by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
Wondering where you can watch movies online with Movie2k gone?
Mourning the loss of your favorite free (pirate) movie site? Movie2k.to has been offline now for several days and the reasons aren’t entirely clear. There are still ways to watch movies online for free and the International Design Times has compiled a list of those sites here. Of course, unlike Movie2k these are sites that offer a legit (legal) way to watch movies.
Thomas Edison, “Father of Film”
Reading some of the reactions to reports of Movie2k’s shutdown on TorrentFreak it’s clear that some feel entitled to watch whatever they want, when they want, for free. I wonder if they apply that same attitude when it comes to their own work. Do they tell their boss not to bother giving them a paycheck because heck, they should work for free right? Somehow I doubt it.
At any rate I found this comment particularly amusing:
Free movies are possible. Ever heard of commissioning or sponsorship? This is how great works were done before the copyright monopoly came along. Wealthy benefactors wanted works created for them with which they could then share to boost their popularity. Some would profit, some were just nice people with too much money.
Aside from getting it wrong (try reading some cinema history) I’m not sure about you, but I wouldn’t want to depend on 21st century billionaires from Google, Facebook, etc. to determine what’s available for us to watch. Certainly the tech titans are free to create and share content as they see fit, and perhaps that would be preferable to today’s environment where they often use the content of others–often without permission–to fuel their growth. I fear, however, that such a scenario would simply lead to more generic content, driven by Google analytics rather than creative initiative.
The growth of American cinema was, and always has been, driven by business interests. Early on the studios implemented monopolistic practices to protect and grow their investments. It wasn’t until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1948 in U.S. v Paramount Pictures case that the studios’ control of all aspects of the movie production process from creation to distribution (vertical integration) was in fact an oligopoly, and a violation of anti-trust laws.
The court decision was the beginning of the end of the Hollywood studio system and changed the business of making and distributing movies. The decision, coupled with the introduction of television, paved the way for a more “independent” and creatively diverse cinema to emerge. Do we really want a return to the day when only the most powerful–those who can afford to underwrite a multi-million dollar movie production–determine what we watch? I don’t think so.
Those who think we can sustain a diversity of cinematic voices by demanding that they be “free” to watch are naive. Most films worth watching won’t be free to create. While we’re certainly moving into an era where mechanisms for securing production funds are evolving (i.e. crowd-source funding) we must encourage an environment where filmmakers can determine–for themselves–the best way to disseminate their creative work. Demanding a distribution framework where all content must be offered free of charge would inevitably undermine the both the quality and variety of films available.
Understanding and appreciating the historical context for cinema’s evolution over the past century provides a useful paradigm as to the possibilities for shaping film’s future. In the meantime, for those who would like to explore current cinematic offerings, here’s another source to find films online: Wheretowatch.com. Happy viewing!
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Politics, Tech
The Silicon Valley giant debates, deflects and downplays its role in facilitating and profiting from online piracy
Google’s ongoing role in facilitating (and profiting from ) online piracy was back in the spotlight this week thanks to a debate held this past Tuesday, May 28th, at the University of Westminster in London. The debate,“Follow The Money: Can The Business Of Ad-Funded Piracy Be Throttled?” was sponsored Music Tank, a university business network and included musician (and blogger) David Lowery; BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) boss Geoff Taylor; Theo Bertram, Google UK policy manager ; Alexandra Scott, public policy manager at the Internet Advertising Bureau in the UK; and James Barton, artist manager at The Blue Team.
The presence of a Google representative at a debate on this issue was itself newsworthy, and I might add, overdue. The evening’s discussion on the issue of ad supported piracy (summarized by Musically.com here) seemed to be focused on two main questions: who was responsible and what could be done about it.
David Lowery opened the evening’s discussion and framed a central problem with ad-sponsored piracy this way:
If the future of music really is access to songs rather than owning as many as we do nowadays, those services are all advertising-supported, and they’re competing with these illegitimate sites for these ads…Spotify and Pandora should have probably rightfully got that advertising money.
This is a key point. Online piracy harms content creators (across all disciplines) because it dilutes the market for legitimate consumption and siphons income away from creators and to the pirates (and their enablers). Online advertising revenue gives online pirates an advantage. The thieves can monetize stolen content at zero cost while the creators, who’ve expended capital to create the content, are forced to compete against free versions of their own product. Without income from online advertising, online piracy would not be viable on the scale that it is today.
When it was Google’s turn, per usual, Google was Google as Theo Bertram carefully paid lip-service to the notion that the search giant is proactive in the fight against piracy–citing how much it cost them to implement Content ID on YouTube (30 million) and assuring the audience that “If people have got content up there that is unlicensed and infringing, that would be a breach of our rules,”
Sure, it’s a “breach” of Google’s rules, but the point is, so what? As I have explained numerous times–when confronted with users who routinely and repeatedly break the rules–Google often looks the other way. I would have liked to ask Mr. Bertram how many times does it take for a Blogspot.com pirate site to be reported before Google will remove it? Just how many times does a YouTube user making money for themselves and Google off stolen content have to be reported before the account is terminated? Google refuses to say.
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Blogger hosted pirate movie site
Google may have created a “transparency report” that lists takedown requests received for its web searches, but when it comes to the inner workings of how it polices Blogger, AdSense and YouTube there’s little transparency–just continued obfuscation.
While Google’s equivocation was not unexpected, equally frustrating was Alexandra Scott’s attempt to explain why online ad services are so inept when it comes to keeping content off illegal sites:
This is a huge industry. We’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of players here. It’s not always obvious to those players where that advertising is going. There’s a huge amount of work that we’re undertaking to address that.
Often those middlemen are helping to make advertising more efficient, more targeted and more relevant…I don’t think we want to do away with that, because that innovation is helping to drive the business… Obviously there are concerns about where that advertising is going to appear… It’s not something that’s easy to address: there’s no one-size fits all.
Yep, there it is again, that word “innovation” which–in today’s debate about piracy–is habitually employed as shield by those who wish to avoid taking action (or responsibility) for their role in it. In their world it seems that “responsibility” and “innovation” are considered to be mutually exclusive concepts.
Pop-up ads found on a Google-hosted Blogger website in March of 2013 including a number of name brands.
The oft-used ad industry excuse that “it’s not always obvious to those players where that advertising is going…” is also growing old. As I’ve pointed out many times, advertisers in the print and TV industry are keenly aware of where their ads appear and what editorial/entertainment content they partner with. How is that these same advertisers allow this editorial control to go missing on the internet? Is this “innovation” at work or are advertisers so desperate not to miss out on potential customers that blanketing the web with their promotions is seen as the only way to compete in this brave new world? Scott tried to address this conundrum, but ultimately fell back on the same, tired excuse:
Coca-Cola may say ‘we only want to work on a white-list basis, we only want to appear against certain publishers…They don’t want to be going on these sites. They’re just not always aware of the issue. They don’t necessarily know it’s happening until there’s a crisis… I don’t think that people actively seek out these sites to go and advertise on… Eyeballs isn’t the only thing for advertising: it’s all about context.
While Ms. Scott tried to explain why ad sponsored piracy is a difficult nut to crack, Mr. Bertram seemed more than willing to direct most of the responsibility for ad placement on the clients themselves:
…the only way you get that scale is if you get the big brands…Thus, the responsibility lies with brands to take responsibility, even though there is more work to do for Google in policing how and where ads are served on its network.
It’s not Google’s job to go around the web to declare whether sites are legal or illegal, but if Coca-Cola comes to us and says here’s a list of 500 dynamic sites, and we don’t want you to place ads on those… that’s a slightly different thing. It’s almost a marketing thing for the brand…Getting them to say ‘I’m going to be really clear with you: I don’t want you to put advertising on these sites, I do want you to put advertising on these sites’.
Mr. Bertram also returned to Google’s (not-so-effective) efforts to lower search results for sites known to offer illegal download links:
We’re trying to dampen that in the search results…so we are doing a bit of that. I am an optimist, in that search will get better, and be able to serve people with the results exactly that they want, and to do so utterly lawfully as well.
