by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
It’s time to “un-like” Facebook’s habit of turning a blind eye to the flagrant piracy for profit on its pages
There’s been a lot of breaking news lately about online piracy. This past week, two new studies were released that document the scope of online piracy and search engines’ role in leading consumers to infringing content. Yet there’s another area, in addition to search, that should be drawing more scrutiny–the role that social media sites like Facebook play in leading consumers to illegal downloads.
I’ve blogged about Facebook’s link to piracy in the past, but today came across a Facebook page promoting pirated content that has 1.3 Million “Likes.” The page also features advertising from entities like the Oklahoma Department of Commerce , Coach Handbags, and Petco. Apparently Facebook has no problem collecting tainted income from advertisers who likely have no clue that their ads are adjacent to a pages linking to pirated movies.
I found this particular Facebook page when I happened upon a pirate website, “Filmes Online Gratis” (Films Online Free) while researching illegal streams to a colleague’s film. It’s a Brazilian site (Portuguese language) that offers more than 393 pages of streams for pirated movies and TV shows. The site also features a link promoting its companion Facebook page that, as of today, apparently has 1,305,449 “likes.”
This pirate website promotes its offerings via a companion Facebook page
I checked several of the movies featured on the site and found that the infringing streams were indeed active. Of course this particular pirate entrepreneur’s business model, like the majority of them, is based on earning revenue from advertising so its pages–and the embedded streams — are plastered with ads. The infringing streams are hosted via a variety of sites known for offering pirated content including the Russian Facebook wannabe Vk.com and a favorite pirate cyberlocker site, Putlocker.
What’s troubling is that the Filmes Online Gratis Facebook Page also features direct links to these same pages (and infringing streams). Spin it any way you like, but the fact is, Facebook is profiting from, and helping promote, pirated content.
Its Silicon Valley neighbor, Google, has been under (justifiable) scrutiny for its connection to the pirate economy; now it’s time to hold Facebook accountable. One should also take note that in terms of this pirate’s FB page, Facebook doesn’t share any of its ad revenue with the pirate–the company gets to keep all its dirty money for itself (and its shareholders). For Facebook, ad income on this page = pure piracy profit.
Last April, when I attempted to get a response from Facebook about this issue for an earlier blog post, this is the email response (see below) I ultimately received. I’ll try to contact them again, but I would guess that not much will have have changed since my last effort to communicate, save for the price of its stock.
Seems a tad disingenuous to “prohibit” activity, yet do nothing about it. This Filmes Online Gratis Facebook page didn’t get to 1.3 million followers overnight. One can only guess how much advertising income Facebook has earned from its visitors.
Why do we let Facebook off the hook for making money off piracy on its pages?
Like other companies whose business models profit from piracy (search engines, ad servers, payment processors, etc.) Facebook’s lack of response adheres to the popular “Three Wise Monkeys” principle of corporate PR-hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. By the way, there is a fourth monkey from the proverb–the often forgotten Shizaru—who symbolizes “do no evil.”
Ironically that particular phrase is a well-known part of Google’s corporate code of conduct that reads, in part, “…it’s [do no evil] also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably…”
While I wouldn’t characterize Google’s corporate behavior as being particularly “honorable,” at least the company acknowledges on some level that online piracy is a problem. The time for Facebook to pull its head out of the sand and do the same is long overdue. Playing ostrich will only work for so long.
(original images credit: iStock)
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Piracy, Tech
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.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, 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.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy
Independent voices, on the margins of Hollywood, vulnerable in the face of online theft
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:
- 1. There’s just not as much of a need for these films anymore.
- 2. There are less LGBT films being made, so there will clearly be less of them grossing $1 million.
- 3. There are less marketable LGBT films being made.
- 4. All the good LGBT representation is on TV.
- 5. The market has simply changed.
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.
LGBT audiences need to stop eating their own and put their money where their mouth is
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:
- 1. Worldwide Release Window: In negotiating distribution deals make sure that your distributors offer worldwide day and date release. In other words, release your film to audience worldwide simultaneously. There are major distributors of LGBT content who provide for worldwide streaming options like Wolfe on Demand and Busk Films. Also note that distributors like Wolfe offer an affiliate program that you should promote. It allows fans to create an account and earn a 10% commission on rentals/sales when they share your film online. It’s a win-win (legit file-sharing) but in order to maximize its potential to mitigate piracy’s impact it’s essential to promote it.
- 2. Subtitles: offer your film with subtitles in the major languages (the more, the better).
