Practical Lessons from the MPAA’s Search Engine Study (via Plagiarism Today)
In recent months, Google’s role in the piracy ecosystem has been hotly debated. Much of it started with Ellen Seidler’s Popup Pirates site (Note: She has since moved to Vox Indie) which attacked what she saw as Google’s role in supporting piracy…
I don’t need a study to prove that search engines are an integral force in fueling online piracy, but since the piracy debate is awash in dueling studies I’ll happily chime in on the subject again.
Last week Google published a report–a characteristically self-congratulatory piece of fluff–declaring themselves to be a leader in the fight against piracy and that took great pains to deny the significance of “search” in maintaining the online pirate economy. The report repeated claims made in a recent study (published by a consortium of tech giants including Google) that it’s poor SEO techniques that are the problem–not search engines.
Today, the MPAA came riding to the rescue with its own study, “Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy,” that sticks a pin in Google’s hot air balloon. Of course the MPAA is one of the anti-copyright lobby’s favorite whipping boys, because, after all, they represent big, bad Hollywood–an industry that employs more than three hundred thousand people in the U.S. (according to 2012 federal labor statistics).
May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
NAICS 512000 – Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
Why do I believe the MPAA study more accurately reflects reality? Because it jibes with everything I’ve discovered while digging through the world of online piracy (and profits) these past three years; and although I’ve never worked for a major studio, my interests as an independent filmmaker dovetail with those who do.
Whether grips, gaffers, makeup artists, script supervisors or caterers–we all have a shared interest in protecting our livelihoods so I’m thankful that the MPAA commissioned and released this study. The results are relevant for all content creators whose livelihoods are threatened by rampant online theft.
The MPAA study methodically examined how consumers, intentionally or not, ended up on pirates sites. It found that between 2010 and 2012 “approximately 20% of all visits to infringing content were influenced by a search query.” As wrote in an earlier blog post criticizing the Google funded study, its search engine should be considered a “gateway” to pirated content online. The MPAA study affirms this:
“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.”
Even more troubling was the finding that many people who use search aren’t actually looking for pirated content, but by using typical generic search queries to look for content they often end up on pirate sites.
Ironically, the only good thing about the fact Google search makes it easy to find pirate websites is that content creators (like me) can use it to track down pirated copies of their own work so they can send those beloved DMCA notices.
At any rate, I’m sure there will be those who disparage these findings, but in my view, these results mirror my reality. I recommend reading the full report, including the methodology if you’re so inclined, and drawing your own conclusions. You can read the full version here.
While you have your reading glasses on you should take a look at another very comprehensive report (commissioned by NBCUniversal) released yesterday titled, “Sizing the Piracy Universe.“ This study found, among other things that, “Users of piracy ecosystems, the number of internet users who regularly obtain infringing content, and the amount of bandwidth consumed by infringing uses of content all increased significantly between 2010 and 2013.”
There’s an executive summary available if you don’t have the patience for in-depth analysis, but either way, the reality is that online piracy continues to be a growing problem.
Statistical analysis is helpful in putting the issue into context for policy makers in Washington and beyond who will debate what, if any, action to take. However, as content creators worldwide hope for progress in the fight against piracy, the reality detailed by these studies is a sobering one.
This past week Google issued a report, “How Google Fights Piracy,” in which the tech giant attempts to explain what a great job it’s doing leading battle against online piracy. After reading it I think a more accurate title would be “Why Google Shouldn’t Have to Fight Piracy Because it Offers so Much Other Good Stuff.”
While the report does outline various positive steps Google’s taken (under duress) to mitigate its role in incentivizing and enabling piracy, most of the document reads more like an evangelical tome as to how their innovations have benefited content creators, blunting any collateral damage that may have occurred. In other words, let’s overlook the bad in favor of the good…
On a personal note, one line I found particularly galling was: “Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.” The claim that Google has been a “leader” in any way in the fight against online piracy is chutzpah at its best. A more accurate characterization would be that–after years of obfuscation and inaction–Google’s finally taking (some) action. Never mind that such efforts are long overdue and may never have happened had their nefarious business model (profiting off content theft) not been exposed to the light of day.
