by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy
Many American companies still have their fingers in the Piracy Profit Pie
While Bitcoin, the shady crypto-currency, may be emerging as a potential new not-so-legal tender in the black market of online piracy, the fact remains that mainstream companies like Google, Visa and Mastercard still play a major role in facilitating the flow of money that’s exchanged (and earned) in this illicit underground economy.
There’s no question that cloud-based pirate cyberlocker havens took a hit after the demise of big daddy Megaupload with many of the biggest once scattering like cock roaches when the feds took action. Despite that much-needed house-cleaning, offshore cyberlockers continue to be a major source of pirated content thanks to the profits they generate with little risk and much reward. Unfortunately, despite lip-service to the contrary, ad networks like Google’s AdSense and payment processors like Visa and MasterCard remain an integral part of the system, acting as unseemly middlemen–earning income for themselves and the content thieves. Here’s how it works.
- Pirate uploads stolen content (movies, music, books, etc) to cyberlocker (usually to multiple sites)
- Pirate advertises the file’s download links on forums far and wide to attract “customers” to earn cash incentives from cyberlocker
- Cyberlocker offer incentives to pirates to upload and “share” popular (pirated) content to attract traffic
- More traffic means more income for Cyberlocker via advertising (from services like Google AdSense) and premium subscriptions (paid for with Visa, MasterCard, etc)
- Cyberlocker pays cash rewards to pirate uploader based downloads, referrals, and premium subscription sales
- Everyone makes money in this system EXCEPT the content creators
Below are a series a graphics illustrate the pirate business model at work. Pirate forum x264-bb is a web “forum” in the business of promoting pirated download links to a variety of pirated movies and TV shows. The site boasts strict guidelines for users to follow when posting links to their pirated content–ironic to say the least, particularly the admonition not to make more downloads (mirrors) “unless authorized by the original encoder.” I guess there’s honor among thieves after all…
Below is an example of a typical post on the forum, advertising download links for the movie “Despicable Me” by a user aditkhan (who boasts over 6,899 posts).
Pirate uploaders generally post “mirrored” links (identical files on multiple sites) so that downloaders aren’t disappointed if the first set of links disappears. In this case he has posted identical links on cyberlockers FileParadox.com and RyuShare.com. Note that the movie file offered in multiple parts to increase page views and profits.
Below is one of the downloads link on FileParadox. Note the inducements to purchase “premium” subscription as well as a Google-served AdSense advertisement at the bottom of the page that ironically promotes AdSense.
If downloaders do want to sign up for premium service (and access to high-speed downloads of stolen files) they can pay using Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express and more.
Even if the downloader doesn’t choose to become a premium member, FileParadox still earns income thanks to Google’s AdSense advertising.
I created an account on FileParadox in order to show you what their reporting page looks like. There are various ways uploaders can earn money by uploaded stolen content: # of downloads, # of premium accounts sold, and referrals.
Aditkhan reminds forum members to “support” him by creating an account (referral) and upgrading (premium sales). It doesn’t seem like a stretch to guess that aditkhan wouldn’t be so busy stealing, uploading and sharing links if he didn’t make money doing so. Clearly Google, Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express apparently don’t mind adding to their coffers and taking a cut of the action either. Their voluntary “best practices” agreements seem–at this point–to be full of holes.,,
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics
For filmmakers, musicians, authors, and artists, etc. whose work is pirated (and monetized) by online thieves, the only way to (possibly) get one’s stolen content removed is to send a DMCA notice. It’s a procedure outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law passed by Congress in October of 1998.
The legislation was intended to provide a means to protect copyright in the digital age, but also provides “safe harbor” for websites (like YouTube) that unknowingly host infringing files. The law specifies the “notice and takedown” procedure for copyright owners to use in order to request removal of their content, commonly referred to as a DMCA takedown notice. If a website owner complies with a legitimate takedown demand, “the provider is exempt from monetary liability.” Anyway, that’s how it’s supposed to work. In reality, the process is not quite so simple, nor successful.
Not only does sending out DMCA notices required a great deal of time–time that most indie content creators do not have–but often times it’s ignored entirely by pirate sites that feign compliance.
Here’s a case in point. Using Google, a rights holder was able to find numerous illegal download links to their film “The Guest House.” Next step, get them removed–but that’s easier said than done. Take a look at how many steps it took–and how many advertising obstacles (i.e. revenue for the pirate) stood in the way of sending a single DMCA notice for a single link…and–despite all that effort–days later the link (and the pirated movie) remains online and available. 
Despite the fact the distributor followed all these steps and clicked past all these ads and submitted a DMCA takedown request days ago the pirated film is still streaming online. Meanwhile, this web pirate keeps making money–earning revenue thanks to brand name advertisers (like the U.S. Army?) and sex sites. The filmmaker makes ZERO. So much for the goal of protecting copyright holders in the digital age eh?