- 3. Multiple VOD Platforms: Make sure your film is available on multiple platforms. This is not always easy and in some cases makes working through a distributor worthwhile as they have relationships with aggregators to get your film on sites like iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, etc.
- 4. Pre-Release Promotions: Make sure you have prepared audiences ahead of time for your film’s release and make it clear via your website and social media where the film will be available and in what languages. Provide direct links and translate your promotional efforts into multiple languages. As noted above, if your distribution platforms offer user the option to become an affiliate and earn commission, sharing links or embeds to your film, make sure they know about it.
- 5. Prepare for Piracy and be aggressive out the door: Familiarize yourself with the DMCA takedown process and have a boilerplate DMCA template ready to send when you find your film pirated online. You can find some good info/resources here. Also be sure to create a YouTube Content Management Account so that you can keep tabs on illegal copies and remove while monetizing mashups of your films (short fan-created videos) that can effectively promote your film. Be relentless in your anti-piracy efforts and send DMCA notices early and often to sites where you find illegal copies of your film. Checking Twitter, search engines, and sites like Filestube.com can help you uncover illegal downloads. If you are aggressive early, those who are anxious to watch your film are more likely to seek out a legit source if pirate copies are few and far between. Clearly it may not be something you have the resources to do long term, but it can make a difference. Also if you are working with a distributor, make sure they have a (worldwide) anti-piracy action plan in place.
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.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Piracy, Tech
Study says SEO lapses by legit distributors are to blame for high ranking of pirate sites by search engines
What are we to make of the recently released study by the CCIA (a Washington D.C. tech industry lobbying group whose membership includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo) that claims that search is not a popular path to discover pirated content online? The study asserts, “that search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.” Apparently the real reason it’s easy to find links to illegal content online is not the fault of search engines, but simply poor SEO techniques by legit content distributors.
This so-called “research paper” titled “The Search Fixation: Infringement, Search Results, and Online Content” was written by Matt Schruers, an adjunct law professor and CCIA’s VP for Law and Policy. Freudian notions aside, headlines the paper generated were predictable. With the exception of Torrent Freak, every tech-oriented blog seems to have fallen in line echoing the idea that poor, maligned search engines play only a minor role in helping folks find free stuff online.
In this tit for tat spin war, this paper was designed as a direct response to a recent RIAA study that criticized Google for not being proactive in demoting pirate search results despite promises to the contrary. According to the study:
The contention that disappearing undesirable entries from search results would substantially prevent piracy is flawed however. The solutions to online infringement have little to do with search. Infringing sites receive limited traffic from search. In the context of music, the available evidence suggest that the frequency with which users input queries like “download,” “mp3,” or “torrent” is relatively low…
…Concerns about organic search results containing terms such as “mp3” or “download” are misplaced, however. Actual search data indicates that appending “mp3” or “download” as the RIAA paper suggests is statistically uncommon. Users far more frequently search for “[artist]” or “[artist]””[track]”…Google Trends data indicate that only a small fraction of searches for the artist’s name and track name also included the words “mp3” or “download.”
As evidence for his conclusions he makes the point (using a fancy Google trends chart) by using the (very wealthy) recording artist Rihanna to bolster his argument.
Sure looks convincing right? Well, the thing is, this chart doesn’t really say much of anything besides the fact that folks searched for “Rihanna” a lot when she had a new song released and searched for “Rihanna” a lot more than “Rihanna diamonds mp3.” So what? No one suggested that searching for information about an artist was equivalent to searching for free downloads. The RIAA’s research never made that point.
By combining the multiple search terms into one search on using Google trends, Schruers gives us a graph that looks to mirror his claim. The problem is–what is he actually comparing? Examining “search interest” (which is what Google trends allows you to do) and making the leap that piracy isn’t a problem because more people happened to search using the term “Rihanna” rather than for a (free) mp3 of her popular song? Come again?
It’s not hard to assume that lots of folks search for Rihanna because they want to find out more about her, not just because they’re seeking free downloads to her song. It’s no surprise that Rihanna searches outnumber those for mp3 downloads. It’s really a case of apples and oranges.
More useful might be putting in various search terms one by one as I did. Note searched for “rihanna diamonds download” the related terms (circled in red) included “mp3 rihanna diamonds” and “diamonds mp3 download.”
(Note: I actually included the search box in my screen grab example for clarity’s sake):
What about the terms “rihanna diamonds free.”
