Piracy’s Potpourri of Profit and Prevarication

Piracy’s Potpourri of Profit and Prevarication

thorns-dmcaKim Dotcom has jumped the shark, Napster is long dead and Pirate Bay moves its domain nearly every other day, yet some things never seem to change when it comes to the world  of online piracy— the dysfunctional and thorny thicket that is the DMCA and the enduring role of big brand’s in ad-sponsored piracy for profit.

Everyone who knows anything about online piracy understands that the DMCA  takedown process and “safe harbor” provisions that shield pirate entrepreneurs from liability should have been tossed in the trash long ago.  Signed into law in 1996, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act created a legal framework for managing (digital) copyright in an era of new technology and a burgeoning internet.  Now, nearly 20 years later, the legislation is well past its sell-by date. Rather than provide clarity on digital rights and discourage copyright abuse, the DMCA seems only to have emboldened online profiteers who build businesses with piracy at their core.

Take a look at this “new” website GayFlix hosted by weebly.com, a do-it-yourself web hosting portal.  The site welcomes visitors with this greeting, ” Welcome to GayFlix. The greatest source online for gay related movies and series that you can watch for free. ”
voxindiead-pirates1
Not only does it offer up “free” LGBT movies, but it actually solicits submissions to complete its list of missing movies, asking users to send links via a convenient online form.  No mention is made of requiring that links be from legit sources.  No, this is not a joke…

Welcome to GayFlix. The greatest source online for gay related movies and series that you can watch for free. We only provide embed codes for links of 3rd party websites. This means that you can find videos on our site and watch them here for free, but we do not allow video hosting or video uploading of any kind. All videos are screened by our moderators, we filter through videos to remove content that is not related to the GayFlix ideal, such as porn or genres that do not include GLBTA material. We also allow filmmakers to submit links to their work for us to post on our site for others to enjoy. We allow our members to send us links to GLBTA movies and series, you can do this on the submission page. All content will be screened fully before posting so please allow us 24 – 72 hours to post approved material, all unapproved material will be discarded and an email to its submitter will be send on why we have chose not to approve the material as well as a copy of our policy to remind them what is appropriate material, if a member feels that there was a misunderstanding in the screening process they are welcome to contact an administrator for further assistance and information.

Some of the movies “shared” on the site are embedded via HULU, a legit source but many others are pirated copies including Elena Undone, Kyss Mig, Joe + Belle, Inescapable, August, A Portrait of James Dean-Joshua Tree 1951 and A Perfect Ending among others. The pirated streams are all hosted via slimy cyber-lockers shown in the graphic below.

voxindiead-pirates2

Note the disclaimer beneath the pirated stream that, “All videos belong to 3rd party websites.  GayFlix does not allow hosting. GayFlix has no control over advertisements on videos.”  Say what?  So what? First of all the videos don’t “belong” to 3rd-party websites–they belong to their creators-and, while the site doesn’t “allow” video hosting. it has no problem embedding illegal copies from other sites?  What kind of twisted logic, blatant lack of accountability applies here?  Oh yeah, the DMCA…but wait, even the DMCA has directs that a website operator not “have the requisite level of knowledge that the material is infringing.”  Sorry, but you can’t tell me that these folks who claim to “vet” their content don’t have a clue that many of movies they “share” are pirated?

Thanks to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, this apparently seems a perfectly respectable (and legal) thing to do?  As Wikipedia notes, “The DMCA’s principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries.”

GayFlix does display a DMCA contact button at the bottom of the page but in reality the DMCA takedown process is another escape hatch for a poor, ignorant site operator who doesn’t realize (wink, wink) that he’s sharing infringing content.  When a site like this does get a DMCA takedown notice and removes the infringing content, that’s it–no questions asked.  It’s also worth noting that just because a site lists a DMCA contact, in many cases any takedown request that’s sent is routinely ignored.*

This website doesn’t appear to make money off ads, but it does offer up a shopping page (called the Rainbow Shop) that sells a variety of LGBT-themed t-shirts and trinkets.  More traffic potentially means more sales.

wolfe-on-demandIf the GayFlix operators  want to “share” LGBT films, too bad didn’t just become an affiliate of Wolfe on Demand, the largest (legal) distributor of LGBT films in the world. Had they done so operators could have legally embedded dozens of great LGBT movies on their site and earn commission every time a visitor rented or downloaded a film.  Added bonus, the filmmakers actually get paid too!

