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.”
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
— Sir Walter Scott
Surprise, surprise–Google announced today that its profits “surged” this quarter thanks to an increase in online advertising revenue. A company press release heralded the news:
We ended 2012 with a strong quarter,” said Larry Page, CEO of Google. “Revenues were up 36% year-on-year, and 8% quarter-on-quarter. And we hit $50 billion in revenues for the first time last year – not a bad achievement in just a decade and a half. In today’s multi-screen world we face tremendous opportunities as a technology company focused on user benefit. It’s an incredibly exciting time to be at Google.”
The company’s stock price jumped nearly 5% on the news. So, while Google executives and its shareholders are happy, one has to ask–how much of that “revenue” continues to come from not-so-ethical sources? I hate to sound like a broken record, but until Google gets its act together, I will continue to point out its duplicity with regard to online piracy and its ad revenue.
In the wake of this bullish news from Google I thought I’d point out a recent case study that demonstrates the myriad of ways Google supports (and profits from) piracy. This particular pirate movie website (shown below) is hosted on Google’s free “Blogger” platform. As with most other posts on the site, this one (published 1-18-13) features an embedded movie (a complete version of the indie film David’s Birthday) hosted via Google’s YouTube. The advertising above, and to the right of the embedded film, is served up by Google’s AdSense. Oh, and I found this site using Google’s search engine.
This Google-hosted blog features pirated films hosted on YouTube as well as AdSense advertising.
What makes this situation particularly troubling is that this blog had already been reported to Google (via their DMCA system) in December of 2012.
After receiving a takedown notice from Google the site’s owner posted a response, saying that he was considering closing it.
Blogger site owner received this notice from Google. Despite the warning and repeated violations of Blogger “Terms of Use” the site remains online.
He apparently had a change of heart, and within a few days, resumed posting (infringing) content on his site –including (ironically) the aforementioned “David’s Birthday” despite its having been cited in the December DMCA notice. This time, instead of posting infringing download links, he’s chosen to embed movies streamed via YouTube, each coupled with AdSense ads.
So, despite having been reported for multiple infringing links, the site remains up and running. In the meantime, Google appears to be in no hurry to take it offline. Don’t they have an obligation to remove the site? The language in Blogger’s Terms of Service outlining their “content policy” is conveniently vague. When a site violates its policy Google promises to take action “based on the severity of the violation” but it’s not really clear what criteria is used to measure the “severity” of a reported violation.
Blogger’s terms of service
As for the AdSense, its “Terms of Service” seem pretty straightforward. Well, sort of…
Prohibited Uses. You shall not, and shall not authorize or encourage any third party to…
(v) display any Ad(s), Link(s), or Referral Button(s) on any Web page or any Web site that contains any pornographic, hate-related, violent, or illegal content;
6. Termination; Cancellation…Google may investigate any activity that may violate this Agreement. Google may at any time, in its sole discretion, terminate all or part of the Program, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate the participation of any Property in all or part of the Program for any reason.
Since Google seems to have “investigated” this website in response to multiple DMCA notices, why is this AdSense account allowed to remain active? Does the aggrieved party have to file a DMCA with Blogger and with AdSense over and over again? It’s hard to imagine that Google’s copyright “team” isn’t aware these violations. Does Google not have the money to hire staff to follow-up on reported sites to enforce compliance? Is Google complying with U.S. law? What is meant by the caveat “its [Google’s] sole discretion?”
Does looking at the actual law clarify matters? According to Title 17 of U.S. Copyright Law, “conditions for eligibility” for “limitations on liability” include:
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—
(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; (emphasis added)
How exactly does Google define a “repeat infringer?” They apparently don’t.
Improving our AdSense anti-piracy review. We have always prohibited the use of our AdSense program on web pages that provide infringing materials, and we routinely terminate publishers who violate our policies. In recent months, we have worked hard to improve our internal enforcement procedures. In April, we were among the first companies to certify compliance in the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB’s) Quality Assurance Certification program, through which participating advertising companies will take steps to enhance buyer control over the placement and context of advertising and build brand safety. In addition, we have invited rightsholder associations to identify their top priority sites for immediate review, and have acted on those tips when we have received them.