Looking at these results one can postulate upon the release of “Diamonds” interest in searching for illegal download options spiked. Below is the Google trends chart for the search term “Rihanna” and an inset for 2012 results. Clearly over that period searches for Rihanna fluctuate for various reasons–whether it is a new album release or altercation with Chris Brown.
What about trends in searching for watching free movies online now that Netflix and other streaming services are available? The chart below indicates the point at which Netflix launched its streaming service in early 2007. It’s worth noting that its launch coincides with an increased trend in search for “free” movies online. Does this mean Netflix streaming influenced piracy? No, what’s likely is that the upward trend partly reflects the emergence of technology that enables efficient streaming (and direct downloads) of high-quality movies online–pirated or otherwise.
While search is not the cause of this trend BUT there’s no denying it makes finding free content online (pirated content) easier. If one limits search to the United States, the trend line seems to have been more consistent, probably due to the fact users here have had better access to the internet than many other parts of the developing world.
One other point worth noting is that searches for the word “torrent” have diminished, after a peak in 2010 the trend-line has moved steadily downward.
Here’s an animated look at this over time. While it’s good news that interest in torrents appears to be waning, I imagine it’s because there’s now a myriad of easier ways to watch pirated films online. Why bother with torrents when with one click you can watch or download a movie? Here’s an animated view of search trends for the term “torrent” since 2004.
So while search trends may change over time–whether working on a term paper or looking up cancer treatments, online search is usually the starting point–what’s wrong with pressuring Google et al to be more proactive in removing results linking to illegal music, movies or counterfeit goods? In his report Schruers argues for an alternative:
The inclusion of NARM-recommended text (“don’t torrent; buy [here] instead”) on the artist’s site would remedy this. Linking users to other lawful music services in addition to iTunes could be another way to contribute toward improving those services’ page rank. Similarly, Universal Music points to Rihanna’s official website, Twitter account, and Facebook page, but points to no commercial websites from which the artist’s music is available. Addressing this would also contribute toward improved page rank.
In a further effort to let search engines off the hook Schruers concludes his report with this:
While DMCA notices and DMCA compliance programs are one component promoting a robust digital marketplace, efforts to disappear search results are unlikely to mitigate online infringement, in large part due to the irrelevance of general-purpose search engines in the average infringer’s toolbox. A more robust strategy would entail licensors and their licensees focusing on strategic search engine optimization–including but not limited to ‘objectionable’ terms–so as to promote the page rank of lawful sites and increase the visibility of legitimate online content offerings.
So, if I’m to understand him, the real solution to this problem would be for all of use content creators–filmmakers, musicians, etc.–to employ better SEO keyword methodology, i.e. co-opt popular pirate search terms like “free mp3” or “watch movies online free” so that legit search results will trump those of the pirate sites. Well duh…we did just that long ago on the website for our film “And Then Came Lola.” Included among our SEO keywords are:
free, movie, lola movie, and then came lola, online, buy, watch, telecharger, portugués (brasileño) subtítulos,subtítulos en español,sottotitoli in italiano, lesbian, download, movie, film, romantic comedy, fast girl films, streaming,video on demand, vod, DVD, iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, subtitles, مشاهدة فيلم مثليه,劳拉现身 , lezbiyen filmi, watch online, watch, free, putlocker, السينما للجميع
Doing so is a no brainer and-Rihanna aside–most indie filmmakers and musicians I know do just that AND also provide multiple links to legit content for their work….but despite such efforts, pirate sites can still dominate searches for “free” (illegal) content. Maybe we should just hire better web masters and SEO experts? For the record our film website’s home page includes both a list of worldwide links for purchase/watch the film, an iTunes app and embedded links in the text that include links to subtitles versions.
I took a look at various “objectionable” search terms via the Alexa website (note that it’s a subsidiary of Amazon) that provides data on web traffic and here’s what I discovered. Search for “watch free movies online” and you find this page.
Out of the first 9 results, only 2 appear to be legit sites (highlighted in yellow) are Crackle. and Hulu. The first result is for a site called “TubePlus” (pirate sites highlighted in green) which according to this story on itproportal.com is a “YouTube for pirates.”
Controversial file-sharing service Pirate Bay is openly supporting TubePlus, a revolutionary new hybrid video-sharing site that brings together content from BitTorrent sites, along with cyberlockers such as Megaupload and Hotfile, as well as P2P service eMule.
The newly launched site marks a big step into the mainstream for the traditionally geeky business of file-sharing.
Rather than finding and downloading files, users of TubePlus simply search for their favourite movies and TV programmes – and stream them directly into their browser using an interface that’s more than a little reminiscent of popular video-sharing site YouTube. There are even links to IMDb reviews of films and shows.
