by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy
Pirate Bay Claims “Censorship” to deflect from its role as an anchor for illicit web economy built on piracy for profit.
Apparently Pirate Bay, the notorious torrent website, is adding web search to its repertoire of tools designed to aid those in search of illegal downloads. According an announcement on piratebrowser.com the new search engine is designed to “circumvent censorship.”
PirateBrowser is a bundle package of the Tor client (Vidalia), FireFox Portable browser (with foxyproxy addon) and some custom configs that allows you to circumvent censorship that certain countries such as Iran, North Korea, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy and Ireland impose onto their citizens.
The fact that the folks behind Pirate Bay cling to the notion that their’s is a fight against web censorship is nothing new, disingenuous though it may be. After all claiming to be a soldier against tyranny is much more appealing than say–“we are fighting to make it easier to steal movies, music, e-books and more.” Pirate Bay’s heroic veneer has been spotlighted recently thanks to its 10th birthday celebrations and today in The Guardian, Loz Kaye wrote a piece examining the site’s 10 years as a “milestone for internet freedom.”
The site itself can’t be divorced from its cultural context, the hacktivist digital dissidence scene. Pirate Bay represents the punk music of the 21st century: while popular music is reduced to sugary talent-show fodder, online counterculture is noisy, rebellious and disruptive. The cool kids aren’t writing lyrics, they are writing code. This is the heart of Pirate Bay’s tenacity. It’s no longer just about the service it provides, it’s because Pirate Bay has come to symbolise web liberty for many.
What Pirate Bay “symbolizes” and what it actually is are not necessarily analogous. I’ve said it many times, but it bears repeating once again–online piracy is not about sharing nor is it about “free speech” or “liberty”– it’s about theft for profit. Despite the spin, online piracy does not advance our dialogue over privacy, government surveillance, or political suppression–all increasingly worthy concerns. What it does do is enrich thieves and undermine the livelihoods of musicians, writers, filmmakers and others who create the content we enjoy.
Web censorship is undoubtedly an issue that needs to be vigorously debated, but thwarting the Pirate Bay’s ability to make money by facilitating theft is not. The fact is that Pirate Bay and other sites that share its torrents–pirate forums, cyber-lockers and streaming sites are in it to make money (off of advertising). Without the carrot of the torrent (movies, music, etc) they have nothing to drive traffic to their sites to entice users to click ads. Pirate Bay is in the BUSINESS of piracy.
It’s not surprising that the web is a vast, at times unruly place, but neither is it unreasonable to expect that criminal activity be discouraged. If users in Iran and North Korea can utilize the new web browser to bypass government firewalls that’s not a bad thing, but by lumping United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy and Ireland into the same category, their claimed mission subverted. Sorry, but blocking access to stolen content just isn’t the same thing as political repression.
by Ellen Seidler | Piracy, Tech
Why aren’t we alarmed by the web giants’ efforts to increase their control of online commerce?
Amazon and Google are 2 of the most influential companies in the U.S., if not the world. Clearly their business models have been hugely successful and their online innovations cannot be denied–but at what cost? Is it a good development if Amazon succeeds in putting bookstores out of business or if Google controls the top-level generic domain .movie?
Today on Salon.com a story by Evan Hughes, “Here’s how Amazon self-destructs” examines the ways Amazon (and we) could suffer if brick and mortar bookstores go out of business:
The brick and mortar outlets that Amazon is imperiling play a huge role in driving book sales and fostering literary culture. Although beaten by the Internet in unit sales, physical stores outpace virtual ones by 3-to-1 in introducing books to buyers. Bookshelves sell books. In a trend that is driving the owner of your neighborhood independent to drink, customers are engaging in “showrooming,” browsing in shops and then buying from Amazon to get a discount. This phenomenon is gradually suffocating stores to death. If you like having a bookseller nearby, think carefully before doing this. Never mind the ethics of showrooming — it’s self-defeating. You’re killing off a local business you like.
Amazon was also made headlines this week because of its quest to secure .amazon as one of the new “generic top level” domain names that will soon be made available (to those who can afford them). ICANN’s (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Governmental Advisory Committee recommended rejecting the company’s request for control over the domain name in response to complaints by various South American countries who argued “Amazon” was a geographical reference for their region.
