by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics, TV
Some good news from my neck of the woods as California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced that her office had filed charges against 3 brothers who operated pirate websites featuring stolen movies and TV shows. According to a press release issued today, the 3 Bay Area men, Hop Hoang, 26, Tony Hoang, 23, and Huynh Hoang, 20, could face up to five years in prison if convicted. The brothers were arraigned in Alameda County Superior Court yesterday on charges that they operated a website (mediamp4.com) that allowed users access to illegal streams of more than 1,000 copyrighted TV shows and movies. More from the press release:
The three have each been charged with one count of conspiracy, four counts of receiving stolen property and one count of grand theft.
“Digital piracy is theft. It is a serious crime that harms one of California’s most important economic engines – our entertainment industry,” said Attorney General Harris. “This case sends a clear message that the California Department of Justice will investigate digital piracy and prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law.”
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) initially began an investigation into iphonetvshows.net and movieiphone.net and sent a cease and desist letter to Tony Hoang. Thereafter, Tony Hoang and his co-defendant brothers allegedly resumed the illegal operation under a new domain name, mediamp4.com. The Attorney General’s office then initiated an investigation into mediamp4.com, executed a search warrant, seized property used in connection with the illegal operation and filed charges against the Hoang brothers.
Is this the beginning of a positive trend in the battle against online piracy? Last week we saw Mississippi’s AG Jim Hood raise concerns over Google’s links to illegal online activity and now California’s AG Kamala D. Harris steps into the fray. The California investigation was directed by the eCrime Unit of the California Attorney General’s Office, California Highway Patrol, and REACT (Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team) a law enforcement task force located in Silicon Valley specializing in investigating technology crimes and identity theft.
It’s alleged that the brothers earned approximately $150,000 over the past 18 months through advertising and that they drove traffic to the site via Google search ads. Once again this illustrates the ongoing link between the lure of piracy profits via online advertising and these illegal websites. The pirates are not in business for altruistic reasons; they were pirating content because it pays.
Kudos too, to the MPAA that initiated the initial investigation. Let’s not forget that taking down illegal online piracy sites not only benefits Hollywood movie-makers, but also helps independent filmmakers around the globe in the ongoing battle to protect their films from being stolen and monetized by thieves. As MPPA CEO and former Senator Chris Dodd explained,
There are now nearly 80 legal online services in the United States dedicated to providing movies and television shows to viewers. But to realize the enormous potential of these businesses and ensure an Internet that works for everyone, it is critical that government, content creators, the tech community and others work together to stop illegal rogue sites.
I tried to visit the website in question but it’s apparently already been taken offline and the domain parked, but I did find this YouTube “review” for the site which pretty much covers its (former) operations. Watching this review it seems evident that the site was designed to allow users to easily stream or watch pirated content on iPhones, iPads or computers.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPeEjRJ_tiQ&w=560&h=315]
I must say, it was heartening to hear the reviewer note that it is “becoming harder and harder to find good sites.” Let’s hope other state attorney generals get on board. Bit by bit, piece by piece, we are making progress against the black market business of online piracy.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Surprise, surprise…Google is once again in the spotlight for its role in linking to websites that promote illegal activities. In a statement released Thursday, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood charged that the search giant facilitates commerce in counterfeit goods and drugs online. Hood is co-chair of the National Association of Attorney General’s intellectual property committee. In the press release issued by his office, he outlined the issues:
…Google’s search algorithm often leads to sites known to sell counterfeit goods being at the top of the Google search results. Additionally, attorneys general are concerned that some of the sites selling counterfeit goods are advertising with Google.
“On every check we have made, Google’s search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games,” said Attorney General Hood. “This behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior.”
