starz – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Starz Issues Laughably Unbelievable Excuse And Apology For Taking Down Tweets

from the not-how-it-works-guys dept

Earlier today, I posted my article about how Starz was issuing obviously bogus takedowns concerning tweets about a news story on TorrentFreak concering how a social media agency, The Social Element, had issued bogus DMCA takedown notices to Twitter, about another story on TorrentFreak about some TV shows leaking online.

Last night I had reached out to Twitter, The Social Element, and Starz, but had not received a real response by the time the story went out (Starz had emailed back suggesting that I did not give them enough time to respond, but had somehow managed to issue a weird apology statement to others). Eventually, more than half an hour after my story went out, Starz emailed me the following statement:

STARZ takes piracy and copyright infringement very seriously and must take steps, when necessary, to protect our content and creative IP as it is the core of our business. As such, we engage a third-party vendor to seek out and remove social media posts that provide access to illegally acquired content. The techniques and technologies employed in these efforts are not always perfect, and it appears that in this case, some posts were inadvertently caught up in the sweep that may fall outside the DMCA guidelines. That was never our intention and we apologize to those who were incorrectly targeted. We are in the process of reviewing all of the impacted posts as well as the scope and procedure for the previous takedowns and are working with our vendors to reinstate any such content that was inappropriately targeted for removal.

This statement appears to differ, slightly, from the one they gave to Variety, where they sort of tried to imply that mysterious hackers were responsible, saying that the company had ‘recently incurred a security breach” which somehow (why?!?) “prompted the company to hire a third party for copyright enforcement.” I don’t see how a security breach would necessitate such a hiring. Nor do I see what that has to do with sending bogus takedowns, many of which appeared to come directly from Starz, and not from any third party. At the very least, Starz didn’t use the “security breach” claim in the statement it sent me.

However, that does not make the statement any more believable. By my count, using Lumen Database (which might not be complete), The Social Element sent 42 DMCA takedowns to Twitter over this topic between April 8th and April 11th. Then Starz itself took over on Saturday the 13th and sent another 31 notices on Saturday and Sunday, for a total of 73 such notices. Both of the notices are notable for the lack of any information other than the links to the tweets, which would at least suggest that they may have been sent by the same individual or firm, who then changed who it claimed to actually be sending the takedowns.

I asked Starz if it could say if The Social Element was the third-party vendor in question, and Starz informed me that it “cannot confirm which vendor” was involved. The Social Element itself has not responded to multiple emails (and a phone call).

Meanwhile, the other aspects of Starz’s statement are similarly unbelievable. We agree with Starz that the “techniques and technologies” employed by companies who file DMCA takedowns are not always perfect (though, it’s nice for a Hollywood company to finally acknowledge as much), but the idea that it was not Starz’s intention to target people reporting on news and that the tweets were “incorrectly targeted” is literally unbelievable given the notices that Twitter users received. Multiple ones stated that the takedown demand forwarded to them by Twitter noted that the takedown was specifically because the tweet “leads to article containing unreleased show imagery.” In other words, they knew exactly what they were doing.

The other problematic part of the statement from Starz is the claim that some of those “caught up in the sweep… may fall outside the DMCA guidelines.” No, it’s not the “DMCA guidelines” that are the problem. It’s the actual law. Copyright law does not allow you to censor news articles you don’t like, or tweets about those news articles, and yet that’s exactly what Starz has done.

I responded to Starz by pointing out these problems with the statement and suggesting, politely, that the statement would come off as entirely unbelievable, and that the company might want to consider putting out a more believable statement. The company declined to do so, simply reiterating:

“… we are reviewing and addressing all of the processes and procedures by which we are identifying and acting on social posts and activity that may have triggered these notices being sent, as there were clearly individuals and posts being targeted that should not have been per the guidelines.”

Again, it’s not “guidelines” that are the issue here, but copyright law itself.

Either way, thanks to Starz for, once again, demonstrating why demanding more aggressive copyright and enforcement almost always leads to out and out censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dmca, takedowns, tweets
Companies: starz, the social element, twitter

Starz Really, Really Doesn't Want You To Know That TorrentFreak Wrote About Leaked Shows, Or That Anyone Tweeted About It

from the and-twitter-is-assisting dept

Something weird is going on with Starz over the past few days. Either it really, really doesn’t want you to know that a bunch of unreleased episodes of well known TV shows were recently leaked online. Or it really, really, really wants you to know all about it. Which one of those two things is true may depend on just how familiar whoever is manning the Starz copyright-takedown desk is with the concept of the Streisand Effect.

