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.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Tech
Last week YouTube made official what had long been rumored and announced a new slate of paid channels.
Starting today, we’re launching a pilot program for a small group of partners that will offer paid channels on YouTube with subscription fees starting at $0.99 per month. Every channel has a 14-day free trial, and many offer discounted yearly rates. For example, Sesame Street will be offering full episodes on their paid channel when it launches. And UFC fans can see classic fights, like a full version of their first event from UFC’s new channel. You might run into more of these channels across YouTube, or look here for a list of pilot channels. Once you subscribe from a computer, you’ll be able to watch paid channels on your computer, phone, tablet and TV, and soon you’ll be able to subscribe to them from more devices.
While this announcement is potentially good news in that it offers content creators large and small new ways to monetize their work, unless YouTube purges pirates from the site, it’s is a business model that remains tainted.
I’ve written previously about the various ways YouTube enables (and reaps profit) from movie piracy. With the latest announcement paid YouTube channels, I thought it worth looking at yet another example of their dirty laundry. This time it’s an Argentina-based website that uses popular movie trailers on YouTube to attract customers to its online store selling bootleg DVDs and video games.
I came across the illegal site when I viewed a trailer the French indie film “Tomboy” uploaded to YouTube. The user had uploaded a number of trailers to his YouTube channel and in the description for each, included a link to his illegal website. To add insult to injury, the trailers featured not only a link to the bootleg site but included a its own splashy animated logo edited in.
Here’s the description translated from Spanish:
www.xtopsite.com where you can find the last extrenos on DVD
new http://www.xtopsite.com
Pre release movies 20000 retro releases and unpublished
4000 concerts in Argentina and worldwide with the best sound
1500 Complete TV series, so you can finish watching it so steep that you got
20000 MP3 bands and musicians to upload your best technology
20000 programs to make the impossible possible
20000 playstation xbox360 wii chipiadas for your consoles to play online against worldwide
shipments at home just as fast in 24 hours on market
The best prices, the best quality, over 15 years as leaders in the market $ 3. – C / u cd $ 5 – c / u dvd
Promo: if pedis 100 units or more makes you a discount of% 25. –
orders effected only by form: http://www.xtopsite.com
When I navigated to the website, I found this, a virtual storefront that looks legit enough, but isn’t. How could I tell? Well, the first clue was the DVD for the film “42” which just recently appeared in theaters. “42” is not scheduled to be released on DVD until this summer, August 2013.
The movie “42” will be released on DVD and Blu-ray in August of 2013.
This site also sells (bootleg) Xbox games, along with advice for finding cracked serial numbers online.
Here’s the specific advice (translated from Spanish):
Clearly these pirates are using YouTube as a means to advertise and drive traffic to their illicit business. Since it’s based in Argentina, they can operate openly with little fear of closure since the country is notoriously lax on piracy. An article published on smartplanet.com sums it up pretty well:
Argentine websites and physical markets questioned for distributing pirated and counterfeit material shows how relaxed local attitudes are toward intellectual property. Students regularly buy photocopies of entire college texts rather than pay for the book, while several Buenos Aires parks fill on weekends with vendors openly selling pirated computer software.
Part of Argentina’s fertile culture of piracy is inspired by a belief that intellectual property rights can be sacrificed in the name of helping the poor and forgotten against large corporations; part is caused by Argentina’s lax enforcement of intellectual property laws; and the rest comes from the country’s isolating economic policies, where import restrictions and high import taxes make buying genuine foreign goods prohibitively expensive.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has placed Argentina on its “watch list” citing copyright infringement as one concern, “However, serious problems persist, including widespread availability of pirated and counterfeit goods, an inefficient judicial system, and a failure to adjudicate civil and criminal cases and impose deterrent level sentences…overall levels of copyright piracy continue to present a problem, as reflected, for example, in a reported growth in piracy over the Internet.”
So while the United States is concerned that Argentinian authorities inaction against IP theft and piracy, a U.S. based company like YouTube help them facilitate it without a problem? As a business that abides by U.S. law, should YouTube/Google do more to prevent an illegal enterprise from using their website to promote/distribute illegal goods?