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright
If you’re wondering where my earlier post about ads disappearing from clicktoview.org, I apparently spoke too soon. As of this evening the advertising was back–major name brand advertising video ads again displayed adjacent to sex ads. Solarmovie.so is also involved as original source of the link and it’s not clear how or if the ad revenue is shared between the two pirate sites.
When I checked a link for the newly released “Carrie” I came across these ads (note the ads alongside the sex ad are actually videos that play): Bounty paper towels, Vicks (official sponsor of the NFL starring Saints’ quarterback Drew Brees), Best Buy, Hyundai, Crest, and Dannon Oikos Yogurt. There were more video ads that played, but I’m running out of room….
If anyone cares to look at the source code for all of this garbage, here’s a PDF I created. Another interesting thing to note, if you click on the button “get streaming link” you’ll end up on this page (see below) that requires you view ads courtesy of Geico, Best Buy & Domino’s Pizza before putting in a captcha code in order to finally arrive at the pot of gold, a pirated stream of the Carrie re-make.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Ads for Adidas, Acura, Bertolli, Crest, Charmin, Domino’s, Ford, Geico, Hellmann’s, Lowe’s, Panera, Papermate, PG&E, Post and more share space with sex ads
I know I sound like a broken record, particularly when writing about online advertisers’ ongoing refusal to do something about their role in ad-sponsored online piracy.
In writing about this issue I’ve repeatedly pointed out that in the world of brick and mortar publishing, companies are extremely picky about ad placement and exert careful control over what editorial content appears beside them.
Apparently, in the world of online advertising, such vigilance is of little concern. It’s a literal free-for-all where companies, desperate to squeeze every penny out of their ad budgets, contract with multiple ad networks to blanket the web with their promotions. Advertisers willingly abdicate their control over ad placement in favor of market saturation. With this in mind I’m sharing a sample of some vulgar, sex ads found on pirate download links that show up aside ads featuring popular, brand-name products.
Do these companies really want their products promoted pages linking to pirated copies of Gravity, beside ads that read “First Free Find & F**k Site” or a chat window featuring well-endowed “Molly” who teases, “I wanna f**k now?”
Ad Industry Best Practices?
The ad industry and ad service providers have made a show of agreeing to voluntary “best practices” agreements to fight ad-sponsored piracy, but despite their talk and White House support, not much has changed. Take a look at the graphic below…What kind of industry “best practices” do these ad placements represent?
Can these advertisers really pretend that it’s not worth taking action? Piracy profiteering is alive and well and the ad dollars of advertisers like these play a significant role.
These companies work hard to protect and promote their brand’s image and so seeing Charmin toilet paper advertised aside a“First Free Find & F**k” ad seems more akin to pimping than promotion and it’s certainly does not complement their fuzzy, family bear campaign.
The bottom line is that these ads are not good for business unless, of course, you’re in the business of online piracy or selling sex. If that’s the case, then these ads are the lifeblood that sustains you while simultaneously sucking the life out of the content creators whose work your steal. 
It’s a sick and twisted illicit economy and legitimate advertisers better start taking their “best practices” seriously and voluntarily remove their brands from these ad networks unless they want their products associated with images like this.
**Note, I will be adding to the “Advertiser Hall of Shame” slide show (below) as I come across new examples. Unfortunately, I imagine I will be making updates often.
Dove’s “self-esteem” ad
Kraft
Aveeno
Duracell
Best Foods ad
Natural Choice
Windows
Bounty
Vicks
Luvs Diapers
Duracell Batteries
Crest Pro Health
Swiffer
Best Buy
Febreze
Greenies
Alaska Airlines
L.L. Bean
Nokia
Motorola (a Google Company)
General Electric
Microsoft Windows Phone
Castro Motor Oil
Target
Hot Pockets
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy, Publishing
Ad industry executives were out in force this week at the annual “Advertising Week” convention in New York City. Not surprisingly, the issue of digital piracy’s link to advertising dollars was raised during a panel discussion “Digital Media Under Attack-It’s Worse Than You Thought.” Privacy-net’s Gordon Platt reported on the event:
Much of the conversation focused on the relationship between advertising and piracy, not unexpected for an Advertising Week event. “No one has asked the blunt question of whether you want your ad associated with a pirate site,” said [Rick] Cotton. He added, “Advertisers should not want their ads to be in that environment. It’s getting more risky to be in business with criminal websites.”
Bob Liodice, CEO of ANA (Association of National Advertisers) agreed and suggested the industry needs to be accountable for its role in monetizing piracy.