You see, a week ago, TorrentFreak published the article linked above. This is a pretty typical TorrentFreak kind of article, noting that some high profile shows or movies have leaked, perhaps providing screenshots, but not providing any links or really telling anyone how to get the shows. It is just reporting that the leaks exist. Two of the shows leaked were from Starz. As TorrentFreak wrote:

There are also two full and unreleased seasons of Starz? ?The Spanish Princess? and Hulu?s ?Ramy? among the leaked files. Both series have yet to premiere and were leaked from screener sources.

Then, last Thursday, TorrentFreak published a new article, noting that Starz had, in fact, filed a copyright claim with Twitter for TorrentFreak’s tweet to its original story. The takedown was sent by an operation called The Social Element, which holds itself out to be a “social media agency” who can “simplify complex social media for global brands.” It also describes itself as:

A global team of geeky pioneers, using our social media super powers to help our clients connect with their audience in the most powerful way.

I was at an event late last week, and only saw the latter story of the takedown message late Friday evening after returning to my hotel. I set it aside, thinking maybe I’d write up something this week. And then, over the weekend, things got weirder. Reporter Mathew Ingram told me, oddly, that his tweet about TorrentFreak’s article about Stars/The Social Element pulling down TorrentFreak’s tweet… also received a DMCA takedown and was removed:

This is Kafka-esque: I posted yesterday about Twitter removing a tweet from TorrrentFreak because it contained a link to an article about pirated copies of Starz shows appearing online (with no links to said content). Twitter has now removed my tweet linking to that story pic.twitter.com/pKF4VCRSit

— Mathew Ingram (@mathewi) April 14, 2019

He was not the only one. Copyright law professor Annemarie Bridy, who is regularly featured on these pages received one as well:

Also, the twitter account for SJD, who runs Fight Copyright Trolls:

And others as well:

And, to take it one step further, into the “asking for real trouble” category, EFF itself has announced that it had a tweet taken down for linking to the TorrentFreak article. EFF’s staff attorney Kit Walsh was quoted in the original, saying “Starz has no right to silence TorrentFreak?s news article or block links to it.” Then EFF tweeted a link to the article with text similar to Walsh’s quote… and that tweet got taken down due to a Starz copyright claim. That’s playing with fire.

A quick search of the Lumen Database shows dozens of DMCA notices sent to Twitter, many within the last week or so. I can’t see most of those tweets because Twitter has taken them down. Except somewhere after a few days, it appears that Starz took the ball itself, and boy did it run with it. It just started issuing takedown after takedown on basically any tweet about this. If, initially, this was a story about a clueless social media agency gone rogue, Starz’s actions over the weekend suggested otherwise.

Let’s just review how messed up this and how far removed any of this is from actual copyright infringement.

TorrentFreak, a popular news source, published an article merely noting the fact that some Starz TV shows had leaked online. This bizarre “social media agency” called The Social Element decides, on behalf of Starz, that this is no good at all, and sends a DMCA notice to Twitter for TorrentFreak’s tweet about the article. Already, this is ridiculous. The article was not infringing anything, nor linking to anything infringing (it doesn’t even tell anyone how to get the infringing works). The tweet is even less infringing.

But then, Starz doesn’t just decide to double down on what The Social Element did, it goes full on censorship crazy, sending takedowns on every tweet about TorrentFreak’s new article about the bogus takedown of the tweet to the new article. This is so far removed from any kind of copyright infringement that it is beyond frivolous.

It’s also a very clear violation of 512(f) of the DMCA, which would matter if 512(f) had any legal teeth at all.

Equally concerning is the question of why Twitter is agreeing to take down these tweets based on obviously bogus DMCA claims. I know that many sites do automatically take down any content on the receiving end of a DMCA notice, but most larger companies at least do a cursory review to make sure they’re not obviously bogus. I’d be surprised if that’s not the case with Twitter, but for whatever reason, all those tweets are being taken down — even the one from EFF, which you might think would at least make someone at Twitter take a second look.

Of course, as you might imagine, the more Starz doubles down on this destructive and abusive campaign, the more people are hearing about how its TV shows have been leaked online. Perhaps it’s some sort of sophisticated viral marketing play… or, more likely, some people who have never heard of the Streisand Effect, but are getting a very big lesson in it today.

Last night I reached out to Twitter, Starz and The Social Element with a whole bunch of questions, and may update this piece if any of them get back to me with answers.

