the London Police for their ongoing efforts to fight online piracy. Hopefully it’s an effort that will serve as a model for other law enforcement agencies to do the same.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
Google comes in a close second to word-of-mouth in path to piracy poll
A while back one of the world’s most popular pirate websites, LetMeWatchThis went through tumultuous times as its domain name was hijacked and cloned by other not-so-nice pirates. According to torrentfreak.com the hijacking, and general confusion led to the domain switching to an entirely new domain, primewire.ag:
One of the largest unauthorized streaming movie websites on the Internet is at the center of what is probably the most confusing mess ever to hit the sector. Various hackings, hijackings, domain changes and nefarious happenings have turned 1Channel, LetMeWatchThis, PrimeWire.ag and Vodly.to into a maze of smoke and mirrors through which no regular user has a hope of navigating.
While it’s not clear if the dust as settled, what is clear is that someone operating the domain name primewire.ag is running a website full of illegal links to thousands of stolen movies. The pirate site, as mentioned in my earlier post today, makes money via advertising (mostly major American brands) but as I was researching the site for my post, I noticed another feature worth highlighting. In its sidebar, the website 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.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film
Excuse me if I don’t get too excited over Creative Future’s recent letter to ad industry representatives praising their for its efforts against online piracy.
We are writing to thank you for the progress you have made in addressing the exploitative practices used by some in the online advertising marketplace, including the diversion of advertising to websites
engaged in piracy.
Your pledge to act to reduce digital piracy is commendable. In your June 19 letter to the Co-Chairs of the International Creativity and Theft-Prevention Caucus, you highlighted the “Core Criteria for Effective
Digital Advertising Assurance” that you are developing, as well as the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s recently announced “Trustworthy Digital Supply Chain Initiative.” We believe these are the kinds of industry-led voluntary actions that can most effectively take the profit out of piracy.
Of course some action against ad-sponsored piracy is better than none, but news flash, ad-sponsored piracy is not news. Every few months it seems some new initiative is announced yet, in reality, in the land of the online pirates and their quest for profits, nothing much has changed. A year ago the White House released a statement on best practices to “Combat Online Piracy and Counterfeiting” which included this statement:
The Administration strongly supports voluntary efforts by the private sector to reduce infringement and we welcome the initiative brought forward by the companies to establish industry-wide standards to combat online piracy and counterfeiting by reducing financial incentives associated with infringement. We believe that this is a positive step and that such efforts can have a significant impact on reducing online piracy and counterfeiting.Y
Is there an echo in here? Why all this coddling of piracy’s enablers? Enough with the self-congratulatory preening. DO SOMETHING! Four years ago I wrote this on my blog about ad-sponsored piracy, popuppirates.com, when I launched the site in June of 2010:
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…
…The nature of the advertising varies, but I was dismayed to discover that the ads were not limited to cheesy online gaming sites, etc. Rather, they include a number of legit companies like Sony, Radio Shack, Pixar, Porsche, ATT, Chase, Network Solutions, Auto-Zone and even Netflix (particularly ironic since they carry our film). The list of advertisers goes on and on. It’s the same situation, if not worse for other films. Ads are ubiquitous on pirated content throughout the web
Now, exactly four years later what has changed? Not much…
Just this morning I checked out primewire.ag, a notorious pirate site and within moments was confronted by major brands advertising promoting their products while simultaneously filling the coffers of the pirate profiteers. As I reloaded the pages and clicked through listing of download links to movies like “The Transformers-Age of Extinction” and “Rio 2” I was greeted with ads from Lexus, Verizon, ATT, Domino’s Pizza, State Farm Insurance, Mucinex, Dick’s Sporting Goods and BP popping up directly beneath a ” Support the Site” plea. This is just one pirate site and it took me less than 10 seconds to find multiple major brands advertising there.
Time for talk is over. I’ll “thank” advertisers for their (overdue) response when–and if– I click on these pirate sites and don’t see this anymore:
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy, Publishing
The Future of the News Industry at Stake
Caroline Little, President & CEO of the Newspaper Association of America, wrote an thoughtful op-ed this week asking that Congress consider the economic needs of newspapers in any discussions about copyright reform. In sharing her editorial the Copyright Alliance website noted its significance:
The investment that the newspaper industry makes in journalism, made possible by copyright protection and licensing agreements, contributes significantly to having a vibrant democracy where the public can make informed decisions.
Copyright detractors constantly portray copyright and copyright owners as enemies of the public interest and as obstacles to the public’s access to information. Although news aggregators claim to enhance public access to information, their contribution to the production of top quality content is virtually null. Caroline Little’s words are a refreshing reminder that the interests of content creators and the public are intertwined rather than opposed.
Ms. Little’s editorial emphasizes that in the future, in order to maintain a robust news industry, we must be vigilant in protecting it.
…journalism plays a vital role in local communities and in our nation’s democracy. But it also costs money: Newspapers continue to invest more than $5 billion a year in journalism, far more than any other medium in the United States. Newspapers deliver news and information when and where readers want it, in print, digital and mobile platforms.
To do that, we must have fair copyright laws to enable newspapers to receive fair compensation in support of this journalism.
This year, the House Judiciary Committee, the Commerce Department, the Copyright Office and others are looking at potential changes to the Copyright Act. The newspaper industry applauds these efforts to ensure that copyright law is best suited for the digital age. We hope that any changes to the Copyright Act will continue to ensure that content creators — including those who invest in journalism — receive fair compensation.
