by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
It’s a tired old tale, but one that bears repeating over and over again. Google’s search engine is the go-to resource for those seeking pirated content online. There’s a long line of Google critics, myself included, who decry the search giant’s defiant and arrogant attitude in response to requests that it modify its search engine to mitigate damage done to content creators by online pirates.
James Murdoch, co-COO of 21st Century Fox has added his voice to calls for change, speaking out at a TV conference in Cannes. According to a report in The Guardian, Murdoch took issue with Google’s response to News Corp CEO Robert Thomson’s recent characterization of Google search as “a platform for piracy” in a letter sent to an EU commissioner.
“There’s no question that they can do more. A lot more. Certainly Google’s not right in saying they’re doing more than anyone. That just isn’t true,” he said.
“The problem with Google … Actually, let’s not personalize this. The problem with search-driven discovery, if the content is there and it’s illegal and you’re just selling clicks as a big ad network, you have every incentive for that illegal programming to be there. That’s fundamentally not really good enough.”
No, it isn’t good enough. As I wrote last week, Google’s claim that it’s a leader in the fight against piracy is gobbledygook. Of course Google, being Google, can say pretty much anything its wants since content creators are powerless in the face of its corporate largess and lobbying. A recent story in the Washington Post, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” shined a spotlight on the search giant’s growing domination (and control).
The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google — once a lobbying weakling — has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence.
(Read the e-mails between Google and GMU officials)
That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects.
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.
When even big corporate entities like News Corp and 21st Century Fox appear powerless in the face of Googleiath’s growing dominance, you know we’re in trouble. Perhaps the European Union will punish Google for anti-trust violations, but even threats of a 6 billion dollar fine are unlikely to change Google’s scorched earth business practices and tainted profits. As its influence expands and evolves, so too does the moral code by which it operates. Problem is, it’s a code of Google’s own making.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy, TV
Online piracy is not a victimless crime
A couple weeks ago the New York Times published a profile of Hana Beshara, founder of the notorious pirate web emporium known as NinjaVideo. The site was shuttered in 2010 and Ms. Beshara, who pocketed around $200,000 from her enterprise was sentenced to 22 months in prison for conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement. She was released last year after serving 16 months and, according to the Times piece:
She acknowledges that some of her colleagues were upset when they learned she received much of the profit from NinjaVideo, but says it wasn’t out of line with her role as the voice of the site. “People took issue with the fact that I got paid,” she said. At any rate, in her opinion, the money was insignificant. To this day, she argues that the movie business is so big that skimming a little off the top doesn’t hurt anybody. She likes to say that NinjaVideo was operating in a “gray area.”
Characterizing the business of online piracy for profit as a “gray area” may be how thieves like Ms. Beshara rationalize their criminality, but in reality it’s theft–and because it’s theft–that means there ARE victims.
These actual victims of online piracy were pretty much ignored in the NY Times piece, but thankfully Dawn Prestwich, a writer for AMC’s and Netflix’s “The Killing” provided some perspective in a guest column published this week in Variety. Ms. Prestwich pointed out that piracy’s damage extends far beyond the front offices in Hollywood.
When Hana made a TV episode available for free on her website, that was worth the equivalent of thousands of downloads that weren’t watched on a legal site. And when that happened, the entire production team that collectively created the content was adversely impacted – from the most junior production assistant on up. All positions within the hierarchy became devalued.
Ms. Prestwich takes her analysis one step further television fans may inadvertently threaten the very survival of their favorite shows when they download episodes from illegal sources rather than legit streaming sites like Netflix:
…when the audience pays for creative content, they are voicing their support with their dollars. They are saying: “this show/film/whatever has personal value. I enjoy it. It’s worth paying for.” That not only helps me as a writer, it leads to further investment in the shows audiences like.
Creating quality content costs money and doesn’t it make sense that if we want to be able to consume something we should be willing to pay something to support its creation. A newly released study by the research firm KPMG,
“Film and TV title availability in the Digital Age” confirms what most of us already know to be true–consumers these days have a
myriad of legit ways to find great films and television shows online.
As of December 2013, 94 percent of the most popular and critically acclaimed films were legally available in the U.S. through online video-on-demand (VOD) services. The same study also finds that that 85 percent of the most popular and critically acclaimed television titles were available in the U.S. through online video services. This study is the latest reminder that today it’s easier than ever to watch the shows and movies you love legally online. –MPAA
For the cost of a couple lattes at Starbucks you can have a monthly subscription to a streaming service like
Netflix or Amazon Prime. Seems like a small price to pay to support those who create the works we enjoy.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Creative artists who speak out to defend their work from online poachers have long been the target of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a Google-funded tech-centric organization that ostensibly “champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation.” Many creators first become familiar with the EFF when sending takedown notices to Google for copyright infringement on its various products (YouTube, Blogger, search, etc.) and receive warnings that the DMCA notice (listing the infringing link) will be sent to the EFF’s public Chilling Effects database. The purported goal of the database is to provide a clearinghouse to study “the prevalence of legal threats and allow Internet users to see the source of content removals.” Unfortunately, its real mission seems to be to further intimidate rights holders who try to protect their work from online infringement. The database has, in fact, become a handy source of links to pirated content. Given its history as a tech cheerleader, it’s no surprise that the EFF is at it again, this time drafting a letter to officials who are negotiating the “intermediary liability” language for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement. According to the U.S. Trade Representative’s website:
TPP will provide new market access for Made-in-America goods and services, strong and enforceable labor standards and environmental commitments, groundbreaking new rules on state-owned enterprises, a robust and balanced intellectual property rights framework, and a thriving digital economy.
While there are legitimate concerns about transparency with the negotiating process, transparency is a double-edge sword. Perhaps the EFF should take a dose of its own medicine. The language contained in EFF’s letter once again establishes criterion where the rights of content creators should be considered secondary to those of “innovators” (a.k.a. tech interests). It paints a predictable–but false–scenario where rights holders are running amok by flooding poor service providers with unsubstantiated takedown notices.
We are worried about language that would force service providers throughout the region to monitor and police their users actions on the internet pass on automated takedown notices, block websites and disconnect Internet users.
It’s the old canard whereby web users’ right to steal copyrighted content trumps the creator’s right to remove it. The reason we have “automated takedown” processes in the first place is the amount of theft is so massive, that for many rights holders, it’s the only way to make a dent in the un-checked online copyright infringement that’s been unleashed in the name of “innovation.” Google has to deal with millions of takedowns because it enables (and profits from) millions of infringements. Even Google admits that the number of erroneous takedowns is minute (3%) compared to the number of valid ones (97%). The EFF asks for “flexibility” for nations to “establish takedown systems.” It’s a malleable term one could drive a truck through that would unquestionably undermine the entire point of writing IP protections into the agreement in the first place. Of course that’s precisely why the EFF and its shadow kingpins are pushing it. The fact is that there’s no such thing as borders in today’s digital world and treaties such as the TPP may be the only way to forge a path forward where IP can be protected in a meaningful, global way and nurture creative business in developing countries. Indeed, to gut IP protections by allowing nations “flexibility” would lead us back full circle to our current morass–a patchwork of enforcement that undermines any meaningful protection for creators rights around the globe. As Peter S. Mennell, noted law professor and co-director of U.C. Berkeley’s Center for Law & Technology wrote in a paper published this past April, This American Copyright Life: Reflections on Re-equilibrating Copyright for the Internet Age:
U.S. treaty and trade negotiators should celebrate and nurture Bollywood, Nollywood, and other creative communities as a primary focus for achieving global copyright protection. The U.S. should not be seen as an IP bully on the international stage but rather as a genuine partner willing to lend a hand up to nations willing to support their creative industries. Such a policy has the added bonus of promoting free expression and democratic ideals.
The EFF, and those drafting this trade agreement, should be mindful of what defines “democratic ideals” and acknowledge that creators worldwide “are worried,” and rightfully so, about an unbalanced online eco-system whereby the rights of certain users and business interests routinely trump the rights of artists. The letter raises EFF questions whether the TPP is “pushing proposals that that would truly enable new businesses to flourish in our countries in the decades to come.” For accuracy’s sake, perhaps the EFF should just be clear about their goals (and those of the tech companies that send millions their way) and clearly ask the TPP to bow to pressure and push proposals that would “truly enable” copyright infringement to “flourish” un-checked in the decades to come. After all, companies like Google traffic in content and the fewer obstacles to using and disseminating said content, the more profits for them. If you look at the list of signatories on the letter is a predictable (tech) bunch and attached to the document is the EFF’s own screed on “Abuse of the Copyright Takedown System.” As part of its advocacy efforts, the EFF routinely muddies the waters and conflates valid concerns over online privacy and free speech rights with copyright holders’ efforts to protect their work from infringement. Protecting rights within all three realms is important and doing so effectively, despite EFF rhetoric to the contrary, need not be a mutually exclusive process. The EFF approach to protecting “rights” in the digital age has always has been disingenuous. Gin up hysteria in order to push an anti-copyright agenda–an agenda, covertly built on the interests of the tech industry and NOT the community at large. For the record, protecting copyright is defending free speech. The EFF’s letter to TPP negotiators is just one more link in its (tech-funded) chain of lies.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy
The movie Lyle is being streamed online for free
This week I’ve come across two pieces written by indie filmmakers that discuss distribution options in the age online piracy. While it’s good to see the issue being addressed, the dichotomy between the two reveals that differences remain developing distribution models in an age where revenue streams are undermined by online profiteers.
The first piece published on filmmakermagazine.com by Stewart Thorndike and Alex Scharfman, “Why We Are Giving Our Feature Away for Free at LYLEmovie.com,” presents the filmmakers’ plan to give the movie away for “free” in order to engender good will and drive donations for their next project in a planned horror trilogy:
We wanted to stick with the idea that got us to Lyle: the desire to control our film’s destiny and not wait for permission.
It is in that spirit that we’re giving Lyle away for free at LYLEmovie.com. Sure, we could send the film out on the festival circuit and hope for a more traditional distribution offer, but that would take months or even years.
While the goal to “control the destiny” of one’s film is a laudable one, it’s also not one that will work for every indie film.
In this case, the filmmakers see giving their film away as smart marketing explaining, “By giving Lyle away, we’re inviting that audience to come find us and help us make more movies for them.” It’s a laudable plan and I wish them well in their efforts. After all, how one distributes one’s film should be a matter of personal choice. However, in explaining their approach they seem to view the digital world through slightly rose colored glasses:
The music industry, whose models seem to be a few years ahead of film, has already seen artists like Radiohead make their work available in exchange for whatever a fan wants to give. In the comedy world, Louis CK had enormous success when offering a pay-what-you-want (with a $5 minimum) deal on his standup special in 2011. In our case, we’re inviting Lyle’s viewers to donate what they want to our next film, Putney. Through this model, we hope to disrupt the traditional financing and distribution paradigms by tying the distribution of one project to the financing of another, democratizing both to create an audience and a brand on which we will build with Putney.
To point to the pay-what-you-like (one-time) distribution efforts used by Radiohead and Louis CK as a workable model for distributing small indie films, while sincere, seems a tad simplistic. After all, even Radiohead referred to the stunt as a “one off.”
Many music fans had hoped that the band’s now famous pay-what-you-want promotion was an attempt by the group to discover a new way to sell music. Now it appears Radiohead at best was after publicity.
While giving their film away for free to finance a second low-budget film might be the right choice for them, it certainly won’t “disrupt the traditional financing and distribution paradigms.” Those paradigms have already been radically disrupted by online piracy and, despite good intentions, not every feature film can be made via crowd-funded micro-budgets.
The latter point is one that filmmaker Zak Forsman raises in “I Made a Movie Worth Stealing: My Experience with Piracy,” posted this week on filmschoolrejects.com. Forsman recounted his experience with online piracy following the release of his feature, Down and Dangerous:
The movie has been uploaded in its entirety to YouTube about a dozen times now. Most recently, I issued a takedown for a Vietnamese-subtitled version.
As I filed that first copyright violation and takedown request, I wondered, “Is this going to be part of making movies now? Chasing down pirated copies and jumping through hoops to get them removed?”