Shouldn’t we be concerned with the possibility that control of the top level generic domains such as .music and .movie could go to the highest bidder? According to Bizjournals.com:
It appears Google applied for the most domains, although it did so under a different name, Charleston Road Registry. Charleston Road applied for domains such as .google, .chrome, .gmail and .earth. But it also applied for some more generic words, including .fly, .dad, .home and .love.
This issue has, it seems, slid under the radar until now, but as I wrote in a blog post nearly a year ago, the notion that large corporations could control these generic domain names is troubling. At the time Consumer Watchdog expressed this concern in a letter sent to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
We believe the plans by Google and Amazon are extremely problematic and call on you to help prevent their implementation. It is one thing to use a Top Level Domain name that is associated with your brand name. In Google’s case that might be .Google or .YouTube or .Android. Similarly it makes make sense for Amazon to acquire .Amazon or .Kindle. But, that is not what is happening.Google has ponied up $18.7 million to buy 101 domain strings like .eat, .buy, .book, .free, .web, and .family. Amazon is close behind the Internet giant applying for 76 domain strings including such names as .free, .like, .game, and .shop.
If these applications are granted, large parts of the Internet would be privatized. It is one thing to own a domain associated with your brand, but it is a huge problem to take control of generic strings. Both Google and Amazon are already dominant players on the Internet. Allowing them further control by buying generic domain strings would threaten the free and open Internet that consumers rely upon. Consumer Watchdog urges you to do all that you can to thwart these outrageous efforts and ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth while serving the interests of all of its users.
According to Bizjournals.com it costs $185,000 application fee per name (chump change for Google and Amazon):
Companies paid a $185,000 application fee per name and will have to pay $25,000 a year to run the registry where other companies will be able to register to use that “top-level” domain.
I don’t know about you, but the thought of Google and Amazon gaining even more control over web commerce sends shivers down my spine. Here’s a graphic of the top level domains that Google has applied for.
Maybe Google should consider going after the .piracy domain while they’re at it? Do we really want Google to control the top level domain name “movie?” I don’t.
Google is one of 8 companies that have applied for control of “movie” domain name
You have to wonder why Google opted to apply under Charleston Road Registry rather than use their brand name, but I suppose that’s a story for another day…
At any rate, speaking of movies and piracy–and since we’re on the subject of Google and Amazon–I thought I’d share a website I came across today. It’s a Google-sponsored Blogspot.com pirate site that offers illegal downloads links for dozens of indie films and, for good measure, there’s a pop-up advertisement for Amazon.com at the bottom of the page….2 peas in a piracy pod.
Wasn’t it just this week the Victoria Espinel, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for the Obama administration announced a new initiative “Coming Together to Combat Online Piracy and Counterfeiting” in which companies would voluntarily support efforts to thwart piracy profiteers? According to her statement:
Today, 24/7 Media, Adtegrity, AOL, Condé Nast, Google, [emphasis added] Microsoft, SpotXchange, and Yahoo!, with the support of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, committed to a set of best practices to address online infringement by reducing the flow of ad revenue to operators of sites engaged in significant piracy and counterfeiting. The Administration strongly supports voluntary efforts by the private sector to reduce infringement and we welcome the initiative brought forward by the companies to establish industry-wide standards to combat online piracy and counterfeiting by reducing financial incentives associated with infringement.
Forgive my cynicism, but until the enablers of piracy put their money where their mouths are when it comes to “best practices” I can’t take this so-called “commitment” too seriously. Advertisers (like Amazon) need to stop engaging in ad-sponsored piracy, take responsibility and demand accountability with regard to where their ads appear. Meanwhile, Google needs stop talking and start doing by aggressively disabling blogger-hosted pirate websites, delisting pirate search results, terminating pirate AdSense accounts, etc.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Tech
MacKeeper ad scam uses fake movie downloads to force download of its software
Talk about sleazy advertising practices. I’ve written before how MacKeeper ads blanket pirate websites. Well, I’ve discovered another unsavory twist to their pirate spam schemes. This time MacKeeper software, a product of Silicon Valley based Zeobit, is appears ensnare web users via clickable links designed to look like (pirated) movie downloads.
I became aware of this scam when a fellow filmmaker sent me a copy of a Google alert she received about a download for her film. When I went to check it out I found (shown below) what looked like a typical pirate “forum” post listing a link (DVDrip) for her film. When I clicked the link to see where it would take me, a MacKeeper ad filled my browser and the software began to download onto my computer.
Now it’s obviously a good thing the link wasn’t an actual pirated copy of her film, but what does it say about a company that disguises its software download as an (illegal) pirated film. I never did find the film, only another weird download “exe” file that was likely more malware or spam.
Oh, and by the way, later the same week I received a Google Alert for my film “And Then Came Lola” and discovered an identical scenario whereby MacKeeper downloaded onto my computer when I clicked the fake pirate link.
Malware downloads linked to pirate sites is nothing new, but to see a Silicon Valley based company rely on such unsavory tactics to promote its product is disappointing and certainly marks a new low in the sleazy world of ad linked piracy.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Politics, TV
David Kaplan, head of Warner Brother’s anti-piracy unit made news this week in Los Angeles at the 4th Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Summit. According to a Q & A with Kaplan posted on the event’s website, he characterized the studio’s approach to IP enforcement this way:
Generally speaking, we view piracy as a proxy of consumer demand. Accordingly, enforcement related efforts are balanced with looking at ways to adjust or develop business models to take advantage of that demand by offering fans what they are looking for when they are looking for it.
Of course this makes sense. Piracy apologists often attempt to rationalize the dubious notion that consumers are entitled to have everything available–anytime, anywhere– by charging that obsolete distribution models are a sign that distributors are ignoring audience demand.
However, it’s not as simple as it may seem. The reality is that it takes time to build new business methods–and meanwhile, in the thriving universe of digital theft–as is true with most black markets–the pirate’s model has never been constrained by such “trivial” issues as contracts, licensing, budgets, or the law.
In an ideal world filmmakers would be able to release their films to worldwide audience simultaneously. With models like day and date release finding success, it’s likely such an approach will someday become the norm.
But…even when that day does arrive, the other elephant in the room remains-Will consumers be willing to pay instead of going to pirate sites that offer fast and free options with the click of a mouse? Finding efficient ways to meet audience immediate demand only solves one piece of the piracy puzzle. The other is how to thwart the black market entrepreneurs who compete directly with legit distributors? Remember–profit comes easy when a business has little, to no overhead costs associated with the content it offers.
Kaplan sees this issue as a “top priority.”
I think our top priority would be to remove the financial incentives from
those who would profit by building businesses based on the unauthorized exploitation
of our intellectual property. A close second would be educating consumer about the
importance of IP protection and the availability of legitimate alternatives to piracy.
I’ve said it before –if the financial incentives to run pirate websites disappear, and popular content made readily available through legit channels, piracy’s impact will diminish. The problem remains–how do we get there? At a time where content creators are adapting to online distribution, ad providers, search engines, web hosts, and payment processors continue to drag their feet when it comes to making real inroads against infrastructure and incentives that underpin digital piracy.
n the White House’s just released “2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement” the word “voluntary” appears 36 times including this statement:
The U.S. Government is pursuing an innovative and multi-pronged strategy to combat infringing foreign based and foreign-controlled websites by encouraging cooperation by law enforcement, development
of voluntary best practices, and international leadership…
The White House document also offers this carefully worded prescription as one path forward combatting IP theft online:
22. Facilitate Voluntary Initiatives to Reduce Online Intellectual Property Infringement and Illegal Internet Pharmacies
As an Administration, we have adopted the approach of encouraging the private sector to develop and implement cooperative voluntary initiatives to reduce infringement that are practical and effective. It is critical that such efforts be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws and with the Administration’s broader Internet policy principles emphasizing privacy, free speech, competition, and due process. Together with law enforcement efforts, private sector voluntary actions can dramatically reduce online infringement and change the enforcement paradigm. We encourage all participants to continue to work with all interested stakeholders, including consumer advocacy groups, to ensure that voluntary initiatives are as effective and transparent as possible.
It’s great to think that we can all reach a consensus to combat the scourge of piracy through “cooperation.” However, the fact is there’s still a very long way to go. Until ad providers, advertisers and companies like Facebook and Google, whose tentacles reach far and wide throughout piracy’s infrastructure, get serious about cleaning up the act all this talk about “voluntary” initiatives is just talk.
The fact is, when it comes to profiting from online piracy, money speaks louder than words. It may just take a bit more “law enforcement” to make those responsible pay attention and take meaningful action to clean up their acts.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Tech
Content Creators MIA from discussions on Entertainment in the Internet Age
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.