In an effort to burnish their tarnished image, the authors resort to repeating well-worn and disingenuous Google-spawned memes (which I’ve repeatedly deconstructed on this blog). These include:
I would counter that Google should be doing much more, including:
Google’s report begins with a warm and fuzzy anecdote about the previously unknown Korean K-pop “artist” Psy whose viral video “Gangnam Style” became an online sensation and generated more than 8 million dollars in ad “deals” in addition to having been purchased “digitally millions of times.” According to a footnote, the figures quoted come from an article in New York Magazine, “Gangnam-Buster Profits,” It’s worth noting that along with Psy’s profits, Google’s bank account did pretty well too:
Number of YouTube views of the “Gangnam Style” video (as of 1 p.m., November 30): 853,942,076
Standard rate YouTube pays to video owners for every 1,000 views: $2
Estimated total YouTube revenue received by Team Psy: $1,707,884.15
YouTube’s estimated cut: $1,366,307.32
(Based on rates provided by Jason Calacanis, CEO of Mahalo, a top YouTube partner.)
I’m not sure what the report authors meant when they wrote “8 million dollars in ad deals” as there’s no documentation to back that claim up…perhaps they were confused and mixed up deals with YouTube “views?” Even though the actual figures quoted are at best guesses, there’s no denying that the video was a YouTube sensation and made mega-bucks for both the artist and Google–but so what? What does that really have to do with explaining Google’s anti-piracy efforts? The answer is nothing.
The tale of this outlier merely seems designed to deflect attention (and disgust) away from Google’s long-standing role in promoting, and profiting from, content theft. No one’s saying that YouTube doesn’t offer opportunity to content creators–but with opportunity comes responsibility–and that’s where Google still has far to go.
I’ve written previously about the positive aspects of YouTube Content ID and monetization, but there remains that nagging question Google fails to address–transparency. As demonstrated by our dependence on “guesstimates” to calculate the Gangnam Style video’s possible profits, why does Google still refuse to offer content owners specific information about how much money is being made from their work?
Sure, content owners can see how much they earn, but how much does Google take off the top? How much is earned per view, etc? Such basic information has never been made clear. Nor are breakdowns offered when there are multiple claimants on a video (i.e. movie mash-up with music from another artist). Why does Google refuse to offer a “transparent” accounting breakdown of just how much everyone makes off advertising on claimed content? What’s there to hide?
Uploads on YouTube that feature links to infringing downloads
Also, try as they might to focus on the positives, YouTube is also still a conduit for illegal activity. Not only does the site provide online pirates with a convenient means to advertise their illegal download links (on other sites) but it also allows thieves (content leeches) to earn income by monetizing bogus claims.
Why doesn’t Google do more on this front? Simple answer, monetized uploads make them money. Who cares what the uploaded file actually is and who owns it (never mind the advertisers being ripped off paying for adjacent ads). Google/YouTube pays these parasitic pirates and pockets more profit for themselves.
When it comes to reporting on the role Google’s search engine plays in promoting piracy, the report report borrows heavily from the recent (Google-funded) study that alleges “search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.” Both that study and this report concluded that better SEO optimization on the part of content creators is all that’s required to fix the problem. Given Google’s report merely repeats talking points from the CCIA repeating part of my response seems appropriate:
Sorry, but I read the entire paper and found no evidence to support this. Sure, lots of downloaders bypass search because they are experienced downloaders and know how to go to Pirate Bay or Filestube to find what they’re looking for, but where did they get their start? Perhaps it’s better to think of search engines like Google as a “gateway” to finding pirated content online.
Google search leads to illegal downloads, counterfeit products, illegal pharmacies and more. Clearly the search giant can de-list sites engaged in unlawful behavior (like child pornography) but rather than do so in this case, its proxy (the CIAA) gins up headlines to muddy the waters, deflect and obfuscate the real issues at play.
If Google were a brick and mortar mall featuring stores selling bootleg DVDs authorities would step in a force them to shut down the illegal enterprises, but when it comes to the online world the “tech” industry’s constant refrain is that the need to “innovate” trumps the need to do what’s right. Yet this debate isn’t really about protecting innovation, that’s simply tech-speak for protecting the industry’s bottom line (at the expense of those other innovators, content creators).
Since Google deems search to “not be a major driver of traffic to pirate sites” one wonders why in the same breath, the company touts how efficiently it responds to the 4 million weekly requests it receives in a report on its efforts to fight piracy?
…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.
Google has a strong track record of developing solutions that scale efficiently. The trend line is striking—from more than three million pages for all of 2011 to more than 4 million pages per week today. As the numbers continue to swell, it becomes both more difficult and more important to detect and pick out the abusive [emphasis added] and erroneous removal notices.
