Chronic, Ill-Gotten Gains- Google’s Web of Piracy Profit

“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.

google-circle-piracy

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.

blogspot.com pirated movies

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.   

Screen Shot 2013-01-19 at 7.06.14 PM

After receiving a takedown notice from Google the site’s owner posted a response, saying that he was considering closing it.

pirate blogger site

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.

removed page.018

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 terms of serv.014

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.

In a post published in September of 2011 on its own Public Policy Blog entitled “Making Copyright Work Better Online-A Progress Report,” Google gave itself a pat on the back, asserting that the company had made great strides in discouraging ad-sponsored piracy.

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. 

Youtube Allows Pirate “Partners” to Profit From Illegal Movie Uploads

tt0245238-1I 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…

Los Delirous Youtube stream.002

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?

cms user youtube.001

 

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.*

2 girls graphic.005

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).

Screen Shot 2013-01-06 at 8.33.56 PM

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.

Screen Shot 2013-01-06 at 8.20.20 PM

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.

vox indie youtube.004

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.

Google Search #FAIL Means More $$$ for Them

Not to beat a dead horse, but surprise, surprise….I did a Google search this morning to see how easy it would be to find download links for “Kyss Mig,” a recently released Swedish indie film. I used Google to search for “download kyss mig” and….oops, so much for Google’s new search algorithm that’s supposed to penalize (reported) pirate sites. Why am I not surprised that The Pirate Bay result tops the list?

Maybe if I use the less pirate-centric term “watch” instead of “download” I’ll have better luck finding a legit source? Um, well, no, guess that won’t work either. Once again the top search results are sites notorious for linking to pirated films. Even more maddening is what I discovered when I clicked the first link…

Not only did I find the full film streaming (for free) online but right beside was a Netflix advertisement.  BTW I watched the first 10 minutes to double check that it was the actual film and reported it to the film’s distributor so they could have it removed.   When I checked the source of the ad I found it led me back to “doubleclick.net” a Google-owned company. Perhaps this is how Google expects users to find legit copies of the film? After all, Kyss Mig does stream on Netflix….kind of a roundabout way to find the film when I can watch it right here, right now for free! Of course Google makes money from the ad either way (as does the pirate website) so what do they care? Hmmm, perhaps the Google ad placement has something to do with why this pirate site is comes up first in search results? Not to don my tin foil hat but….

I guess I’m going to have to be a good girl and use the search terms “buy Kiss Mig.” Only then am I given results that lead me to legit options.

Update: Since  I notified the distributor that the film was available via this pirate it’s not longer available. Too bad I can’t say the same for the website itself.

Googlenocchio? What a Tangled Web They Weave.

"Google is committed to being an industry leader in eradicating this behavior."

 “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”    –Winston Churchill    

 

I read with great interest the piece in today’s New York Times by Edward Wyatt entitled “Lines Drawn on Antipiracy Bills.”  The article was a fairly comprehensive overview of the standoff between the tech sector and those who represent the interest of content creators (filmmakers, musicians, authors, etc.) in the debate over the”Stop Online Piracy Act” currently playing out in Washington.

 

I was particularly interested to read the section on Google, and how, according to those at Google, the company was very responsive when it came to enforcing copyright, etc.  After all, they’d removed on more than 5 MILLION infringing links in response to DMCA notices over the years.  Poor Google….never mind that number represents probably a fraction of infringing links served up by Google.

Frankly, I’m not concerned about Google’s search engine, nor  have I  ever sent them a DMCA requesting the removal of search results for infringing links to our film.  No, the part of the article that made my head explode was this zinger offered by a Google policy counsel, Katherine Oyama,  in her recent testimony before the House committee.  From Wyatt’s article:

Ms. Oyama added that Google also ejected companies from its advertising system when notified of illegal activities.”

Frankly, I was blown away by this observation and immediately jumped online to find the actual transcript from the hearing on November 16th of this year.  From her testimony:

We also employ a wide array of procedures and expend considerable financial resources to prevent our advertising products from being used to monetize material that infringe copyright. For example, our AdSense program enables website publishers to display ads alongside their content. Our policies prohibit the use of this program for infringing sites, and we use automated and manual review to weed out abuse. In 2010, we took action on our own initiative against nearly 12,000 sites for violating this policy. Already in 2011, we have taken action against 12,000 more. We also respond swiftly when notified by rightsholders, and we recently agreed to improve our AdSense anti-piracy review procedures and are working together with rightsholders on better ways to identify websites that violate our policies.

Was she under oath when she made this claim?  I certainly hope not. In my experience with Google over this past year and a half, nothing she said bears any resemblance to my reality.  Perhaps she resides in a parallel Google-verse where the company takes copyright law and the rights of creators seriously?  In my Google-verse it’s a company that seems to bend over backwards to avoid taking responsibility when it comes to the monetization of infringing content .

