Neko Case Exploited by Macy’s, Levi’s, Princess Cruises, Skype, Yahoo, Marvel and Electronic Arts

Wow. Just wow. It’s not like Neko Case is Lady GaGa sitting on gazillions of dollars (and not that it should make a difference). This is how the Exploitation Economy works. It’s about money. Advertising money. A lot of advertising money. None of which is shared or distributed to the artists, ever. Not one penny. Not one single cent. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nadda.

And yet there are those who confuse free beer with free speech. Nothing here is about censorship. This really appears to be about mass scale, enterprise level, orchestrated infringement farms for profit.

Aimee Mann Exploited by Russian Brides, Wells Fargo Bank and Nationwide Insurance

When an artist signs a contract with a record label and publishing company there is a customary clause that governs how the artists music can be used in association with brands, marketing and the context of commercial placements including films and television shows. This provision grants the artist authority and control over how they are represented to the world and often coincides with the artists personal values (such as political campaign uses).  These concepts track the laws against misappropriation of the artist’s right of publicity and laws against falsely implied endorsements.  Not to mention the moral rights of artists.

The online exploitation of artists work, beyond the obvious illegal distribution of their work without permission or compensation now extends into brands leveraging the appeal of the artist to promote their product or service (like banking or insurance). In the examples below both Wells Fargo Bank and Nationwide Insurance are specifically benefiting from gaining direct access to fans of Aimee Mann. Unfortunately Aimee is not consulted, has not been given rights of approval, and last but not least, is not being compensation for the value her brand brings to these companies.

But it get’s worse. We’ve been reading a lot about how human trafficking has become a real problem online. We don’t know that the sites specifically advertising on The Pirate Bay are operating illegally, but they are most likely not the type of advertiser or service that we could imagine an artist such as Aimee Mann supporting.

So to add insult to injury, not only do brands run roughshod over artists’ rights to compensation for the consumption of their work, but they also ignore the artists’ right to control how they are represented to their peers and to the public.  Major brands literally trade off the artist’s name by associating their products with the artist. And the worst of it is, there are businesses that may be profiting from human trafficking and also using the artists name and work to promote that human suffering.

Isn’t it about time that everyone stopped playing games and start holding those bad actors responsible and accountable–beginning with the brands and advertising networks that make it possible?

MegaUpload (MegaVideo) Smoking Gun? Did the site illegally charge for Streaming Movies?

These screen shots appear to show that Kim Dotcom’s Megaupload was selling streaming movies that it did not have the rights to sell.

Megaupload was allegedly paid uploaders per stream from files they uploaded to Megaupload. That is why there were so many links that Google autopopulated Megavideo after you entered Star Wars in the search field.

Then Google estimated that there were 4.3 million web pages that had the words “star wars megavideo” on them.  Legitimate file locker sites like Dropbox, don’t allow any public links to copyrighted content.  In fact Dropbox just banned Boxopus, a torrent tool from using its API.

Megavideo let you play the first 45 minutes of Star Wars and thousands of other movies for free (after they had served you and profited from dozens ads) . . .

But then, to watch past 45 minutes, you had to enter your credit card and pay $9.99 a month to keep watching.

 Carpathia Hosting, the CDN that the FBI raided because it was getting paid for caching these illegal movies for Megaupload.  Here is data from a packet analysis we ran in August 2011.  86% of the first 45 minutes of the Star Wars stream captured above came from IP address 173.245.127.21, who ARIN says is assigned to Carpathia Hosting.

IP 173.245.127.21

    Packets 39,908

Bytes 60,314,666 IP Assigned To: Carpathia Hosting, Inc.

% of Total Packets 86.2%

Uh Toyota… didn’t you get the memo? Why are you advertising on unauthorized sites that exploit my music?

We recently ran a story about American Express advertising on Filestube, the site that infringes my copyrights while suggesting porno links next to my brand.  The American Express ad was served by Google’s DoubleClick ad network presumably at the behest of Ogilvy & Mather.

Yesterday a Google spokesperson told us that they had disabled “self serve” advertising for this site.  We weren’t really sure if that meant no more DoubleClick on FilesTube, or if it was some kind of semantic dodge. We’ve had a bunch of those dodging semantics on this issue.  However we monitored FilesTube yesterday and we see no sign of DoubleClick.   We applaud Google for taking this action!