Sounds good right? On paper perhaps, but given the continued and pervasive presence of Google-sponsored advertising on pirate sites throughout the web, the reality is that Google’s public pledge appears to be carefully crafted lip-service designed to obfuscate the facts, rather than a representation of any meaningful progress.
Over the past two and a half years I’ve written extensively about Google’s ongoing link to ad piracy profits. Earlier this month USC’s Annenberg Innovation Lab released a report documenting the fact that search giant is at the head of the pack when it comes to monetizing (and subsidizing) online piracy via its ad networks. The relationship between Google and online piracy seems clear as day.
Yet, in the meantime–Google apparently plays fast and loose with the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision. Given the fact they have teams of lawyers, one has to assume the company is careful to follow the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of it. Did the legislators who crafted the DMCA really intend for the law to enable entities like Google to hide behind the shield of safe harbor, under the guise of “innovation and free expression”–while simultaneously make (lots of) money monetizing stolen content? I doubt it.
Even the advertising industry recognizes that this is a area of concern. In May of last year The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and the America Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s) issued a statement entitled, “Best Practices to Address Online Piracy and Counterfeiting.” The statement included the following:
(i) All such intermediaries shall use commercially reasonable measures to prevent ads from being placed on such sites;
(ii) All such intermediaries shall have and implement commercially reasonable processes for removing or excluding such sites from their services, and for expeditiously terminating non-compliant ad placements, in response to reasonable and sufficiently detailed complaints or notices from rights holders and advertisers;
(iii) All such intermediaries shall refund or credit the advertiser for the fees, costs and/or value associated with non-compliant ad placements, or provide alternative remediation.
So, back to Google. Would a “reasonable measure” include removing AdSense ads from a site reported for piracy? What about reimbursing the advertiser who paid Google for these “non-compliant” ads and how does the fact Blogger is a Google-hosted site factor in? Should ad services do business with hosts that routinely serve pirated ads? In other words, should Google (AdSense) do business with itself (Blogger) if they are to honor these “best practices?”
My head is spinning. I guess that’s just the way the powers that be at Google like it.
This story originally posted on my other blog, voxindie.org.
Kim Dotcom’s much ballyhooed new venture, Mega, has gone live. and is, according to a tweet from the mastermind himself, already wildly popular, “250,000 user registrations. Server capacity on maximum load. Should get better when initial frenzy is over. Wow!!!” It’s no great surprise that there’s a lot of early interest in site, but the real question going forward is whether anti-piracy activists should be running scared? For now, it seems too early to tell. The key to whether this new cloud-based file-sharing site will become the new nexus for online piracy depends on what business model is used, and at this point, it’s difficult to decipher exactly how this will all play out.
There are already various cloud-based file-sharing sites, similar to the “new” Mega–sites DropBox and YouSendIt that already allow users to easily share large files across the web. However, unlike Kim Dotcom’s now-defunct Megaupload site, these services do not incentivize uploads. In other words, in contrast to cyberlocker favored by pirates, these legit sites don’t offercash rewards based on the number of times a file is downloaded. As a result, most people who use these cloud-based file-sharing services do so because they have actual business to conduct, or seek to share files with family or friends.
Certainly some file-sharing that’s technically “illegal” takes place, but without cash carrots offered to uploaders, it’s relatively inconsequential in terms of the big picture. The success of DropBox and YouSendIt is not predicated on the need to draw traffic and generate ad clicks. Theirs is a business model that does not incentivize piracy on a viral scale.
Perusing the new Mega website, I found some references to its planned business model, but no mention (yet) of any individual “partner” rewards programs like those found in its previous incarnation. Below is a solicitation for “Mega Storage Node” partners (located outside the United States). This program seems focused on attracting additional host companies that wish to integrate Mega’s infrastructure into their own businesses.
The new “Mega” is seeking partners to become a “storage node.”
Like Megaupload, Mega also offers tiered “Pro-memberships” which offer users greater storage and speed options. Prices range from $9.99 per month to $29.99 per month.