Over the past year and a half I’ve repeatedly sent DMCA notices to Google reporting pirate sites featuring AdSense advertising (and links to our film). While most of the links I reported were eventually removed, most infuriating was the fact that the pirate sites didn’t skip a beat and continued to display Google ads aside their myriad of pirated movie offerings.   As far as I could tell–and contrary to what Ms. Oyama claimed in her testimony–these AdSense accounts (more recently camouflaged  as AdChoices) were rarely, if ever, disabled by Google.  To add insult to injury, in most cases I usually discovered fresh links to our film posted on those very same sites a day or two later.  AdSense accounts were never disabled despite clear evidence the reported site was in business of pirating movies.  In her testimony Oyama went on to state:

We will need the cooperation of rightsholders to identify and terminate our services to the sites that manage to evade our procedures. While the industry is aggressively going after this abuse, it is a cat-and-mouse game to stay ahead of the bad actors. Google is committed to being an industry leader in eradicating this behavior.

Cooperation of rights holders?  Huh?  I’m sorry but this heartfelt plea rings a tad hollow considering Google makes a practice of sending DMCA notices it receives to the Chilling Effects website, in a veiled effort to dissuade (intimidate) rightsholders from exercising their rights under the law. For the record, over these past months, I’ve repeatedly “cooperated” with Google and reported hundreds of infringing pirate sites displaying Google ads.  I’ve tried to engage them and ask why these pirate operators are allowed to retain active AdSense accounts despite obvious, repeated violations of the Terms of Service.  Aside from boilerplate emails in response to my DMCA notices, I’ve not heard a peep from the folks in Mountain View.  So much for “needing the cooperation of rightsholders.”

Meanwhile, Google continues to profit and funnel money to pirate websites operators around the world. Sorry, but I don’t believe one word of what  Ms. Oyama had to say about Google’s efforts to thwart those violating its AdSense Terms of Service. Don’t believe me? Check out this video I made documenting Google’s aversion to enforcing its own AdSense “Terms of Service.” Of course, in addition to highlighting all of Google’s supposed good works in the area of copyright enforcement, Ms. Oyama went on to say:

Last December, we announced that we were building new tools and procedures to enable us to act on reliable DMCA takedown requests within 24 hours. We are happy to report that we have met and exceeded that goal.

Of course, this too  rings rather hollow considering my experience last week (described in a recent blog post “The Road to Google DMCA Hell is Paved With Good Intentions”).  Is it any wonder I find everything that comes out of Google HQ self-serving, disingenuous rhetoric?  Google’s public posturing makes for good political theater and soundbites that resonate with eager acolytes across the web, but sadly, they reflect little in the way of truth.  Sorry, but I don’t believe a word they say.

Google Ads grace pirate websites around the world.

Cyberlockers: Explaining Piracy’s Profit Pyramid

 

What I know is that online piracy is flourishing.  What I know is that the internet has become a topsy-turvy world where criminals are celebrated as heroes, and their victims demonized.  What I know is that I’m tired—tired of listening to the red herrings and hyperbole ricocheting around the web in opposition to (overdue) legislative efforts to do something about it.  Here’s what I know…

 

 

First of all, make no mistake, the vast majority of today’s piracy is driven by the thing that has motivated mankind since time began—the desire to make money.  If you take the time to spend a few minutes online exploring websites engaged in piracy (most people who speak out on the issue don’t seem to bother) you’ll quickly recognize that money is at the center of everything.

Mediafire download link (for flm-Unhappy Birthday) featuring Google ads.

If the ads aren’t hitting you squarely in the face, or the offers of high-speed, high quality downloads don’t spark suspicion, then perhaps it’s time to clean your glasses.  How ‘bout I take you on a tour?

Let’s begin with the sites that serve as the lynchpin for today’s online pirates.  No, I’m not going to talk about Pirate Bay or other notorious P2P (peer to peer) sites.  No need for that.  Consumers are all about convenience, and it’s not particularly convenient to download torrents and reconfigure the numerous file parts in order to view a movie.  Today it’s all about the one-stop shopping experience, and for that there’s no better storefront than the cyberlockers where, with the click of a mouse, you can download (or watch) your favorite film.  You’ll likely find other items on your wish list (e-books, music, software, and more) available for easy download as well.

You’ve probably heard the term “cloud based storage” floating around a lot lately.  Well, thanks to companies like Apple, and the recent launch of their cloud based offering called “iCloud,” the notion of storing files online via a virtual hard drive is gaining ground.  Cyberlockers have been providing this “service” for nearly half a decade now, and while there is legitimate activity taking place via some cloud-based storage sites like Drop Box and Yousendit, there are many others whose business model is predicated on content theft.  The now disabled Megaupload.com is a good example of the latter variety. (Read the indictment for a step-by-step tour through the inner-workings of their criminal enterprise.)

