by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
Wondering where you can watch movies online with Movie2k gone?
Mourning the loss of your favorite free (pirate) movie site? Movie2k.to has been offline now for several days and the reasons aren’t entirely clear. There are still ways to watch movies online for free and the International Design Times has compiled a list of those sites here. Of course, unlike Movie2k these are sites that offer a legit (legal) way to watch movies.
Thomas Edison, “Father of Film”
Reading some of the reactions to reports of Movie2k’s shutdown on TorrentFreak it’s clear that some feel entitled to watch whatever they want, when they want, for free. I wonder if they apply that same attitude when it comes to their own work. Do they tell their boss not to bother giving them a paycheck because heck, they should work for free right? Somehow I doubt it.
At any rate I found this comment particularly amusing:
Free movies are possible. Ever heard of commissioning or sponsorship? This is how great works were done before the copyright monopoly came along. Wealthy benefactors wanted works created for them with which they could then share to boost their popularity. Some would profit, some were just nice people with too much money.
Aside from getting it wrong (try reading some cinema history) I’m not sure about you, but I wouldn’t want to depend on 21st century billionaires from Google, Facebook, etc. to determine what’s available for us to watch. Certainly the tech titans are free to create and share content as they see fit, and perhaps that would be preferable to today’s environment where they often use the content of others–often without permission–to fuel their growth. I fear, however, that such a scenario would simply lead to more generic content, driven by Google analytics rather than creative initiative.
The growth of American cinema was, and always has been, driven by business interests. Early on the studios implemented monopolistic practices to protect and grow their investments. It wasn’t until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1948 in U.S. v Paramount Pictures case that the studios’ control of all aspects of the movie production process from creation to distribution (vertical integration) was in fact an oligopoly, and a violation of anti-trust laws.
The court decision was the beginning of the end of the Hollywood studio system and changed the business of making and distributing movies. The decision, coupled with the introduction of television, paved the way for a more “independent” and creatively diverse cinema to emerge. Do we really want a return to the day when only the most powerful–those who can afford to underwrite a multi-million dollar movie production–determine what we watch? I don’t think so.
Those who think we can sustain a diversity of cinematic voices by demanding that they be “free” to watch are naive. Most films worth watching won’t be free to create. While we’re certainly moving into an era where mechanisms for securing production funds are evolving (i.e. crowd-source funding) we must encourage an environment where filmmakers can determine–for themselves–the best way to disseminate their creative work. Demanding a distribution framework where all content must be offered free of charge would inevitably undermine the both the quality and variety of films available.
Understanding and appreciating the historical context for cinema’s evolution over the past century provides a useful paradigm as to the possibilities for shaping film’s future. In the meantime, for those who would like to explore current cinematic offerings, here’s another source to find films online: Wheretowatch.com. Happy viewing!
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
Piracy promoted by Facebook and featuring ads served by U.S. based “Ad Council” for a U.S. government agency that’s supposed to protect American consumers
The 6th chapter of the popular movie franchise “The Fast and Furious“ premiered nationwide yesterday, and has already set new Memorial Day weekend box office records. This morning–less than 24 hours later– thanks to a Facebook, a link for a pirated version appeared on my computer screen.
I came across this particular link while having my wake-up coffee and checking my Facebook news feed. I’ll admit to having “liked” this Facebook movie page in the past so I could, in fact, monitor and research ongoing pirate activity.
The film’s speedy arrival onto pirate websites (and shared via a social media site like Facebook) is neither unexpected, nor surprising. I’m sure there are already thousands of pirated copies posted online throughout the globe, and dozens more shared via Facebook pages like this one. I’ve already written about this particular Facebook movie page, and others like it that promote illegal downloads. The reason I’m choosing to revisit it is because today’s scenario, with link appearing in my news feed, demonstrates once again how piracy theft is routinely enabled–and made increasingly efficient–by companies like Facebook.
Today, when I saw this post, I followed the link to the website to check it out. I found 2 working streams of the movie, one via the Russian site VK.com, a social media portal styled after Facebook. The online offering is riddled with advertising (including a pop-up from the United Way) but nonetheless, after clicking through the ads, there’s the film, in its entirety, streaming online. Granted, the copy was likely shot surreptitiously in a theater, but the quality is decent enough. The others “embeds” are actually decoys, carefully designed to mimic working streams in order to trick visitors into clicking, thus triggering a pop-up ad and generating more income for the site.