One nagging question that wasn’t addressed is was how much revenue Google generates from its connections to online piracy (and counterfeit product sites) via its various entities (AdSense, Blogger, YouTube, search, et al). It’s a significant question in this debate , but unfortunately wasn’t addressed.
Tap dancing aside, I suppose it’s a sign of progress that Google was willing to send a representative to the debate. There finally seems to be a growing recognition that ad money is a driving force behind online piracy. As I wrote three years ago when I began blogging about this topic:
Online piracy isn’t about altruism, it’s about income. Today’s technology allows web pirates to steal content and monetize that content with a click of a mouse. Meanwhile, “legit” companies encourage and facilitate this theft while also profiting from it (ad service providers, advertisers and payment processors). The time has come for reasonable measures to be taken to discourage this theft. Content creators and consumers will benefit. Only the pirates and those who profit from their theft will lose.
In the process of scouring the web for the thousands of illegal download links and online streams of our film (more than 55,000 documented to date) I quickly discovered that various, theoretically legit companies, seemed to be (indirectly) generating income through the placement advertising on websites featuring streams and download links to pirated films. In addition, and most troubling, is that fact these ads generate income for operators of these pirate websites and add to generous profit totals for ad providers.
At the end of the debate, Geoff Taylor noted that some progress was being made in efforts to tackle the problem, “to their credit Google and the IAB are working very closely with the music and film industries.”
Blue Team manager James Barton also struck a hopeful tone:
How refreshing that finally in 2013 we’re able to have a conversation with members of big tech and big music industry where we can find common ground, and look for a pragmatic solution to the piracy problem…
Perhaps it’s a matter of putting lipstick on a pig, but after watching this play out over these past three years, it appears we still have a long way to go. Recognizing there is a problem is step one, now let’s do something about it.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Tech
Mega-pirate Kim Dotcom gets his digital content back, when do the stuff he’s stolen from us back?
A court in New Zealand has ordered authorities to return Kim Dotcom’s hard drives and digital material taken “illegally” during a raid in January of 2012. According to a story on stuff.co.nz:
A judge has ordered the police to sift through all digital material taken illegally from Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and to return anything irrelevant to their investigation at their own cost.
Fine, he gets his stuff back. My question is–when do all the filmmakers, musicians, and authors get the stuff he stole from us and (and monetized) back?…or at least the $$$$ he made off it.
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
Notorious pirate site Movie2k.to is gone…at least for now
Much to the chagrin of many on Twitter, the popular pirate movie portal http://www.movie2k.to is offline thanks, it seems, to a court order issued in the UK. According to a story in Torrent Freak earlier this month, a number of UK ISPs were served with a court order that requires them to block the sites or be legally liable for the infringement that occurs. It’s not clear at this point how that effort has affected the site’s availability in places like the United States.
No matter the reason, this is good news for filmmakers. Not only did Movie2k.to list illegal download links for thousands of films, but the site also ignored DMCA takedown requests.
Since the site itself didn’t respond, sending notices to Google was the only way content creators could take action to prevent their work from being stolen. In February when I checked the Google transparency report for Movie2k.to I found the search giant had received 37,764 takedown requests to have related search results removed.
At the time I demonstrated how the popular film “Silver Linings Playbook” download links were easy to find via Google search on Movie2k.to.
Dozens of download links to pirated copies of Silver Linings Playbook on Movie2k
It’s important to note that studio films were not the only ones victimized by Movie 2k. The site offered links to illegal streams and downloads of hundreds of indie films too.
Whether its disappearance is permanent remains unknown. For now, however, there’s cause to celebrate as another pirate site bites the dust….
Update: On Saturday, June 1st Torrent Freak is reporting that another popular pirate site, letmewatchthis.ch has gone missing too. Again, it’s unclear as to why this is happening, but suffice it to say that it’s good news for filmmakers.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
Piracy promoted by Facebook and featuring ads served by U.S. based “Ad Council” for a U.S. government agency that’s supposed to protect American consumers
The 6th chapter of the popular movie franchise “The Fast and Furious“ premiered nationwide yesterday, and has already set new Memorial Day weekend box office records. This morning–less than 24 hours later– thanks to a Facebook, a link for a pirated version appeared on my computer screen.