Forsman notes there may be a difference between micro-budget productions and indie films with bigger budgets:
…if I were releasing the movie myself, directly to fans, I’d be happy to see people steal it and share it. Truly. Working in microbudgets affords me the opportunity to be a bit of a gambler when it comes to raising a movie’s profile. But in this case, I had a responsibility to protect the movie’s potential sales on behalf of our distributors.
Forsman also attempts to quantify the actual toll piracy took on his film’s revenue making a conservative estimate that if 10% of 10,000 illegal downloads were converted into legit sales it would add an additional $7,000 to their gross. As he points out, it’s not an insignificant figure for a film that cost $38,000. Having experienced the reality of online piracy firsthand, he also outlines steps filmmakers can take to prepare.
In contrast, the Lyle filmmakers have made the choice to attempt to sidestep piracy entirely by giving the film away. As writer/director Thorndike noted in an interview with tribecafilm.com, ” Instead of paying to see the movie, you pay, if you liked the movie, to see the next movie get made.” It will be interesting to see how this approach plays out, but given the fact that online pirates don’t give a darn where they steal films from, the movie will most likely still be pirated. Within days the (free) streamed film will be stolen from the filmmaker’s own website and pirated elsewhere, reducing visitors to their own Kickstarter campaign. Meanwhile, per usual, online pirates will be generating income off the stolen movie via their own sites.
Given the low amount of funding sought ($35,000), in this instance the piracy is unlikely to prevent a successful fundraising campaign, but moving forward, will these filmmakers want to limit themselves to only produce micro-budget films? At some point those who work on these films will want to make a living doing so. Does this approach really sustain a robust indie filmmaking culture? Is this really the “paradigm” filmmakers want for their future?
In any case it’s good to see indie filmmakers acknowledge online piracy’s impact on distribution and engage in discussions about ways to dull the damage. Here’s hoping we can learn from their experiences and see more films from them in the future.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google
Watch Disney’s hit Frozen online for free, thanks to Google
Google says it’s trying…really…to get tough with online piracy, but actual evidence continues to tell a different story.
When is enough really enough? When will Google really do something to stop the flow of tainted money into its coffers? Why does the Silicon Valley behemoth still get a free pass when it comes to profiting off content theft? Why is OK that the company not only profits from piracy, but, in order to ensure the continued flow of money, actually PROVIDES online pirates with (free) infrastructure from which to operate their illegal businesses?
How is Google’s business model–by any measure–OK? When will authorities step in to strip Google of its “safe harbor” protections? Isn’t there ample evidence that, despite the lip-service and lobbying to the contrary, the company grows fat by stealing from the hard work of others? I suppose the current trend of inertia and avoidance will likely continue as politicians in Washington will be too busy playing games at Google’s new DC lobbying offices to actually take overdue action against the greedy Goliath.
Google dares to applaud its efforts in the fight against piracy boasting, “Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.” Makes for a good talking point, but should score a big time four Pinocchio #FAIL.
If Google’s efforts against piracy constitute “leadership” then we really are in trouble. Google’s “leadership” on this issue is a charade, and actually should be characterized as this 
. If Google really wanted to raise standards across the industry it wouldn’t be difficult. If it can spend millions to build a shiny new lobbying center in Washington and spend millions more to wine and dine politicians, it can certainly spend a few bucks to hire more staff to review and remove Blogger sites engaged in online piracy and vet AdSense account holder’s regularly to make sure they are meeting “terms of service.” It could also easily provide advertisers with real data as to which sites displayed their advertising so these companies could be held accountable and provide a further line of defense against piracy profiteers.
For now, in case you need any reminder about just what a lousy job Google’s doing “raising standards across the industry” here’s just one more example of a Google-hosted Blogger website I came across today that features Google advertising alongside stolen movies. Google makes money. The advertisers gain customers. The creators get ZERO. It’s absurd.
It’s a tired old tale, but one that bears repeating over and over again. Google’s search engine is the go-to resource for those seeking pirated content online. There’s a long line of Google critics, myself included, who decry the search giant’s defiant and arrogant attitude in response to requests that it modify its search engine to mitigate damage done to content creators by online pirates.