Ironically, one of the ads that popped up was for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency of the United States government, and another for the Shelter Pet Project. Both ads are apparently placed with the ad servicer by the Ad Council. On its website the organization describes its mission this way:
The Ad Council is a private, non-profit organization that marshals volunteer talent from the advertising and communications industries, the facilities of the media, and the resources of the business and non-profit communities to deliver critical messages to the American public.
Irony aside, the Ad Council’s involvement–and its servicing an ad for an official bureau of United States government (that’s supposed to protect American consumers)–demonstrates just how broken our system is. Were this criminal activity happening in the brick and mortar world I doubt it would be tolerated, at least not by U.S. law enforcement.
I am sure no one at the Consumer Protection Bureau is even aware that their ads blanket pirate websites, but therein lies the problem. Why not? Why are federal dollars being spent for advertisements on sites that offer up stolen goods? When did it become OK for advertisers, whether the U.S. government or not, to underwrite online theft? Just because the crime happens online, is it really OK that our tax dollars end up in the pockets of pirates? How is that the online economy is somehow exempt from legal scrutiny? Is this really the kind of “innovation” we want to encourage and protect?
Advertisements aside, another question should be asked of Facebook. Why should the Silicon Valley behemoth be allowed earn money off the promotion of stolen goods? The company is vigilant when it comes to removing photos of breast feeding mothers, but when it comes to removing pages dedicated to disseminating stolen goods, not so much?
Ads sponsored by the U.S. based Ad Council blanket this pirate website
As Congress moves forward to discuss copyright reform members may want to finally peek under this rock and take a look at what can be done to hold accountable those who–directly or indirectly–aid and abet online theft. Facebook….Ad Council….Uncle Sam….are you listening??? Looking the other way in response to ad sponsored piracy is not OK. Creative content, whether it be a Hollywood blockbuster like “The Fast and Furious” or an indie band’s latest release, should not be there for the taking by piracy profiteers.
The time for action and accountability is long overdue. The government, ad servers, and the entities that advertise on these pirate websites need to step up, admit we have a big problem, and deal with it.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
This past Saturday, Director Stephen Soderbergh gave the keynote address at this year’s San Francisco International Film Festival. In his address on the “state of cinema” Soderbergh spoke about the nature of art, movies vs. cinema, studios, and budgets among other things. He also discussed online piracy’s impact on indie filmmaking:
Theft is a big problem. I know this is a really controversial subject, but for people who think everything on the internet should just be totally free all I can say is, good luck. When you try to have a life and raise a family living off something you create…
There’s a great quote from Steve Jobs:
“From the earliest days of Apple I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software we’d be out of business. If it weren’t protected there’d be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs. If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear creative companies will disappear or never get started. But there’s a simpler reason: It’s wrong to steal. It hurts other people, and it hurts your own character”.
I agree with him. I think that what people go to the movies for has changed since 9/11. I still think the country is in some form of PTSD about that event, and that we haven’t really healed in any sort of complete way, and that people are, as a result, looking more toward escapist entertainment. And look, I get it. There’s a very good argument to be made that only somebody who has it really good would want to make a movie that makes you feel really bad. People are working longer hours for less money these days, and maybe when they get in a movie, they want a break. I get it.
But let’s sex this up with some more numbers. In 2003, 455 films were released. 275 of those were independent, 180 were studio films. Last year 677 films were released. So you’re not imagining things, there are a lot of movies that open every weekend. 549 of those were independent, 128 were studio films. So, a 100% increase in independent films, and a 28% drop in studio films, and yet, ten years ago: Studio market share 69%, last year 76%. You’ve got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you’ve got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie. That’s hard. That’s really hard.
You can find the transcript of his entire address here or listen to it or watch below:
[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/90033156″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
State of Cinema: Steven Soderbergh from San Francisco Film Society on Vimeo.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
The fact that online piracy has flourished over these past few years is nothing new. Neither is its co-dependence on an ever-efficient distribution network, largely developed and maintained by an assortment of tech enterprises based in Silicon Valley . Up to this point, Facebook’s role in enabling this plague of piracy has, for the most part, generally been minimized, if not ignored entirely. But given the ever-expanding influential reach of world’s #1 social network, perhaps it’s time to take a closer look at the site’s role as a purveyor of pirated content.
