by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy
Content creators know how time consuming it is to send DMCA takedown notices to sites that pirate your movies, music, photographs, etc. Equally tedious is trying to find the correct DMCA email address to send the actual takedown notice to. Usually it’s a matter of clicking through a maze of irritating pop-up ads and captcha-codes. With new cyber-locker pirate sites appearing every day, it’s sometimes hard to keep ones email address book up to date.
So, for those of you who are stuck in DMCA hell, here’s a little something to brighten your date….a list of email address I discovered for the most popular pirate cyber-locker sites. Of course–given the broken system we have in place to protect copyright holders from theft–there’s no guarantee that even if you do send a takedown notice that the file will be removed, but in for most, it’s worth a try.
List of email addresses to send DMCA takedowns notices to for most popular pirate websites
http://voxindie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/master-dmca-email-addresses-list.pdf
Here’s a link to the PDF: DMCA email addresses list
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 | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Creative artists who speak out to defend their work from online poachers have long been the target of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a Google-funded tech-centric organization that ostensibly “champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation.” Many creators first become familiar with the EFF when sending takedown notices to Google for copyright infringement on its various products (YouTube, Blogger, search, etc.) and receive warnings that the DMCA notice (listing the infringing link) will be sent to the EFF’s public Chilling Effects database. The purported goal of the database is to provide a clearinghouse to study “the prevalence of legal threats and allow Internet users to see the source of content removals.” Unfortunately, its real mission seems to be to further intimidate rights holders who try to protect their work from online infringement. The database has, in fact, become a handy source of links to pirated content. Given its history as a tech cheerleader, it’s no surprise that the EFF is at it again, this time drafting a letter to officials who are negotiating the “intermediary liability” language for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement. According to the U.S. Trade Representative’s website:
TPP will provide new market access for Made-in-America goods and services, strong and enforceable labor standards and environmental commitments, groundbreaking new rules on state-owned enterprises, a robust and balanced intellectual property rights framework, and a thriving digital economy.
While there are legitimate concerns about transparency with the negotiating process, transparency is a double-edge sword. Perhaps the EFF should take a dose of its own medicine. The language contained in EFF’s letter once again establishes criterion where the rights of content creators should be considered secondary to those of “innovators” (a.k.a. tech interests). It paints a predictable–but false–scenario where rights holders are running amok by flooding poor service providers with unsubstantiated takedown notices.
We are worried about language that would force service providers throughout the region to monitor and police their users actions on the internet pass on automated takedown notices, block websites and disconnect Internet users.
It’s the old canard whereby web users’ right to steal copyrighted content trumps the creator’s right to remove it. The reason we have “automated takedown” processes in the first place is the amount of theft is so massive, that for many rights holders, it’s the only way to make a dent in the un-checked online copyright infringement that’s been unleashed in the name of “innovation.” Google has to deal with millions of takedowns because it enables (and profits from) millions of infringements. Even Google admits that the number of erroneous takedowns is minute (3%) compared to the number of valid ones (97%). The EFF asks for “flexibility” for nations to “establish takedown systems.” It’s a malleable term one could drive a truck through that would unquestionably undermine the entire point of writing IP protections into the agreement in the first place. Of course that’s precisely why the EFF and its shadow kingpins are pushing it. The fact is that there’s no such thing as borders in today’s digital world and treaties such as the TPP may be the only way to forge a path forward where IP can be protected in a meaningful, global way and nurture creative business in developing countries. Indeed, to gut IP protections by allowing nations “flexibility” would lead us back full circle to our current morass–a patchwork of enforcement that undermines any meaningful protection for creators rights around the globe. As Peter S. Mennell, noted law professor and co-director of U.C. Berkeley’s Center for Law & Technology wrote in a paper published this past April, This American Copyright Life: Reflections on Re-equilibrating Copyright for the Internet Age:
U.S. treaty and trade negotiators should celebrate and nurture Bollywood, Nollywood, and other creative communities as a primary focus for achieving global copyright protection. The U.S. should not be seen as an IP bully on the international stage but rather as a genuine partner willing to lend a hand up to nations willing to support their creative industries. Such a policy has the added bonus of promoting free expression and democratic ideals.
The EFF, and those drafting this trade agreement, should be mindful of what defines “democratic ideals” and acknowledge that creators worldwide “are worried,” and rightfully so, about an unbalanced online eco-system whereby the rights of certain users and business interests routinely trump the rights of artists. The letter raises EFF questions whether the TPP is “pushing proposals that that would truly enable new businesses to flourish in our countries in the decades to come.” For accuracy’s sake, perhaps the EFF should just be clear about their goals (and those of the tech companies that send millions their way) and clearly ask the TPP to bow to pressure and push proposals that would “truly enable” copyright infringement to “flourish” un-checked in the decades to come. After all, companies like Google traffic in content and the fewer obstacles to using and disseminating said content, the more profits for them. If you look at the list of signatories on the letter is a predictable (tech) bunch and attached to the document is the EFF’s own screed on “Abuse of the Copyright Takedown System.” As part of its advocacy efforts, the EFF routinely muddies the waters and conflates valid concerns over online privacy and free speech rights with copyright holders’ efforts to protect their work from infringement. Protecting rights within all three realms is important and doing so effectively, despite EFF rhetoric to the contrary, need not be a mutually exclusive process. The EFF approach to protecting “rights” in the digital age has always has been disingenuous. Gin up hysteria in order to push an anti-copyright agenda–an agenda, covertly built on the interests of the tech industry and NOT the community at large. For the record, protecting copyright is defending free speech. The EFF’s letter to TPP negotiators is just one more link in its (tech-funded) chain of lies.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy
The movie Lyle is being streamed online for free
This week I’ve come across two pieces written by indie filmmakers that discuss distribution options in the age online piracy. While it’s good to see the issue being addressed, the dichotomy between the two reveals that differences remain developing distribution models in an age where revenue streams are undermined by online profiteers.