Although the new site has established its operations (and servers) outside of the United States, Mega’s “Terms of Service” does feature boilerplate language regarding intellectual property and copyright.
Note that Mega’s terms also includes language that includes references to protecting its own IP.
Our IP
13. The license that we give you to use the website and our services does not give you the right, and you can’t reproduce or use any of our copyright, intellectual property or other rights other than for the purposes of using the services and the website or as allowed under any open source licences under which we use intellectual property provided by others. The open source code that we use, where we obtained it, and licences for that code are all referenced in our FAQ.
14. You are not allowed to, and you can’t let anyone else, copy, alter, distribute, display, licence, modify or reproduce, reverse assemble, reverse compile (whether digitally, electronically, by linking, or in hard copy or by any means whatsoever) or use any of our copyright, intellectual property or other rights without getting our permission first in writing, unless in order to use our services and the website or as allowed under any open source licences under which we use intellectual property provided by others. The open source code that we use, where we obtained it, and licences for that code are all referenced in our FAQ.
At the moment the new site, not surprisingly, is running as slow as molasses due to heavy traffic. It remains to be seen if, and how, its presence will impact the online piracy landscape going forward. Right now this new site doesn’t seem all that revolutionary. For the end-user, it’s just another cloud storage solution.
No matter what transpires, Dotcom is clearly relishing his moment back in the spotlight. He’s already busy tweaking Hollywood posting this Tweet and image a couple of days ago. Despite his self-important cockiness, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think he’ll be getting the last laugh.
Though Dotcom would likely disagree, 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.
Maybe Dotcom’s new Mega will be legit, maybe not. The world will be watching, but I’m not too worried. At least not yet.
Black markets are endemic in criminal culture, so it’s not much of a surprise, given the popularity of Internet commerce, that an illicit economy thrives online. By now we’ve grown accustomed to finding pirated content and counterfeit products marketed on web sites across the world. What’s disturbing is how entwined (and dependent) some of these shady enterprises are on so-called “legit” companies and how complicit such companies have become in creating, sustaining, and profiting from these dubious activities.
Google’s YouTube appears to be one such entity–a respected online portal favored by videophiles worldwide. Yet if you pull back the curtain, you’ll find that the site’s partner program facilitates–and reaps income from–a thriving crooked economy. It’s a racket that financially benefits the uploader, an intermediary and YouTube. Like a leech, its business (survival) model depends on a host (content creator) to thrive.
In a blog post published earlier this week, I outlined an instance where an industrious YouTube user had uploaded and monetized full-length feature films–films they did not own the rights to. In that piece I mentioned other instances I’d discovered whereby a number of YouTube account holders upload and monetize various movie trailers, most likely without permission from the rights holders.
I recently found an example of this activity on YouTube channels published by the user “MyTrailerIsRich.” It’s an ironic, and apt, choice of moniker since his channels boast more than 51 million monetized views. If the trailer isn’t “rich,” this industrious YouTube entrepreneur might be well on his way to becoming so, thanks to his mastery of this monetizing scheme. I call these folks “pleeches” for short–content “pirates” that operate like leeches–hangers-on who cling to, and feed off (the work of) others for personal gain.
Here’s one of this pleech’s channel offerings. Note that it’s easy to navigate to the pleech’s other channels (TV Series, Indie Movies, Documentaries and Sci-Fi Horror) by clicking a handy menu atop the page. To date he’s uploaded 362 videos to YouTube.
One of “MyTrailerIsRich’s” YouTube’s channel featuring trailers the user doesn’t own rights to but earns money off of.
A trailer for a recent indie release “Gayby” has attracted more than 350 views in just one day. Like the other trailers on this channel, it’s monetized with advertising and when I looked to see who claimed the trailer, I found this:
What’s worth noting about claim is that the “provider” is Wizdeo, an actual company based in France that’s serves as an intermediary to those seeking to monetize content online. Using YouTube’s Content Management System I researched the clip’s “ownership information.” According to the results, Wizdeo has claimed “worldwide” rights to this trailer. There’s just one problem; it’s not true. I spoke with 2 distributors who do own rights (in multiple countries) and neither has given this company permission to monetize the trailer. (This trailer was likely downloaded from YouTube via a distributor’s own channel).
