by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy
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
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy, Politics
Once a thief, always a thief
Last night 60 Minutes ran a segment featuring a Bob Simon interview with the now-defunct Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom. Much has already been written, and debated, about the German pirate entrepreneur who currently resides in New Zealand as he fights extradition to the United States on charges of copyright infringement. So did we learn anything new from last night’s broadcast that billed Kim Dotcom (predictably) as “Hollywood’s Villain?”….the short answer–nope.
Per usual, explanations were limited as to how Megaupload operated (and launched a business model that many others would follow), Mr. Simon explained it this way:
Here’s how it worked. If you wanted to send a friend a file that was too large to email– a wedding video, for example– you could just upload it onto Mega Upload’s servers and your friends could click a link to download it. It was a virtual warehouse where people stored and shared digital files. By selling advertisements and premium subscriptions, Mega Upload brought in an estimated $175 million. It became one of the most frequented sites on the internet. How did it get so popular and profitable? According to federal authorities, by also allowing users to illegally share the hottest new movies, or hit songs, or TV programs, including some CBS shows.
Unfortunately Simon failed to explain probably the most important factor to Megaupload’s financial success, its affiliate program. What good is hosting tons of pirated content if no one know where to find it? If there’s a genius to Dotcom’s acumen as a black market businessman, this is it. Basically the cyberlocker (cloud-based storage) site’s business model was that of multi-level marketing style pyramid scheme. Instead of selling cosmetics or cleaning products, his company “sold” access to stolen movies, songs and e-books.
As with all pyramid-style companies, Megaupload depended on attracting armies of underlings to “sell” its offerings. It did so by offering incentives to users who signed up to become “affiliates.” Upload stolen content, spread the download links far and wide like a virus, and the more downloads you attracted, the more cash you would earn. Affiliates could also earn cash for recruiting more affiliates. This army of mini-pirates was the key to Dotcom’s success and fueled piracy’s rampant growth beyond the traditional, more cumbersome torrent sites like Pirate Bay. The internet was suddenly filled with forums where users “shared” their download links over and over and over again.
Those who clicked on a Megaupload download link would find that they could generally stream or download a favorite film, or song, with a mere click of the mouse. For those who wanted faster download speeds they could subscribe to “premium” services and by doing so dump more cash into Dotcom’s coffers.
By having others do their dirty work uploading stolen content, Megaupload attempted to skirt copyright law by claiming refuge under the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Dotcom reiterated this excuse in his interview with 60 Minutes:
Am I the one who is at fault if users upload that kind of stuff and up… re-upload it again? Do I have to go to jail for that? Because I didn’t do it. I didn’t upload these things to Mega Upload.
Dotcom also blamed his flamboyant lifestyle and his nationality as reasons for his targeting by U.S. officials not the 2 and a half billion his company was worth at its peak when he left Hong Kong for New Zealand—a valuation built by pirating the hard work of others—musicians, filmmakers, authors and more. Too bad the folks at 60 Minutes didn’t think it worth interviewing any of those (beyond Hollywood) whose livelihoods suffered thanks to Megaupload and sites like it.
At this point, whatever happens with Dotcom is pretty much irrelevant. The key truth is that with the demise of Megaupload the entire piracy for profit industry was finally put in the spotlight. Why did so many other cyberlocker sites immediately shut down after the Megaupload indictment? If Filesonic, Wupload, Fileserve and other sites’ business models were legit, why did their operators scurry like cockroaches exposed to bright lights. The answer is simple. They, like Megaupload before them, were engaged in (illegal) theft for profit.
The shuttering of Megaupload marked an important shift for the landscape of online piracy. Just as cyberlockers’ illegal business models were being called into question, legitimate online options were gaining steam. The sudden vacuum allowed legal alternatives like Netflix, Hulu and their ilk to gain traction. Consumers who’d sought out pirated content out of convenience suddenly found that using their Roku or Apple TV box was a better option than scouring the internet for torrents or Russian streaming sites.
I for one don’t care much about what the future holds for Mr. Dotcom. I’m sure he’ll figure out another way to game the system and make money at the expense of others, but in the meantime I’ll be happy that content creators were the victors this time ’round.
P.S. for more analysis on the case against Kim Dotcom and copyright law I suggest Robert Parloff’s excellent piece published in Fortune Magazine in 2012: Megaupload and the twilight of copyright
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy
Many American companies still have their fingers in the Piracy Profit Pie
While Bitcoin, the shady crypto-currency, may be emerging as a potential new not-so-legal tender in the black market of online piracy, the fact remains that mainstream companies like Google, Visa and Mastercard still play a major role in facilitating the flow of money that’s exchanged (and earned) in this illicit underground economy.