The first piece published on filmmakermagazine.com by Stewart Thorndike and Alex Scharfman, “Why We Are Giving Our Feature Away for Free at LYLEmovie.com,” presents the filmmakers’ plan to give the movie away for “free” in order to engender good will and drive donations for their next project in a planned horror trilogy:
We wanted to stick with the idea that got us to Lyle: the desire to control our film’s destiny and not wait for permission.
It is in that spirit that we’re giving Lyle away for free at LYLEmovie.com. Sure, we could send the film out on the festival circuit and hope for a more traditional distribution offer, but that would take months or even years.
While the goal to “control the destiny” of one’s film is a laudable one, it’s also not one that will work for every indie film.
In this case, the filmmakers see giving their film away as smart marketing explaining, “By giving Lyle away, we’re inviting that audience to come find us and help us make more movies for them.” It’s a laudable plan and I wish them well in their efforts. After all, how one distributes one’s film should be a matter of personal choice. However, in explaining their approach they seem to view the digital world through slightly rose colored glasses:
The music industry, whose models seem to be a few years ahead of film, has already seen artists like Radiohead make their work available in exchange for whatever a fan wants to give. In the comedy world, Louis CK had enormous success when offering a pay-what-you-want (with a $5 minimum) deal on his standup special in 2011. In our case, we’re inviting Lyle’s viewers to donate what they want to our next film, Putney. Through this model, we hope to disrupt the traditional financing and distribution paradigms by tying the distribution of one project to the financing of another, democratizing both to create an audience and a brand on which we will build with Putney.
To point to the pay-what-you-like (one-time) distribution efforts used by Radiohead and Louis CK as a workable model for distributing small indie films, while sincere, seems a tad simplistic. After all, even Radiohead referred to the stunt as a “one off.”
Many music fans had hoped that the band’s now famous pay-what-you-want promotion was an attempt by the group to discover a new way to sell music. Now it appears Radiohead at best was after publicity.
While giving their film away for free to finance a second low-budget film might be the right choice for them, it certainly won’t “disrupt the traditional financing and distribution paradigms.” Those paradigms have already been radically disrupted by online piracy and, despite good intentions, not every feature film can be made via crowd-funded micro-budgets.
The latter point is one that filmmaker Zak Forsman raises in “I Made a Movie Worth Stealing: My Experience with Piracy,” posted this week on filmschoolrejects.com. Forsman recounted his experience with online piracy following the release of his feature, Down and Dangerous:
The movie has been uploaded in its entirety to YouTube about a dozen times now. Most recently, I issued a takedown for a Vietnamese-subtitled version.
As I filed that first copyright violation and takedown request, I wondered, “Is this going to be part of making movies now? Chasing down pirated copies and jumping through hoops to get them removed?”
Forsman notes there may be a difference between micro-budget productions and indie films with bigger budgets:
…if I were releasing the movie myself, directly to fans, I’d be happy to see people steal it and share it. Truly. Working in microbudgets affords me the opportunity to be a bit of a gambler when it comes to raising a movie’s profile. But in this case, I had a responsibility to protect the movie’s potential sales on behalf of our distributors.
Forsman also attempts to quantify the actual toll piracy took on his film’s revenue making a conservative estimate that if 10% of 10,000 illegal downloads were converted into legit sales it would add an additional $7,000 to their gross. As he points out, it’s not an insignificant figure for a film that cost $38,000. Having experienced the reality of online piracy firsthand, he also outlines steps filmmakers can take to prepare.
In contrast, the Lyle filmmakers have made the choice to attempt to sidestep piracy entirely by giving the film away. As writer/director Thorndike noted in an interview with tribecafilm.com, ” Instead of paying to see the movie, you pay, if you liked the movie, to see the next movie get made.” It will be interesting to see how this approach plays out, but given the fact that online pirates don’t give a darn where they steal films from, the movie will most likely still be pirated. Within days the (free) streamed film will be stolen from the filmmaker’s own website and pirated elsewhere, reducing visitors to their own Kickstarter campaign. Meanwhile, per usual, online pirates will be generating income off the stolen movie via their own sites.
Given the low amount of funding sought ($35,000), in this instance the piracy is unlikely to prevent a successful fundraising campaign, but moving forward, will these filmmakers want to limit themselves to only produce micro-budget films? At some point those who work on these films will want to make a living doing so. Does this approach really sustain a robust indie filmmaking culture? Is this really the “paradigm” filmmakers want for their future?
In any case it’s good to see indie filmmakers acknowledge online piracy’s impact on distribution and engage in discussions about ways to dull the damage. Here’s hoping we can learn from their experiences and see more films from them in the future.
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]