I also found this trailer (shown below) for the upcoming release “A Perfect Ending,” uploaded four days ago (January 9th, 2013). It’s already attracted nearly 2,000 monetized views. Distributors for this film also confirmed to me that they did not give this pleech (YouTube user) or Wizdeo permission to upload and monetize this clip.
YouTube user “MyTrailerisRich” claims this asset (worldwide) through Wizdeo even though he doesn’t own the rights to it.
Wizdeo may well have a number of clients who legitimately own the content they upload, but since I’ve verified that this pleech does not own the rights to these trailers, it begs the question: What exactly does Wizdeo do to monitor compliance with its terms and, in turn, what does YouTube do to make sure that third-parties such as Wizdeo comply with YouTube’s terms of service? In this situation, it appears to be a case of “Who’s on first?”
Wizdeo’s terms for acceptance in their partner program includes the following language:
We will review your application before you notify our acceptance or refusal. We may reject your application if we believe that your string is not consistent with these terms and conditions…
(B) in any way violate the intellectual property rights. You must not distribute videos on your channel protected by copyright, which you are not the author, nor include in your video content that you do not have rights if you do not get authorization holders rights…
If a partner violates these terms, supposedly their account can be terminated:
In addition to any other rights or remedies available to us, we can at once or as the case may terminate this Program if we determine that you or other people, we establish that they are your affiliates or act in concert you (either as part of an existing partner account, either as part of a previously terminated account Associate)
do not comply with any requirements or limitations described in one page “Requirements for participation in the Program Partners” or have otherwise violated these Terms or any Documentation operating
have breached the Agreement distribution of audiovisual programs on the Internet, confirming your membership in our program,
Essentially, Wizdeo allows its users to create an account and then utilize Wizdeo’s drop-box account to upload content directly to YouTube. Using this setup, Wizdeo also acts as the financial intermediary (or bagman) and collects the resulting ad revenue from YouTube. They keep a portion of the proceeds; the uploader (in this case the pleech) gets a share, and YouTube/Google the rest. The actual rights holder earns zero.
In their terms of service, Wizdeo claims the company does not tolerate copyright infringement but it’s a claim that rings hollow. I spoke with a representative from another U.S. distributor who owns rights to a trailer that’s also posted on one of MyTrailerisRich’s YouTube channels. He said the company was familiar with Wizdeo and has had ongoing problems with them for the very reasons I’ve outlined. He told me that when the studio’s content management staff discovered trailers uploaded and erroneously claimed by Wizdeo, they corrected the claim via their YouTube CMS dashboard. Despite owning no rights for the trailer, Wizdeo reinstated the claim forcing studio staff to contact the Wizdeo tech department (in France) directly. If a distributor can’t come to an agreement to correct the claim, YouTube requires the aggrieved party to go to court if they want the video removed permanently. This can be an expensive proposition, particularly for those without deep pockets (like indie filmmakers).
Meanwhile, according to my source, they’ve made little progress in forcing Wizdeo to drop their false claim(s). It’s obvious as to why. The longer Wizdeo drags their feet, the more money they make. My source explained that if, and when, Wizdeo does eventually give up, the company knows it’s not likely to face any real consequences. Meanwhile, the cash keeps coming. Reviewing their terms of service, it becomes obvious that in this instance, Wizdeo’s legalistic homage to honoring copyrights is boilerplate bull.
YouTube instructs a rights holders to use their DMCA takedown procedure when they come across this situation and routinely ignore any direct correspondence on the subject. They also won’t acknowledge how much income is derived from this illegal commerce, nor do they refund any of the resulting income to a video’s rightful owner. As is typical for YouTube/Google, it’s a matter of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” when it comes to this dubious activity. Meanwhile, company balance sheets continue to grow. Missing from this scenario is the fourth monkey, “do no evil.”