Moving on, more thorns can be found by examining the illegal embeds’ source.  The pirated copy of “A Perfect Ending” streams from the website played.to.  If one clicks the arrow at the center of the screen, advertising appears.  The ads promote a  number of mainstream brands including AT&T, Netflix, HULU, Mike’s Bikes, Google Shopping, Norton and so on….

voxindiead-pirates4

By inspecting the source code for the illegal movie stream, one can easily determine that the ad providers is a company named Integral Marketing.

voxindiead-pirates3

The company isn’t exactly transparent.  WHOIS search results seem to indicate it may be based in Tel Aviv, but who really knows.  When offering services in the smarmy world of advertising on pirates sites, I guess it’s best to maintain a low profile. The company’s  “about us” page describes its services this way:

Integral Marketing is a digital marketing company that uses unique advanced targeting technology and display advertising to provide optimal value to brands online. Our goal is to ensure quality traffic, service, and to help save you the time necessary to search and locate effective websites to advertise on. Our understanding in customer service, technology, sales, and account management enables us to deliver and meet the advertising results you require. [emphasis added] Over 600 million unique monthly online users with the capacity to display over 3.65 billion ad views/month. With our growing team and constant efforts to advance, continues to gain market intelligence and deliver reliable and accurate advertisements in order to meet the unique marketing needs of every client.

The site also claims to “ensure we cater to our advertisers’ campaign goals.”  Hmmm, I wonder it’s the goal of AT&T, Netflix, HULU, Norton, Google and Mike’s Bikes (among others) to have their products associated with pirated movies online?

By the way there’s nothing in the DMCA that makes this sort of black-market profiting illegal.  It’s A-Okay for brands to advertise their products on pirate websites and put money in the pockets of thieves.  In fact, according to this ad provider, it’s just part “cost effective” part of doing business in today’s world.

voxindiead-pirates5

Last week Jack Marshall wrote a piece, “Why Does Tech Advertise on Piracy Sites?”  The question is really a broader one, “Why do companies that care about their brand continue to advertise on pirate websites?”  It’s a question I asked in 2010 when I first began writing about the link between ad revenue and online piracy on my blog at popuppirates.com.  As Marshall notes in his piece,

The question is: Do those companies’ ads show up on that type of site because they can’t stop them? Or do they simply ignore the fact because they’re a great source of cheap, effective media? Either way, it’s not a great look. If they are unable to stop the ads, that doesn’t give advertisers much comfort. And if they don’t care, well, publishers are a bit less cavalier when it comes down to misappropriation of intellectual property.

ad-monkeyOver and over major brands and their ad industry representatives have been asked this question and the response has always been to feign concern while deflecting responsibility.  Last September, at the annual “Advertising Week” convention in New York City the question came up in a panel on “Digital Media Under Attack-It’s Worse Than You Thought.”    Privacy-net’s Gordon Platt reported on the event:

Much of the conversation focused on the relationship between advertising and piracy, not unexpected for an Advertising Week event. “No one has asked the blunt question of whether you want your ad associated with a pirate site,” said [Rick] Cotton. He added, “Advertisers should not want their ads to be in that environment. It’s getting more risky to be in business with criminal websites.”

Bob Liodice, CEO of ANA (Association of National Advertisers) agreed and suggested the industry needs to be accountable for its role in monetizing piracy.

“It makes us all shake our heads, wondering how we can wrap our arms around this. We have theft going on here.” Liodice believes that one problem is that no one has taken “ownership” of the piracy problem. “We have to create a level of collaboration in order for the [advertising] industry to own the issue.” Liodice stressed that collaboration has to be “systematized” and that the industry has to make it “personal.”

During the Advertising Week event NBCUniversal’s  Senior Counselor for IP Protection, Rick Cotton suggested, “The simple message is that we need a systematic approach to this problem. Otherwise it’s bad news for the industry.”