Another site (ranked at 945) is 1channel.ch, another notorious pirate website. Go there and you’ll find they’ve changed their name (yet again). At any rate, bottom line is that finding pirate sites is made possible in large part via web search.
Here’s another example using the search term “mp3” which demonstrates that pirate sites abound.
Also, for the record, using Rihanna’s approach to web promotion is not necessarily the best example as most people are well aware of who she is and where to find her music should they want to purchase it. Those who are that are really hurt by piracy are not the big stars with big bank accounts.
That brings us back full circle to the claim that “CCIA’s research paper indicates that search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.”
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).
Last month I read another article by the same Matt Schruers titled “The Thing We Don’t Talk About in Piracy Estimates.” In it he noted, “some degree of infringement is not wealth destruction but rather wealth redistribution.” He went on to clarify:
Clearly, intellectual property is important to our economy — as is open competition, and the free exchange of ideas. These three forces are each valuable tools in the “innovation toolbox”, and allowing any one of them to be undermined – including intellectual property – may impair innovation, along with other important social goals. But as long as the empirical evidence around the policy conversation is so impoverished, we won’t be making well-informed decisions.
Schruer’s fondness for the term “toolbox” aside, I think he may want to take a look at his own use of “empirical evidence” to advance, or rather inhibit, meaningful conversations around web search and online piracy. This “free exchange of ideas” does not necessitate the “free” exchange of pirated content.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics, TV
Leading the piracy parade is ‘better than an Emmy’? Please, speak for yourself Mr. Bewkes…
According a story yesterday in AdWeek, another well-paid executive linked to the HBO hit “Game of Thrones” is once again singing the praises of online piracy. Last time it was HBO’s programming president Michael Lombardo, now Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes has joined the chorus.
…in response to a question about whether the network kinda-sorta regards the extensive theft of HBO’s flagship show, Game of Thrones, as a compliment, Bewkes said, “I have to admit it, I think you’re right.” The much-discussed fantasy series is HBO’s most popular, and “if you go to people who are watching it without subs, it’s a tremendous word-of-mouth thing,” the exec told investors. “We’ve been dealing with this for 20, 30 years—people sharing subs, running wires down the backs of apartment buildings. Our experience is that it leads to more paying subs. I think you’re right that Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in the world,” he said. “That’s better than an Emmy.”
Yeah sure, easy to say if you’re CEO of Time Warner and have a huge hit like HBO’s “Game of Thrones” on your hands. But really, given that you work in the media industry Mr. Bewkes, didn’t you have a clue as to the impact your glib “soundbite” would have on an already hyperbolic debate over online piracy and copyright reform?
Fine Time Warner/HBO, feel free give your show away and boast that the record (pirate) downloading of Game of Thrones episodes is a hunky-dory thing for your bottom line. In your case, it may well be….more power to you.
The problem is that when Jeff Bewkes muses to a reporter that, for a hit show like Game of Thrones, piracy is “better than an Emmy” it can lead the general public to assume the same reality applies to all content creators. Certainly piracy apologists are likely to make hay–and headlines–out of it.
Perhaps creators whose works have been massively pirated can take some solace from Bewkes’ success, but the fact is his experience (and that of HBO programming) is not one matched by their own. The Time Warner CEO likely doesn’t have much difficulty paying bills (or financing his next production) like so many do. Many filmmakers don’t have the reach (or deep pockets) of HBO and, like it or not, for them online piracy (driven by black market profiteers) is a detriment to success–not a sign of it. Bewkes’ self-serving proclamation does little to advance or clarify the debate over how best to mitigate the corrosive impact that online piracy (for profit) has on artists.
Next time CEO Bewkes should choose his words more carefully and explain that for HBO, the popularity of Game of Thrones is a measure of success that helps generate buzz that’s good for business–but that it’s important to differentiate between their distribution landscape and the one faced by so many others.
If he feels his words were misconstrued (webcast available here) he should clarify his remarks sooner rather than later for the sake of those whose livelihoods do suffer because of unchecked online theft.
I’ve blogged about Facebook’s link to piracy in the past, but today came across a Facebook page promoting pirated content that has 1.3 Million “Likes.” The page also features advertising from entities like the Oklahoma Department of Commerce , Coach Handbags, and Petco. Apparently Facebook has no problem collecting tainted income from advertisers who likely have no clue that their ads are adjacent to a pages linking to pirated movies.