Hood sent a letter to Google’s Chief Executive Officer Larry Page inviting him to attend a national meeting of the attorneys general on June 18 in Boston to address the group’s concerns, categorized as follows:
- Content Removal – Google claims to only remove content from its search results in a narrow set of circumstances. The phrase “narrow set of circumstances” seems misleading. Google’s own policies on child exploitation state, “we block search results that lead to child pornography. This is a legal requirement and the right thing to do.” However, Google also removes other types of content. For instance, Google removes content from its German portal that glorifies the Nazi party on google.de or insults religion on google.co.in in India. Why will Google not remove websites or de-index known websites that purport to sell prescription drugs without a prescription or provide pirated content? Content removal can be done, but it appears Google is unwilling to remove content related to the purchase of prescription drugs without a prescription or the downloading of pirated movies and songs.
- Auto Complete – Google claims in its April 19th letter that “the predictions that appear in auto complete are an algorithmic reflection of query terms that are popular with our users and on the internet. Google does not manually select these terms or determine what queries are considered related to each other.” This statement is misleading. For example, a user cannot type in “free child” and receive an auto complete of the words “porn” or “pornography.” Google blocks an auto complete of the phrase “free child porn.” However, the phrase “buy oxycodone online” is autocompleted with the words “no prescription cod.” Google states in its April 19th letter that removing generic terms such as “prescription” or “online” is vastly overbroad. The issue is not about these words as stand-alone search terms, but phrases that facilitate known illegal behavior. For example, if you type in “buy oxycod,” the auto complete will provide “buy oxycodone online no prescription cod” as one of the choices. Another example is typing in “watch movies free so” and auto complete supplies “watch movies free solar.” Solarmovie is a known rogue website. The suggested search term by Google, “solar,” results in extensive sites containing infringing content on the first page of results. Can Google not remove phrases from auto complete such as “buy oxycodone online no prescription cod” or “watch movies free solar” without removing stand-alone terms?
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notices – Google has repeatedly stated that “sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results.” However, websites that continue to appear very prominently in Google search results are the same websites highly listed on Google’s Transparency Report. For example, single searches for a popular new DVD released film results in the website torrentz.eu on the first hit of the search. Torrentz.eu has received over 2,103,239 URL removal requests according to Google’s Transparency Report.
- Role of search engines in curbing sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals – Google does not mention the role of “search” at all in response to this question implying that search is not an issue of concern despite what is mentioned above. Moreover, Google does not mention its platform YouTube and the role of search and advertising on YouTube in promoting illegal activities. For example, users can search for and view videos purporting to sell prescription drugs without a prescription and other illegal activities all while viewing paid advertisements. What steps is Google taking to address advertising in conjunction with illicit videos on YouTube?
If reading this triggers a sense of deja vu, don’t worry– you’re not crazy. Less than 2 years ago, in August of 2011, Google agreed to a 500 million dollar settlement with the U.S. Justice Department over online advertisements for illegal Canadian pharmacies. According to the NY Times:
Google entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the government last week over the use of its AdWords program by Canadian pharmacies that helped them sell prescription drugs in the United States in violation of a federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 331(a). That law prohibits causing the “introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.
In addition to its role facilitating the trafficking of illegal and counterfeit drugs, Google’s ongoing relationship to illegal pirate movie sites has also been well established. Not only does the search giant continue to feature pirate websites high in its search results, but its YouTube and Blogger sites have also become efficient tools in online theft’s infrastructure.
In his statement Mr. Hood pointed out Google’s reluctance to regulate its own offerings and asked, as so many have before him, why is it that Google manages to block certain auto-complete phrases related to child porn or the Nazi party (on their German portal Google.de) but fails do so when it comes to other illegal, counterfeit content online?
The question of what companies like Google can and/or should do when it comes to illegal or harmful content was brought into sharp relief recently when another Silicon Valley giant, Facebook, was scrutinized for its refusal to act against pages that promoted misogynist and violent “hate speech” against women.
The NY Times featured a piece By Tanzina Vega and Leslie Kaufman “The Distasteful Side of Social Media Puts Advertisers on Their Guard” that examined the balance between free speech and civic responsibility. They aptly noted: “With the money, they are discovering, comes responsibility,” According to the story, YouTube officials claim to be pro-active when it comes to controlling where advertising appears:
YouTube also has mechanisms that give advertisers some control over where their brands appear. “When we become aware of ads that are showing against sensitive content, we immediately remove them,” Lucas Watson, the company’s vice president for video online global sales, wrote in an e-mail. “We also give advertisers control to target specific content, and they can choose to block ads against certain content categories or individual videos.”
