This despite the fact American audiences are increasingly diverse. Darnell Hunt, director of the Bunche Center, and the report’s lead author points out the contradiction:
Television shows that reflect American diversity and films that reflect American diversity do better at the box office, TV shows do better in terms of ratings…There’s a disconnect between what sells and what Hollywood is doing in terms of business practices.
Interview with study co-authors Darnell Hunt and Ana-Christina Ramon
Should this disconnect persist, the Hollywood business model could take a hit according to the report’s authors:
…business as usual in the Hollywood industry may soon be unsustainable. Evidence from this report (and its predecessor in the series) shows clearly that America’s increasingly diverse audiences prefer diverse content created with the input of diverse talent. Diversity sells.
Viewers like diversity, with broadcast scripted shows 41 percent to 50 percent diversely cast scoring the highest ratings in black and white households alike in 2012-13, while on cable, white and Latino viewers preferred casts with 31 percent to 40 percent diversity. Black households preferred cable shows with more than 50 percent diversity…
What about the brave new world of digital programming? Has this new “Golden Age of Television” created golden opportunities for women and minorities to shine? In a word, no. According to the report, while only 11.2% of directors for cable scripted shows are women, they fare even worse in digital, directing fewer than 10% of episodes. Figures for minority-directed programming in both categories are equally anemic. It should also be noted that female and minority representation in both above-the-line and below-the-line roles would be even more dismal were it not for programs like Netflix’s Orange is the New Black or Hulu’s East Los High.
For those concerned about this issue–and everyone who works in the business should be– it’s worth taking time to entire report, and review the compelling statistical analysis based on 2012-2013 data (from various sources) that’s broken down into following categories: theatrical films; broadcast scripted shows; broadcast reality and other shows; cable scripted shows, cable reality and other shows; digital platform and syndicated.
How to change these long-held patterns in Hollywood, or “flip the script” as the report suggests? Its authors admit there’s no “magic bullet” to cure Hollywood’s ills, noting it’s a “multi-dimensional” problem with no easy solutions.
“It’s a high-risk industry. People want to surround themselves with collaborators they’re comfortable with, which tends to mean people they’ve networked with — and nine times out of 10, they’ll look similar. It reproduces the same opportunities for the same kind of people: You’re surrounding yourself with a bunch of white men to feel comfortable.”
Real progress will require continued efforts on many fronts from executive offices to back-lots. It’s a daunting task that the report summarizes this way:
In the end, every industry stakeholder-individual and institutional-has a role to play if meaningful industry advancement is to be achieved on the diversity front. Broadcast networks must begin to treat the airwaves as a public good through which diverse content promotes profits and democracy. Studios must cast the net much more widely when they entertain pitches for film and television projects. Talent agencies must diversity their rosters, packaged products and their own ranks. The film and television academies must overhaul their memberships. The guilds must better understand their respective membership pipelines and find ways to increase access and professional development for minorities and women. Individual producers and writers must finally accept the notion that having diverse voices and perspectives in the room actually increase their odds for success.
Here’s hoping that the Bunche Center next Diversity Report gives us better news. It can’t get much worse.
Netflix doesn’t pay for all the content it allows subscribers to stream
VPNs make it easy for Netflix subscribers to watch movies and TV shows that aren’t licensed in their country
source: http://www.nasdaq.com/
Netflix profits grow as its brand spreads around the world–but who’s paying the price?
In January the popular online streaming service claimed its subscriber base had grown to nearly 60 million worldwide. Although nearly 3/4 of those are in the U.S., Netflix has already extended its reach to 50 countries and by 2017 has plans to expand to 200. Just this past week Netflix opened up shop in Cuba.
As Netflix grows, so too should the amount of money filmmakers earn right? Well, no…not really. Enter the VPN, or virtual private network, a simple technology that allows internet users to access geo-blocked websites by providing access via a local IP address. Also known as “tunneling,” a VPN makes it easy to jump virtual fences.
How does it work? Let’s say I want to watch a movie that isn’t available via my Netflix account in the U.S. but it is available on Netflix’s Danish site. With the help of a free browser plugin that takes just seconds to install, I can click a button and surf the web from an IP address in Denmark. When I go to Netflix.com/dk/ and login using my U.S. account, and voilá–I can stream the program (see example above).