According to YouTube’s own “Terms of Service” (and I assume U.S. law) the company bears no responsibility in these situations:
The Service may contain links to third party websites that are not owned or controlled by YouTube. YouTube has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for, the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third party websites. In addition, YouTube will not and cannot censor or edit the content of any third-party site. By using the Service, you expressly relieve YouTube from any and all liability arising from your use of any third-party website.
In addition to their “Terms of Service” YouTube offers users a bit more guidance via their “Community Guidelines,” but here, the only reference discouraging “illegal” activities are “Dangerous Illegal Acts” like bomb making and sniper attacks. Nothing about operating illegal bootleg/counterfeiting operations.
Is the situation any different with YouTube’s parent company Google? Not really since Google’s terms of service follows the same murky (though apparently legal) path.
If the bootleg site is in Iran, Cuba or the Sudan, it seems Google may be forced to act, otherwise, despite lip-service that frowns on “dangerous and illegal” activities, linking to illegal businesses is A-OK. If I’m interpreting the verbiage correctly, bootlegging DVDs is not dangerous per se (which obviously it’s not), then the illegal part is moot. Though Google terms state that users aren’t allowed to create websites, ” that have the primary purpose of redirecting visitors, acting as a bridge page, or driving traffic to another website” it appears that the company does little to stop this activity, at least on YouTube.
Commercial Activity
You may use Google Sites to create websites for your business or to promote your products or services, unless you are in Cuba, Iran, or Sudan. There are some commercial uses we don’t allow. We don’t allow websites that have the primary purpose of redirecting visitors, acting as a bridge page, or driving traffic to another website. We also don’t allow websites that have the primary purpose of profiting from displaying ads from any publisher network, such as sites created with little or no unique content and exist only to display ads.
Copyright
It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. More information about our copyright procedures can be found on this page: http://www.google.com/sites_dmca.html
Unlawful Use of Service
Our products and services should not be used for unlawful purposes or for promotion of dangerous and illegal activities [emphasis added]. Your account may be terminated and you may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
The U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (I.C.E.) has been seizing web domains as part of an ongoing effort to battle counterfeiting across the globe. Perhaps its time to examine the mechanisms by which U.S. companies indirectly aid such criminal enterprises as well? Why not engage some of our own companies in a discussions aimed at reducing their role in enabling these criminal activities?
On another front, why not enlist the YouTube community in helping to report these questionable sites? YouTube has a system whereby users can flag material deemed to be in violation of “rules:”
Users report content that may violate YouTube’s rules by flagging it. YouTube’s rules are outlined in ourCommunity Guidelines. YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When a video is reviewed and determined to violate our Community Guidelines we remove it.
YouTube seems to have no problem allowing its users to flag innocuous kissing scenes from lesbian/gay tv shows and movies, why not give its “community” an easy way to flag material actually links to illegal content–content that does harm? According to YouTube’s community guidelines:
We Enforce These Guidelines
Okay, this one is more about us than you. YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate our Community Guidelines. When they do, we remove them. Sometimes a video doesn’t violate our Community Guidelines, but may not be appropriate for everyone. These videos may be age-restricted. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination. If your account is terminated, you won’t be allowed to create any new accounts. For more information about how the Community Guidelines are enforced and the consequences of violating them, please visit the Help Center.
At present, it’s pretty much impossible notify YouTube about the illegal linking scenario I’ve described in this post because 1) it’s not a “dangerous and illegal act” 2) it doesn’t infringe “my rights.” When I tried to flag the trailer and alert YouTube that this YouTube channel linked to a counterfeit site I was met with a form that required information (like an actual hyperlink to the law being infringed) and legal standing that I don’t posses.
Clearly YouTube doesn’t want to be deluged with false claims, but making an option available for users to report a legal issue that does not involve one’s own trademark or copyright would help.
There may be other technological ways to vet questionable links. Google seems to achieve wonders with its search algorithms. Why not utilize technology to ferret out links to dubious websites posted on their pages? Google regularly labels sites as “compromised” on search results. Of course, when it comes to others attempting to crackdown on criminal websites listed via their search engine Google likens this to an attack on “free speech.”