The key here is “when we become aware.” The real question for YouTube and Google’s other services (search, Blogger, AdSense) is why isn’t the company pro-active to prevent these abuses rather than reactive? Preventing abuse of its products is not censorship; it’s the responsible thing to do.
via http://www.fairsearch.org/
Google’s reluctance to take decisive action seems to demonstrate that despite half-billion dollar fines and ongoing scrutiny from governments around the world, profits remain paramount, no matter the source.
Unfortunately, these days it seems that Google’s not alone in looking the other way. Just last month shipping giant UPS had to cough up a 40 million dollar settlement for knowingly distributing shipments for illegal online pharmacies.
Enabling trafficking in illegal products is illegal. The time for Google to clean house is long overdue. The question is, will it do so voluntarily or will it have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table? If past is prologue then my guess is that it will be the latter.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Derek Khanna first came to public notice in 2012 after writing a lopsided anti-copyright “policy brief” for Republican Study Committee called “Three Myths About Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It.” A day after the document was released it was withdrawn and Khanna lost his job at the end of the 112th Congress. He blamed wealthy donors in the “entertainment industry” for his dismissal and quickly became a martyr for the anti-copyright cause. He ended up at as Yale Law Fellow with the Information Society Project.
Unfortunately, like many of those in the legal field who are working to undermine creator’s rights, Mr. Khanna speaks from a decidedly one-sided perspective in penning a piece for today’s Washington Post that ominously warns that “Hollywood should not decide our copyright laws.” Aside from selecting a splashy but lazy (and inaccurate) headline for his piece, he conveniently ignored the (Tech) elephant in the room when he wrote, ” Last year’s defeat of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) caused industry groups to intensify their lobbying efforts. And they haven’t been subtle about it.” Sure, television and motion picture interests have increased their presence in Washington, but then so has “Big Tech.”
May I remind you that the reality of the anti-SOPA uprising was in large part a result of a deliberate (and well-funded) astro-turf campaign managed by the big guns of tech (Google, et al) to gin up the public. How hard is it to get the internet in a spin when you’re in control of its major gateways? Certainly there was room for open discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act and possible revisions to improve it, but the option for an open debate was quickly overwhelmed by an online avalanche of protest. Never mind that the majority of those who Tweeted or posted condemnations on Facebook hadn’t actually read the bill. For them all that was required was a mendacious meme that SOPA would “break the internet” and do away with “free speech” online.
It’s also worth noting that Mr. Khanna’s current employer (the Yale Law Information Society Project) receives some of its funding from Google–a company not exactly known for its love of present copyright law.
I do agree with one thing Khanna wrote in his post piece:
So in its deliberations, Goodlatte’s committee should ensure that Hollywood isn’t the only voice at the table. Both content creators and innovators desperately want to see copyright reform.
However, after that non-controversial statement it all goes downhill, quickly as Mr. Khanna gives readers a list of examples that, to him, demonstrate why copyright law is bad for creators and industry innovators alike. Why’s that a problem? Well, it’s a problem because, as is often the case with the copy-left, he doesn’t see fit to talk to tell the full story as to how crucial copyright protection is for those whose livelihoods depend on content creation. Khanna lists Hank Shocklee of Public Enemy, as an example of an artist constrained by current copyright law, but fails to mention that while Shocklee is a musician, he’s known for work often derived from sampling the work of others. His situation is not exactly representative of all artists, musical or otherwise, who have a stake in this debate.
Why not talk to some 45% of professional musicians who are no longer working in large part because our current copyright law is flouted by today’s digital pirate profiteers? Why not make mention of the independent filmmakers whose innovations are routinely stolen and monetized by bootleggers and online thieves?