Despite hollow assurances that something will be done, nothing seems to change as advertising intermediaries continue to be the engine that drives piracy. At this point all we can do is continue to call them out on their hypocrisy and reveal how their coveted brands risk being tainted by the link to online piracy profiteering.

Where does this leave the content creators who livelihoods continue to be stolen?  It leaves us stuck in a swamp of ill-conceived laws, industry apathy, and empty political rhetoric.

 

 

*For the record the distributor sent DMCA takedown requests to the email provided on the site for multiple titles, but 24 hours later, the infringing movies remain embedded on the site.

**Update as of 1/29 Weebly.com (the host site) removed the GayFlix content from the web.

Credits: stock image Depositphotos

Pirates may be forced to take a permanent holiday

Pirates may be forced to take a permanent holiday

donations-pleaSanta doesn’t have much in his stocking this year for pirate website

Not to sound to be a grinch, but I must say it warms my heart during this holiday season to see pirate websites on the verge of closure, begging for donations.  I wrote about x264.bb site losing access to PayPal and turning to Bitcoin as a source of donations.  Well, apparently that isn’t going too well because, according to an email received today, the site is on the verge of closing due to lack of funds.

Due to insufficient funding from donation, we deeply regret to inform that x264-BB might not be able to survive should the donations are not coming in by the end of December 2013. We hate to see this great community die off, therefore we are seeking for everyone’s help now, kindly donate generously to help keep this website alive.

Alternatively, should there be any individual with ample monetary support who wishes to buy over x264-BB and able to support x264-BB for long term, send an email to: [email protected] with your offer price, please bear in mind that we will only sell off x264-BB as the last resort. All offers must be at logical prices and we will make the final decision for the sell-off at our sole discretion.

Now, before you get all teary-eyed over their possible demise, you should know that this site is in the business of piracy.  Basically it offers its members a place to “share” download links  and earn money via cyberlocker affiliate accounts.  The more downloads forum users attract to their links, the more they earn.  The site, which at one point boasted having 100k member, displayed advertising in the past, but now seems to depend primarily on donations for their survival.  They explain their need for donations as follows:

Dear all, The Staff here at x264-BB truly value and appreciate the support that you all provide as members. With your help we have seen this community grow to where we are now fast approaching 100k members! Hard to believe for those who were here with us from the very start to partake in our humble beginning, but with your constant support we have been able to reach milestones. It would honor us if you would continue to support x264-BB through a small contribution.

This forum, and others like it, thrived during Megaupload (and other cyberlocker’s heyday).  When Megaupload was taken offline by the feds, cyberlocker sites that mirrored its business model fell like dominoes as their operators chose not to suffer the same fate as Kim Dotcom.   Now that the black market business model of paying affiliates to upload stolen content is fading, so too it seems is this pirate eco-system. Another factor in x264’s difficulties is due to the cornucopia of legit streaming sites now available.   Just goes to show you that with a little nudge from law enforcement, legit sites can compete and win back the market.

Hopefully all the folks at x264 will get in their Xmas stocking is a lump of coal.

Google, Visa, MasterCard and more are still cogs in piracy’s money machine

Google, Visa, MasterCard and more are still cogs in piracy’s money machine

piracy-profit-pie-

Many American companies still have their fingers in the Piracy Profit Pie

While Bitcoin, the shady crypto-currency,  may be emerging as a potential new not-so-legal tender in the black market of online piracy,  the fact remains that mainstream companies like Google, Visa and Mastercard still play a major role in facilitating the flow of money that’s exchanged (and earned) in this illicit underground economy.

There’s no question that cloud-based pirate cyberlocker havens took a hit after the demise of big daddy Megaupload with many of the biggest once scattering like cock roaches when the feds took action.  Despite that much-needed house-cleaning, offshore cyberlockers continue to be a major source of pirated content thanks to the profits they generate with little risk and much reward.  Unfortunately, despite lip-service to the contrary, ad networks like Google’s AdSense and payment processors like Visa and MasterCard remain an integral part of the system, acting as unseemly middlemen–earning income for themselves and the content thieves. Here’s how it works.