I came across this particular link while having my wake-up coffee and checking my Facebook news feed. I’ll admit to having “liked” this Facebook movie page in the past so I could, in fact, monitor and research ongoing pirate activity.
The film’s speedy arrival onto pirate websites (and shared via a social media site like Facebook) is neither unexpected, nor surprising. I’m sure there are already thousands of pirated copies posted online throughout the globe, and dozens more shared via Facebook pages like this one. I’ve already written about this particular Facebook movie page, and others like it that promote illegal downloads. The reason I’m choosing to revisit it is because today’s scenario, with link appearing in my news feed, demonstrates once again how piracy theft is routinely enabled–and made increasingly efficient–by companies like Facebook.
Today, when I saw this post, I followed the link to the website to check it out. I found 2 working streams of the movie, one via the Russian site VK.com, a social media portal styled after Facebook. The online offering is riddled with advertising (including a pop-up from the United Way) but nonetheless, after clicking through the ads, there’s the film, in its entirety, streaming online. Granted, the copy was likely shot surreptitiously in a theater, but the quality is decent enough. The others “embeds” are actually decoys, carefully designed to mimic working streams in order to trick visitors into clicking, thus triggering a pop-up ad and generating more income for the site.
Ironically, one of the ads that popped up was for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency of the United States government, and another for the Shelter Pet Project. Both ads are apparently placed with the ad servicer by the Ad Council. On its website the organization describes its mission this way:
The Ad Council is a private, non-profit organization that marshals volunteer talent from the advertising and communications industries, the facilities of the media, and the resources of the business and non-profit communities to deliver critical messages to the American public.
Irony aside, the Ad Council’s involvement–and its servicing an ad for an official bureau of United States government (that’s supposed to protect American consumers)–demonstrates just how broken our system is. Were this criminal activity happening in the brick and mortar world I doubt it would be tolerated, at least not by U.S. law enforcement.
I am sure no one at the Consumer Protection Bureau is even aware that their ads blanket pirate websites, but therein lies the problem. Why not? Why are federal dollars being spent for advertisements on sites that offer up stolen goods? When did it become OK for advertisers, whether the U.S. government or not, to underwrite online theft? Just because the crime happens online, is it really OK that our tax dollars end up in the pockets of pirates? How is that the online economy is somehow exempt from legal scrutiny? Is this really the kind of “innovation” we want to encourage and protect?
Advertisements aside, another question should be asked of Facebook. Why should the Silicon Valley behemoth be allowed earn money off the promotion of stolen goods? The company is vigilant when it comes to removing photos of breast feeding mothers, but when it comes to removing pages dedicated to disseminating stolen goods, not so much?
Ads sponsored by the U.S. based Ad Council blanket this pirate website
As Congress moves forward to discuss copyright reform members may want to finally peek under this rock and take a look at what can be done to hold accountable those who–directly or indirectly–aid and abet online theft. Facebook….Ad Council….Uncle Sam….are you listening??? Looking the other way in response to ad sponsored piracy is not OK. Creative content, whether it be a Hollywood blockbuster like “The Fast and Furious” or an indie band’s latest release, should not be there for the taking by piracy profiteers.
The time for action and accountability is long overdue. The government, ad servers, and the entities that advertise on these pirate websites need to step up, admit we have a big problem, and deal with it.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Music, Piracy
Yesterday Brad Buckles, Executive Vice President of the RIAA’s Anti-Piracy unit, wrote that “it’s time to rethink the notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA.” In a piece posted on the RIAA’s blog, he went on to outline the various ways that the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) isn’t working. Up to this point we’ve heard a lot of discussion, mostly from copyright skeptics, about how the DMCA hurts innovation and thus tangentially, consumers. Little notice has been paid as to how the law (passed in 1998) has failed musicians, filmmakers, authors, journalists and others who create content–content now largely distributed via the digital realm.
Clearly the law is due for an overhaul, update, revision…. use whatever term you’d like. The bottom line is that the DMCA does little to help us (creators) safeguard our work, and by extension, our livelihoods.