Mr. Khanna also drones on in typical fashion about the DMCA. Yes, it’s an outdated law, but not for the reason he states. It’s outdated because it’s unworkable for creators, small and large, because its “safe harbor” provisions make protecting one’s content from pirate profiteers nearly impossible. He closes his piece by saying:
We can craft a system of copyright that compensates rights holders and incentivizes innovation for start-ups and new artists. It is not an either or proposition. But we’ll only get a balanced copyright system if Congress hears from a broad range of voices. It can’t just be special interests controlling the debate, writing the amendments in backrooms, and writing big checks to members of Congress.
True enough, BUT please remember that artists ARE innovators and that the tech industry represents a big “special interest.” Next time hearings are held in Washington let’s hope that a diversity of creator’s voices is heard rather than a panel of legal theorists–and if he writes about copyright reform again, perhaps Mr. Khanna would be wise take the same “balanced” approach he’s suggesting for members of Congress.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Tech
Megalomaniac Kim Dotcom is at it again. With a launch of a new campaign announced via an all caps headline screaming that “THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT!” on his website, he’s ratcheted up his assault on the big, bad U.S. government, the so-called “copyright lobby” bogeyman and everyone else who views him as the criminal thug that he is.
As part of his campaign to get out his (version of the) truth he’s published a “white paper” called “Megaupload the Copyright Lobby and the Future of Digital Rights.”
In it he claims the case against him “represents one of the clearest examples of prosecutorial overreach in recent history.” He takes particular aim at the White House, claiming his arrest was “propelled by the White House’s desire to mollify the motion picture industry in exchange for campaign contributions and political support.”
He goes on to claim that it’s a case of him and “digital rights advocates, technology innovators and ordinary information consumers on the one side, and Hollywood and the rest of the Copyright Lobby on the other.” He characterizes his highly profitable pirate website as a wonderful public service, with piracy only a minor concern.
Megaupload operated for seven years as a successful cloud storage business that enabled tens of millions of users around the world to upload and download content of the users’ own choosing and initiative. The spectrum of content ran from (to name just a few) family photos, artistic designs, business archives, academic coursework, legitimately purchased files, videos and music, and – as with any other cloud storage service – some potentially infringing material. [emphasis added]
How about some real truth about Megaupload? Until its takedown in January of 2012 it was the largest and most profitable repository of pirated content in the world. Contrary to claims made in his “white paper” Dotcom’s business model was dependent on content theft to drive traffic to, and generate income for, the site. The pirated content on Megaupload included music, movies, e-books and more–and represented the creative work of artists, filmmakers, authors and musicians across the spectrum.
For Kim Dotcom it’s easy to create propaganda that points to the big, bad MPAA or RIAA as the enemy…after all they are in the business of making money right? Well, the fact is, so is Mr. Dotcom and, unlike Hollywood, he doesn’t play by the rules. Why invest in content (and employ thousands to make it) if you can just steal it?
As an independent filmmaker I’ve had plenty of opportunities to witness first hand the piracy supported by Mr. Dotcom’s illegal enterprise, and it wasn’t pretty. Our film, like thousands of others, was easy to find on Megaupload as a free download or streaming in HD, complete with subtitles in various languages. Meanwhile it could be also be streamed or downloaded (with subtitled versions) on legit sites like iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Busk Films and others portals worldwide.
The difference between these legit online distributors and Dotcom’s Megaupload was that we earned income from our film’s distribution on the legit sites while it was Mr. Dotcom (and his uploading minions) that profited from our film on Megaupload. For indie filmmakers like us who don’t have theatrical releases, back-end distribution is the only way to recoup expenses. Megaupload’s pirated offerings forced filmmakers like us and other content creators to compete against FREE versions of their own creations. How crazy is that?
Despite his splashy spin minimizing the amount of “infringing material” disseminated through Megaupload (and Megavideo), the fact is that without stolen content, he would not be the “Mega” millionaire he is today.