Now not to look a gift horse in the mouth but we’d  love to see Google disable advertising for all those sites that they know are infringing copyright. The ones they mentioned in this handy press release. See it seems a little disingenuous to lower these sites rankings but at the same time to continue doing advertising business with them?  (And yes we are already monitoring advertising on these sites!!)

American Express is another matter. We have not heard back from American Express.  We’d love to hear what American Express has to say about their company helping to finance copyright infringement–not just mine, but all of the artists. We’d love to know how that happened and if they intend to continue advertising on these sites. Cause it doesn’t seem like a very good idea for an iconic American Brand.

Now  I’ve lost my handy pocket version of the RICO statute. People are always borrowing it!  But I’m almost certain that it says something about making plans to profit from copyright infringement as a RICO “predicate”.  I’m no lawyer but if I were a big company like American Express I wouldn’t want to get anywhere near a website  that even had the potential to get wrapped up in a RICO investigation.  Especially one based in Moldova.

Today FilesTube looks like a wasteland of QuiBid ads, MacKeeper popups and click shoot ads.  Pretty low grade.  Seems like it’s not just American Express which got the memo.

Toyota however did not get the memo!   So now it’s Toyota’s turn to answer the question?  Why  are you  advertising on this site?

Dear American Express: Stop advertising on sites that illegally exploit my music.

Dear American Express:

I write you today to ask why your ads are appearing on top rogue sites such as http://www.filestube.com? Sites like these are for-profit enterprise level organizations often with ties to organized crime. Sites like these appear to profit by illegally exploiting artists copyrights and monetizing their web traffic through advertising. Yes, advertising bought and paid for by American Express.

This is not an obscure site. Its Alexa ranking shows that it is one of the most popular websites in the world. I realize that you probably did not intend to have your ads appear on this site. However, I still hold you accountable for not properly auditing your advertising agency  Olgilvy & Mather  and your ad network DoubleClick. It should be noted that this site also links to some pretty prurient, possibly illegal videos; it’s entirely possible that I won’t be the only one holding you accountable.

I’m told that advertising agencies often hire companies to verify that their clients’ ads are being served to the approved websites. I am here to tell you that from what I have seen, these services are incompetent or worse. We have plenty of screenshots and source code showing major brands that surely use these services, advertising on illegal sites. (We’d be glad to share some of these screenshots and source code with you.)

Here are screenshots that show an American Express advertisement on http://www.filestube.com apparently served by DoubleClick. This isn’t abstract to me–this page is a link to an illegal download of one of my songs. You should also note some of the other “suggested” searches on this same site are for some pretty nasty stuff.  I don’t like having my brand seen in these places and I’m sure you don’t either.

I suggest you do something I can’t do–audit everyone involved in this process . What’s the worse thing that could happen? Your brand not appearing on sketchy sites next to links to pornography?

Now that’s priceless.

Dead Kennedys Exploited by Charter, Blizzard, @AlaskaAir and @1800Flowers

Music Piracy is not about fans sharing music. As we can see from the screen shots below this truly appears to be a mass scale, enterprise level, organized crime being funded by advertising dollars funded by major brands and companies laundered through online ad networks.

CORPORATE RELATIONS CONTACT INFO:

Alaska Airlines
Maria Koenig
maria.koenig@alaskaair.com

1-206-392-5101

1-800-Flowers
Elizabeth Castoro
ecastoro@1800flowers.com

1-516-237 4867

Mullets, Platform Shoes, Mack Daddies and Public Knowledge

Written by Chris Castle

“[W]hen it comes to the internet, there’s always someone in the middle, especially when it comes to handling the money.” Wired Magazine

Call me cynical, but I always keep an eye on Friday afternoon press releases–Friday afternoons are the great graveyard of bad news.

Google announced on August 10 (Friday) that they are doing something I understand they have been doing increasingly over the last few months: Pushing sites down in search results if Google gets a lot of takedown notices for those sites.  (This is a version of what Google promised to content licensors for Google Video–and of course no one believed them like you don’t believe a street drunk that they’re really going to buy food with your $5.)