  • Pirate uploads stolen content (movies, music, books, etc) to cyberlocker (usually to multiple sites)
  • Pirate advertises the file’s download links on forums far and wide to attract “customers” to earn cash incentives from cyberlocker
  • Cyberlocker offer incentives to pirates to upload and “share” popular (pirated) content to attract traffic
  • More traffic means more income for Cyberlocker  via advertising (from services like Google AdSense) and premium subscriptions (paid for with Visa, MasterCard, etc)
  • Cyberlocker pays cash rewards to pirate uploader based downloads, referrals, and premium subscription sales
  • Everyone makes money in this system EXCEPT the content creators

Below are a series a graphics illustrate the pirate business model at work.  Pirate forum x264-bb is a web “forum” in the business of promoting pirated download links to a variety of  pirated movies and TV shows.  The site boasts strict guidelines for users to follow when posting links to their pirated content–ironic to say the least, particularly the admonition not to make more downloads (mirrors) “unless authorized by the original encoder.”  I guess there’s honor among thieves after all…

voxindiex264 guidelines for pirates1

Below is an example of a typical post on the forum, advertising download links for the movie “Despicable Me”  by a user aditkhan (who boasts over 6,899 posts).

Pirate movie forum post

Pirate uploaders generally post “mirrored” links (identical files on multiple sites) so that downloaders aren’t disappointed if the first set of links disappears.  In this case he has posted identical links on cyberlockers FileParadox.com and RyuShare.com.  Note that the movie file offered in multiple parts to increase page views and profits.

voxindiebitcoin-pirate-x264-bb5

Below is one of the downloads link on FileParadox.  Note the inducements to purchase “premium” subscription as well as a Google-served AdSense advertisement at the bottom of the page that ironically promotes AdSense.

voxindiecyberlocker-visa-google2

If downloaders do want to sign up for premium service (and access to high-speed downloads of stolen files) they can pay using Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express and more.

voxindiebitcoin-pirate-x264-bb2

Even if the downloader doesn’t choose to become a premium member, FileParadox still earns income thanks to Google’s AdSense advertising.

Google Adsense on pirate site

I created an account on FileParadox in order to show you what their reporting page looks like.  There are various ways uploaders can earn money by uploaded stolen content: # of downloads, # of premium accounts sold, and referrals.

Piracy profiteers

Aditkhan reminds forum members to “support” him by creating an account (referral) and upgrading (premium sales).  It doesn’t seem like a stretch to guess that aditkhan wouldn’t be so busy stealing, uploading and sharing links if he didn’t make money doing so.  Clearly Google, Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express apparently don’t mind adding to their coffers and taking a cut of the action either.   Their voluntary “best practices” agreements seem–at this point–to be full of holes.,,

voxindiebitcoin-pirate-x264-bb6

 

Is this really what Congress had in mind when it created the DMCA?

Is this really what Congress had in mind when it created the DMCA?

dmca-brokenFor filmmakers, musicians, authors, and artists, etc. whose work is pirated (and monetized) by online thieves, the only way to (possibly) get one’s stolen content removed is to send a DMCA notice.  It’s a procedure outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law passed by Congress in October of 1998.

The legislation was intended to provide a means to protect copyright in the digital age, but also provides “safe harbor” for websites (like YouTube) that unknowingly host infringing files.  The law specifies the “notice and takedown” procedure for copyright owners to use in order to request removal of their content, commonly referred to as a DMCA takedown notice.  If a website owner complies with a legitimate takedown demand, “the provider is exempt from monetary liability.”  Anyway, that’s how it’s supposed to work.  In reality, the process is not quite so simple, nor successful.

Not only does sending out DMCA notices required a great deal of time–time that most indie content creators do not have–but often times it’s ignored entirely by pirate sites that feign compliance.