This so-called DMCA “abuse” is another tired red herring. Google routinely employs to deflect attention from the 4 million pages per week of mostly legitimate ones. Given the huge volume of takedown requests Google receives it’s no surprise there are errors, but the collective “damage” done by mistaken DMCA notices does not begin to compare to the damage piracy has on content creators. However, Google would like us to believe otherwise. As I wrote in an earlier post:
Piracy apologists like to focus on erroneous takedowns and highlight stories whereby a 9 year-old in Finland had her computer confiscated, or a grandmother in Colorado had her ISP account wrongfully suspended. Certainly mistakes happen, and when they do it’s unfortunate, but they are few and far between when compared with the cumulative harm being done to those whose livelihoods are damaged by rampant online theft. For every search result removed in error there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, removed for valid reasons. Sensationalistic anecdotes make for splashy headlines and provide convenient red herrings for those who defend the piracy status quo–big bad Hollywood versus the grandmothers of the world–but meanwhile the genuine stories documenting piracy’s ruin are routinely minimized or ignored.
Also lost in this debate is the fact that if one takes the time to read the DMCA, it’s easy to see that the law actually favors the reported party, not the other way around. If a site has been removed in error, the owner can use the Google website to file a counter-claim with a click of a mouse. That immediately puts the onus on the party that filed the original DMCA request to go to court and prove the legitimacy of their claim. If that next step isn’t taken, the takedown becomes moot. Filing a court case is a costly endeavor so it’s unlikely that those whose file false DMCA claims, whether in error or purposely, would bother to spend money to enforce a bogus DMCA. Conversely, those content creators who don’t have deep pockets have little recourse when it comes to enforcing a valid DMCA takedown if the other party, representing an infringing (pirate) website, chooses to file a counter-claim.
Demonstrating a (selective) dedication to transparency and warning hat DMCA abuse can be a “pretext for censorship,” Google touts the fact that copies of all DMCA notices received are posted on ChillingEffects.org, an online “clearinghouse” operated by a various legal clinics that depend heavily on Google donations for financial support.
According to their website, “Chilling Effects aims to support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats,” but it appears they’re not too interested in the threat that illegal content theft has on the livelihoods of musicians, filmmakers, authors, etc. From the beginning, Google’s posting of DMCA notices on Chilling Effects seems designed to intimidate those whose rights are being trampled upon. In this scenario the only thing being “chilled” is the right of content creators to protect their work from theft in order to make a living.
Google also claims to lower the rankings of sites that are repeatedly reported for content theft (another questionable claim), but justifies the fact it refuses to remove such sites, like the notorious Pirate Bay, entirely.
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. As shown on the Transparency Report, we generally receive removal notices for a very small portion of the pages on a site. 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.
I should add here that when I checked today and did a search for the movie ” a ‘Perfect Ending’ download” the second result (after a paid Netflix link) was none other than a torrent on the Pirate Bay. So much for re-ranking pirate sites eh?
Why is it inappropriate to remove a site that routinely engages in illegal activity? If a brick and mortar store’s merchandise routinely includes stolen goods it would be put out of business. Why does Google hold sites like Pirate Bay in such high regard? Does every single infringing torrent on Pirate Bay have to reported for Google to consider blocking it? Is there a tipping point, ever?
I could only shake my head when I read that Google claims to be the industry leader when it comes to “following the money.” When I first began blogging about the link between online piracy and profit when my film was released in 2010, Google wouldn’t even admit there was a problem. Finally, after having a spotlight shined on their dubious sources of profit, Google has been forced to take action–but a leader they ain’t.
Despite the claim that “Google does not want to be in business with rogue sites specializing in piracy” they’ve yet to provide any documentation to support it. One nugget in the report noted, “…we find that AdSense ads appear on far fewer than 1% of the pages that copyright owners identify in copyright removal notices for Search.” Does this mean that Google is screening the reported pages for AdSense accounts before removing the link from its search engine? If so, in the name of “transparency” it would be great to see these results documented. Speaking of “transparency,” how about letting us “follow the money” to Google’s own bank account. Just how much money has Google made off advertising on rogue sites over the years?
In my experience with AdSense links were often removed while the site (and its AdSense ads) on other illegal downloads remained active, but looking around the web it does seem that fewer AdSense sponsored ads appear on pirate websites. I’m thankful some progress appears to have been made, but for Google to infer that it acted willingly to clean up its dirty laundry and has become leader in the battle against ad-sponsored piracy is just absurd.
Last but not least we come to Google’s Blogger hosted websites, a go-to (free) platform favored by web pirates around the world. According to the report, Google’s efforts to keep the Blogger platform pirate-free should earn the company another feather in its cap.