Remember–Google has announced in its rather untransparent Transparency Report that it gets millions–millions–of takedown notices annually.  A Google lobbyist told the House Judiciary Committee that Google had “processed” five million DMCA notices as of November 2011 and had “processed” over three million in 2010.  (As usual, Google doesn’t use a good verb like “received” instead of the ambiguous “processed”.)

That five million number seems to have taken a big jump, and I doubt it suddenly happened in the last 10 months.  According to the Wall Street Journal, “The company on Friday said it is now receiving more than a million copyright notices related to its search engine per week.”  (When exactly is “now”? Before or after Google’s testimony to the Congress?)

That is on track for over 50 million notices a year for search alone.

Understand this–it is highly likely that every notice Google received was for a link on a page for which Google served–or profited from–at least one ad.  It’s also likely that those ads were from brands to which Google had promised that it would not serve ads on sites with infringing content.  And guess what happens when Google charges an advertiser for serving an ad in violation of its contract with an advertiser.

It’s called a rebate.

If even half of the notices for which Google has received a DMCA notice–bearing in mind that is a US-based remedy–also have advertising served by Google, then Google may well be on the hook for rebates for millions upon millions of ads for years and years and years.  You would never have thought about this rebate exposure if you relied on Google’s investor disclosures.  If Google stockholders want to blame anyone, they should take a close look at whoever did the legal analysis on setting up the Google advertising platform in the first place.  (Hint: He now works at Spotify.)

I would suggest that what is happening is the beginning of something along the lines of the market solution I have advocated  for a long time–a site-based rating system based on the raw number of DMCA notices received.  This would be along the lines of the restaurant rating system that LA County has in place and would provide a useful feedback to the Congress as well as consumers.  Disclose the information to the market and see what happens.  (Of course, Google doesn’t count DMCA notices sent to YouTube or the Blogger cesspools–but that’s another story addressed by Searchengineland.)

Actually giving effect to such a system would be a step toward ending the advertising supported organized crime that is a large part of the “hybrid economy” on the Internet.  Assuming Google really does what they say they will, this announcement may signal the beginning of the end of this dark fashion.

Not surprisingly, we see this press release from Public Knowledge:

For Immediate Release August 10, 2012

Public Knoweldge [sic] Raises Concerns About Changes to Google Search Algorithm

The following statement may be attributed to John Bergmayer, Senior Staff Attorney:

“It may make good business sense for Google to take extraordinary steps, far beyond what the law requires, to help the media companies it partners with.  That said, its plan to penalize sites that receive DMCA notices raises many questions.

“Sites may not know about, or have the ability to easily challenge, notices sent to Google.  And Google has set up a system that may be abused by bad faith actors who want to suppress their rivals and competitors.  Sites that host a lot of content, or are very popular, may receive a disproportionate number of notices (which are mere accusations of infringement) without being disproportionately infringing.  And user-generated content sites could be harmed by this change, even though the DMCA was structured to protect them.

“Google needs to make sure this change does not harm Internet users or the Internet ecosystem.”

This might be a faintly interesting comment except for one thing: it’s not.  According to Politico’s reporting:

Google said Friday it has received more than 4.3 million copyright removal requests in the past month — about 97 percent of which are valid. Many of the domains that are targets of the most requests are file-sharing and torrent sites. (emphasis mine)

It’s not surprising that Public Knowledge doesn’t get it.  Companies are increasingly aware that their valuable brands are being trashed by association with all manner of sketchy or outright illegal sites with advertising for illegal drugs, human trafficking, financial products and–yes, copyright infringement, but not just copyright infringement.  This at the same time as Google is trying to get into the mainstream entertainment business with Google Fiber and its various other products.

When fashion turns, it leaves all those people with mullets, platform shoes and superwide ties in the lurch.  A closet full of crap and a brain full of mush, weird hair and no dates.

It’s the economics, stupid.  Who in their right mind could imagine that the world could continue to look this way?  Who would really think that many, many artists and media companies have anything but public and private contempt of the first order for Google?  An ontological level of distrust?

