by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics
For 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. 
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?
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Ads for Adidas, Acura, Bertolli, Crest, Charmin, Domino’s, Ford, Geico, Hellmann’s, Lowe’s, Panera, Papermate, PG&E, Post and more share space with sex ads
I know I sound like a broken record, particularly when writing about online advertisers’ ongoing refusal to do something about their role in ad-sponsored online piracy.
In writing about this issue I’ve repeatedly pointed out that in the world of brick and mortar publishing, companies are extremely picky about ad placement and exert careful control over what editorial content appears beside them.
Apparently, in the world of online advertising, such vigilance is of little concern. It’s a literal free-for-all where companies, desperate to squeeze every penny out of their ad budgets, contract with multiple ad networks to blanket the web with their promotions. Advertisers willingly abdicate their control over ad placement in favor of market saturation. With this in mind I’m sharing a sample of some vulgar, sex ads found on pirate download links that show up aside ads featuring popular, brand-name products.
Do these companies really want their products promoted pages linking to pirated copies of Gravity, beside ads that read “First Free Find & F**k Site” or a chat window featuring well-endowed “Molly” who teases, “I wanna f**k now?”
Ad Industry Best Practices?
The ad industry and ad service providers have made a show of agreeing to voluntary “best practices” agreements to fight ad-sponsored piracy, but despite their talk and White House support, not much has changed. Take a look at the graphic below…What kind of industry “best practices” do these ad placements represent?
Can these advertisers really pretend that it’s not worth taking action? Piracy profiteering is alive and well and the ad dollars of advertisers like these play a significant role.
These companies work hard to protect and promote their brand’s image and so seeing Charmin toilet paper advertised aside a“First Free Find & F**k” ad seems more akin to pimping than promotion and it’s certainly does not complement their fuzzy, family bear campaign.
The bottom line is that these ads are not good for business unless, of course, you’re in the business of online piracy or selling sex. If that’s the case, then these ads are the lifeblood that sustains you while simultaneously sucking the life out of the content creators whose work your steal. 
It’s a sick and twisted illicit economy and legitimate advertisers better start taking their “best practices” seriously and voluntarily remove their brands from these ad networks unless they want their products associated with images like this.
**Note, I will be adding to the “Advertiser Hall of Shame” slide show (below) as I come across new examples. Unfortunately, I imagine I will be making updates often.
Dove’s “self-esteem” ad
Kraft
Aveeno
Duracell
Best Foods ad
Natural Choice
Windows
Bounty
Vicks
Luvs Diapers
Duracell Batteries
Crest Pro Health
Swiffer
Best Buy
Febreze
Greenies
Alaska Airlines
L.L. Bean
Nokia
Motorola (a Google Company)
General Electric
Microsoft Windows Phone
Castro Motor Oil
Target
Hot Pockets
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics
Google’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.
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.
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.
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.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Publishing
Late last month ad industry executives from around the country attended the annual Advertising Week convention in New York. Included among the events was a panel “Digital Media Value Under Attack: It’s Worse than You Thought.” Nebulous title aside, it was basically a discussion focusing on the role that advertising plays in supporting online piracy. Rick Cotton, NBCUniversal’s Senior Counselor for IP Protection, pretty much summed it up when pointed out that, “No one has asked the blunt question of whether you want your ad associated with a pirate site…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.”
I know it’s only been a couple of weeks, but the advertising industry has been aware of the problem for a long time and yet nothing changes. Despite lip-service to the contrary and July’s White House’s announcementt of a much-hyped–but essentially toothless–anti-piracy “best practices” pact by online ad servers Google, Microsoft, Yahoo AOL and others, the sad fact is that advertisements from major American companies continue to adorn (and make money for) pirate web pages.
Below is just a sampling of ads that popped up when I looked for (and found) pirated streams of a recent indie film “White Frog.”
Why is it still acceptable for online advertisers to get away with this? Why is their money still filling pirate coffers at the expense of content creators? Online ad service providers and their clients seem to have no difficulty fine-tuning technology to sniff out web user’s product preferences. Why can’t they sniff out pirate pages and block their ads from appearing there? Do the head honchos at Snickers or USA Today know that their logos are plastered across stolen goods? Do they care? Why isn’t Disney, an entertainment giant, making sure that their dollars don’t end up in pirate pockets?
I can’t really think of any excuse for these major brands to be in the business of paying pirates to promote their products. Clearly the powers that be don’t care enough to demand change. For them, it’s all about the money, morals be damned…
For content creators whose work is routinely stolen and monetized by others perhaps its time to really pay attention. I know I won’t be putting snickers in any trick or treater’s plastic pumpkin this Halloween.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy, Publishing
Ad industry executives were out in force this week at the annual “Advertising Week” convention in New York City. Not surprisingly, the issue of digital piracy’s link to advertising dollars was raised during a panel discussion “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.”
Part of making it “personal” is for advertisers take responsibility for where their ads appear. Unfortunately, this is an issue that extends beyond advertising on rogue sites offshore. Ad sponsored piracy is also ubiquitous on so-called legitimate, U.S. based websites like YouTube and Facebook.
Let’s take a look at YouTube first. Thanks to ad revenue, the popular UGC (user-generated content) site is a cash cow for Google and (some) content creators. Advertisers of all stripes are eager to see their products plastered over the latest in viral videos. There are four basic types of ad placements available:
- Display ads (banners) run across all areas of the site except the Homepage. They are available as a 300×250 ad that appears to the right of the feature video and above the video suggestions list. Learn more.
- Overlay in-video ads are transparent overlay ads that appear on the lower portion of your video.Learn more
- TrueView in-stream ads are skippable video ads that are inserted before, during or after the main video. Learn more.
- Non-skippable in-stream ads are video ads that can be inserted before, during, or after the main video and must be watched before the video selected can be viewed. Learn more.
The question real question is do advertisers know where their money is going and do they care? What determines which ad goes where and how much it will cost? YouTube explains it this way:
Monetized YouTube videos may display ads served via the AdSense auction as well as ads sold on a reservation basis via DoubleClick (DCLK) and other YouTube-sold sources.
AdSense Ads
The Adsense ads displayed on your video are determined automatically by our system based on a number of contextual factors relating to your video. These factors include but are not limited to your video metadata and how you categorize your video.
We aren’t able to control all of the ads that appear with your videos manually. Similarly, we can’t guarantee that specific ads will be displayed with your videos. We regularly monitor and update our content-targeting algorithms in order to deliver the most relevant ads to your video pages.
Like most things YouTube, it’s not particularly clear, but for advertisers who don’t want to miss out on eyeballs this lack of transparency seems not to be of much concern. Here’s a cross-section of “overlay” ads that represent a variety of companies that I found plastered on videos linking to pirated content.
YouTube isn’t alone. As I’ve reported in past blog posts, Facebook advertisers also routinely have their ads placed side by side with pirate offerings.
Facebook’s explanation of its ad placement and targeting options is fairly simplistic too:
Choose the location, gender, age, likes and interests, relationship status, workplace and education of your target audience. If you are the admin of a Facebook Page, event or app, you can also target your ad to people who are already connected to you.
Clearly the ad placement is dependent on who is looking at the page rather than the page content itself. That needs to change.
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.” Very true.
Why not start with cleaning up our own back yard in Silicon Valley? If advertisers were to stop advertising on sites like YouTube and Facebook until they can be sure their ads aren’t associated with pirated content I imagine things would change rather quickly. After all, money talks…
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
When 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.
Let 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:
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.
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.
For 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.