Blogger is Google’s free blog publishing platform, which enables users to create and update blogs. We remain vigilant against use of the Blogger platform by pirates looking to set up a free website. Consistent with other Google products that host user-uploaded content, we will remove infringing blog posts when properly notified by a copyright owner, and will terminate the entire blog where multiple complaints establish it as a repeat infringer.
Blogger has also created an automated bulk submission tool for copyright owners who have a track record of reliable submissions and a regular need to submit large volumes of takedown notices. This tool allows qualified copyright owners to obtain rapid removals of infringing posts appearing on Blogger.
Sounds good, but as I’ve written many times previously on this blog, the truth with regard to Blogger-hosted websites is not so rosy. Also, to be honest, Google’s “automated” bulk submission tool is a time-consuming pain. Why not give content creators a Copyright Management Account that allows for bulk reporting of Blogger sites and search links? Why should continually have to fill out my name, company, email, etc. each and every time I have more blogger sites and pirate search links to report? Actually sending an email to Google would be much faster but that’s not allowed. Ironic that the now defunct Megaupload made it easier to send DMCA notices than Google does…
Google’s online removal process is time consuming. Sending an email would be much more efficient.
More significant is the fact that, in my experience, the word “rapid” should not be part of Google’s lexicon when it comes to targeting piracy on Blogger sites. Despite repeated reports of piracy and obvious and repeated copyright infringement, many Blogger pirate sites remain online. I will be posting a follow-up on this subject soon.
Google-hosted Blogger (blogspot.com) websites are a pirate favorite
There’s no doubt that Google has revolutionized the online world in a variety of positive ways but when it comes to its role fertilizing online piracy, the company has been spinning and deflecting its way through the a minefield for the better part of a decade. Thanks to outside pressure the situation has finally begun to improve, but there’s still much to be done before Google can rightfully claim to be a leader in the fight against online piracy.
Misleading headlines are nothing new in the news business and so it’s no surprise to experience déjà vu reading the misleading headlines trumpeting a study released this week by researchers at the University of Munich and Copenhagen Business Schools, “Piracy and Movie Revenues: Evidence from Megaupload: A Tale of the Long Tail?” Never mind that nearly identical headlines circulated in fall of 2012 when an abstract for the same study was originally released and rebutted.
Now, nearly a year later, this new (old) study purports to show that the feds shutdown of notorious pirate site Megaupload in early 2012 was bad for the movie business at least in terms of non-blockbusters.
We find that box office revenues of a majority of movies did not increase. While for a mid-range of movies the effect of the shutdown is even negative, only large blockbusters could benefit from the absence of Megaupload. We argue that this is due to social network effects, where online piracy acts as a mechanism to spread information about a good from consumers with low willingness to pay to consumers with high willingness to pay. This information-spreading effect of illegal downloads seems to be especially important for movies with smaller audiences.
What about “smaller” independent films that don’t have a theatrical release?
Comparisons of box office revenues aside–and despite obvious weakness in their methodology–the study’s authors fail to give any consideration to the fact that most indie films released these days do not have theatrical releases. Shouldn’t such films be included as “movies with smaller audiences?” Why are their revenues not factored into this study?
For these “smaller” films the only way to earn revenue is through VOD, DVD, and TV sales–placing them in a head-to-head competition for viewers against pirate cyberlocker sites like Megaupload. With a mere click of a mouse Megaupload users could download a movie (for free). Why go to iTunes and pay to watch a film when one could just as easily download it in HD for free? No matter the spin, Megaupload diluted legit sales for these “smaller” films. To argue that Kim Dotcom’s business model (which earned him millions) bolstered filmmakers’ revenues is just delusive.
The Megaupload shutdown did have a positive impact on digital sales
If you want studies, contrast the Munich study’s findings with a one published by Carnegie Mellon researchers earlier this year that found the opposite to be true:
After controlling for country-specific trends and the Christmas holiday, a country’s pre-shutdown Megaupload penetration rate (the % of Internet users that accessed Megaupload or Megavideo during December 2011) was statistically independent of its week-to-week changes in sales. However, immediately following the shutdown, there was a positive and statistically significant relationship between a country’s sales growth and it’s pre-shutdown Megaupload penetration, such that for each additional 1% (lost) penetration of Megaupload the post-shutdown sales increase was between 2.5% and 3.8% higher (depending on which of our models you believe to be most accurate).
The fact that these trends didn’t exist before the shutdown but existed after the shutdown suggests a causal effect of the shutdown on digital sales, and we find a similar (but slightly weaker) relationship for digital rentals. In aggregate, our estimates suggest that, across the 12 countries in our study, revenues from digital sales and rentals for the two studios were 6-10% higher than they would have been if Megaupload hadn’t been shutdown.