And who would really think that the brands that also court relationships with top athletes, musicians, artists and actors would continue to get ripped off by having their advertising served on millions of unsavory sites.  And guess what–when a big brand picks up the phone, they don’t want to hear about how Google is trying to bust another union or wants every link on every page to be adjudicated an infringer before they take action while reposting disabled links in near real time in the cesspool regions of Blogger.  Google’s excuses have nothing to do with the brands.  If brands don’t want their ads on site X, then the ads won’t go on site X.  End of discussion.  And Internet users will be the better for it.  Unless they’re trying to buy a bride or score some oxy.

And I have to believe that Attorney Bergmayer knows this.  He surely can’t be that sheltered.

Time for a haircut and spring cleaning.

Google offers the Mack Daddy special.
(A version of this post previously appeared on the Music Tech Policy blog)

BMW’s Response to Ads for Its Brands on Pirate Sites

As they drive on–CUT TO:

 A PRETTY YOUNG WOMAN standing in the doorway of one of the Tudor houses. She is very pregnant. She knows instinctively who they are, and she dominates them in a genuinely proud female way. What I mean is, it’s her scene, and they’re suddenly embarrassed to be bothering her. 

                    WOODWARD

       To see Mr. Sloan. 

                    MRS. SLOAN

       He’s out.

              (There is a pause.  She studies them–)

       You’re those two from the Post, aren’t you.

              (they nod)

       I’ll tell him.

                     BERNSTEIN

              (as she’s about to step back inside)

       This must be a difficult time for the both of you.

                     MRS. SLOAN

       This is an honest house.

   From “All The President’s Men,” By William Goldman
____________________________________________

Several artists and rights holders wrote to BMW after reading the Trichordist “Wall of Shame” post about BMW’s ads being served on a pirate site that was illegally distributing the “Drive” soundtrack.  (See “Wall of Shame: BMW Willing to ‘Drive’ Without License.”)  I also wrote to BMW and outlined the key points to them, being:

1.  Someone in their house is in on it.  It may not be a BMW employee, but it is someone in the chain.

2.  Artists are told by companies like Google to “follow the money” through the labyrinth of advertising exchanges, advertising networks and real time bidding in between the brand and the pirate site.  I pointed out to BMW that we don’t need to know anything more than where the money starts–which is with the brand–and where it stops–which is with the pirate.  What happens in between is of no consequence to anyone but the brand (BMW in this case) that is no doubt being routinely lied to, and possibly to law enforcement.

3.  Brands like BMW are in a unique position to both (a) stop the money and (b) demand a rebate from their ad agency or ad network.  But then we are always told that none of these ad networks (or ad exchanges) profit from piracy because their contracts say they don’t.  Ah, well, in that case they must be innocent, right?  The demanding-the-rebate step is important because if they don’t do that, then the brand’s stockholders are being ripped off.  (Remember the stockholders?  They’re the ones who own the place.)

4.  What I suspect that artists really want is for the brands to step up to their responsibilities, especially the public companies, denounce these practices and stop funding the pirates.  This isn’t about following the money, it’s about stopping the money.  Following the money is a distraction, stopping the money is effective.

BMW was very responsive to my inquiry regarding the “Drive” campaign.  The company has informed me that due to readers of the Trichordist bringing the specific incident to their attention, they have not only stopped the ads from being served on the particular site in question but the incident triggered a complete audit of BMW’s digital buying practices.  This includes a review of their current agreements with all of their partner ad networks, as well as a review of their current verification provider (Double Verify in this case).  BMW are taking this seriously and seem to take a dim view of being used to undermine intellectual property rights.  Hopefully they will conduct their review with a critical eye for the obfuscation that we all believe is rampant.

So why is BMW’s response an important event?

Assuming they actually do what they say they will do–and I am willing to take them at their word until I have a reason to think otherwise–a very important brand in an nominally unrelated industry has recognized that they are being manipulated by a legion of thieves.  They didn’t try to blame the other guy, BMW took responsibility for their brand.

The government will do what it’s going to do to prosecute the criminals and the money launderers that infest online advertising.   That must be done, it is important work, but it will take time because although the wheels of justice do turn, they turn slowly.

This incident illustrates a few things we need to happen.

First of all, we need an immediate reaction from brands that are getting ripped off to make it stop.  Not just window dressing but actually stop.  I can’t say enough good things about BMW’s responsible reaction.  I hope others follow suit proactively.

The second thing we need to make clear is that if you work at an ad network, particularly a successful ad network, it is highly likely that you are associating yourself with bad guys.  I seriously doubt that any ad network or ad exchange is clean.  It is an occupation that is at best suspect and at worst a haven for money laundering.  It is also very likely that your paycheck includes profit from human misery from copyright infringement to mail order brides.

Finally, until such time as brands like BMW require third party certification and monitoring of sites where their ads appear in real or near real time, all ad networks and exchanges are suspect.

Why?  Because the ad inventory from illegal sites is just too vast for it not to affect everyone in the business.

So at least today, BMW has said it chooses to stand with the artists and not with the scumbags.  And that’s good for the artists.

Thanks to the artists and rights holders who wrote to BMW and to the Trichordist.  And special thanks to BMW for their quick reaction.  It’s a team effort, let’s keep it up.

Ultimately, the brands have to decide if they live in an honest house.

The Trichordist Random Reader Weekly News & Links Sun Aug 5

Grab the coffee!

Recent Posts:
* Kim Dotcom Parody Video Appears on YouTube
* Why Does YouTube Apologize to People who have Uploaded Illegally?
* A Kim Dotcom For All Seasons

Advocacy or Astroturf? Fortune reports on how Google and Facebook channel money to the EFF…
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/30/google-and-facebooks-new-tactic-in-the-tech-wars/

Essential reading, How Online Ad Networks support online piracy. This is business, Big Business. Music Tech Policy reports:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/how-the-brands-and-ad-agencies-are-in-on-advertising-supported-piracy/

History repeats itself, Copyhype reports on James Frederick Willetts one of the OG content pirates, prosecuted in 1904:
http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/enter-the-pirate-king/

Interesting, Demonoid under attack of DDOS strikes and domain redirection to virus software and malware, Torrent Freak reports:
http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-starts-redirecting-to-ads-and-malware-120802/

Don’t believe the Hype, Facebook reports 83 million “Fake” users, and your band still can’t get 100,000 likes… Digital Music News reports:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120802facebook#2DUqPK9yMgrhd-3pomt14A

We’ve been disappointed by the delays of the “Six Strikes” ISP anti-piracy notification system going into effect, but the fact that it’s still upsetting to pirates warms our hearts. Torrent Freak reports:
http://torrentfreak.com/isp-six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-120803/

Spotify subscriber stats were released this week, but the question remains, will it scale? Digital Music News reports:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120731spotify#6orxX825bqy7BuKYOEPlpA

Ugh. The state of California bet almost 2% of it’s budget on the Facebook IPO hoping for easy money to help the states budget crisis. Guess what? Now it’s worse… Bloomberg reports:
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/california-says-tax-revenue-at-risk-from-facebook-drop.html

A Kim Dotcom For All Seasons

Come on, guys, I am a computer nerd. I love Hollywood and movies. My whole life is like a movie.

That’s Kim Dotcom in an “open letter” to Hollywood that he penned last week. Dotcom is the owner and CEO of Megaupload and is currently facing federal criminal charges, along with six other individuals, for allegedly operating a “mega-conspiracy” that made him a very wealthy man using other people’s work without permission.

Since his indictment and arrest, Dotcom has been waging a PR campaign to cast himself, not as an opportunistic hack who exploited thousands of creators through his spammy, scammy website, but as some sort of internet freedom fighter — in his latest “music video”, he portrays himself as no less than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Strangely, in the topsy-turvey world of the internet, Dotcom’s efforts appear to be working.

You can fool some of the people all of the time

The weirdest part of this story is that it is part of Dotcom’s modus operandi. For over two decades, he has portrayed himself as some sort of master hacker, or savvy businessman, or whatever else would garner the most press, no matter how far from the truth.

Here, for example, is his take on his first brush with the law in the early nineties:

By chance in 1993, Schmitz discovered a computer account that included the word “Pentagon”. “I connected to the computer, made myself a super-user on it and after five or six hours had access to 100 computers within the Pentagon. I found the main router and so could ‘sniff’ all the traffic and jump from computer to computer. Some had real-time connections with satellites that were taking photographs of [Saddam] Hussein’s palace – I had no idea that technology even existed. It was like Ali Baba finding the treasure cave.”

If you think this sounds more like Hollywood Hacking than real life, you’d be correct. Dotcom also claimed he “got into Citibank’s system and transferred $20 million (21.4 million euros) by taking tiny amounts from the accounts of 4 million customers and giving it to Greenpeace” around the same time period. This isn’t just like a movie, it is a movie — the 1992 film Sneakers, to be exact.

The truth? Dotcom was convicted in 1998 on multiple counts of computer fraud and data espionage. Court records don’t substantiate any of Dotcom’s amazing claims.

What he did do was steal phone calling card codes and conduct a premium number fraud similar to the recent rash of Filipino phreaking frauds. He bought stolen phone card account information from American hackers. After setting up premium toll chat lines in Hong Kong and in the Caribbean, he used a “war dialer” program to call the lines using the stolen card numbers—ringing up €61,000 in ill-gained profits.

If anything good could be said about Dotcom’s latest media blitz, it’s that he at least is picking better historical figures to compare himself to. From a 2001 interview:

Wasn’t Hitler writing Mein Kampf while being arrested? Not that I like Hitler hehe, it’s just that strange people can have strange ideas while being arrested.

Dotcom would next reinvent himself as a shrewd businessman-slash-entrepreneur. In 2001, he was claiming to the press that his net worth was $100 million, and his investment company would soon be making $553 million a year. Here, again, the reality was far less glamorous than Dotcom suggested.

A German court would hear later that he had pulled a textbook “pump-and-dump” move, borrowing money to buy Letsbuyit shares, and then quickly selling them to those who swallowed his investment story, gaining himself a quick profit of 1.1 million euros ($1.4 million).

But before facing justice, Dotcom was busy writing Act 2.

In the movies, whenever a protagonist gets away with a big heist, we invariably see him passing safely through customs in the Caribbean or southeast Asia as the credits begin to roll.

Perhaps this hackneyed Hollywood device was on Kim Schmitz’s mind when he chose Thailand as his hideout from German authorities curious about his KimVestor Ponzi scheme.

Add “bizarre” to the list of adjectives that could be used to describe Dotcom. As it turns out, prior to his arrest in Thailand, he had changed his website to announce that he would be livestreaming his own suicide. Said the site:

Enough is Enough. Kim Schmitz will die next Monday. See it on this website live and for free. When the countdown is over, Kim steps into a new world and wants you to see it.

But he would be arrested the Friday before. As the Guardian reported:

This proved to be a publicity stunt and visitors to the site are now informed that Schmitz wishes to be known as “King Kimble the First – Ruler of the Kimpire”.

A Kim For All Seasons

Schmitz’s claims follow a pattern. He takes bits of what he has been found guilty of, bits of other hackers’ publicised doings, even tales of hacker movies, and mixes them together to form his “personae”.

A con man par excellence.”

He was trying to make half a buck on every occasion.

On his way up, he fooled them all: judges, journalists, investors and companies.

Everything that entwines itself around Mr. Schmitz is, to say the least, somewhat dubious.

Over the past 20 years, Dotcom has worked hard to portray his life like a movie, seeing himself as, perhaps, a super-hacker from Sneakers, or the innocent man on the run from The Fugitive (Dotcom’s nickname “Kimble” is said to be derived from Dr. Richard Kimble, the lead character in that show/movie).

But it seems to us that the closest one can come to the movie that Dotcom has created of his life is A Burns for All Seasons, the fictional movie created by Mr. Burns in the animated series The Simpsons. In the film, the unapolagetic plutocrat portrays himself, in three separate scenes, as an outsourcing champion, the alien E.T., and Jesus Christ.

That there are those who buy into Dotcom’s latest self-cast role as champion of internet freedom and innovation is sad commentary. Dotcom’s “mega-empire” made him millions of dollars off the work of thousands of creators. There’s nothing innovative about exploiting artists. If this were really a Hollywood movie, the happy ending would see Dotcom finally facing justice.