by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Most know by now that advertising dollars are the fuel that feeds the fire of today’s online piracy. Today (February 16th) I discovered that some of Uncle Sam’s money makes up part of that fuel. I came across this ad, apparently sponsored, at least in part it seems, by the U.S. Forest Service. The ad popped up on an (illegal) download for a recently released indie film “A Perfect Ending” on the movreel.com cyberlocker.
I imagine the U.S. Forest Service has no idea that their advertising for the Smokey the Bear website emblazons an illegal download, but its presence does indicate the depth of the problem with online advertising’s lack of accountability when it comes to financing web-based piracy. As the recently released USC Annenberg Lab Ad Transparency Report documents, brand supported piracy is pervasive across the globe and involves a number of major corporations such as American Express, BMW, ATT, Walmart, etc. Well, now it appears you can add the U.S. government to that list.
What can be done? Perhaps we should add online piracy to the list of fires that Smokey the Bear puts out, or, at the very least, have him talk with colleagues in Washington D.C. about ways to “prevent” the problem.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
As the Annenberg Innovation Lab releases its February “Ad Transparency Report” on major brands link to advertising on pirates sites it’s also worth taking a look (again) at yet another recent example as to how Google–along with Netflix in this case–continues to incentivize, and monetize, online piracy.
Google-hosted site features ads for Netflix and active (free) download links for a popular movie.
This is a Google-hosted website (via their Blogger platform) that features (as of yesterday) active download links to the Hollywood hit “The Dark Knight Rises.” Note the (Google-served) advertising to the right. At the top of the list is an ad for Netflix. Now, I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again….Why go to Netflix and pay to watch the movie when you can click a download link and watch it for free?
Remember, Google is earning money, Netflix is gaining customers (earning money) and the Blogger pirate is earning money. The film’s distributor, Warner Brothers, earns nothing. Sure, the studio is part of “big” Hollywood, but please remember–big Hollywood employs hundreds of thousands of “little” people who toil behind the scenes. These grips, gaffers, caterers, drivers, makeup artists, script supervisors, carpenters, etc. depend on these Hollywood-generated jobs to put food on the table. This is not a victimless crime.
There is no reason on earth that Google (and Netflix) can’t do a better job vetting websites where their advertising appears. Profits for both are soaring. Rather than hire additional staff to deal with these issues, it appears both companies are happy with apparently profitable, yet shameful, status quo. 
- Profits for Google and Netflix are robust.
Despite lip-service to the contrary, neither company seems willing to take voluntary action for fear that it could impact their bottom line. So what’s left? As Dennis Kneale of Fox Business wrote in his piece today:
The report deploys a new weapon in the assault on online piracy: public shame. The USC Annenberg lab’s director, Jonathan Taplin, hopes that publicly identifying the offending ad-nets will persuade them to block pirate sites entirely.
Ad supported piracy is nothing new, but finally the public is starting to pay attention. Shame on Google and shame on Netflix and all the other established companies that continue to look the other way.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Some cyberlocker websites that offer file storage, do (eventually) respond to DMCA takedown notices, but in an ironic final twist, a fair number of them have found a way to use copyright violation notifications to their advantage–monetizing requests via pop-up ads.
Examples are easy to find. Today I went to a notorious download site that offers download/streaming links to any number of popular (recent) films. I chose to find links for the Oscar-nominated “Silver Linings Playbook.” If you look at the column on the left, you’ll see more than 2 dozen links to view and/or download the film. I did not check them all, and imagine some have already been removed by studio anti-piracy efforts.
For purposes of this piece, I chose a link hosted on a site called “Faststream.in” When I clicked the link I arrived at a splash page that offered a stream of the film. I could click the button “proceed to video” be bombarded with ads before watching the film. However, what happens when the rights holder wants to send a DMCA notice to the site? On this site there’s no DMCA option provided, only a “contact” link. Click that and (cha-ching) a pop-up ad appears. To access the actual contact page, you have to close the ad.
I’ve come across many sites that utilize the same setup. I suppose that if a site is going to lose its carrot to attract ad clicks, operators may as well make some money in the process. Aside from earning cash from clicks, this cumbersome procedure also makes sending a legit DMCA notice a time-consuming, and thus expensive, proposition. I checked the U.S. Copyright Office list of designated agents to determine if this site had registered one. No listing was found, so using this contact page–for each and every takedown request– appears to be the only way to contact the site to send a takedown notice. No wonder the movie is still online.
I checked the WHOIS information to see if their was any contact information and found that the domain was registered by a Jeremiah Haselberg of PiratePoint.Ltd. in Canada. At least he’s honest about the nature of his entrepreneurial activities eh? Or maybe he’s just named his company after a favored vacation spot, Pirates Point Resort in the Caymen Islands….a “safe harbor” in more ways than one.
Aside from making money off DMCA takedown requests, this site is follows the traditional cyberlocker pirate business model, incentivizing infringing uploads with cash rewards.
It’s bad enough that rights holders have to police these sites to safeguard their work, but adding to their coffers in the process only adds insult to injury. Such is the nature of online piracy today.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
YouTube account holders accounts are terminated for repeated violations of copyright policies
I have a question for the folks at YouTube. Usually, if a user receives multiple (3 or more) DMCA takedown notices, the associated account is suspended for repeated violations of their copyright policy.