How does an illicit Megaupload-like business model  work?  Well, if you want to understand how cyber lockers work it’s helpful to think of a company like Amway.   Amway’s business success popularized the multi-level marketing style pyramid business model (or scheme ) whereby the operators at the top of the pyramid recruit people to work for them.  They, in turn, recruit more workers who, in turn, sell products to the public.  Those at the top make money only if they can recruit, and keep, enough people below to do the actual work.  Those doing the bulk of the work earn money, but at a much lower rate than those at the top.  It’s the trickle up theory of profits.

At any rate, if you journey to the cyberlocker of your choice–Megaupload, Filesonic, Fileserve, Filefactory, Uploading, Uploadstation, Mediafire, Megashares, Sockpuppet, Putlocker, etc. you will see enticements offered encouraging visitors to join this type of  profit pyramid.

Cyber lockers offer CASH for uploads.

Why do they do this?  Well the cyberlocker business model depends on traffic.  In order to drive traffic to their site they need content that will attract visitors.  What better carrot than popular movies, books or music?  Never mind copyright, there’s the “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA that allows the cyberlocker operators to essentially look the other way (plead ignorance) when it comes to the content that affiliates upload.  In fact, if uploaders did abide by a site’s published Terms of Service, the cyberlockers would quickly be out of business.

In other words, cyberlockers depend on an army of affiliates to do the dirty work for them.  It’s a scenario that enables the cyberlockers to shield themselves from legal liability, while their servers are simultaneously receiving thousands of  (stolen) files every day–fresh content  sure to attract new (and returning) customers.

So, in order to set this eco-system into motion, the cyberlockers lure their minions.  Uploaders can earn rewards, which usually start at around $35 per 1,000 downloads.  Simply put, the more downloads you generate for your file, the more money you earn.

Cyberlockers are booming thanks to profits from piracy.

 

That fact sets in motion the next level of piracy—the viral spread of the download links.  The affiliate armies take their links and post them on download (Warez) forums far and wide.  The more these links are “shared” across the web, the more money made.

Click to for PDF with 36 posts of viral links.

To further ensure their earnings, these cyberlocker affiliate pirates—I’ll refer to them as CAPs from now on–usually upload their stolen files to multiple cyberlocker sites.  This is called ‘mirroring” and what it means is that if a link is disabled on one cyberlocker site you can easily find the identical file on another.  Each CAP generally has affiliate accounts with multiple cyberlockers so that their illicit income won’t suffer if some links are disabled.

Since they are paid per download to maximize profits, CAPs often break a film file into several parts.   An average size for an uploaded film is around 700 MB (HD films can easily be double that size) but if divided into smaller chunks, requiring multiple links, and thus multiple downloads,  the CAP can earn more download points.  There’s a trade-off to this approach, however, as it can dissuade downloaders who prefer the convenience factor of downloading a “single” file.

Film download broken into several links in order to maximize profits.

Some sites like Megavideo (the streaming partner site to Megaupload) offer visitors the ability to watch an entire film streaming online with no download wait time.  Watch the film, and if you like it,  you can add it to your “collection” and download a copy for later viewing.

So, now that it’s pretty easy to understand how so much illegal content gets uploaded to the cyberlocker sites, let’s look for a moment how site operators turn that traffic into actual income.

At the top of the list is online advertising. Click a cyberlocker download link and you will arrive at a page like this.

Cyber locker site streaming the film “Unhappy Birthday” with Netflix ads serviced by Google.

There’s a link or stream for a  film and there are ads.  Various companies serve these ads, but one can’t ignore the fact that Google and other U.S. based ad servers like AdBrite are ubiquitous on the cyberlockers.   For the record, the ads seen on the image above and below are served by Google, though now that they’ve changed their icon and obscured their connection to them, it’s more difficult to tell.  In any case, no matter who serves the ad,  the cyberlocker makes money and the ad service provider makes money.  The creator gets squat.

Another cyber locker stream with more ads (provided by Google).

In addition to ad income, cyberlockers derive profit by offering “subscriptions.”  In this instance users pay a fee, averaging around $9.00 per month, that enables high-speed downloads on the website.  This means instead of waiting a half hour to download a full film, the entire process takes only 3 minutes.  For those who are repeat customers, this may be money well spent.  In this instance the cyberlocker site is making money and the payment processors (Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and the like) are making money.  Again, the content creator earns ZERO.

Cyber lockers cash in on selling subscriptions for high speed downloads.