Much is made (up) about supposed abuse of the DMCA takedown procedure by evil movie studios and record companies. It’s an issue that’s been overblown and is, frankly, one that pales in comparison to the daily barrage of pirated or plagiarized copies of their work that creators discover online each day. As I wrote in an earlier post on this blog:
Piracy apologists like to focus on erroneous takedowns and highlight stories whereby a 9 year-old in Finland had her computer confiscated, or a grandmother in Colorado had her ISP account wrongfully suspended. Certainly mistakes happen, and when they do it’s unfortunate, but they are few and far between when compared with the cumulative harm being done to those whose livelihoods are damaged by rampant online theft. For every search result removed in error there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, removed for valid reasons. Sensationalistic anecdotes make for splashy headlines and provide convenient red herrings for those who defend the piracy status quo–big bad Hollywood versus the grandmothers of the world–but meanwhile the genuine stories documenting piracy’s ruin are routinely minimized or ignored.
Also lost in this debate is the fact that 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 a site has been removed in error, the owner can use the Google website to file a counter-claim with a click of a mouse. 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.
In his post Buckles also points that the current system is largely impotent against a tide of online piracy for profit:
…the targets of our notices don’t even pretend to be innovators constructing new and better ways to legally enjoy music – they have simply created business models that allow them to profit from giving someone else’s property away for free. So while 20 million might sound impressive, the problem we face with illegal downloading on the Internet is immeasurably larger. And that is just for music.
We are using a bucket to deal with an ocean of illegal downloading. Under a controversial interpretation by search engines, takedown notices must be directed at specific links to specific sound recordings and do nothing to stop the same files from being reposted as fast as they are removed.
This warped system sustains an environment where (distribution) decisions that should up to the creator are instead made by profiteers too lazy (and cheap) to create their own content to monetize. Spin aside, the fact is that piracy does dilute the market for legitimately distributed content and does negatively impact the a creator’s bottom line. While the economic costs are obvious, a more insidious, but perhaps equally important reality is that this theft is gradually eroding the quality and diversity of creative work contributes to our collective culture. The sad truth is that we won’t realize how much we are missing if it’s never made.
Silicon Valley is thriving and millionaires made daily–but at whose expense? An industry that “innovates” on the back of another’s labor without due compensation is simply exploitative. Can’t we do better than that? Can’t we revise the DMCA so that it will shelter content creators from theft in a manner that is effective and affordable for independent artists and larger entities alike?
The real problem with the DMCA is not so much with the takedown process, but with the “safe harbor” provision the oft-abused language that provides shelter to digital thieves at the expense of rights holders. “Safe Harbor” has enabled the growth of a criminal cancer and it’s a cancer–that as of now–cannot be beaten, only kept (marginally) at bay. As I’ve suggested previously, any update to the law should include a requirement that in order to qualify for the limitations to liability that safe-harbor offers, user-generated content sites must implement reasonable technology to mitigate content theft.
Just as technology has evolved that facilitates the easy, worldwide dissemination of content– fingerprinting technology exists that could automate the takedown process. YouTube has already done so with its Content ID System. In order to qualify for “safe harbor” why can’t the future Kim Dotcom’s of the world do the same?
Digital technology can serve not as our nemesis, but our savior. Let’s craft legislation that leverages these technological capabilities to safeguard our creative work. Of course it will add somewhat to overhead costs, but so what? Why shouldn’t these businesses have to bear capital costs just as creators do when they produce a film, record a song, or write a novel?
Buckles writes “Creators of all types and sizes – and especially the individual creators who try to protect their content on their own, spending their own time and money sending takedown notices instead of making the movies and music to which they’ve devoted their lives — will tell you that the system isn’t working. The balance is off.”
Indeed, the balance is off, and as momentum builds in Washington to address issues of copyright and digital piracy, let’s hope creators voices are heard above the din of hyperbole and political posturing. As Buckle points out, “something isn’t working with this system which was intended to balance the rights of content creators with the rights of companies like Google.” Over these past 15 years the tech industry has thrived in large part because the DMCA is a flawed piece of legislation. Now let’s see if they–along with other interested parties–step up to help fix it keeping everyone’s best interests in mind.