Why is this a problem? After all, I have a legit, Netflix account which I pay $8.99 per month for, so why shouldn’t I be able to watch content via Netflix portals around the world? It’s a problem because while I’m happy as consumer to watch a film via Netflix sites worldwide, those who actually paid to produce it are financially left out in the cold. For Netflix it can be viewed as a win, win. Netflix pays for U.S. rights, but forgoes purchasing rights elsewhere knowing full well its subscribers worldwide can still watch. Netflix profits grow at the creators’ expense.
This scenario also hurts smaller distributors of independent film who negotiate with Netflix to license titles for streaming rights in their territories. Why should Netflix worry about spending more money to (legally) acquire rights for from distributors operating in small territories when subscribers can happily watch their films on U.S. Netflix via a VPN?
As Netflix expands offerings to attract subscribers worldwide who pays the price?
How much of an impact might this type of VPN pirate viewing be? GlobalWebIndex, a UK firm, estimates that some 54 million people access Netflix via VPNs each month, 21.6 million of them from China alone. How do subscribers in China get Netflix accounts in the first place? It’s easy using PayPal or other payment method like a virtual credit card. Apparently Netflix doesn’t dig too deep–since it can pocket more cash and grow its brand to reach markets outside its realm. Why should the company crack down on a winning, albeit slimy, way to attract customers?
There was some speculation that Netflix was changing course when it reportedly tweaked its Android app to make accessing content via illegitimate VPNs more difficult, but according to the BBC company officials denied reports that it has changed its approach:
“The claims that we have changed our policy on VPN are false,” said Netflix’s chief product officer Neil Hunt.
…”People who are using a VPN to access our service from outside of the area will find that it still works exactly as it has always done.”
According to Variety, Netflix supposedly employs other methods to thwart subscribers who don’t belong:
Netflix has always tried to block such unauthorized access, via a multistep verification process that encompasses credit card info, mailing addresses and Internet addresses.
“You may view a movie or TV show through the Netflix service primarily within the country in which you have established your account and only in geographic locations where we offer our service and have licensed such movie or TV show,” the company’s terms of use say. “Netflix will use technologies to verify your geographic location.”
Despite company claims to the contrary, this morning, as I sat at computer to write this post I found it only took me seconds to login to Netflix sites in the UK, Denmark, Cuba and Brazil. Instead of blocking me, a pop-up window politely explained since I was “traveling with Netflix” I might notice a different offering of movies, etc. Of course, one could ask shouldn’t I be able to travel with Netflix? Of course that should be OK, but the problem is, using a VPN I can travel with them while seated at my home computer.
In fact, in order to confirm that I had full, unfettered access to geo-blocked content I searched for a TV series unavailable in the U.S. I chose the Danish series Den som dræber (Those Who Kill) I own on dvd. By selecting Denmark via the VPN (see graphic at the top of post) I was able to log into Netflix.dk and easily stream the program. Question is, are the producers of the program being paid by Netflix for viewers, like me, who watch outside of Denmark? I believe the answer is no.
Generally distributors receive a flat fee for programs/films Netflix adds to its catalog. Rights are given for specific territories and, while sometimes rights are worldwide, often they’re restricted. Why not just give Netflix worldwide rights? Well, easier said than done.
Contrary to the rhetoric promoted by piracy apologists, financing TV and films productions is not a simple task. In many cases foreign rights pre-sold as part of financing deals cobbled together to cover the costs of production. Without such agreements many of the films and TV shows we enjoy could never be made. So for now, when it comes time to distribute them, these financing packages are invariably part of the equation. It often means a single entity doesn’t hold all the (territorial) distribution cards, hence the complexity.
However, with VPNs, Netflix doesn’t have to make negotiating territorial rights a priority. By not restricting the use of VPNs and indirectly allow users to watch programming they aren’t paying for, Netflix can continue to grow its subscriber base and pocket more profit. Why pay the producers of Den som dræberfor U.S. rights when U.S. viewers, using their VPN, can use their accounts to watch it anyway?