Filed Under: 512f, abuse, copyright, dmca, dmca 512f, free speech, journalism, reporting, takedowns
Companies: starz, the social element, torrentfreak, twitter

Starz, Netflix And How Industry Jealousies Strangle A Golden Goose

from the we'll-see dept

In a somewhat surprising move, Starz has decided to not renew its contract with Netflix. Many other TV channels and movie studios are sure to follow as their current contracts end. Even though Netflix is somewhat braced for this, Starz was one of the few providers willing to supply newer titles, thanks to its deals with Disney and Sony Pictures. Not only that, but Netflix’s licensing deal with Starz was somewhat of a coup with its bargain-basement price tag ($30 million) which helped it get its streaming service off the ground. While this loss will probably adversely affect Netflix in the short term, in the long term it may have more of an effect on Starz.

According to Starz CEO Chris Albrecht:

Starz Entertainment has ended contract renewal negotiations with Netflix. When the agreement expires on February 28, 2012, Starz will cease to distribute its content on the Netflix streaming platform. This decision is a result of our strategy to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging of our exclusive and highly valuable content. With our current studio rights and growing original programming presence, the network is in an excellent position to evaluate new opportunities and expand its overall business.

In between all the jargon, there’s a message: Netflix isn’t willing to pay us what we think our content is worth. Unfortunately for Starz, it may soon find out that Netflix was actually paying what the content was worth. In Starz’ opinion, it can go elsewhere and make more. More accurately, Starz just has to go somewhere else.

Despite the fact that Netflix has offered 300millionforcontinuedaccesstoStarzcontent,itwasn’tenoughforthoseswimmingupstreamofthecablechannel.Inalllikelihood,300 million for continued access to Starz content, it wasn’t enough for those swimming upstream of the cable channel. In all likelihood, 300millionforcontinuedaccesstoStarzcontent,itwasn’tenoughforthoseswimmingupstreamofthecablechannel.Inalllikelihood,300 million would have been plenty except for the uncomfortable fact that Netflix is beating cable television at its own game. Pressure from Liberty Media (which owns Starz and invests in Time Warner Cable) to create a new, higher priced tier for Starz very likely killed the deal:

[R]epresentatives for the cable network owned by John Malone’s Liberty Media were insistent that Netflix create a new “tier” for subscribers who wanted its movies at a higher price than the $7.99 it currently charges for online video. That would have put Netflix more in line with the pricing of cable and satellite companies, a step the video company apparently wasn’t willing to take.

“Starz could have taken a check from Netflix, but there would have been pushback from cable and satellite operators and its studio partners,” said analyst Tony Wible of Janney Montgomery Scott.

Unfortunately for Netflix and its customers, the content providers seem to think that they can reset the clock back to a “simpler” time by withholding new releases in order to drum up plastic disc sales or, in the case of Liberty Media, turning its content into a “premium” in an effort to shore up its flagging subscriber base.

This all points to an incredible level of arrogance on the part of the content providers. First off, they assume the public cares about release dates, exclusive licensing deals and PPV windows. I can assure you that the public could not give less of a shit about when, where and how the content providers release their movies and TV shows. Secondly, they do everything in their power to turn back the clock to captive audiences, tied to a single television and handcuffed to a single cable box.

The public just wants access to the content in its most convenient (to them) form. The game has changed (thanks to Netflix and others) and no one feels compelled to deal with one service only for their entertainment. Liberty Media may think it can set the price for its content to whatever dollar amount is best for it, but consumers have given no indication that they like sudden price increases. In fact, consumers are finding cable to be less and less essential thanks to services like Netflix, but rather than learn from the past, content providers seem to think that new media has to play by old media’s rules and consquently, swiftly ruin everything they touch.

These members of the entertainment industry also seem to forget the file-sharing elephant in the room. (Perhaps it’s because Industry-Vision™ corrective lenses render this animal as a “scapegoat.”) If this short-sighted pursuit of DVD sales and PPV income continues, they’re going to find customers fleeing to “content providers” who can give them what they want when they want it, all at a price the entertainment industry can’t afford. And instead of being able to collect “too little,” they’ll be collecting nothing at all.

Filed Under: dowloads, movies, streaming
Companies: liberty media, netflix, starz

Sony Movies Pulled From Netflix Streams; Because Customers Just Love That Kind Of Thing

from the contract-disputes dept

Apparently, Sony Pictures films have been pulled from Netflix. Netflix claims that it’s a temporary issue due to a contract dispute between Sony and Starz (a Netflix partner from which it gets many of its streaming movies). Other reports, however, say that there’s no contract dispute, but that Starz just pulled the plug on those films. Either way, this kind of thing is never a good idea, because it’s treating consumers as pawns. One of the reasons why Netflix has been so damn successful all these years is its focus on making the customer experience top notch. Removing content like this is never a good idea. These companies have to realize that they’re still fighting to convince people that these services are worth paying for and that jerking them around by removing content isn’t going to convince the people who were on the fence.