In the past I’ve written about the popularity of Google’s blogger platform among pirate entrepreneurs because it offers both an easy (and free) way to distribute stolen movies and make money via online ads. How does Facebook fit into this equation? Well, just as legit businesses use Facebook to gain customers, pirate profiteers around the world also utilize its popularity to attract users to their illegal websites. Check out any pirate site on blogspot.com, or anywhere else on the web for that matter, and you’re likely to find a link to the site’s Facebook pages (as well as other social networking sites like Twitter).
The Facebook page (shown below) for the FilmesYouTube site (shown above) boasts more than 166k “likes.” The Facebook page sends visitors to the pirate website, and also features numerous posts which link directly to easy-to-use, active streams and download links for a variety of popular movies.
Facebook links directly to full stream of pirated movie starring Tom Cruise.
Depending on one’s preference, one can either watch the movie online or download a copy. Either way it’s free–the only inconvenience being a pop-up ad or two.
Facebook links to full stream (and download links) to GI Joe.
In this example, it appears that this Facebook pirate has also been busy creating multiple websites that also link to mirrored Facebook pages. If one notes the “likes” listed on this page, you’ll find links to several other “free” movie sites setup in a similar fashion. This redundancy may be in part due to concerns that one or more of these pirate sites could go offline. However, given the fact this particular page boasts 166K “likes” it appears this fan page has been active for some time.
The common thread between the Facebook pages and the pirate websites is that both generate income from advertisements. The more visitors, the more money for Facebook and, in turn, the more traffic to the pirate sites which,in turn, generates more ad profits for the online pirate entrepreneur. Who’s left out of this equation?-the content creator of course.
When I viewed the above page it featured “sponsored ads” promoting Capitol One and Discover credit cards, along with political PACS and Ancestry.com. Do these entities realize that the sponsored advertising they’re paying Facebook for appear adjacent to pirate links to bootleg, illegal movie downloads? I doubt it.
As for advertising on the actual pirate web site (which translates into motive and money for the pirate) I found ads for Amazon.com and others served up by the Ad Council, a U.S. based non-profit whose mission is to “deliver critical messages to the American public.”
Perhaps the time has come for the Ad Council to add anti-piracy messages to their slate of “critical” messages for the American public?
Like Google, Facebook offers rights holders the opportunity to send DMCA takedown requests to have these illegal links removed. Unfortunately, Facebook mirrors Google in another way–when it comes to DMCA notices, usually only individual posts are removed, not the infringing page.
It’s been my experience that when I’ve reported infringing content to Facebook via a DMCA only the post with the pirate link is removed. The Facebook page, with dozens more pirated offerings, remains online. I can understand if only a single link is reported, but what about a site that’s repeatedly reported for copyright infringement? From what I’ve seen such sites generally remain online. If it’s obvious that the page is dedicated to promoting pirated content, why leave it online?
I’ve asked Google this same question, if a site is reported for promoting infringing (illegal) downloads why not remove it? Surely Facebook has the staff to investigate and determine whether a site exists purely to traffic in stolen content. If not, why not? Why is it OK for a company with the reach and financial resources of Facebook to look the other way? Their censors often seem all to eager to remove photos of breastfeeding mothers or LGBT movie advertising. Why not go after pages that are trafficking in illegal content?
I’ve tried to contact Facebook to ask for clarity on the criteria, if any, they have for removing pages and will update this post if I should receive a response. Given my past experiences with inquiries to Facebook, I’m not optimistic that I’ll hear back anytime soon. The “community standards” that define what type of “expression is acceptable” is conveniently vague when it comes to copyright and intellectual property:
Before sharing content on Facebook, please be sure you have the right to do so. We ask that you respect copyrights, trademarks, and other legal rights.
Facebook is careful to point out, however that the decision as to whether to remove content reported for violating their terms is entirely up to them.
The link between piracy’s advertising profits and those of so-called legit entities like Google (including YouTube, AdSense, Blogger & search) and the corporations they service ads for has been well-documented so that fact that Facebook is a part of this web of illicit profit is no real surprise. However, it’s worth asking once again, why isn’t something being done?
The notorious Pirate site Movies2k even boasts it’s own Facebook page.