Emails uncovered in the Sony hack show that Netflix do-si-do around the geo-blocking issue is of growing concern to producers and distributors. As noted in a recent piece by Sean Gallagher in Ars Technica:
The latest data leaked from Sony Pictures Entertainment by hackers reveals that Sony executives had accused Netflix of breaching its licensing contract for Sony Pictures Television (SPT) shows by allowing customers in foreign markets to use virtual private networks to stream them, calling it piracy that is “semi-sanctioned by Netflix.”
Sony pressed Netflix for increased “geofiltering” control over its customers to prevent the practice, including restricting payment methods for the service to ways that would allow screening for customers living outside countries where Netflix had contractual rights.
Gallagher quotes a hacked email between Sony Pictures Television’s president, international distribution,Keith LeGoy and the division’s president, Steve Mosko that outlines concerns over Netflix’s tacit acceptance of VPN abuse:
Netflix are [sic] heavily resistant to enforcing stricter financial geofiltering controls, as they claim this would present a too high bar to entry from legitimate subscribers. For example, they want people to be able to use various methods of payment (e.g. PayPal) where it is harder to determine where the subscriber is based. They recognize that this may cause illegal subscribers but they (of course) would rather err that way than create barriers to legitimate subscribers to sign up.
…Netflix of course get to collect sub revenues and inflate their sub count which in turn boosts their stock on Wall St., so they have every motivation to continue, even if it is illegal…
So what to do? Clearly, there’s a problem. In certain situations VPNs can be a good thing, particularly for those who live in places like China where access to web services is routinely restricted by government firewalls. However, when tens of millions of Netflix subscribers are using VPNs to access unlicensed content it’s clear that the company isn’t doing enough to make sure that content creators receive fair compensation.
Netflix isn’t cracking down on VPN use because it’s good for (their) business
When Australian journalists attending the recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas tried to ask Netflix officials about a VPN crackdown reported by Torrent Freak, they were rebuffed–even though, according to an article on news.com.au, “An estimated 200,000 Australians pay for Netflix subscriptions, and access the service by masking their computer’s location so they appear to reside in America.”The story also notes:
The movie giant is due to launch its service in Australia this March, but many of its popular shows including Orange is the New Black and Better Call Saul, are unlikely to screen on the local service due to licensing agreements, potentially providing little incentive for existing subscribers to switch.
It’s yet another tangible example of how a program’s producers may be left holding the bag. Netflix gets 200,000 paid subscribers from Australia, but it doesn’t have to pay the filmmakers for rights to their films in that territory.
Some make the argument that overall, Netflix is a good online influence and has helped diminish the lure of piracy, because, as this piece in Billboard explains, it offers consumers, “Content, value and ease of use.” While that’s mostly true, it’s really a tangential issue and certainly doesn’t exempt Netflix’s business practices from scrutiny. Nor does the fact that Netflix has opened the door to new creative possibilities–both in terms of production and distribution. Creators are justified in demanding that the content Netflix subscribers stream is actually paid for–otherwise it becomes just another variant of (corporate) piracy.
What next? Well, as moves forward its with global expansion plans, either Netflix needs to spend some of its profit to find a way to begin effective geo-blocking, or–if that’s not possible–find another formula to calculate a fair price for content that factors in total (worldwide) views, VPN or no VPN. It might be a bitter pill for stockholders to swallow, but for now, it’s the only legitimate way forward.
Piracy apologists love to pull out the Robin Hood card in order to justify their theft. After all who cares about all those rich people in Hollywood right? Wrong….a fact which the MPAA’s Chris Dodd pointed out in piece published in Variety this week:
Two million people get up every morning in all 50 states to go to work in good-paying jobs. Few will ever walk a red carpet, but their jobs are in jeopardy because of piracy.
When we talk about stolen property like pirated films or shows, I think the assumption is these are wealthy people, so what difference does it make if I steal from them? There’s not an understanding that 96% are hard-working, middle-income families paying mortgages and trying to educate their kids.
Like any other industry, the American film industry depends on its worker bees to make its products. In turn, those workers depend on a healthy film industry for their paychecks.
In fact, one of the reasons Hollywood became such a successful cog in the U.S. economy was because the studio system that emerged in the early part of the 20th century was really a factory system modeled after Henry Ford’s automobile assembly line. In Hollywood’s studio system, each worker played a specific role in the film production (or manufacturing) process.