Here’s a case in point.   Using Google, a rights holder was able to find numerous illegal download links to their film “The Guest House.”  Next step, get them removed–but that’s easier said than done.  Take a look at how many steps it took–and how many advertising obstacles (i.e. revenue for the pirate) stood in the way of sending a single DMCA notice for a single link…and–despite all that effort–days later the link (and the pirated movie) remains online and available.   ads galore.007 ads galore.008 ads galore.009 ads galore.010 ads galore.011 ads galore.012 ads galore.013

Despite the fact the distributor followed all these steps and clicked past all these ads and submitted a DMCA takedown request days ago the pirated film is still streaming online.  Meanwhile, this web pirate keeps making money–earning revenue thanks to brand name advertisers (like the U.S. Army?) and sex sites.  The filmmaker makes ZERO.  So much for the goal of protecting copyright holders in the digital age eh?

still online.008

 

Record Share Price Aside, Google Still has a Piracy Problem

Record Share Price Aside, Google Still has a Piracy Problem

google-stock-piracyGoogle’s had a great week. On the heels of robust 3rd quarter revenue of 14.9 billion (net income of 2.97 billion), shares of its stock soared over the $1,000 mark for the first time in history making lots of folks in Mountain View (and investors everywhere) very happy.   Yet while Google’s stock may have surged to new highs, it seems not much has changed when it comes to its anti-piracy priorities.

The tech titan has long been the target of anti-piracy activists like myself for its role in enabling and profiting from online piracy.  The company’s culpabilities are many, but Google’s search engine has drawn much heat lately so it’s not surprising to see its flacks on the warpath fighting back spinning studies to counter that claim.  In a recently published report “How Google Fights Piracy,” authors went so far as to claim that,“Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.”

I dissected that report’s disingenuous findings in an earlier blog post, but after yesterday’s financial news, I decided to conduct a little piracy “reality check” and discovered not much has changed at Google other than its stock price.

I came to this not-unexpected conclusion this morning after doing three quick searches using the search term “watch ________ online” (filling in the blank with a movie title).   As my first “test” search I chose a Hollywood blockbuster, The Hunger Games. I put “watch Hunger Games online” into search and up popped the results shown below.

Pirated movies are easy to find thanks to Google search

The first result was a paid Netflix ad and the second listing is a largely a spam site.  However, when I clicked on the third result I found the entire film streaming online (for free). FYI this pirate website, VIOOZ seems impervious to DMCA requests…at least I couldn’t find were to send a request and WHOIS database results were a dead-end. It should also be noted that VIOOZ.co seems to have supplanted VIOOZ.eu, the domain name change being yet another example online pirate entrepreneurs’ never-ending game of hide-and-go-seek.

My second search was for another hit movie, “Ted.”  While not on the same the scale as “The Hunger Games,” the Seth MacFarlane directed film was a box office smash bringing in a record 54.1 million its first weekend, a record for an R-rated comedy. As for the Google search results, what’s interesting is that it brought be to a site, http://www.primewire.ag/ which appears to be yet another reincarnation of 1Channel.ch which became letmewatchthis.ch–a chameleon-like black market online piracy operation that makes money from ads on its site.

Like most pirate websites–the more clicks, the more money they make. The site boasts links to 53,695 items, and that’s a lot of carrots to drive traffic and dollars their way.  

Note in the screen capture shown below, in the left margin there’s a “support this site” plea–below it, an advertisement promoting a CBS sports broadcast for NCAA college football.  Sadly this is yet another example of a major American brand indirectly sending cash the pirate’s way.

google-search-ted

Other ads pop up any time you click anything.   At any rate when I clicked through the results for “Ted” I immediately came to a link for a pirated download on the pirate cyberlocker Sockshare.com.

Checking the Google transparency report for primewire.ag I found that Google has received requests to remove more than 4,000 results (links) the site became active this past June.  Like the VIOOZ site, this pirate portal ignores DMCA requests.  Particularly cheeky is the verbiage contained in the website’s “intellectual property” statement:

Intellectual Property – General

1Channel.ch respects the rights of others, and prohibits the use of referenced material for any purpose other than that for which it is intended (where such use is lawful and free of civil liability or other constraint) and in such circumstances where possession of such material may have any adverse financial, prejudicial or any other effect on any other third party.