Content monetization is a business model that works well for both those who seek legitimate profits, and those seeking illegitimate ones. For YouTube and its stockholders, the difference between the two is apparently irrelevant. This despite their own “YouTube Partner” criteria:
You may not be able to monetize videos which use any of the following without the explicit permission of the person who created or produced all material:
Music (including cover songs, lyrics, and background music)
Graphics and pictures (including photographs and artwork)
Movie or TV visuals
Video game or software visuals. Click here for details.
Live performances (including concerts, sporting events, and shows)
For more information about content copyright requirements, please review the resources here.
YouTube also specifically includes movie “trailers” in its explanation of “what is copyright:”
Some examples of potentially infringing content are:
TV shows
Music videos, such as the ones you might find on music video channels
Videos of live concerts, even if you captured the video yourself
Movies and movie trailers
Commercials
Slide shows that include photos or images owned by somebody else
What you have here is a crime that falls through the cracks, not obvious at first glance, but insidious nonetheless. It’s a criminal business model that has seemingly become routine. YouTube can deny responsibility since Wizdeo provided the interface to upload and monetize the video, and Wizdeo can claim that it’s the “partners” who violated their terms of service by uploading content that’s not their own. Where exactly does the buck stop? Is this the sort of “safe harbor” envisioned by those who crafted the DMCA? Is it really acceptable for YouTube and Wizdeo to look the other way while pocketing loads of cash from what is clearly illegal activity?
Imagine how much money you could make if the dancing cat videos you uploaded to YouTube got 51 million hits? Some will argue that trailers are designed to publicize films and that this viral marketing is good for business. Of course having one’s trailer on YouTube is good for business. If I search YouTube for “Gayby” or “A Perfect Ending” I can easily find and view the legit versions uploaded by the film’s distributors. In fact, I can embed one right here on this website.
Theres no doubt viral marketing has become a fundamental part of modern-day film marketing. In most cases, distributors have no problem with YouTube users who upload and share trailers to films, but it should be left to the rights owner to monetize them, not the uploader or intermediaries. As host of the site, it’s reasonable that YouTube share in any revenues for legitimately claimed trailers, but beyond that, it’s basically theft.
Remember, even those who developed the Creative Commons license options have made the distinction clear. Creative commons licensors may be happy to allow sharing with attribution, but generally not content commercialization without compensation. The recent kerfuffle over Instagram’s proposed changes in their terms of service was also sparked by the fact its users did not appreciate the idea that the company would monetize uploaded photographs without permission.
This activity has clearly evolved into a cottage industry on YouTube and it’s clearly “good” for business for their bottom line– but the question remains, is it an ethical way of doing business? Not so much.
I was on YouTube recently and came across another, not so surprising, downside to their content monetization. At first I’d noticed some movie trailers that were uploaded, claimed, and monetized by entities other than the studios/rights holders. Now it’s not surprising that folks upload trailers that aren’t theirs, claim it and make money off it. However, it doesn’t stop there.
How about uploading an entire movie and earning money off it even if you don’t own the rights? Well, on YouTube it’s apparently pretty easy. Here’s an example of a Canadian feature film called “Lost and Delirious” that I discovered on YouTube—the entire film, all 95 minutes of it, conveniently offering subtitle options in multiple languages. Take your pick Czech, French, German, English, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish…
Full stream of “Lost and Delirious” complete with subtitles in multiple languages monetized on YouTube by someone other than copyright holder.
When I checked to see what entity “claimed” the film I found that it wasn’t the director Lea Pool or the studio that had claimed it. It was claimed by YouTube user __u1DkXdYlQ6__. It’s not a user name per se, the actual uploader seems to be attached to a channel aptly titled “Art Cinema” with the YouTube user name: myArtCinema3. However, by the looks of it, it appears that __u1DkXdYlQ6__ is the “Partner” (i.e. monetization account) that has “claimed” the film on behalf of “Art Cinema.” Since there is advertising on this upload, one can assume that the clip was indeed claimed for the purpose of monetizing it.