Ms. Little’s editorial focuses on the threat posted by for-profit aggregator sites that, “exist solely to aggregate content from the websites of original publishers for the sole purpose of selling this content to business users at a considerable profit.” Clearly the news business is not exempt from the type of content theft/monetization schemes that have long afflicted music, and more recently movies. As with the music and film industry, this piracy undermines legitimate journalism’s ability to publish and thrive online. As Ms. Little notes:
Newspapers’ concern in this area is not the personal use of newspaper-generated content but rather its use by businesses that benefit financially through the unlicensed monetization of that content. By taking newspaper content without paying for it, these companies undercut the fundamental economic model that supports journalism that is so important to our communities.
Ironically, the same day I read Ms. Little’s editorial, I came across a clear example of the piracy publishing scourge that she’s writing about. I happened to be searching for news on the season 2 premiere of Netflix’s hit show, “Orange is the New Black,” scheduled for next month. I clicked on a link and was taken to a story posted on freenewspos.com , “Orange Is the New Black’ Season Two Is More Bingeworthy Than the First – The Daily Beast.”
At first glance, I thought it legit. After all, the news website The Daily Beast was mentioned in the headline. I read the story and clicked on the Facebook link to post it on my Vox Indie Facebook page. Only then did I realize it was a pirated site for print when the post promoted the freenewspos.com rather than the article. I did a double-take and discovered that the operators of freenewspos.com had copied the entire Daily Beast story and posted it, word for word, to their site. As is typical in piracy for profit schemes, advertising appears adjacent to the piece. The site operators earn income by stealing the work of journalist Kevin Fallon from the Daily Beast.
Adding insult to injury, it’s a Google-sponsored AdSense ad that adorns this pirate page so Google’s making money at the expense of The Daily Beast too. Of course Google has long been in the business of enabling and profiting off pirated content, and now I can add online journalism to the list of industries that suffer from Google’s ad network profiteering. These screen captures showing the original Daily Beast story and its pirated counterpart.
Also note the disclaimer at the bottom of the pirated version, “Disclaimer statement: The point of this article or rights belongs to the authors and publishers. We take no responsibility for the content of this article and legitimacy.” The domain is hidden behind a company called Moniker Privacy Services.
When you click the “who we are link” a page pops up in Italian. Drilling down into a translation of the “Terms of Service” one finds this:
…you want to publish or print into your website, blog, forum, RSS feed or in any other publication, an article taken from our website, you must follow these rules: Respect the author’s copyright by publishing the entire article without making any changes. [emphasis added] Include all the information present in the author’s box at end of article.Do not change both the title and the content of the article. Leave all links in the article with their syntax. Insert at end of article republished claims on our website with active link: Article taken from: freenewspos.com not republish our article in sites that contain illegal or mp3 files, information for hackers, bad language, violent content glorifying racism or contain pornography, child abuse or exploitation of children, adults or animals, or any other activity deemed illegal or contrary to applicable Italian laws. Do not republish our article via unsolicited email, spamming, or pop up ads. Never sell any article taken from freenewspos.com fees not ask to read an article taken from our website.
Seems that it’s OK to pirate another’s content as long as you link to the original? Not exactly how copyright law is supposed to work, but hey, in our online environment it seems as though making up things as one goes along is fine and dandy. As Ms. Little points out, “The most convenient way to request permission to copy and distribute material is by contacting the publisher of the content. In addition, clearinghouses exist that provide an easy way for business users of content to obtain redistribution rights.” This site never mentions asking the author for permission.
There’s also a somewhat Freudian typo in the site’s FAQ section as well an ironic (English) acronym in use. I believe it should read, “How do I use POS?” but instead it reads:
How do I sue POS?
The application operates in a complete automatic fashion. A reader is able to obtain subscription and read information without the need to log in. If you provide your E-mail, you will be able to access the POS management application,
where all notifications from POS and news can be viewed in full (POS does not send you spam or advertisements). Other advanced functions will also be available.
POS will not place any restrictions on how you use the application.However, your use and development of the application must not infringe the reputation of POS,nor cause any damage to any of its facilities. You must ensure third party rights are protected.instead of POS, as POS does not hold any copyrights of services provided by the aforementioned third party.
POS does not place any restriction on the contents or the way your articles are published,whether you are a reader or a writer. But, POS will not be held liable for any third party claims against the accuracy or the legality of any contents published.
You are not allowed to publish or paste any material involving defamation, racism, pornography, violence and any contents forbidden by laws of your country or those that POS considers or has been reported to be inappropriate. POS has the right to delete the above mentioned material or contents without notification to its publisher.
I dare say POS is a POS, but I digress. The fact is that respecting copyright ultimately means respecting creators’ rights to determine how their works are used. Companies like Google, and this (POS) pirate publishing site, practice their own alternative view of copyright–take what’s not yours and monetize it (illegally) until someone finds out.
When I checked out the site’s Twitter feed is was full of Tweets advertising “free” movies online. Not surprisingly it’s more scam than substance, as each Tweet linked to a freenewspos.com post with a bunch of keywords or summary for a popular movie title–simply more SEO churn for ad dollars. One Tweet listed links to a post that, in turn, linked to a YouTube page which, in turn, linked to another off-site ad forwarded from a Google-hosted Blogger, Blogspot.com site. Google seems to seems to be entwined in this site’s nefarious activities every which way.
When I attempted to actually login and create a user account in order to see how the site worked, the page came up blank on multiple browsers. Maybe it works for users in Italy? Regardless, it seems pretty clear that freenewspos.com is a site built on a business model dependent on attracting traffic and ad revenue by promoting content that is stolen and, often times, make believe. Perhaps not much can be done to prevent this site from operating, but surely Google could do better in choosing business partners?