1Channel.ch is copyrighted, and all rights are reserved, as those are of the proprietors and those of the partners websites material referenced within. Anyone found imitating the site or stealing content from the site will be liable to prosecution. [emphasis added]

My morning’s third search was for the recent indie film, “A Perfect Ending.”  Using the same search criteria, the top result led me straight to a pirated stream of the full movie online at VIOOZ.

perfect_google

My results are, of course, anecdotal.  However, given the fact that Google’s top results (using obvious search terms) led me straight to pirated copies of these movies, it would seem my findings undercut repeated claims by Google, and their paid surrogates, that search isn’t a significant factor in leading consumers to pirated content online.

The tech-funded Computer and Communication Industry Association’s (CCIA) Vice President of Law & Policy Matt Schruers recently authored a study that claimed, “Search Engines Aren’t A Major Tool For Finding Copyright-Infringing Content.”  Oddly the actual link to the study has been taken offline, but its author made his thesis clear when he said:

The available evidence suggests that search engines are not a particularly relevant tool for finding copyright infringing sites, or for infringing sites to find users.

I would suggest that Mr. Shruers clarify what he meant by “available evidence?”   The evidence I found via quick searches was readily “available,” and pretty damning.

As its stock continues to climb, there’s no denying that Google is a giant among giants–but with success comes responsibility.  There is no magic bullet, but admitting one has a problem is the first step in finding a solution.  For real progress to be made, Google needs to stop employing evasive maneuvers to deflect blame and begin to devote more of its vast resources and innovative technology to implement real solutions to the piracy problem that its search engine helps sustain.  To do so would be in everyone’s best interests, consumers and creators alike.

 

 

How DMCA Abuse Hurts Content Creators

How DMCA Abuse Hurts Content Creators

youtube-copyrightWhen people talk about DMCA abuse it’s usually folks representing companies like Google or the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Time and time again this red herring is used as a cudgel to attack those who believe in copyright law.  However, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, if one really wants to examine  the law and its potential for abuse it’s worthwhile to explain why Google and the EFF have it backwards.

Bottom line, if an erroneous DMCA is sent all the recipient really needs to do to stop enforcement is to file a “counter-claim.”  Unless sender of the DMCA wants to spend money to go to court to enforce their rights, that’s it, end of the story.  This is why the characterization of who is “damaged” should be reversed.

dmca-tomboy-.007Let me show you an example that I recently uncovered that demonstrates my point.  French indie filmmaker Celine Sciamma’s  2011 film “Tomboy” was uploaded  to YouTube on July 13th of this year (all 122 minutes)  At the time the film’s U.S. distributor, a small independent company,  matched the infringing content via Content ID on YouTube and issued a DMCA “takedown” in order to remove the infringing copy from the site.  The uploader, who goes by the YouTube user name “Dirceu Alves” filed a “counter-claim” with YouTube saying he had the right to upload the film.

At this point, regardless of the fact the YouTube user filed an false counter-notice, per U.S. law, the only option remaining for the distributor to enforce the takedown is spend money and seek a court order against the uploader:

If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber [emphasis added],the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.

Perhaps, because he appears to live in Brazil, Dirceu Alves isn’t too worried about being charged with perjury.  Note YouTube’s instructions for filing a counter-claim to a DMCA notice:

A counter notification is a legal request for YouTube to reinstate a video that has been removed for alleged copyright infringement. The process may only be pursued in instances where the upload was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled, such as fair use. It should not be pursued under any other circumstances. [emphasis added]

Despite the fact this YouTube user does not own rights to this film in the United States (or anywhere), because its indie distributor doesn’t have deep pockets to fight the matter in court, the pirated movie remains online.  Now, if the distributor tries to remove the pirated film, this is the notification from YouTube that appears:

tomboy-counter-dmca

According to a graphic overlaid at the beginning of the pirated film, the pirated copy originates from a Brazilian-based pirate website (offering illegal downloads).  There’s also a companion Twitter account and Facebook Page as well.  It’s not clear whether the YouTube account holder is one in the same, but the upload’s links to online piracy are obvious.

YouTube-pirates-biz

So, for all the hoopla surrounding DMCA abuse, maybe it’s time to look at who’s really damaged when the law is used under false circumstances–content creators who have limited resources to protect their work and their rights.  As I wrote in an earlier post on this blog:

…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 online content has been removed in error, the owner can file a counter-claim.  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.