At their peak, Hollywood studios were producing hundreds of movies each year. Last year, the six major studios produced only 120 movies. Contrast that with the 204 produced in 2006. Fewer films means fewer jobs on the production line for Hollywood’s 96%.
Looking back, it’s also worth noting that a thriving movie industry allowed some of the greatest American movies of all time to be made. As noted in Wikipedia:
Many film historians have remarked upon the many great works of cinema that emerged from this period of highly regimented film-making. One reason this was possible is that, with so many films being made, not every one had to be a big hit. A studio could gamble on a medium-budget feature with a good script and relatively unknown actors: Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles and often regarded as the greatest film of all time, fits that description.
The more income studio’s generate, the more chances they can take to finance less mainstream movies. When losses due to online piracy undermine the industry, it also undermines the diversity of choices that movie lovers appreciate. In lieu of funding less mainstream fare, studios stick with formulaic flicks that generate big bucks opening weekend (before piracy can dilute audiences). The sad thing is that we won’t know what we’re missing because it’s not made. In the future films like Citizen Kane may never see the light of day.
Of course, new ways of producing and distributing films online are taking hold, but even the new guard is suffering from the scourge of online piracy. As Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote in a recent letter to shareholders, “Piracy continues to be one of our biggest competitors.” He pointed to Popcorn Time, a platform that makes viewing pirated films as easy as watching one on Netflix as evidence of the damage being done.
Online piracy not only diminishes livelihoods, but consumer choices and unless we can limit the losses, the picture will only grow dimmer. In the end, we may well be left with only cute cat videos on YouTube to entertain us. Piracy hurts everyone.
This year’s white-washed Oscar nominations mirror Hollywood’s everyday business practices
Oscars nominations were announced earlier this week and for many were an embarrassment than a celebration of filmmaking achievements over the past year. Looking at the list of nominees it would appear that congressional Republicans have taken over the Academy too. While the list of films nominated for Best Picture seems worthy enough, when looking at the rest of the field, it becomes a shocking display of homogeneity. Diversity among the nominees non-existent and it’s certainly not for lack of deserving talent. Social media even responded to the nominations with a trending #OscarsSoWhite hashtag.
For many, the most egregious oversight was that neither “Selma” director Ava DuVernay nor British actor David Oyelowo, who plays Martin Luther King, Jr received nominations in their respective categories. “Selma“ has been universally acclaimed by critics (and audiences) alike. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle describes Oyelowo’s performance this way:
There are times when watching David Oyelowo in “Selma” that it’s really easy to believe you’re looking at Martin Luther King Jr. Aside from the accidents of age, size and appearance, Oyelowo has studied King’s gestures, not only his public manner — his dramatic use of his arms and hands — but his more private side, the weary yet determined quality he had in one-on-one interviews.
In the movie’s more private moments, Oyelowo even sounds like King…this is a remarkable performance, remarkable not only in its force, but in its strength and precision. Oyelowo is reason alone to see “Selma,”
Had she received a nomination for Best Director Duvernay would have been the first African-American woman to be so honored. Of course, Best Director is a category that over the years has become the poster child for snubbing worthy female candidates.
In the 87 year history of the Oscars only 4 women have ever been nominated for Best Director.
Yes, you read that correctly–only 4 out of 435 nominees for Best Director have been women and only one, Katheryn Bigelow, director of the Oscar-winning Best Picture film Hurt Locker , has ever won.
With regard to Selma having been limited to only two nominations, Best Picture and Best Song, some have pointed to controversy over inaccuracies in the portrayal of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the film as a possible reason. However, if we’re playing the accuracy card, one could easily make similar criticisms about the Oscar nominated film “The Imitation Game.” Films depicting historical events routinely stretch and shape the truth to make for a more compelling and efficient story. As L.V. Anderson noted in Slate:
The Imitation Game takes major liberties with its source material, injecting conflict where none existed, inventing entirely fictional characters, rearranging the chronology of events, and misrepresenting the very nature of Turing’s work at Bletchley Park. At the same time, the film might paint Turing as being more unlovable than he actually was.
It annoys me to no end when films fudge with historical facts. Rewriting history should not be viewed as a laudable storytelling technique, but in terms of the Oscars, the “The Imitation Game” didn’t seem to suffer any consequences by doing so. In fact the film received 8 nominations overall and acting nods for both lead actor Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley in a supporting role.