As in 2012, the MPAA wasted no time in releasing a statement denouncing the study:
An independent review of the academic research available has shown that the vast majority of research available in fact does show that piracy does harm sales…And a recent study from Carnegie Mellon University found that digital sales in countries where Megaupload was popular increased after Megaupload shut down. And in fact, the Munich and Copenhagen paper also finds that box office increased after Megaupload shutdown for an important segment of titles that they don’t clearly define, although it’s hard from the study’s descriptions to determine exactly what the control and treatment sample groups are, among other key factors. Unfortunately, in order to reach its conclusion, the Munich and Copenhagen study also all but ignores a critical piece of the box office picture – how timing or other factors that are completely unrelated to Megaupload impact the box office performance of small, medium or large films.”
If studios determine that “shutting Megaupload” hurt their profits why wouldn’t they adjust their marketing and distribution strategies to mirror the cyberlocker business model? Hollywood is in the business of making money and they don’t seem to be rushing to give away free downloads of their movies to generate buzz and box office.
Ultimately it’s the rights holders–not online pirates–who have the legal right to decide how their copyrighted work is distributed and marketed. Study or no study, the reality is that Kim Dotcom is a parasite who made millions by feeding of the work of others. His loss is our gain.
MPAA victory against Hotfile is a victory shared by all content creators hurt by online piracyThe best news in the fight against online piracy since Megaupload’s demise came yesterday as the MPAA annouced a big victory in their copyright infringement lawsuit against Hotfile, a cloud-based cyberlocker website known to harbor pirated movies, music, books and more. Though specific details of the court decision won’t be released for another two weeks, the judge issued a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs. From the LA Times:
This decision sends a clear signal that businesses like Hotfile that are built on a foundation of stolen works will be held accountable for the damage they do both to the hardworking people in the creative industries and to a secure, legitimate Internet,” said former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Assn. of America.
“We applaud the court for recognizing that Hotfile was not simply a storage locker, but an entire business model built on mass distribution of stolen content,” Dodd added. “Today’s decision is a victory for all of the men and women who work hard to create our favorite movies and TV shows, and it’s a victory for audiences who deserve to feel confident that the content they’re watching online is high quality, legitimate and secure.
Headlines called the decision a huge victory for the MPAA, which of course it is, but it’s also important to appreciate that it’s really a victory for the rest of us who create content for a living. Cyberlocker sites do not discriminate, offering pirated copies of indie films alongside the latest Hollywood blockbusters. It’s a business model that depends on stolen content (and the website traffic it attracts) to make money and pirate operators are happy to exploit the public’s thirst for free content, no matter the source. Hopefully this court decision will cause other pirates who operate similar sites and willfully facilitate copyright infringement to give pause.
Given these developments I thought I’d repost “Cyberlockers: Explaining Piracy’s Profit Pyramid ” a piece I wrote in 2011 explaining the cyberlocker (pirate) business model whereby operators earn millions by monetizing content theft at the expense of content creators around the globe. Some of the names have changed, but they piracy game remains the same.
First of all, make no mistake, the vast majority of today’s piracy is driven by the thing that has motivated mankind since time began—the desire to make money. If you take the time to spend a few minutes online exploring websites engaged in piracy (most people who speak out on the issue don’t seem to bother) you’ll quickly recognize that money is at the center of everything.
Mediafire download link (for flm-Unhappy Birthday) featuring Google ads.
If the ads aren’t hitting you squarely in the face, or the offers of high-speed, high quality downloads don’t spark suspicion, then perhaps it’s time to clean your glasses. How ‘bout I take you on a tour?
Let’s begin with the sites that serve as the lynchpin for today’s online pirates. No, I’m not going to talk about Pirate Bay or other notorious P2P (peer to peer) sites. No need for that. Consumers are all about convenience, and it’s not particularly convenient to download torrents and reconfigure the numerous file parts in order to view a movie. Today it’s all about the one-stop shopping experience, and for that there’s no better storefront than the cyberlockers where, with the click of a mouse, you can download (or watch) your favorite film. You’ll likely find other items on your wish list (e-books, music, software, and more) available for easy download as well.
You’ve probably heard the term “cloud based storage” floating around a lot lately. Well, thanks to companies like Apple, and the recent launch of their cloud based offering called “iCloud,” the notion of storing files online via a virtual hard drive is gaining ground. Cyberlockers have been providing this “service” for nearly half a decade now, and while there is legitimate activity taking place via some cloud-based storage sites like Drop Box and Yousendit, there are many others whose business model is predicated on content theft. The now disabled Megaupload.com is a good example of the latter variety. (Read the indictment for a step-by-step tour through the inner-workings of their criminal enterprise.)