Here’s the ownership information for this movie viewed via my CMS dashboard. The user “asserts ownership” worldwide. I wonder what the film’s legit distributor thinks about that claim?
Notice that the film was uploaded on October 15th, 2012 and in less than four months, has already attracted nearly 1.5 million views. What that means is lots of ad money for YouTube/Google and lots of money for the pirate who uploaded the film. The filmmaker and her production company apparently get nothing.
This is not an isolated example. It appears that this same YouTube user has uploaded other complete films, using several accounts, with varying degrees of success. In November, “myartcinema4” uploaded and claimed another popular indie film from the 90s, “The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love.” It’s already attracted more than 2 million views, worth nearly $6,000, a tidy pirate profit.*
YouTube user “artcinema4” has uploaded and “claimed” this film. Uploaded in November it’s already attracted more than 2 million views.
Another upload “Antonia’s Line”, has attracted more than 400,000 views but can’t be monetized since it’s labeled “age restricted” under YouTube community guidelines (meaning some user tagged it, probably for sexual content).
Zoosk ad appears at the beginning of this pirated film, despite its “R” rating.
“Lost and Delirious,” also rated “R,” seems to have slipped under the “community” censorship radar–for the time being anyway, but it’s probably why this user uploaded a duplicate copy of the film. In case the first cash cow gets tagged as having “age restricted” content, the second copy can fill viewer demand and earn clicks and cash for this industrious pirate’s coffers.
Uploaded a month later on November 15th, this second version has garnered more than 119,000 views. Adding the two together, that’s more than 1.6 million total views. It’s impossible to know exactly how much income that generates, but it’s likely somewhere around $3,000 so far.
Overall, not a bad payday considering the uploader didn’t do a lick of work…well, unless you count uploading the films and, in profound bit of hubris, adding a customized “art cinema” graphic (below) to the opening credits of the stolen films. Of course we’ll also never know how much YouTube/Google makes on these illegal uploads since the company is notoriously opaque when it comes to providing specifics on its billions in advertising income. I’ve attempted to contact a representative from YouTube for comment on this story and will update if any response is forthcoming.
YouTube pirate adds his/her own fancy graphic to pirated films.
It also appears that this uploader has created a number of other similarly theme YouTube accounts, four of which (created in September, October and November 2012) under the user names: myArtCinema, myArtCinema2, myArtCinema3, and myArtCinema4. All four “channels” offer uploads of complete films, some of which are older foreign titles and may be in the public domain. The uploaded films seem to be linked to various YouTube “Partner” accounts including (__OkhXVt6c-7__) and (__BnxrHCbbK2__), but I suspect they all link back to the same individual, or group of individuals. Though I haven’t yet been able to confirm this with YouTube, given the way the channels are presented, organized and linked, it’s hard not to believe otherwise.
There’s also an account, presumably by the same individual, with the moniker artcinema4. Not sure what happened to artcinema1, 2, and 3…but I would guess they were removed due to repeated copyright infringement. This thief certainly believes in multiple layers of redundancy to protect his/her scheme.
This YouTube pirate has opened multiple accounts using variations on the moniker “art cinema” –all feature full-length movies monetized with advertising
One might ask what YouTube should do about this situation? After all, the films’ distributors don’t seem to have set up Content ID matching to protect these title, or perhaps they just slipped through (Content ID matching is not infallible). Should the onus be on them to prevent this kind of theft–theft that benefits the uploader and the host? By allowing uploads for longer content, including feature length films, YouTube has opened the door to this activity.
I’m all for allowing users to upload works that exceed 20 minutes in length, as long as it’s their own work. For uploads with running times longer than 20 minutes, why not put the burden on YouTube users to prove that they, in fact, own the rights to such material before it’s approved for upload? Of course, until recently, YouTube restricted upload lengths for most users, so pirates would often break films into multiple, 10-minute parts….still piracy, but at least that format created a disincentive to watch a pirated movie.