For now, it seems Google has no legal obligation to worry about its role in facilitating illegal activity like bootleg DVD sales. After all, sharing links to infringing streams and downloads is allowed to fly under the radar, so is it any surprise other savvy pirates link to their sites selling bootlegged copies? Moving forward, one can only hope Google representatives begin to acknowledge this problem and begin to develop efficient and thoughtful ways to deal with it. If Google wants YouTube channels to become a legitimate and profitable means of distribution for content creators, why not get rid of those YouTube users whose activities undermine the livelihoods of these same creators YouTube is attempting to woo?
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.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
This past Monday the Wall Street Journal published a thought-provoking piece “As Pirates Run Rampant, TV Studios Dial Up Pursuit.” Written by Christopher Stewart, the article explored how the television industry, studios, and film distributors are protecting their businesses from the ravages of online piracy. Kathy Wolfe, founder of Wolfe Video, the largest distributor of independent LGBT films in the world, spoke about the challenge of staying in business amid a sea of piracy. She told the Wall Street Journal that she estimates online piracy cost her small company more than 3 million dollars in 2012. In order to prevent that figure from growing, Wolfe spends over $30,000 annually (half the company’s profits) to scan the web for infringing content and send takedown notices. When I spoke with her today, she told me that her company could easily be forced out of business were anti-piracy efforts not in place.
In the meantime, according to Wolfe, they are working hard to develop a robust online streaming business. She says that 38% of their income now comes from online streaming and she expects that percentage to grow “radically” every year. “Now with our Wolfe on Demand [website], we have a formula that is accessible and affordable,” says Wolfe. She adds that by establishing their own online portal, and not depending on exclusively on other sites (iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, etc), Wolfe can direct a bigger percentage of profits back to the filmmakers.
Despite Wolfe’s success in growing online sales, mitigating piracy has become a fundamental part of protecting their business. “If it weren’t for our anti-piracy efforts, we certainly wouldn’t be functioning at the level we’re functioning at now,” she says.
After all, it’s still difficult to compete with free and the indie filmmakers who partner with Wolfe (including myself) are fortunate that the company bears the brunt of worldwide anti-piracy efforts. But whether it falls to a small independent film distributor such as Wolfe, or an individual filmmaker, the job of removing pirated content from the web is an onerous (and expensive) one.
Where does one begin? Well, in the example I’m about to outline, these are the 12 Steps a filmmaker would follow in order to remove ONE illegal movie from the web:
Step One: Find the film using Google search.
Step Two: Navigate to the YouTube (Google) channel featuring dozens of pirated movies.
Step Three: From there, click the movie you want and go to the description linking to a Blogger (Google) pirate site.
Step Four: Before you leave YouTube (Google), send a DMCA notice either via Content ID system or email.
Step Five: Navigate to the Blogger (Google) website, click the link.
Step Six: Click past pop-up ads to find the embedded film.
Step Seven: Fill out and send a DMCA notice to Blogger (Google) via online web form.
Step Eight: Click the VK icon on the embedded film to navigate to the host site for the infringing file.
Step Nine: Create an account with VK to find that actual URL of the infringing file
(amid more than 100 other uploads by the same pirate).
Step Ten: Fill out and send a DMCA Notice to VK via the online web form (no email address provided).
Step Eleven: Send a DMCA takedown to Google search to have the original link removed from search (YouTube link) in case Vk.com doesn’t respond.
Step Twelve: Get depressed when you have to begin all over a couple of days later when the Blogger pirate makes a new YouTube channel.
Let’s begin our journey with Google search–unquestionably the world’s most popular path to find links to pirated films. In the example below, I searched for the indie French film “Tomboy.” Thanks to Google, I ended up on a YouTube movie channel with links to more than 100 popular indie films. The films aren’t actually uploaded to YouTube. Instead, a it’s dummy file with the movie poster that includes a link to an external website in its description.
I’ve written before about the fact that YouTube is routinely used by pirates as an efficient means attracting traffic to their pirate websites and the example outlined here is no exception. In this case, the YouTube channel links to an external site also hosted by Google’s on its very own Blogger platform: http://cinegay9.blogspot.com.
If you are an indie filmmaker whose film pirated on this site, how can you remove the link? Well your first step would be to send a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube asking that the link to the pirate site be removed using their online form…
You have to fill in each line but, even when you click and send, your takedown request won’t touch the linked-to pirate’s page even though it’s also a Google entity, in this case a Blogspot.com offering an actual embedded stream of your (pirated) film.
If you click the link below the movie description on YouTube you’ll eventually end up at the pirated blog but, before you can glimpse the page, you’ll have to endure, and click past, a pop-up advertisement featuring ads from a panoply of well-known companies including: Dodge, Network Solutions, Reebok, XBox 360, Norton Software, Comcast and Hootsuite.
After you close the pop-up window, you’ll come to the pirate’s website.
Click the thumbnail for the movie, and after you click through another pop-up advertisement featuring ads from Progressive Insurance, Stanford Hospital, Home Depot, U.S. Forest Service, and Toyota….
you’ll eventually arrive at an actual embedded stream of the full movie:
Ok, so if you’re the indie filmmaker who made this film, what do you do next? Well, before yo leave the Blogger site you can notify Google (again) by sending a DMCA takedown notice to Blogger.
However, even if the Blogger page disappears, the online stream doesn’t. So what’s the next step? Well, at first glance the video is clearly hosted on a Russian site, vk.com (a site like Facebook). However, if you click the VK logo, you don’t end up at actual film, but rather a page full of uploaded (pirated) movies on this pirate’s Vk.com account (seen below).
Click on the film and nothing happens so uncovering the actual stream file and URL seems hopeless. But, if you’re really persistent, there is a way. To do so you must create an account at VK.com (and give up your cell phone number). It’s a major pain involving a text message with a confirmation code, etc.
Once you have an account and log in, you’ll finally be able to navigate to the infringing file and find the actual URL you’ll need to report in your takedown notice.
There’s no guarantee that any of these pages or links will be removed so in order to be totally thorough, you may want to file a DMCA notice to have Google remove the original search result that led you to your pirated film in the first place.
Of course, after all this work, you think you’re finished right? After all, you check back with YouTube and the pirate who started this whole process account has been terminated for “multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement.”
Victory right? Well, not so fast…revisit Google search and you’ll discover that Cinegay9blogspot’s channel has been reincarnated with the user name reotereds. Guess it’s time to start the DMCA takedown process all over again…
YouTube pirate wastes no time in generating a new channel to attract traffic to his blogger-hosted pirate website
Tell me again why artists, photographers, filmmakers and musicians should have to go to these lengths to protect their work from thieves? Wouldn’t our time be better spent creating our art, rather than having to police it so that we can earn a living and afford to spend time to create something new?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Need more evidence that Google’s YouTube earns income from pirates who upload (and monetize) films for which they don’t own the rights? Well, here’s another example I found today (1/26/13). This time it’s a YouTube user with the moniker “iWatchEpicMovies.” The film in question (one of many the uploaded claimed by the user) is a 1998 Swedish film, released in the United States under the title “Show Me Love.” The original title in Swedish was “Fucking Amal.”
The film was uploaded to YouTube on January 23rd and claimed by the uploader, who asserted “ownership in the following countries: Worldwide.” When you view the film on YouTube it’s monetized with advertising, meaning the uploader and YouTube earn money very view. Not only is the pirated film monetized, but ironically, one of the ads superimposed over the screen is a Netflix ad. So, in this case, Netflix is also benefiting from the presence of this pirated film on YouTube. BTW, Netflix is no stranger to allowing its advertising to be promoted aside pirated movies. I wrote about another recent example of this here.
- Pirated film Monetized on YouTube by Google featuring Netflix Ads
Google/YouTube will, as always, claim that it’s the rights holder’s job to police YouTube and to request that infringing content be removed. Of course, in the interim, Google’s happy to make money and Netflix is happy to attract new customers (and make money).
In another ironic twist to this pirated upload, the YouTube user posts this disclaimer “I do not claim copyrights. For entertainment purposes only.” Perhaps “iWatchEpicMovies” should rewrite it to clarify, and say: “I do not claim copyrights, but I assert ownership (worldwide) for the purpose of making money off something I don’t own.”
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.