Filed Under: movies
Companies: netflix, sony, starz

from the felony-interference-of-a-business-model dept

The latest in a long line of ridiculous lawsuits from an entertainment industry that refuses to adapt and loves to put up artificial barriers, is the case of Disney suing Dish Network. Dish’s infraction? Apparently a promotional decision to offer the Starz movie network for “free” to its subscribers (of course, it’s not really free, since you have to pay to subscribe…). Disney claims that it has specific licensing deals with premium channels like Starz, which say that the films it licenses can only be shown on “premium” pay-TV tiers rather than basic tiers. The idea (of course) is that Disney wants to extend the ridiculous and outdated “windowing” efforts of Hollywood.

But, here’s the thing: Dish Network is not a party to that contract. Dish should be free to offer whatever channels it wants in whatever tiers it wants, so long as it has the appropriate agreement with those channels. I can’t see how Disney has a claim on Dish here, since it’s a third party, which is simply making a reasonable business decision that it wanted to offer Starz as a part of a lower tier. Disney is claiming in the lawsuit that this “devalues” its movies. No, it does not. What “devalues” the movies is the silly windowing plans of the studios that make those movies less valuable to consumers.

Of course, Disney is claiming that this isn’t a contractual issue, but a copyright one, but even that makes no sense. Dish’s license with Starz clearly includes a license to display the content. And Dish is clearly paying to carry Starz, so everyone’s getting paid. The only issue is that Dish decided, for promotional reasons, to include Starz in lower tiers for no additional cost for a year (Disney, falsely, repeatedly claims this is “free.”) It seems that Dish should be free to offer whatever promotion it wants to its consumers, seeing as all the other terms of the license are the same and everyone’s getting paid.

I could see how Disney might have a complaint against Starz for the way it licensed content to Dish, in which Dish was allowed to offer this kind of promotion to consumers, but going after Dish for copyright infringement, just seems silly. If anything, saying that downstream providers can’t set their own pricing seems like Disney is opening itself up to a price fixing claim. It made its deal with Starz. Dish then did its deal with Starz. Dish should then be free to determine how much it charges consumers.

Filed Under: copyright, movies, premium, windows
Companies: dish, disney, starz

Hollywood Continues Its Plan To Kill Netflix

from the jealousy-is-no-strategy-for-business-success dept

It’s really kind of amusing (and frustrating) to watch the entertainment industry look to kill every golden goose that comes its way. Any time a new offering is successful, the entertainment industry gets greedy and either tries to demand a much larger cut, more control… or it tries to kill off the offering because it has “too much power.” We saw it with the labels, when they turned on iTunes (though Apple’s been able to hold that together pretty strongly) and music video games. It’s part of what’s been driving the record labels to give Spotify such a hard time in signing a deal to bring the (rather successful in Europe) service to the US. And it’s not just the recording industry. We’ve noted that Hollywood has now decided that Netflix has been too successful for them, and it’s time to put the company in its proper place.

Thus, we’re starting to see Netflix partners push back and start to limit what Netflix can stream. First it was Showtime pulling back from streaming its content via Netflix, and now it’s Starz that’s pulling back in a big way. That’s pretty significant, because it was the original deal between Netflix and Starz that really jumpstarted Netflix’s ability in the streaming space. The big studios have been complaining about the Starz deal for years, and it’s not hard to see their hands in the company’s decision to scale back its relationship.

It really is amazing. Some new service comes along that drags these industries — often kicking and screaming — into the modern era, and then starts making them lots of money. And suddenly the industry turns on them (and fans and consumers) claiming that these services are simply too successful and need to be cut down to size. It’s really a case of the entertainment companies overvaluing the content over the service. They think that all the value is in the content, and if the services are making money and getting users, it’s because they’re somehow “exploiting” the content in unfair ways. On top of that, I really think there’s a psychological issue, where the entertainment industry bosses still think that if anyone else is making a lot of money, it’s “unfair” — even if they’re making plenty of money themselves.

Of course, these moves will backfire. It’ll just make people on Netflix watch less of these companies’ content… or seek it out from alternative sources that Hollywood probably likes even less.

Filed Under: digital distribution, movies
Companies: netflix, showtime, starz