How is that mainstream tech companies like Google and Facebook–and those who pay to advertise with their networks–continue to look the other way and ignore their role in providing both a motive, and a means, for this illegal activity to occur? The obvious answer is that profit trumps morality when it’s a matter of making millions. In this era, and until the law adapts, there’s little to no risk in skirting U.S. law in order to maintain their cash cows. Clearly the fact that this is tainted revenue doesn’t matter to these companies or their stockholders. With the amount of lobbying muscle they’re displaying in Washington these days, things appear unlikely to change any time soon.
Updated (4-16-13) to add the response I received from Facebook. Just as I suspected, nothing but boilerplate verbiage. Here it is:
Facebook may “stand ready” to respond, but in my experience, they don’t do much else.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy
5/9/15-Update:
A recent blog post explaining why I sent the Chilling Effects database a DMCA takedown notice has generated a lot of traffic to this post from 2013. While the original post is worth reading, if you’re interested in a more up-to-date perspective on Chilling Effects–and its role as an efficient search engine for pirated movies, music and books–you may want to read this more recent post: Does Chilling Effects make a mockery of the DMCA?
In effect, the database acts a shadow site for pirate links removed from Google search. Using Chilling Effects to search for pirated movies and music is actually easier that using Google. Using Google, one has to search through various results in order to actually find valid links. Meanwhile, search results on Chilling Effects provide results that offer infringing links in a convenient, clean lists. Great for would-be thieves–not so great for content creators.
Here are two additional, more recent Chilling Effects related posts that explore the relationship between Google and the efficiency of using the Chilling Effects database as a de facto search engine to find infringing music, movies, books, and more.
Back to original post published on 4/10/13:
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been in the news lately as the target of DMCA takedowns by copyright holders whose say by that by compiling a database of takedown notices for pirate links Chilling Effects is, in fact, making it easier for the public to find pirated content online. According to Wired.co.uk:
As part of its transparency policy, Google publishes every takedown notice it receives from either copyright holders or government bodies. As TorrentFreak has pointed out, that means Google has built up a pretty huge database of pirated material, which effectively undoes the point of a takedown notice — to make copyrighted material harder to find. Now companies such as 20th Century Fox and Microsoft want Google to take down their own takedown notices.
What exactly is the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse and more importantly, WHO actually funds them? It’s important to understand that the clearinghouse is actually tied to the web of the Google machine. If you look at the sites “about” page, you’ll find the following:
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a unique collaboration among law school clinics and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Conceived and developed at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society by Berkman Fellow Wendy Seltzer, the project is now supported by clinical programs at Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics, and the EFF.
Google provides funding to the The Berkman Center and it’s various enterprises (including Chilling Effects). Fact is, this operation isn’t exactly the unbiased public interest clearing house is purports to be and its “cease and desist” database is routinely used by Google in a manner clearly designed to discourage rights holders from sending DMCA takedown notices.
At any rate, I first came across the Chilling Effects website in 2010 when I began sending (lots of) DMCA takedown notices to Google requesting the removal of pirated copies of our film from Blogger hosted websites and pirate sites with our film that featured Google AdSense ads. Given the current news, I thought it worth re-posting a piece I wrote for my popuppirates.com site that discusses whose rights really gets “chilled” by the Google-Chilling Effects merry-go-round.
Re-blogged from popuppirates.com:
Chilling Effects Website
If you send a DMCA notice to Google to report pirated content you’re likely to receive an email response that includes a stern warning (see example below) that a copy of your DMCA notice will be forwarded to the Chilling Efffects Clearinghouse for publication on their website. Why? Well, according to the C.E.C. they maintain a “Cease and Desist” database in order to document what they refer as “the chill.” According to their website, this is done because “Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users.”
Apparently those operating the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse see no need to differentiate between the illegal activities of “online pirates” from those of legitimate “online users”
For Google, these emails are clearly an ill-conceived attempt to intimidate those whose rights have actually been infringed. As I mentioned earlier in my blog, it’s ironic that the only thing being “chilled” in this scenario is the legitimate right of content creators to earn a living through their work.
Email re: Chilling Effects
Apparently our complaint was legitimate, despite being posted on the C.E.C. website.
Examples of our Fast Girl Films DMCA notices sent to Google ending up on the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse website.
For the record, the DMCA notices (above) led to the infringing content being removed. Here’s what the reported pages looks like now….
Blogger site with content removed due to copyright infringement.
As it turns out, each and every one of our DMCA complaints to Google (posted on C.E. C.) have been legitimate and legal. And so it goes….