There’s no question that cloud-based pirate cyberlocker havens took a hit after the demise of big daddy Megaupload with many of the biggest once scattering like cock roaches when the feds took action. Despite that much-needed house-cleaning, offshore cyberlockers continue to be a major source of pirated content thanks to the profits they generate with little risk and much reward. Unfortunately, despite lip-service to the contrary, ad networks like Google’s AdSense and payment processors like Visa and MasterCard remain an integral part of the system, acting as unseemly middlemen–earning income for themselves and the content thieves. Here’s how it works.
- Pirate uploads stolen content (movies, music, books, etc) to cyberlocker (usually to multiple sites)
- Pirate advertises the file’s download links on forums far and wide to attract “customers” to earn cash incentives from cyberlocker
- Cyberlocker offer incentives to pirates to upload and “share” popular (pirated) content to attract traffic
- More traffic means more income for Cyberlocker via advertising (from services like Google AdSense) and premium subscriptions (paid for with Visa, MasterCard, etc)
- Cyberlocker pays cash rewards to pirate uploader based downloads, referrals, and premium subscription sales
- Everyone makes money in this system EXCEPT the content creators
Below are a series a graphics illustrate the pirate business model at work. Pirate forum x264-bb is a web “forum” in the business of promoting pirated download links to a variety of pirated movies and TV shows. The site boasts strict guidelines for users to follow when posting links to their pirated content–ironic to say the least, particularly the admonition not to make more downloads (mirrors) “unless authorized by the original encoder.” I guess there’s honor among thieves after all…
Below is an example of a typical post on the forum, advertising download links for the movie “Despicable Me” by a user aditkhan (who boasts over 6,899 posts).
Pirate uploaders generally post “mirrored” links (identical files on multiple sites) so that downloaders aren’t disappointed if the first set of links disappears. In this case he has posted identical links on cyberlockers FileParadox.com and RyuShare.com. Note that the movie file offered in multiple parts to increase page views and profits.
Below is one of the downloads link on FileParadox. Note the inducements to purchase “premium” subscription as well as a Google-served AdSense advertisement at the bottom of the page that ironically promotes AdSense.
If downloaders do want to sign up for premium service (and access to high-speed downloads of stolen files) they can pay using Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express and more.
Even if the downloader doesn’t choose to become a premium member, FileParadox still earns income thanks to Google’s AdSense advertising.
I created an account on FileParadox in order to show you what their reporting page looks like. There are various ways uploaders can earn money by uploaded stolen content: # of downloads, # of premium accounts sold, and referrals.
Aditkhan reminds forum members to “support” him by creating an account (referral) and upgrading (premium sales). It doesn’t seem like a stretch to guess that aditkhan wouldn’t be so busy stealing, uploading and sharing links if he didn’t make money doing so. Clearly Google, Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express apparently don’t mind adding to their coffers and taking a cut of the action either. Their voluntary “best practices” agreements seem–at this point–to be full of holes.,,
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Ads for Adidas, Acura, Bertolli, Crest, Charmin, Domino’s, Ford, Geico, Hellmann’s, Lowe’s, Panera, Papermate, PG&E, Post and more share space with sex ads
I know I sound like a broken record, particularly when writing about online advertisers’ ongoing refusal to do something about their role in ad-sponsored online piracy.
In writing about this issue I’ve repeatedly pointed out that in the world of brick and mortar publishing, companies are extremely picky about ad placement and exert careful control over what editorial content appears beside them.
Apparently, in the world of online advertising, such vigilance is of little concern. It’s a literal free-for-all where companies, desperate to squeeze every penny out of their ad budgets, contract with multiple ad networks to blanket the web with their promotions. Advertisers willingly abdicate their control over ad placement in favor of market saturation. With this in mind I’m sharing a sample of some vulgar, sex ads found on pirate download links that show up aside ads featuring popular, brand-name products.
Do these companies really want their products promoted pages linking to pirated copies of Gravity, beside ads that read “First Free Find & F**k Site” or a chat window featuring well-endowed “Molly” who teases, “I wanna f**k now?”
Ad Industry Best Practices?
The ad industry and ad service providers have made a show of agreeing to voluntary “best practices” agreements to fight ad-sponsored piracy, but despite their talk and White House support, not much has changed. Take a look at the graphic below…What kind of industry “best practices” do these ad placements represent?