How did the illicit Megaupload business model become a profit machine? Well, it’s helpful to think of a company like Amway. Amway’s business success popularized the multi-level marketing style pyramid business model (or scheme ) whereby the operators at the top of the pyramid recruit people to work for them. They, in turn, recruit more workers who, in turn, sell products to the public. Those at the top make money only if they can recruit, and keep, enough people below to do the actual work. Those doing the bulk of the work earn money, but at a much lower rate than those at the top. It’s the trickle up theory of profits.
Megaupload’s business was predicated on offering enticements to users (uploaders) to join this type of piracy-4-profit pyramid. This approach was essential to maximizing the number of visitors to the site. Another essential part of this equation was making sure the UCG (user generated content) that would attract eyeballs. Sorry, but your ” family photos, artistic designs, business archives” wouldn’t do the trick. No what better UGC carrots than popular movies, books or music? Dotcom didn’t seem too worried about copyright thanks to the “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA that allow UGC sites to easily look the other way (plead ignorance) when it came to vetting infringing content.
In order to set this eco-system into motion, Megaupload lured its worker bees. Simply put, the more downloads users generated for each file, the more money/rewards they earned. These rewards precipitated the next, and most insidious stage of piracy—the viral spread of infringing links. With dollar signs in their eyes, Megaupload’s affiliate armies took their links and posted them on web Warez forums far and wide. The more Megaupload links they “shared” across the web, the more money they made.
Pirate forum search results for new indie film showing more than 300 posts “sharing” download links.
In other words, Megaupload created, and was dependent on, an army of affiliates to do the dirty work for them. The scenario enabled Megaupload (and dozens of cyberlockers modeled after them) to shield themselves from legal liability, while their servers were simultaneously receiving thousands of (stolen) files every day–fresh content sure to attract new (and returning) customers.
Though the site claimed to respond to takedown requests, Megaupload was in fact playing a shell game, by not removing the actual infringing files and instead generating fresh links to replace those removed via the DMCA process. When Megaupload was first taken down in 2012 I wrote a blog post about this and put together a short video demonstrating how this worked (below).
[vimeo 35648310 w=500 h=375]
Megaupload Unmasked from fastgirlfilms on Vimeo.
It’s also important to remember the impact Megaupload’s business model had on encouraging and sustaining piracy profiteering across the web. It’s takedown marked a significant turning point in the fight against online piracy profiteering. As I wrote in an earlier post in response to the launch of Kim Dotcom’s new site Mega:
…when U.S. law enforcement took his popular Megaupload offline a year ago, it marked a significant turning point in the battle against online piracy. Since then real progress has been made. Copy-cat sites that modeled the success of Dotcom’s business model closed their doors. At the same time, more options for timely and legitimate online distribution of movies and music emerged–options both profitable for creators and affordable for consumers. Advertisers and payment processors have also stopped partnering with some remaining pirate cyberlocker sites, diminishing their profits and popularity. Other companies, such as Google, have also had to address their role in aiding, abetting and profiting from piracy. Overall, the lure of online piracy as a cottage industry has been greatly diminished.
Kim Dotcom is not Robin Hood and he’s not a hero. He’s a (wealthy) thief who, thanks to technical know-how and a black market business acumen, was able to exploit the work of content creators across the globe for his own, personal gain. Dotcom’s lies cloaked as “truth” may gain him sympathy from his acolytes, but it won’t change the fact that stealing from others isn’t sharing, it’s theft.
Some good news from my neck of the woods as California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced that her office had filed charges against 3 brothers who operated pirate websites featuring stolen movies and TV shows. According to a press release issued today, the 3 Bay Area men, Hop Hoang, 26, Tony Hoang, 23, and Huynh Hoang, 20, could face up to five years in prison if convicted. The brothers were arraigned in Alameda County Superior Court yesterday on charges that they operated a website (mediamp4.com) that allowed users access to illegal streams of more than 1,000 copyrighted TV shows and movies. More from the press release:
It’s alleged that the brothers earned approximately $150,000 over the past 18 months through advertising and that they drove traffic to the site via Google search ads. Once again this illustrates the ongoing link between the lure of piracy profits via online advertising and these illegal websites. The pirates are not in business for altruistic reasons; they were pirating content because it pays.