The Academy’s persistent tunnel vision with regard to issues involving race and gender is not all that surprising given its makeup. A 2012 LA Times piece described its demographics this way:
Oscar voters are nearly 94% Caucasian and 77% male, The Times found. Blacks are about 2% of the academy, and Latinos are less than 2%.
Oscar voters have a median age of 62, the study showed. People younger than 50 constitute just 14% of the membership.
In 2013 the Academy attempted to address the fact that its membership is overwhelmingly white and male by naming Hollywood marketing executive Cheryl Boone Isaacs as its first African-American president and only the third woman to hold the position. Friday, responding to the backlash to this week’s nominations, she told the AP;
In the last two years, we’ve made greater strides than we ever have in the past toward becoming a more diverse and inclusive organization through admitting new members and more inclusive classes of members…And, personally, I would love to see and look forward to see a greater cultural diversity among all our nominees in all of our categories.
Truth is, the lack of diversity reflected in this year’s Oscar nominations is a natural by-product of Hollywood’s entrenched homogenous business culture. In order to make true progress on this front, those who operate Hollywood studios must reexamine how they do business at every level. There needs to be a commitment to creating a culture of inclusiveness and opportunity, from hiring production assistants to filling vacancies at the executive level.
When confronted with abysmal diversity numbers, industry decision makers often resort to the “small pool” argument as justification for the situation: “There is a shortage of diverse talent out there.” Meanwhile, the lack of diversity in how the industry celebrates excellence works to reinforce this idea.
Behind the scenes, the decision makers responsible for the high-stakes productions that constitute Hollywood routinely surround themselves with people with whom they feel comfortable–people who think (and often look) like them. The combination of these factors creates a vicious cycle that virtually guarantees the marginalization of diverse talent in the industry.
graph-Celluloid Ceiling Project
The Celluloid Ceiling Project, sponsored by San Diego State’s Center for the Study of Women in Television & Film, also provides discouraging evidence of Hollywood’s repeated failures. Researchers there have found that the numbers of women working as directors, writers, executive producers, editors and cinematographers has actually declined in the period from 1998 to 2013. Women are losing ground in Hollywood, not gaining.
It’s a vicious cycle, where progress seems to be virtually non-existent. Academy president Boone Isaacs appears more upbeat, assuring the A.P. that Academy is, “committed to seeking out diversity of voice and opinion.” Despite her optimism, evidence shows that so far, it’s commitment that rings hollow.
YouTube and Russian “aggregator,” piracy partners in crime?
When a bad guy steals your car stereo, to turn it into easy money, he often turn it over to a “fence” in exchange for quick cash. Wikipedia explains this criminal workflow this way:
A fence is an individual who knowingly buys stolen property for later resale, sometimes in a legitimate market. The fence thus acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen. As a verb, the word describes the behaviour of the thief in the transaction: The burglar fenced the stolen radio. This sense of the term came from thieves’ slang, first attested c. 1700, from the notion of such transactions taking place under defence of secrecy.[1]
The fence is able to make a profit with stolen merchandise because he is able to pay thieves a very low price for stolen goods…
It’s no surprise that in this digital age, criminals have turned their attention to dealing in stolen digital goods. Instead of car stereos thieves steal movies, music, etc. and, using the web advertising, convert it into income. It’s low risk way of making money and there’s a myriad of ways it can be done.
Deposed cyberlocker king Kim Dotcom did it with his Megaupload piracy pyramid scheme, but there are plenty of others who have perfected variations of this illicit business model along the way. Many, seemingly legit companies like Google have perfected the infrastructure and revenue formula so as to make it routine, right under our noses.
Most consider Google’s YouTube to be a raging success. After all, where else can you find the best cat videos or latest PR packages from ISIS terrorists in one place? It’s also a great place to “fence” stolen movies and music.
…YouTube will bring in $5.9 billion in revenue this year, rising to $8.9 billion by 2016, with 53% of that paid out to users who provide the clips.
In cases where users upload work they actually own rights to, it’s great. Problem is, a lot of those people collectively pocketing 3.1 billion–in many cases–don’t own what they upload. These leeches set up channels, upload pirated content, and make money. Of course, YouTube as enabler-in-chief still pockets the majority of the profits, rightful ownership be damned.
When placing a myriad of advertisements adjacent or on videos, YouTube makes ZERO effort to vet the content for ownership. It doesn’t require any proof that uploaders own rights; it just assumes they will honor copyright law. Yeah, just like a fence assumes that every car stereo he receives wasn’t stolen from someone else.
When posed with the question as to whether it can “determine copyright ownership” YouTube justifies this hands off approach with this carefully crafted response:
YouTube isn’t able to mediate rights ownership disputes. When we receive a complete takedown notice, we remove the content as the law requires. When we receive a valid counter notification we forward it to the person who requested the removal. After this, it’s up to the parties involved to resolve the issue in court.
Mediating a dispute once something is uploaded is NOT equivalent to vetting content ownership prior to upload, yet YouTube apologists continue to claim that to do so would “stifle innovation” and “limit free expression” online. I’m not entirely sure how cracking down on thievery stifles innovation, but it makes for a good soundbite doesn’t it? How would vetting certain content before users are allowed to profit from it limit anything, aside from criminal behavior? Oh right, it could lower profits. That’s what this is really about.
YouTube claims be the broadcaster for the 21st century, yet can you imagine NBC airing a movie and earning income from advertising in the process without having cleared the rights prior to doing so? When my documentary aired on various PBS stations I had to document ownership and submit detailed paperwork that verified I had permission to use various works of music used throughout the piece. When we produced our feature film we had to purchase errors and omissions insurance and license all the music used in order to protect the rights of other creators.
These practices are the cost of doing business in the creative world yet YouTube doesn’t have to do the same? Why are companies like YouTube, that generate income by screening created by others, considered exempt from standard broadcast practices? Why is their bad business behavior exempt? Why are such practices on internet considered sacrosanct?
For Google, protecting innovation means protecting profits
It’s no wonder the powers that be at Google/YouTube fight tooth and nail against any effort to rein in this copyright-evading cash cow. Since enforcing copyright would put a serious dent in YouTube’s profits, you can bet that Google will move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening. Their apologists (and lobbyists) have mastered the spin that warn enforcing copyright (in a meaningful way) is a threat to innovation. In Google parlance innovation is merely a code for growing profits.
Other companies profit too. The graphic below illustrates how the Russian aggregator, Quiz Group, either creates its own pirate puppet users, or works with them to game the YouTube monetization system by monetizing pirated movies. By joining Quiz Group YouTube users don’t need an AdSense account. In exchange for giving up 20% of any income earned, they can easily earn money when by uploading illegal content.
Ford, Microsoft, CVS, LinkedIn, Dodge, North Face, Geico and more put money in pirate pockets
On its website, Quiz Group lays claim to 5 BILLION monthly views and more than 15,000 channels. I can only imagine how many of those billions of views come from stolen goods. Advertisements, 30 seconds and longer, from LinkedIn, Ford, Dodge Ram trucks, North Face stream before the full-movie appears. Cha’-ching…money, money, money…
This pirated movie was uploaded by a user who’s part of Quiz Group, a Russian aggregator that makes monetizing YouTube videos easy.
Surely YouTube has received thousands of DMCA notices linked to videos monetized by Quiz Group, but since it only penalizes individual users (and not the masterminds) Quiz Group can continue to rake in the dough alongside Google.
Quiz Group sports its own YouTube page and claims to be “YouTube certified” and on its own website recruits with this claim, offering to cut through any copyright red tape:
…we are aware of all the problems you may face around YouTube and we know the best solutions as well. We understand how it hurts, having third party claims, facing conflicts and resolving strikes. We have been through all these stories many times and learned our lessons based on the most complicated scenarios. We have converted our experience into effective tools, you may move forward smoothly and with a high confidence, grow really fast within YouTube environment.
Clearly YouTube’s standards aren’t particularly high if they allow a shadowy this Russian piracy-for-profit model to thrive. Perhaps YouTube’s standards for “certification” mandate moneymaking over respecting copyrights owned by others ?