In order to boost its subscriptions cyber lockers again turn to affiliate rewards.  Remember those forums where the CAPs go to spread their viral seed?  Well, many, if not most of those forum operators also have relationships with the cyberlockers and are an integral part of the piracy profit pyramid.  For every individual they “refer” who becomes a cyberlocker affiliate, they earn a referral fee.   Thanks to unfettered access to free content and income,  the eco-system of online piracy continues to thrive and grow.

HD-BB an online forum where viral cyberlocker links are spread.

 

Click image for PDF of some forum threads.

HD-BB is just one example of such a forum.   The forum operators boast of the high-quality “rips” shared by its members.  If you drill down into forum posts you’ll quickly discover that moderators only allow users to post links to specific, “approved” cyberlockers that the forum has a relationship with.  There are also links that direct users to the various affiliate options ensuring that the forum earns its fair share.  The forum makes money, the cyberlocker makes money and the creator of the content makes ZERO.

This is what I know.

Now that this black market business model is entrenched as a way of doing business around the globe, what can be done to stop it?  Well, I’m afraid that nothing can stop it–piracy will never disappear entirely–but something can be done to mitigate its effects.  This can happen if we can encourage the majority of websites at the center of this illicit cyberlocker eco-system to become (more) legitimate.

Cutting off the money that feeds this pirate profit pyramid is one part of the equation, but there’s also another component that may be equally important.  It’s a solution that it’s already working right in our own back yard.

I look to Youtube’s solution to piracy as an imperfect, but reasonable fix.  Let’s meet the pirates halfway.  Why not ask them to set up Content Management Systems (CMS) like the one Youtube has? A system like this would allow content owners to determine the fate of their work.  A CMS system basically allows for the fingerprinting of content so that infringing content can be instantly identified upon upload to the cyber locker site.

Dashboard for Youtube’s “Content Management System.”

The content owner could then determine, as they do on Youtube, whether to remove the content, monetize the content, or block it in certain territories.  In this scenario the cyberlocker can still earn money off uploaded content, but only at the discretion of the content owner.  Users will also be less inclined to post infringing content in the first place.  It’s a solution  that allows the content owner to take back control from the pirates (thieves)  and earn income off files that previously were simply stolen.   In this equation, at least everyone gets a piece of the pie.

It’s at this point that the false “piracy is good for business” refrain parroted by piracy apologists begins to gain some traction and some truth.  If piracy’s black market business model can be remolded  into a practice that can financially compensate the content creator–and restore their control of the content–perhaps it could become better for business.

The problem is that cyberlockers are not going to adopt a CMS system just to be nice.  Youtube,  a U.S. company, was forced to act under threat of ongoing litigation and legislation.   The only way today’s crop of cyberlockers can be forced to institute similar content ID systems is if their current business model becomes unsustainable.  For that to happen, like Youtube,  they too will need to face the threat of litigation and/or the long arm of the law.   At this point, that puts the ball squarely back in the lap of Congress.

That is what I know…

 

To be continued:

Part Two- The Dysfunctional DMCA (coming soon)

 

 

“Show Me the Money” Mr. Schmidt

It’s not a surprise that Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt continued his attacks on proposed U.S. anti-piracy legislation (Protect IP Act and SOPA-Stop Online Piracy Act).  His latest volley came yesterday during an appearance at M.I.T.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov 15 (Reuters) – Google Inc Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt blasted proposed legislation to tighten online copyright regulation on Tuesday, saying the bills would lead to censorship of the Internet.

Intended to combat the trade in pirated movies and music, the two bills would give copyright holders and law enforcement officials added powers to cut off websites and require search engines, payment collectors and others to block access.

“The solutions are draconian,” Schmidt said during an appearance at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “There’s a bill that would require (Internet service providers) to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked.”

Forgive me if I find his protestations a tad disingenuous, if not laughable.  Of course he’s against the legislation, and it’s not because of some higher principle.  He’s against it because, if passed,  it would hit Google where it hurts–in the pocketbook.  If Chairman Schmidt wants me, and others, to take him seriously I would suggest that he engage in a bit of corporate soul-searching and come clean about just how much money Google makes from ad revenues earned off products placed on pirate websites.  By the way, in the most recent quarter, Google reported 9.3 billion in advertising revenue.

If the cure is really that much worse than the disease, then why not prove it?  SHOW ME THE MONEY Mr. Schmidt. Show me, and everyone else concerned about this issue,  that Google doesn’t earns millions off content theft and counterfeit products.  Open your books and prove it.  Show me where that 9.3 billion in advertising profits came from.  Maybe then you will have the credibility to speak on this issue. A little transparency could go a long way.  For now, it just seems like all you are doing is protecting Google’s profits at the expense of others.