As of now, YouTube seems to place few obstacles in the path of pirates and their profits. Let’s also not forget that it’s the lure of profits, not altruism, that encourages users like “myArtCinema” to upload this type of stolen content in the first place. This is but one example of a very calculated, and all too common crime. A crime, that for the time being, has little apparent risk and much potential reward. Perhaps the films’ rights holders will go to court and ask for the income to which they are entitled. I hope so.
*My income estimate is based on a similar title that earned $700+ for 250,000 hits on YouTube. Google/YouTube does not release specific information regarding Youtube monetization income.
This post was first published on my blog Vox Indie.
…many major brands are not aware that they are in fact the key source of funds for the Piracy industry, it is the goal of this “transparency report” to aid in helping these brands steer their ad dollars away from sites that exploit film, TV and music artists for what appears to be criminal gain.
Though I applaud the report’s overall findings that ad dollars incentivize and subsidize online piracy, I question the conclusion that “major brands” were not “aware that they are in fact the key source of funds for the Piracy industry.” As I’ve noted in the past, advertisers are usually extremely careful, and cognizant, about where their advertising appears. Why the sudden lack of concern for their ad placements online?
More than two years ago I was inspired to start this blog to document this very issue. As an indie filmmaker facing piracy, it didn’t take me long to recognize there was a major link between ad dollars and the growth of online piracy. I attempted to answer the question “Who Profits from Piracy?” From my introduction:
Online piracy isn’t about altruism, it’s about income. Today’s technology allows web pirates to steal content and monetize that content with a click of a mouse. Meanwhile, “legit” companies encourage and facilitate this theft while also profiting from it (ad service providers, advertisers and payment processors). The time has come for reasonable measures to be taken to discourage this theft. Content creators and consumers will benefit. Only the pirates and those who profit from their theft will lose.
I wrote that in June of 2010. Yet here we are, nearly three years later, and what has changed? Reading the latest news, it appears the answer is, “not much.” According to the LA Times Levi’s was said to surprised by the report’s findings and contacted their ad agency and instructed them to take immediate action to prevent their ads from appear on illegal file-sharing websites. Was Levi’s really surprised–and more important–will other companies finally follow suit? Forgive me if I remain skeptical. The fact that ad dollars fuel online piracy is not news.
This video (found on the introduction to this blog) is based on a presentation I gave at Canadian Music Week’s Global Forum in the spring of 2011. It documents my journey through the landscape of online piracy and its undeniable link to advertising revenues. Follow the money…
Some progress has been made since then, most notably, last year’s takedown of Megaupload–the Big Daddy of illegal file sharing. It’s worth noting at this juncture, that Megaupload’s millions were generated in large measure by ad dollars (as well as subscription fees). Numerous copycat websites have sprung up to fill the void left by Megaupload, and they too depend business models sustained by advertising dollars. With the demise of legislative efforts to address this black market, content creators are left with little recourse.
Back in 2010 I attempted to contact advertisers like Netflix and others whose ads were, and still are, ubiquitous on numerous illegal download sites. Most of my efforts were ignored, but on July of 2010, after NPR aired a story about my blog on “All Things Considered” that mentioned Netflix ads; I received an email from Steve Swasey, their VP of Corporate Communications who wrote the following:
Netflix does not tolerate piracy and we do not support pirate sites. We are very clear with our advertising agencies and affiliate partners about this. Sometimes ads slip through and when this happens, we react swiftly and decisively, removing the ad and not paying the site.
Again, that was over two years ago. Yet here’s an example of a Netflix ad (served by Google) on a pirate site I herelast month. The ad appears alongside an embedded, full stream of a pirated film, “Kyss Mig.” As I said, not much seems to have changed.
We’ll see if this latest report from Annenberg precipitates real change. I did take heart by looking at the results of an unofficial poll that accompanied the LA Times piece asking readers: “Should brands avoid advertising on so-called pirate sites?” As of now, 63% said yes, while 37% said no. Perhaps there reason to hope, that at long last, the balance could shift away from an insidious equation where everyone, except the actual content creators, make money from online theft. When presented with clear and tangible evidence, the public seems to be on the side of creators. Yet in this game, for any real progress to be made, the ball remains squarely in the advertisers’ court.
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.”