I attempted to “join” Quiz Group to determine how they vet affiliates. In order to be considered, I had to give them access to a Google account. It took only seconds, but not surprisingly I was rejected for not having enough subscribers (10) nor views (1,000) within the last month.
Of course I’d like to speak with a Google representatives to ask why the company develops, and sustains business relationships with self-described “YouTube” channel aggregators like Quiz Group but folks at company headquarters won’t pick up phones or respond to emails from people like me. Stonewalling is another corporate skill they’ve mastered with virtual moats encircling their shiny corporate offices in Mountain View.
After all, why shouldn’t Google look the other way when this criminal enterprise is mutually beneficial?
For the record, I easily found other YouTube users linked to Quiz Group engaged in the same scheme (see example below). Given it took me only a couple searches to find them, I don’t imagine it’s stretching the truth to assume that a good number, if not the majority of Quiz Groups affiliates are in the business of making money off pirated uploads.
I wonder how North Face, Dodge, Amazon, Microsoft, Airborne, Geico, LinkedIn, CVS and Ford feel about their advertising appearing on these stolen movies? Are they OK with YouTube, Quiz Group and this pirate making money off stolen movies (and them)?
Why don’t advertisers pressure Google to do better? YouTube could start by applying the 3 strikes policy to those, like aggregators like Quiz Group, that routinely monetize infringing content, not just penalize the (often fake) users that upload it. There are also numerous other technological safeguards that could be implemented to prevent this abuse so why don’t advertisers demand better?
We constantly hear from representatives their industry, how concerned they are about ad sponsored piracy abuse. But, as I’ve noted repeatedly on this blog, so far the advertiser’s words are a million times louder than their actions. Industry reps could exert pressure to ensure ad profits go to rights holders, but it would require some effort–obviously more than they seem willing to give.
There are also tons of YouTube pirates who bypass third party aggregators and pocket cash directly via their own AdSense accounts. This isn’t the first time I’ve written about this scenario on YouTube. Time passes, but nothing changes.
Here’s a pirated copy of Paramount’s “Sliver” starring Sharon Stone. The film has been viewed over a million times earning profits for YouTube and the user who uploaded it without permission.
YouTube finds a Safe Harbor to protect its piracy profits
Aside from the advertisers, the only other way to exert pressure to change can come from Washington. Is this dirty profit scenario was what lawmakers had in mind when they crafted the “Safe Harbor” provisions of the DMCA. It’s one thing to offer service providers (like YouTube) protection from legal liability from “consequences of their users actions”, but does that also mean it’s OK to (knowingly) profit from illegal activity?
The DMCA states services providers have to “terminate” accounts of repeat infringers, but in the meantime let the tainted profits flow? It’s OK to be a criminal as long as you don’t get caught? This seems to be Google/ YouTube’s modus operandi.
I wonder if Congressman Darrell Issa, in his new role as chair of the subcommittee on the Internet, Courts, and Intellectual Property,will hold hearings on these types of nefarious business practices? He’s repeatedly voiced concern over patent trolls, what about pirate trolls? It’s been reported that discussion regarding copyright will remain the purview of the full committee, so perhaps such discussions will be handled there.
Until something changes, YouTube’s eco-system will remain a cesspool rather than a legitimate and laudable business model. For all the great stuff streaming on its pages, there’s a lot of s*&^ too…and because it’s YouTube practices business are intentionally nubilous, those who do follow the rules–like filmmakers and musicians–continue to be victimized. YouTube is the Wild West, a swamp of online fraud, where profits soar, often for those who are least deserving–morality be damned…
WheretoWatch.com offers convenient way to find movies and TV shows
Some good news for those trying for figure out where to find their favorite movies or television shows online. Today the MPAA announced the launch of wheretowatch.com, a new site that makes searching for movies and TV shows easy.
Even better, the site isn’t limited to Hollywood fare. Its search engine offers links to streaming sites featuring a variety of independent films. In fact, when I searched for a movie I co-produced/directed, the niche lesbian comedy And Then Came Lola, I happily found 7 different options for renting and/or purchasing it. Wheretowatch.com is great news for indie filmmakers hoping to publicize their offerings.
Of course it also helps in the ongoing battle against online piracy. For $1.99 you can watch a movie. After all, it’s cheaper–and lasts longer–than a cup of coffee from Starbucks.
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
