The Copyright Alliance is seeking videos from artists and supporters on why the arts matter. The videos submitted will used to create a grassroots video message to Congress from artists and their supporters. It’s important to let your voices be heard. You can upload your “selfies” here.
Kim 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. ”
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.
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.
If 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….
By inspecting the source code for the illegal movie stream, one can easily determine that the ad providers is a company named Integral Marketing.
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.
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.
Over 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
Creativity ‘Continues to Thrive,’ in spite of SOPA’s defeat, not because of itIn a post marking the anniversary of SOPA’s defeat (Stop Online Piracy Act) Google asks users share a graphic to celebrate. “Since we combined our voices to stop SOPA, creativity has continued to thrive — both on and off the web.” Their celebratory note also includes this caveat:
Of course, piracy remains a major concern and Google does its part to fight it, but, two years after SOPA, it’s clear that the Internet has been really good for creativity and entertainment.
Frankly, I’ve never heard artists or entertainers make the argument that the internet isn’t “good” for creativity or entertainment. Yet, during the SOPA debate, as red herrings flew, content creators became the enemy in and us vs. them debate as hyperbolic and often mendacious rhetoric echoed across the web.
SOPA anniversary aside, this week marked another milestone– 100 Million takedown requests to remove search links to pirated music have been sent to Google. Note this total only includes takedown notices sent by the music industry. Don’t forget to add those millions sent to Google for pirated movies, photographs, books, and more.
If piracy is really a “major concern” for Google why do illegal sites still dominate in searches for music and movies? Here’s a graphic that is a tad more “balanced” than the one Google wants you to share.
Below is another graphic that worth considering when reading about Google’s rather disingenuous statements about their concerns re: online piracy. Yes, creativity continues to thrive online, but just image what could happen if Google actually took serious steps to stop supporting online piracy? It would be nice to see the trend lines in the chart below going down rather than steadily climb.
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?
Heavyweights from Hollywood and Silicon Valley gathered at Stanford this week for a 2-day event called Entertainment Technology in the Internet Age (ETIA). Co-sponsored by SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and Stanford’s SCIEN (Stanford Center for Image Engineering) the was billed as an opportunity to “…explore the tech, creative, and biz requirements for delivering a compelling, high quality, monetizable entertainment experience over the web.” From the event schedule comes this summary:
Entertainment technology development and content deployment has historically been the purview of Hollywood and traditional broadcast media. However, rapid convergence of technology improvements in connectivity, bandwidth, and media-processing coupled with consumer interest has caused a surge in media distribution over the web.
Day one program sessions included Making Content for the Internet, Distributing Content via the Internet, and an evening event “Legal and Illegal Distribution over the Internet: Can We Find Common Solution(s)? Panelists for this event included:
Mitch Singer/CTO, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Steve Weinstein/CTO, Deluxe Entertainment Service Group
Chris Odgers/VP Technology, Warner Bros.
Stephen Balogh/Technology Policy Specialist, Intel
Fred von Lohmann/Legal Director, Copyright, Google
Eric Klinker/CEO, BitTorrent
David Cardinal covered the event for extremetech.com and summarized the event this way:
Instead of threats from both sides, opening statements from Sony and Warner Brothers sounded a conciliatory note, agreeing in principal with the message from fellow panelists representing Google and BitTorrent that market-based solutions were the best way to solve the piracy problem. As the evening wore on, though, gloves started to come off, with the studios falling back on pleas for greater legal tools and the tech companies urging more of a free market approach for content distribution.
Day 2 of the event feature more on panels including the Distributing Content via the Internet (continued), Paying for Content via the Web, and Enjoying the Content (Users Experience). If you review the panelists they include, not surprisingly a who’s who of software engineers, executives from the tech and entertainment industries, and attorneys.
Given the event’s sponsors this isn’t particularly surprising. However, if we are to make any substantive progress on finding a path forward in this debate, wouldn’t it make sense to include at least some of those who actually create the content? Just a thought…
For Cardinal’s full account of the evening’s piracy discussions it’s worth reading his full story here.