Two weeks ago I wrote about a YouTube account holder, “MyTrailerIsRich,” who makes money piggy-backing off the work of others–uploading and monetizing movie trailers without permission from the rights holders. Since then, I know for a fact that at least four different distributors have submitted a total of at least 8 takedown notices for trailers uploaded (and monetized) by this user without permission.
Yet, as of this morning, the channel (with its 50 million plus views) is still online and earning income for YouTube and the user. Why? The user hasn’t filed a dispute (counter-notice) to protest the takedowns. Could it be because this particular channel has attracted so many views (and so much income)? Could it be that the intermediary that uploaded and claimed the content (Wizdeo) has a special relationship with YouTube? If you look at YouTube’s criteria for account termination you will note that it’s conveniently vague:
Accounts determined to be repeat infringers may be subject to termination. Users with suspended or terminated accounts are prohibited from creating new accounts or accessing YouTube’s community features.
It’s been my experience with YouTube that some users have had their account terminated for 3 violations. It’s also the figure bandied around in Google’s own product forums.
Yet, to date, MyTrailerIsRich’s has received at least 8 and remains online. I’d love to ask someone at YouTube about this, but unfortunately, they won’t respond to email queries. My guess, it’s all about the money. Perhaps YouTube should update its terms to clarify matters and say:
Accounts determined to be repeat infringers may be subject to termination (dependent on how much income they generate for us).
The YouTube channel for “MyTrailerIsRich” remains online despite multiple (at least 8) takedown notices.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Netflix ads routinely adorn pirate websites
As I wrote in a post last week, my first impression of the new Mega is that it may not be the pirate mecca most thought it would be….at least not yet, due to the fact the site isn’t offering a “reward” program for its users. Adrianne Jeffries wrote a piece published today on theverge.com entitled “Pirates Beware – Kim Dotcom’s Mega isn’t the pirate haven he says it is.” and comes to much the same conclusion. She also points out that pirates have found new ways of making money:
While uploaders miss the rewards programs, they’ve also figured out how to make money by redirecting would-be downloaders to intermediate sites with ads. It works like this: the pirate uploads a bootlegged copy of Skyfall to Mega, Rapidshare, or one of the other file lockers. Then he or she creates a network of blogs on Blogspot and other free platforms, enticing others to download the movie for free. When the would-be downloader clicks the link, they’re routed through a revenue-sharing service like AdF.ly or another ad network. The downloaders are bombarded with ads, but eventually they get through to the actual movie. Everybody’s happy.
Jonathan Bailey also wrote a piece for his blog, Plagiarism Today, in which he traced recent efforts by anti-piracy activists (including my blog www.popuppirates.com) to bring attention to the connection between profit and piracy. In his post “Stopping Piracy by Following the Money Trail” he also examines the ongoing question as to why legit companies seem to avoid responsibility for their ubiquitous ad placements on pirate websites.
The reason is ad laundering. When an ad for Netflix appears next to an infringing copy of a movie, Netflix can blame its ad agency, which can blame the online agency it subcontracted to, which can blame the ad network, which can blame the smaller ad network it subcontracted to which can then blame the site for lying or misleading them.
The Trichordist blog has also been roundly criticizing a number of high-profile U.S. corporations whose ads routinely appear on pirate music and movie sites. This past week they proposed a way creative artists could speak out on Twitter:
As we suggested on our post, Over 50 Major Brands Supporting Music Piracy, It’s Big Business!the best way to start to effect positive change is to simply encourage like minded people to send a daily tweet to one of the brands on the list. A tweet a day to just one of these brands will create enough awareness to bring this issue to the attention of the brands themselves. There are over 50 brands, so that’s nearly two months of tweets just by doing one simple tweet a day.
By using the hashtag #StopArtistExploitation we can also easily help others find out about this problem and build support for artists rights online.
Bottom line, if we want to be successful in our fight against online piracy we have to follow the money. I encourage those who create content for a living–artists, musicians, filmmakers, photographers, writers, and more–to speak out to #StopArtistExploitation. It’s time our voices are heard.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Need more evidence that Google’s YouTube earns income from pirates who upload (and monetize) films for which they don’t own the rights? Well, here’s another example I found today (1/26/13). This time it’s a YouTube user with the moniker “iWatchEpicMovies.” The film in question (one of many the uploaded claimed by the user) is a 1998 Swedish film, released in the United States under the title “Show Me Love.” The original title in Swedish was “Fucking Amal.”
The film was uploaded to YouTube on January 23rd and claimed by the uploader, who asserted “ownership in the following countries: Worldwide.” When you view the film on YouTube it’s monetized with advertising, meaning the uploader and YouTube earn money very view. Not only is the pirated film monetized, but ironically, one of the ads superimposed over the screen is a Netflix ad. So, in this case, Netflix is also benefiting from the presence of this pirated film on YouTube. BTW, Netflix is no stranger to allowing its advertising to be promoted aside pirated movies. I wrote about another recent example of this here.
- Pirated film Monetized on YouTube by Google featuring Netflix Ads
Google/YouTube will, as always, claim that it’s the rights holder’s job to police YouTube and to request that infringing content be removed. Of course, in the interim, Google’s happy to make money and Netflix is happy to attract new customers (and make money).
In another ironic twist to this pirated upload, the YouTube user posts this disclaimer “I do not claim copyrights. For entertainment purposes only.” Perhaps “iWatchEpicMovies” should rewrite it to clarify, and say: “I do not claim copyrights, but I assert ownership (worldwide) for the purpose of making money off something I don’t own.”