“It makes us all shake our heads, wondering how we can wrap our arms around this. We have theft going on here.” Liodice believes that one problem is that no one has taken “ownership” of the piracy problem. “We have to create a level of collaboration in order for the [advertising] industry to own the issue.” Liodice stressed that collaboration has to be “systematized” and that the industry has to make it “personal.”
Part of making it “personal” is for advertisers take responsibility for where their ads appear. Unfortunately, this is an issue that extends beyond advertising on rogue sites offshore. Ad sponsored piracy is also ubiquitous on so-called legitimate, U.S. based websites like YouTube and Facebook.
Let’s take a look at YouTube first. Thanks to ad revenue, the popular UGC (user-generated content) site is a cash cow for Google and (some) content creators. Advertisers of all stripes are eager to see their products plastered over the latest in viral videos. There are four basic types of ad placements available:
- Display ads (banners) run across all areas of the site except the Homepage. They are available as a 300×250 ad that appears to the right of the feature video and above the video suggestions list. Learn more.
- Overlay in-video ads are transparent overlay ads that appear on the lower portion of your video.Learn more
- TrueView in-stream ads are skippable video ads that are inserted before, during or after the main video. Learn more.
- Non-skippable in-stream ads are video ads that can be inserted before, during, or after the main video and must be watched before the video selected can be viewed. Learn more.
The question real question is do advertisers know where their money is going and do they care? What determines which ad goes where and how much it will cost? YouTube explains it this way:
Monetized YouTube videos may display ads served via the AdSense auction as well as ads sold on a reservation basis via DoubleClick (DCLK) and other YouTube-sold sources.
AdSense Ads
The Adsense ads displayed on your video are determined automatically by our system based on a number of contextual factors relating to your video. These factors include but are not limited to your video metadata and how you categorize your video.
We aren’t able to control all of the ads that appear with your videos manually. Similarly, we can’t guarantee that specific ads will be displayed with your videos. We regularly monitor and update our content-targeting algorithms in order to deliver the most relevant ads to your video pages.
Like most things YouTube, it’s not particularly clear, but for advertisers who don’t want to miss out on eyeballs this lack of transparency seems not to be of much concern. Here’s a cross-section of “overlay” ads that represent a variety of companies that I found plastered on videos linking to pirated content.
YouTube isn’t alone. As I’ve reported in past blog posts, Facebook advertisers also routinely have their ads placed side by side with pirate offerings.
Facebook’s explanation of its ad placement and targeting options is fairly simplistic too:
Choose the location, gender, age, likes and interests, relationship status, workplace and education of your target audience. If you are the admin of a Facebook Page, event or app, you can also target your ad to people who are already connected to you.
Clearly the ad placement is dependent on who is looking at the page rather than the page content itself. That needs to change.
During the Advertising Week event NBCUniversal’s Senior Counselor for IP Protection, Rick Cotton suggested, ““The simple message is that we need a systematic approach to this problem. Otherwise it’s bad news for the industry.” Very true.
Why not start with cleaning up our own back yard in Silicon Valley? If advertisers were to stop advertising on sites like YouTube and Facebook until they can be sure their ads aren’t associated with pirated content I imagine things would change rather quickly. After all, money talks…
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Piracy
It’s no surprise that anytime there’s discussion about finding effective ways to combat online piracy Google’s name seems to be in the mix. When the subject does come up, the constant refrain from Google officials is that they’re doing everything they can–but how much is just PR posturing versus real action?
Check out Google’s latest apparent stratagem. In a story by Katherine Rushton published on 2/16/13 in The Telegraph “Google looks to cut funds to illegal sites,” she reported that the company is pushing payment processors to cut off the flow of money sites linked to online piracy.
Google is in discussions with payment companies including Visa, Mastercard and PayPal to put illegal download websites out of existence by cutting off their funding. The web search giant, which is embroiled in a long-running row over the way it deals with pirated material, is considering the radical measure so that it can get rid of the root cause instead of having to change its own search results.
Executives want to stop websites more or less dedicated to offering links to pirated films, music and books from making money out of the illegal material. The plans, still in discussion, would also block funding to websites that do not respond to legal challenges, for example because they are offshore.
Ironically, the same day Ms. Rushton published her piece in The Telegraph, she also posted
this story “Google’s copyright war rages on-UK creative industries want the internet giant brought to heel.”
But the creative industries are not yet satisfied. They want those websites that are the subject of tens of thousands of “take down” requests to be blocked altogether – sites like fenopy.eu and filestube.com whose primary purpose appears to be offering downloads of pirated content. They also claim that the changes Google has made to its algorithm are not particularly effective.
I couldn’t agree more. Whether it’s Google’s search, YouTube, Blogger or AdSense, Google seems to have a finger in every slice of the piracy pie. Apparently the only buck that stops in Mountain View is the kind that goes into the bank.