How does an illicit Megaupload-like business model work? Well, if you want to understand how cyber lockers work it’s helpful to think of a company like Amway. Amway’s business success popularized the multi-level marketing style pyramid business model (or scheme ) whereby the operators at the top of the pyramid recruit people to work for them. They, in turn, recruit more workers who, in turn, sell products to the public. Those at the top make money only if they can recruit, and keep, enough people below to do the actual work. Those doing the bulk of the work earn money, but at a much lower rate than those at the top. It’s the trickle up theory of profits.
At any rate, if you journey to the cyberlocker of your choice–Megaupload, Filesonic, Fileserve, Filefactory, Uploading, Uploadstation, Mediafire, Megashares, Sockpuppet, Putlocker, etc. you will see enticements offered encouraging visitors to join this type of profit pyramid.
Cyber lockers offer CASH for uploads.
Why do they do this? Well the cyberlocker business model depends on traffic. In order to drive traffic to their site they need content that will attract visitors. What better carrot than popular movies, books or music? Never mind copyright, there’s the “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA that allows the cyberlocker operators to essentially look the other way (plead ignorance) when it comes to the content that affiliates upload. In fact, if uploaders did abide by a site’s published Terms of Service, the cyberlockers would quickly be out of business.
In other words, cyberlockers depend on an army of affiliates to do the dirty work for them. It’s a scenario that enables the cyberlockers to shield themselves from legal liability, while their servers are simultaneously receiving thousands of (stolen) files every day–fresh content sure to attract new (and returning) customers.
So, in order to set this eco-system into motion, the cyberlockers lure their minions. Uploaders can earn rewards, which usually start at around $35 per 1,000 downloads. Simply put, the more downloads you generate for your file, the more money you earn.
Cyberlockers are booming thanks to profits from piracy.
That fact sets in motion the next level of piracy—the viral spread of the download links. The affiliate armies take their links and post them on download (Warez) forums far and wide. The more these links are “shared” across the web, the more money made.
Click to for PDF with 36 posts of viral links.
To further ensure their earnings, these cyberlocker affiliate pirates—I’ll refer to them as CAPs from now on–usually upload their stolen files to multiple cyberlocker sites. This is called ‘mirroring” and what it means is that if a link is disabled on one cyberlocker site you can easily find the identical file on another. Each CAP generally has affiliate accounts with multiple cyberlockers so that their illicit income won’t suffer if some links are disabled.
Since they are paid per download to maximize profits, CAPs often break a film file into several parts. An average size for an uploaded film is around 700 MB (HD films can easily be double that size) but if divided into smaller chunks, requiring multiple links, and thus multiple downloads, the CAP can earn more download points. There’s a trade-off to this approach, however, as it can dissuade downloaders who prefer the convenience factor of downloading a “single” file.
Film download broken into several links in order to maximize profits.
Some sites like Megavideo (the streaming partner site to Megaupload) offer visitors the ability to watch an entire film streaming online with no download wait time. Watch the film, and if you like it, you can add it to your “collection” and download a copy for later viewing.
So, now that it’s pretty easy to understand how so much illegal content gets uploaded to the cyberlocker sites, let’s look for a moment how site operators turn that traffic into actual income.
At the top of the list is online advertising. Click a cyberlocker download link and you will arrive at a page like this.
Cyber locker site streaming the film “Unhappy Birthday” with Netflix ads serviced by Google.
There’s a link or stream for a film and there are ads. Various companies serve these ads, but one can’t ignore the fact that Google and other U.S. based ad servers like AdBrite are ubiquitous on the cyberlockers. For the record, the ads seen on the image above and below are served by Google, though now that they’ve changed their icon and obscured their connection to them, it’s more difficult to tell. In any case, no matter who serves the ad, the cyberlocker makes money and the ad service provider makes money. The creator gets squat.
Another cyber locker stream with more ads (provided by Google).
In addition to ad income, cyberlockers derive profit by offering “subscriptions.” In this instance users pay a fee, averaging around $9.00 per month, that enables high-speed downloads on the website. This means instead of waiting a half hour to download a full film, the entire process takes only 3 minutes. For those who are repeat customers, this may be money well spent. In this instance the cyberlocker site is making money and the payment processors (Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and the like) are making money. Again, the content creator earns ZERO.
Cyber lockers cash in on selling subscriptions for high speed downloads.
In order to boost its subscriptions cyber lockers again turn to affiliate rewards. Remember those forums where the CAPs go to spread their viral seed? Well, many, if not most of those forum operators also have relationships with the cyberlockers and are an integral part of the piracy profit pyramid. For every individual they “refer” who becomes a cyberlocker affiliate, they earn a referral fee. Thanks to unfettered access to free content and income, the eco-system of online piracy continues to thrive and grow.
HD-BB an online forum where viral cyberlocker links are spread.
HD-BB is just one example of such a forum. The forum operators boast of the high-quality “rips” shared by its members. If you drill down into forum posts you’ll quickly discover that moderators only allow users to post links to specific, “approved” cyberlockers that the forum has a relationship with. There are also links that direct users to the various affiliate options ensuring that the forum earns its fair share. The forum makes money, the cyberlocker makes money and the creator of the content makes ZERO.
This is what I know.
Now that this black market business model is entrenched as a way of doing business around the globe, what can be done to stop it? Well, I’m afraid that nothing can stop it–piracy will never disappear entirely–but something can be done to mitigate its effects. This can happen if we can encourage the majority of websites at the center of this illicit cyberlocker eco-system to become (more) legitimate.
Cutting off the money that feeds this pirate profit pyramid is one part of the equation, but there’s also another component that may be equally important. It’s a solution that it’s already working right in our own back yard.
I look to Youtube’s solution to piracy as an imperfect, but reasonable fix. Let’s meet the pirates halfway. Why not ask them to set up Content Management Systems (CMS) like the one Youtube has? A system like this would allow content owners to determine the fate of their work. A CMS system basically allows for the fingerprinting of content so that infringing content can be instantly identified upon upload to the cyber locker site.
Dashboard for Youtube’s “Content Management System.”
The content owner could then determine, as they do on Youtube, whether to remove the content, monetize the content, or block it in certain territories. In this scenario the cyberlocker can still earn money off uploaded content, but only at the discretion of the content owner. Users will also be less inclined to post infringing content in the first place. It’s a solution that allows the content owner to take back control from the pirates (thieves) and earn income off files that previously were simply stolen. In this equation, at least everyone gets a piece of the pie.
It’s at this point that the false “piracy is good for business” refrain parroted by piracy apologists begins to gain some traction and some truth. If piracy’s black market business model can be remolded into a practice that can financially compensate the content creator–and restore their control of the content–perhaps it could become better for business.
The problem is that cyberlockers are not going to adopt a CMS system just to be nice. Youtube, a U.S. company, was forced to act under threat of ongoing litigation and legislation. The only way today’s crop of cyberlockers can be forced to institute similar content ID systems is if their current business model becomes unsustainable. For that to happen, like Youtube, they too will need to face the threat of litigation and/or the long arm of the law. At this point, that puts the ball squarely back in the lap of Congress.
That is what I know…
The subject of LGBT visibility in cinema has been in the headlines of late. A recent piece by Peter Knegt on indiewire.com examined why LGBT movies no longer seem to make money at the box office:
It’s already clear that the 2010s will be remembered as a benchmark decade for the legal rights of queer folks in the United States, but for some reason financial success — even on a very minor level — is a rarity when it comes to queer folks in the movies.
On the heels of that piece, last week GLAAD (Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) released its first “Studio Responsibility Index” measuring the number of LGBT characters and story lines found in mainstream Hollywood movies. The study found a Hollywood where LGBT representations were few and far between:
Of the 101 releases from the major studios in 2012, 14 of them included characters identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The vast majority of these characters were no more than cameos or minor roles. None of the films tracked contained transgender characters.
In his piece, Knegt considered five possible explanations for the diminishing success of LGBT stories at the box office including:
Knegt dismisses the first two citing anecdotal evidence to the contrary but, as the GLAAD study highlights, he finds some truth in #3, noting “Studios simply aren’t touching films with lead LGBT characters anymore.” This trend is particularly curious given that, as noted in #4, there’s no such reticence on TV (or Netflix). Of the disparity between TV and Hollywood Knegt writes: “If anything, the success of so many television shows with LGBT characters should suggest there’s just as much potential in film.
As part of the GLAAD study’s release, they introduced what they call the “Vito Russo test” (named after GLAAD co-founder and LGBT historian) which outlined the following criteria:
The Vito Russo Test criteria:
- 1. The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender (LGBT).
- 2. That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity (i.e. the character is made up of the same sort of unique character traits commonly used to differentiate straight characters from one another).
- 3. The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect. Meaning they are not there to simply provide colorful commentary, paint urban authenticity, or (perhaps most commonly) set up a punchline; the character should matter.
Knegt saves his most passionate response for reason #5, suggesting that part of the fault lies with LGBT audiences who don’t bother to go to the theater and support the films that are released.
…So why do smaller LGBT films these days struggle to hit $500,000? Yes, in part because a lot of them seem to be making more of their money on VOD or digital platforms than in theaters (“Weekend” being a prime example). But that isn’t enough of a reason for me, and it shouldn’t be for you either. It’s lazy. There have been 117 films released in North America to gross over $1 million so far in 2013. Just the aforementioned “I’m So Excited” featured a LGBT character, and it’s not even in the top 100 grossers. That’s less than 1%. People are still going to see movies, and it’s up to the much more than 1% of the population that are not straight to take up opportunities to go see themselves represented on the big screen when they can.
He makes a good case for the need for LGBT audiences to support LGBT films at theaters, but there’s another less obvious factor that is missing from this discussion–the negative impact online piracy has had on LGBT filmmaking.
It’s no surprise that LGBT films are pirated. These days, what movie isn’t? However, any serious discussion about the insidious erosion of LGBT cinema’s financial viability should include a look at the role of online piracy.
With Hollywood making fewer LGBT-centric films that pass the Vito Russo “test” the onus is once again on independent directors to create cinema that reflects the myriad experiences of LGBT lives. Unlike studio-backed films, these productions are usually funded via grass-roots sources like crowd-sourcing, grants, and the old standby–personal debt. Unlike studio-backed films, these titles usually don’t get a theatrical release and so are totally dependent on back-end revenue (VOD, DVD, TV) to recoup production costs and pay off debts. Parasitic pirates, who themselves profit from piracy, erode this much-needed revenue stream.
When our film “And Then Came Lola” was released, within 24 hours illegal copies appeared on cyber-lockers and torrent sites across the globe. Within days dozens of illegal download links morphed into thousands, then tens of thousands.
Most distressing was that many of the illegal downloads appeared on websites that specifically catered to LGBT movie audience. Early on I began to compile a list of sites that specialized in pirate downloads of LGBT movies.
This meager list represents only a tiny fraction of these pirate sites offering downloads to LGBT movies. Some of these sites are offline now because they were hosted (for free) on Google’s Blogger platform and subject to DMCA takedown notices. (Note that Google does not immediately disable such sites. In my experience it takes repeated reports of infringing activities over months before such sites are actually removed).
Rather than just send DMCA notices, often times I’d also post in the blog’s comment sections (translated into the blog’s featured language) and (nicely) point out their hypocrisy. Lesbians routinely complain about the lack of representation in cinema, yet when lesbian-themed films are released, these same folk have no qualms downloading them for free and thus undermining the (lesbian) filmmakers ability to produce future films. When I comment I always included links where readers could find legit copies to (subtitled versions) of our film. My comments were sometimes met with hostile responses such as “F-you” but in other instances they led to a more thoughtful exchange like this:
An exchange I had on blog featuring downloads to lesbian films.
This lesbian movie site’s response raises some valid points, particularly when it comes to the fact that lack of access LGBT films can play a role in incentivizing piracy. There many places in the world where LGBT content isn’t readily available or (like the Middle East) and filmmakers need think outside the box in order to find ways to make their films accessible in places where LGBT people are forced to live in the shadows.
However, these days most of these movie blogs cater to audiences in countries where the films are widely available at low cost (with subtitles) on a multitude legitimate streaming sites or via DVD (via sites like Amazon). As Knegt observed in his Indie Wire piece, LGBT audiences need to put their money where their mouth is and support the films they want to see whether it be in the theater or online.
Of course, amid an ever evolving distribution environment, it’s important for LGBT indie filmmakers to be aware of market realities and do their best to position their film in such way to maximize availability and minimize piracy. How can one best do that? Well, when filmmaker’s ask for my advice, I suggest the following:
The ebb and flow of Hollywood marketability aside, were it not for the passion of indie filmmakers, cinematic representations of LGBT life stories would likely be limited to the malicious stereotypes found in crappy 1980s fare like Cruising (Al Pacino hunts a gay serial killer then becomes one) and Windows (Talia Shire’s character is stalked by an evil lesbian). Until recently, the only films that countered these caricatures were generally made by LGBT filmmakers, the same filmmakers whose voices are buried beneath the din of the piracy debate. Audiences may not fully appreciate what’s lost until it’s gone.