Can these advertisers really pretend that it’s not worth taking action? Piracy profiteering is alive and well and the ad dollars of advertisers like these play a significant role.
These companies work hard to protect and promote their brand’s image and so seeing Charmin toilet paper advertised aside a“First Free Find & F**k” ad seems more akin to pimping than promotion and it’s certainly does not complement their fuzzy, family bear campaign.
The bottom line is that these ads are not good for business unless, of course, you’re in the business of online piracy or selling sex. If that’s the case, then these ads are the lifeblood that sustains you while simultaneously sucking the life out of the content creators whose work your steal. 
It’s a sick and twisted illicit economy and legitimate advertisers better start taking their “best practices” seriously and voluntarily remove their brands from these ad networks unless they want their products associated with images like this.
**Note, I will be adding to the “Advertiser Hall of Shame” slide show (below) as I come across new examples. Unfortunately, I imagine I will be making updates often.
Dove’s “self-esteem” ad
Kraft
Aveeno
Duracell
Best Foods ad
Natural Choice
Windows
Bounty
Vicks
Luvs Diapers
Duracell Batteries
Crest Pro Health
Swiffer
Best Buy
Febreze
Greenies
Alaska Airlines
L.L. Bean
Nokia
Motorola (a Google Company)
General Electric
Microsoft Windows Phone
Castro Motor Oil
Target
Hot Pockets
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Piracy, Tech
I don’t need a study to prove that search engines are an integral force in fueling online piracy, but since the piracy debate is awash in dueling studies I’ll happily chime in on the subject again.
Last week Google published a report–a characteristically self-congratulatory piece of fluff–declaring themselves to be a leader in the fight against piracy and that took great pains to deny the significance of “search” in maintaining the online pirate economy. The report repeated claims made in a recent study (published by a consortium of tech giants including Google) that it’s poor SEO techniques that are the problem–not search engines.
Today, the MPAA came riding to the rescue with its own study, “Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy,” that sticks a pin in Google’s hot air balloon. Of course the MPAA is one of the anti-copyright lobby’s favorite whipping boys, because, after all, they represent big, bad Hollywood–an industry that employs more than three hundred thousand people in the U.S. (according to 2012 federal labor statistics).
May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
NAICS 512000 – Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
Why do I believe the MPAA study more accurately reflects reality? Because it jibes with everything I’ve discovered while digging through the world of online piracy (and profits) these past three years; and although I’ve never worked for a major studio, my interests as an independent filmmaker dovetail with those who do.
Whether grips, gaffers, makeup artists, script supervisors or caterers–we all have a shared interest in protecting our livelihoods so I’m thankful that the MPAA commissioned and released this study. The results are relevant for all content creators whose livelihoods are threatened by rampant online theft.
The MPAA study methodically examined how consumers, intentionally or not, ended up on pirates sites. It found that between 2010 and 2012 “approximately 20% of all visits to infringing content were influenced by a search query.” As wrote in an earlier blog post criticizing the Google funded study, its search engine should be considered a “gateway” to pirated content online. The MPAA study affirms this:
“Search is an important resource for consumers when they seek new content online, especially for the first time. 74% of consumers surveyed cited using a search engine as either a discovery or navigational tool in their initial viewing sessions on domains with infringing content.”
Even more troubling was the finding that many people who use search aren’t actually looking for pirated content, but by using typical generic search queries to look for content they often end up on pirate sites.
Ironically, the only good thing about the fact Google search makes it easy to find pirate websites is that content creators (like me) can use it to track down pirated copies of their own work so they can send those beloved DMCA notices.
At any rate, I’m sure there will be those who disparage these findings, but in my view, these results mirror my reality. I recommend reading the full report, including the methodology if you’re so inclined, and drawing your own conclusions. You can read the full version here.
While you have your reading glasses on you should take a look at another very comprehensive report (commissioned by NBCUniversal) released yesterday titled, “Sizing the Piracy Universe.“ This study found, among other things that, “Users of piracy ecosystems, the number of internet users who regularly obtain infringing content, and the amount of bandwidth consumed by infringing uses of content all increased significantly between 2010 and 2013.”
There’s an executive summary available if you don’t have the patience for in-depth analysis, but either way, the reality is that online piracy continues to be a growing problem.
Statistical analysis is helpful in putting the issue into context for policy makers in Washington and beyond who will debate what, if any, action to take. However, as content creators worldwide hope for progress in the fight against piracy, the reality detailed by these studies is a sobering one.
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.
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!
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:
