MPAA Apparently Silently Shut Down Its Legal Movies Search Engine
from the we-hardly-knew-ye dept
In 2015, with much fanfare, the MPAA released its own search engine of sorts as WhereToWatch.com. The idea behind the site was to combat the argument that people pirate films because there are too few legal alternatives. The MPAA built the site to show where those legal alternatives do in fact exist. Left unaddressed, of course, were questions about how useful and convenient those alternatives were, how users had to navigate through a myriad of restrictive policies for those legal alternatives, and how terrible Hollywood must be in promoting its legal alternatives if the only thing needed to stop all this piracy was an MPAA search engine.
On top of that, WhereToWatch served as something of an excuse for many draconian polices the MPAA was pushing for all along. By being able to point to the search engine as “proof” that all kinds of legal alternatives to piracy were readily available, the MPAA argued that policies such as “notice and staydown” as well as site-blocking were legitimate pursuits. Somewhat predictably and with a heaving helping of irony, WhereToWatch received multiple DMCA takedown notices for its search results, demonstrating how perilous DMCA takedowns have become.
And now comes the news that the MPAA actually shuttered the site months ago.
The MPAA pulled the plug on the service a few months ago. And where the mainstream media covered its launch in detail, the shutdown received zero mentions. So why did the site fold? According to MPAA Vice President of Corporate Communications, Chris Ortman, it was no longer needed as there are many similar search engines out there.
“Given the many search options commercially available today, which can be found on the MPAA website, WheretoWatch.com was discontinued at the conclusion of 2017,” Ortman informs TF. “There are more than 140 lawful online platforms in the United States for accessing film and television content, and more than 460 around the world,” he adds.
That is all absolutely true today, though it was also true three years ago when the site was launched. The simple fact of the matter is that the site did little to serve any real public customer base. Yes, legal alternatives to piracy exist. Everyone knows that, just as they know that there are far too many hoops and restrictions around which to jump that have nothing to do with price. The MPAA and its client organizations have long asserted strict control over their product to the contrary of public demand. That is, and has always been, the problem.
On top of all that, the MPAA showed its no better at promoting its site than it was at promoting the legal alternatives to pirating movies.
Perhaps the lack of interest from the U.S. public played a role as well. The site never really took off and according to traffic estimates from SimilarWeb and Alexa, most of the visitors came from Iran, where the site was unusable due to a geo-block.
Look, the basis for this effort was a good one: promote legit movie-watching to customers currently pirating. That’s laudable. But Hollywood is in the business of convincing the public to do so every bit as much as the public is obligated to buy Hollywood’s products. It’s not enough to build a search engine to the current unwanted offerings and call it a day.
You have to actully innovate.
Filed Under: culture, movies, piracy, search engine, streaming, what to watch
Companies: mpaa
Comments on “MPAA Apparently Silently Shut Down Its Legal Movies Search Engine”
“I…in…inno…nope, don’t know that word at all.” — the average MPAA executive, probably
Re: Re:
Inno… cent of pirafringement?
Not good
Great. Now I need to find a pirate site to show me where all the legal content is…
Innovation is Optional
You have to actully innovate.
Au contraire, MPAA can continue to hire lobbyists to shape the "law" in the industries favor while using the states security agencies (eg FBI, DHS) and courts to investigate industry related violations of the "law" at tax-payer expense.
MPAA can also retain swarms of attorneys to harass/intimidate/litigate.
Re: Innovation is Optional
actully -> actually
You mean that the worlds copyright maximalists could not avoid linking to infringing material, despite their claims it is easy to recognize.
Re: Re:
If anything, that factoid proves how easily the DMCA takedown process can be abused.
Re: Re: Re:
function checkDMCA (file){
If isFileAMovie(file)==true {
return “INFRINGEMENT!”
};
else {
return isFileAMusic(file);
};
}
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ugh, why does it always seem that my browser stealth-logouts me (Toom1275) whenever I think my comment is better than usual?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
(identity confirmation)
Because on the semirare occasion my commemt wins a funny, I like it to have the proper name attached.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I also claim “pirafringement” as mine too.”
(sorry for the bluesque self-replies. I should really stop commenting with one hand while eating dinner with the other.)
Re: Re: Re:3 ==true ?
No awards to anyone who explicitly compares a boolean against “true” or “false”.
Re: Re: Re:4 ==true ?
Fair enough. That’s what I get for distracted posting.
Re: Re: Re:5 ==true ?
function checkDMCA (file){
return isFileAMovie(file) || isFileAMusic(file);
}
FTFY
Re: Re: Re:6 ==true ?
function checkDMCA (file){
return isFileAFile(file);
}
Think you forgot to include the standard **AA technique of “Scream infringement no matter what until someone explicitly proves it isn’t”
Re: Re: Re:6 Ah, the Internet.
The only place where a block of code written as a response to an article about the movie/entertainment industry’s legal opinions is corrected for having the wrong syntax.
Re: Re:
More likely it was legitimate content flagged by a crap infringement ‘detection’ system used to automatically generate DMCA notices.
Re: Re: Re:
If recognizing infringement was as easy as they claim, the algorithms would not be crap.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The process is so “easy” that you, naturally, just managed to fail hard at it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“split the copyrighted work to parts”
Define “parts”. Direction? Performance? Design? How are you evaluating how ovies that take thousands of people to create be split up?
“evaluate each part, who is the author, how much effort was spent in creating it, and whether the publisher has a permission”
OK. Where does the information come from? Who ensures it’s accurate? Why should “effort” be a factor? How do you evaluated how much effort each person put in, anyway?
“divide all the efforts to get 3 numbers: author’s own work, licensed work, copyright infringement”
Who is the “author” of a movie? How do you account for co-production deals, distribution deals, and other complicated shenanigans the industry does to deliberately hide profits?
As ever, methinks reality is a little more complicated than you realise it to be.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
That assumes the person doing the examination is familiar with all the works under copyright. You are also ignoring two works that are derivatives of the same public domain work.
When 3 strikes can close a YouTube account and remove somebodies ability to earn a living, the system really ought to be 100 percent accurate. That is one of the huge problems with the DMCA, it favors corporations over individuals.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“this is why I have my own web page”
Hosted on your own infrastructure? I somehow doubt it,
“But even that has the same problem, if it turns out to have too much copyright infringements in it, i need to remove part of my own work from the site to feel safe”
Assuming your site is not shut down entirely due to the complaints against it, or you’re not facing other legal action for ripping off someone else’s work, sure.
So, what you’re saying is that every artist needs to operate their own distribution platform, and that will be somehow better? Please…
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
So you claim, but you never link to it, so what are you afraid off?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
“This is why techdirt requires everyone to provide url to homepage.”
They don’t, it an optional field. Also, your chosen handle is so short that it’s easy to miss you put something there.
“(not all, since it’s manual work, and typing the same url every time gets boring)”
Copy/paste and form filling features in your browser are things that exist.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
_I reject copy/paste, since it doesnt have good reputation in copyright circles._
Funnily enough, a copyright lawyer once claimed he had the right to copy and paste his own legal documents.
He’s now awaiting a lawsuit for scamming people with his copyright lawsuits. So… kinda a point for you?
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
“I reject copy/paste, since it doesnt have good reputation in copyright circles.”
Neither does the internet, you might wish to leave it to the people who understand it.
But, seriously, you’re going to reject fundamental and highly useful tools because some corporation is paranoid that people might misuse it? That’s a special kind of worship.
“Filling form features are somehow disabled in techdirt”
Works fine in my browser. As does the login feature to enable you to log in automatically to an account.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
“Their copyright status depends on how widely the service is being misused for illegal copyright problems”
So, presumably, the web and any transfer protocol related to it should be disabled?
Yeah, you might want to leave it to the rest of us. Your obsession with bowing down to the whims of those who worship copyright would only make life poorer for everyone else.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
Respecting copyright is not a technology problem, but rather an people problem, therefore it is not possible to build respect for copyright into software.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
I have a simple question for you, if the copyright of anything you created is challenged, how are you going to prove that it is your own creation?
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
“web handled the problem by limiting the scope of the infringements in their popular browser software”
WTAF is this meant to be? Do you actually think this bears any relationship to reality?
For someone who claims to be a coder, you really don’t understand how things work. No wonder your site is such a failure.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
When the first thing a visitor thinks after the page is loaded is ‘what the f* is this site about’ the site has failed, and they are usually gone within seconds. It should not be up to the visitor to try and find and follow page links that give that infomation, but rather the sites designer should make sure that the purpose of the site is obvious at a glance, and that navigation is fairly obvious, and not just a line of small print.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
“This means that the market opportunity is already gone.”
No, it really doesn’t. Which is one of the reasons why the MPAA is being criticised for both creating a marketplace where it’s hard to find legal content, and a website that was useless at allowing them to do so.
“After this, complaining that MPAA can’t get their web site popular is not worth the effort, since the marketplace is flooded with pirate copies of the same content.”
Yet, the same MPAA have announced record revenues, and there exist many sites which competently do what the MPAA site claimed to be doing.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
“Yes, but market opportunity disappears when new players to the marketplace will be immediately rejected without any proper evaluation of the merits of the new development.”
So, why then, have newer players been so much more successful than the MPAA? It wasn’t a new development that was rejected, it was a half-assed attempt at a patch job.
“I just used my own site as example of how this rejection happens. “
From what I’ve seen, your site is a mess that casual visitors won’t even understand the purpose of, and that has been advertised using the most expensive and least effective tools available to the audience least likely to want it.
So, yeah, there is some parallel between you and the MPAA site, but I don’t think it’s what you imagine it to be.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
So are you saying that individuals should not be able to set up a website to host their own video content.
The thing with all technology is that it an be used for legal or illegal purposes, and the technology has no reliable way of making a distinction.
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
Try telling that to YouTube, as there is more legal user generated content being posted there in an hour or less, that Hollywood and the TV people can generate in a decade. Some of it is niche, so of it good, some of it bad, but users are generating lots of content for lots of differing reasons.
You failure to gain traction with your product is of your own making, you site fails to inform or sell it.
There are plenty of creators making a living using the Likes of YouTube and Patreon, they have discovered that what sell is not the content they created in the past, but their ability to produce new content in the future. Their back catalog show what they are capable of, but they are paid to create new content based on that demonstration, and that ability cannot be pirated.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
“the success of new entrants is short-lived”
According to who? There’s people who are still making a living and have been there since before YouTube were bought by Google. There are movie producers in every year of history who failed after their first attempt and never worked again.
Your rambling nonsense is really not in line with reality.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
And here you are, bitching about how you advertised it on all of two buses, and nobody’s even so much as batted an eyelid for your effort. (You poor fucking baby, I might add.) And that’s how we got your spiel about how it’s pointless to create anything at all because nobody will notice.
By your own admissions your plan is a failure. Nice going.
Re: Re: Re:28 Re:
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
to prepare for the situation when you lower level entities will be fighting for your lacking ownership rights
Oh, that much is already going on. We don’t own anything we buy because you rightsholders will have a cow if we dare to back any of our CDs or software up.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
Wow, you can’t even quote right! Or you don’t understand slang. This is hardly inspiring confidence that you have a product worth pirating, never mind shelling out money for.
But if it was that valuable why would you only spread the information on two vehicles?
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
“we’ve heard already long ago that owners are the ones who will eventually get all the money”
Who told you that lol
The property you own has a value set by the market, and currently that value is $0. You are therefore entitled to a 0% share of the money when it magically appears.
“So I’m a rightsowner now, and can do anything I want with the property.”
Yes, and like a property owner who owns a shop that nobody ever visits you’re getting what your actions and abilities are worth.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
You keep spouting on and on expecting your stuff to be magically valuable. It’d make the user experience so much better if your plans didn’t include insulting everyone who doesn’t agree with your plan to sue children and senior citizens.
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
“They implemented video support for chrome web browser. This is fucking paradise for movie pirates, when they can make a web page in 2 minutes and get their pirated movie files visible to any of their friends.”
What the actual fuck are you blathering on about? Are you honestly saying that piracy began with Chrome, or that no other browser does these things?
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
“Chrome is the market leader”
Now, yes. It didn’t exist until years after YouTube started. So, your argument is ignorant nonsense, as usual. They also have plenty of competition.
“Real problem is that google is struggling to meet the demand.”
I’d love you to cite your source for that information.
“Stock market obviously helps predicting the future behaviour of large masses of people.”
Wow, so you’re as ignorant of finance as you are copyright and the internet? Good job!
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
This is why companies need to be ahead of the curve and predict market behaviours very accurately
But apparently you can’t expect accuracy from programmers or the MPAA, so which is it?
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
“You saw it for 2 minutes and now it’s already being declared failure.”
I’m only going by the words of the guy who’s been complaining about low traffic levels after having done a disastrous marketing campaign that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know wouldn’t work.
If it’s not a failure, stop telling me how much you’ve failed to drive traffic there.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Any division is ok, as long as the division contains all of the work to be evaluated.”
Well, that’s nonsense by definition. How does a movie that contains hundreds or thousands of shots be reduced to a sample that has the work of everybody involved in it?
“If it looks like ripoff from star wars, maybe the random guy from holland wasn’t the original author. “
Indeed. But the vast majority of things are not that obvious. Also, you seem to be extraordinarily confused, as usual. What you’re talking about is plagiarism, not infringement of the original work.
“The process does not need to be 100% accurate”
It absolutely does, otherwise you are by definition not paying some artists.
“you anyway reduce the evaluation to 3 numbers”
No, you really can’t simplify it that much.
“But those numbers can give you a hint whether the work came from pirate group or original author”
How? Viacom couldn’t even keep track of which videos they explicitly authorised YouTube to use in their ongoing court case. How does a 3rd party do this?
You’re either talking about something completely different to everyone else here, or you’re simplified things so much in your head that’s addressing a nonsensical fantasy.Try the real world.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
How to miss the point, Viacom complained about works that they themselves put up on YouTube, and which were therefore by definition not infringing.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“Well, youtube cannot demand every complaint to be 100% accurate”
So, you want people to be sued despite not having been doing anything wrong because, “oh well these things happen”?
Thinking like that is exactly why section 230 exists. These people wanted a free pay day because Google made more money, not actual reparations for infringement.
” If outsiders come and give youtube inaccurate information, it’s then youtube’s responsibility to improve the accuracy enough to make reasonable decisions.”
Where, exactly, do they get this accurate information from, since the content providers don’t know themselves?
Once again, nonsense, that only makes sense if you oversimplify things beyond any realistic description.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
But without a working crystal ball, how are they meant to determine what is under copyright, and who holds the copyright. Note the latter makes the difference between an infringing file and a legal file.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
“Their crystal ball is just broken or they refuse to use it.”
Like I thought – magic. You have no actual solution, just complaints that others aren’t making miracles.
“I already provided the algorithm that works fine in the beginning of this thread.”
No, your provided a laughably over-simplified idea of how things should work that does not mesh with reality, nor with the fact the YouTube don’t have the information to process in the first place. If they don’t supply the content, and they shouldn’t be trusting outside sources, where is this mystical knowledge going to come from?
“They just need to look at the (C) notices that are available in every work to find the author name.”
…and if that’s not present? Or the person who put it there is lying about who created the work? Or they reside in a country with different rules that don’t require any such thing for copyright to be applicable?
“Web platform clearly gives ways to collect that information”
No, it really, really doesn’t .
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
But without a working crystal ball, how are they meant to determine what is under copyright, and who holds the copyright. Note the latter makes the difference between an infringing file and a legal file.
It is one of the factors, you’ve also got to consider that pesky ‘fair use’ thing as well, which can allow those that aren’t the copyright owner to upload a work and not have it be infringing, and context like that can be tricky to determine, certainly not something you could trust to a filter.
Or you could have a situation where the one who uploads something isn’t the copyright owner, and the upload wouldn’t be covered under fair use, but still have it be non-infringing thanks to them having permission to post it from the copyright owner.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
“They should be generating this accurate information”
By the process of magic, I presume? If the people who own the content don’t know, how will they? Plus, so what if YpuTube can do this? Virtually every other platform that might compete will not. So, at best, you’re just demanded that YouTube has an insurmountable lead against any competition.
The only solution is for copyright to be streamlined so that this nonsense stops, and the only way to do that is if the people who hold the copyrights play ball. Which hasn’t happens so far because this silliness is too profitable thus far.
“Are their employees not doing anything?”
Plenty. Including lobbying to try and change the idiotic system you demand.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
When it come to copyright ownership, it is not a problem of generating accurate data, but rather of providing it. 100% accuracy therefore requires corporate copyright holder to make that infomation available, and they are extremely reluctant to do that, but over eager to use the DMCA to their advantage.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
If you’re not going to supply accuracy, don’t expect others to add it in for you.
If a farm supplies a restaurant with manure, don’t expect cordon bleu cuisine out of it. It’s not happening.
And your side is already being paid regularly under the expectation of accuracy. Making yourself sound like some underprivileged mook is pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Sells? Last I checked, I haven’t paid YouTube a cent.
YouTube doesn’t get credit for shit. The music Vevo puts on there doesn’t suddenly stop being Ariana Grande or Charlie Puth’s work. Your attempts at semantics are sad.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
In some contexts, “sell” can be a synonym for “pitch”, as in “pitch the sale of”, as in “advertise”. I’m guessing that this usage was intended to be in that sense.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Huh, why would viacom be responsible of evaluating someone elses platform? “
Because when Viacom sued them for copyright infringement, it turned out they had given express permission for some of the works named.
“If they are required to evaluate youtube’s web site for infringements, why can’t they do the same to my awesome homepage? “
How about the better option – fix the entire system so that people don’t have to be trawling through every site on the internet to know if they’re infringing or not? Works both ways – you’re safe if you inadvertently infringed, while people can be sure that they didn’t infringe on you (although for your sake I hope it’s not writing or logical thinking that represents your day job).
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Giving all our posts a funny vote as I can only assume this level of obliviousness to reality is deliberate trolling. Well played.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
But without a working crystal ball, how are they meant to determine what is under copyright, and who holds the copyright. Note the latter makes the difference between an infringing file and a legal file.
It is one of the factors, you’ve also got to consider that pesky ‘fair use’ thing as well, which can allow those that aren’t the copyright owner to upload a work and not have it be infringing.
Or you could have a situation where the one who uploads something isn’t the copyright owner, and the upload wouldn’t be covered under fair use, but still have it be non-infringing thanks to them having permission to post it from the copyright owner.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Crap, replied to the wrong post. The response that was meant for your comment was as follows:
Giving all our posts a funny vote as I can only assume this level of obliviousness to reality is deliberate trolling. Well played.
It is.
Buying Hollywood's products
Can the public buy Hollywood’s products, in non-physical form, through any of those 461 sites? I.e., receive it in a form that will survive the vicissitudes of the seller—remember "PlaysForSure"?
Re: Buying Hollywood's products
Good point. What you’re USUALLY “buying” is an access code for a custom site that allows you to view the movie through a custom app using heavily DRMed streams. The access can be revoked at any time, the site can vanish without a trace, and the DRM can be altered at will. You aren’t really “buying” anything at all.
Now if the price is right, you could call it a rental. Then it’s just a matter of how reliable the site is along with how easy the app is to use. Very often, the site is flaky and the app buggy, so it’s still not worth it.
So, what is MPAA’s illegal movies site?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
I attempted to use it a few times
I attempted to use it a few times, but what I found was that even if the show was on netflix or hulu it wouldn’t tell you, or if it did it was hidden behind another click or two. What it did tell you was where you could PAY for that movie.
TLDR
This was an advertising site that didn’t actually do what it said it did.
Re: I attempted to use it a few times
When Tron Legacy was released to theaters I tried and failed to find a legal source for the original Tron, which my wife and kid had never seen.
I searched for a bunch of stuff that was never released on DVD or even home video. Unsurprisingly the site couldn’t find a source for any of it. Had a bit more luck on pirate sites. Go figure…
““There are more than 140 lawful online platforms in the United States for accessing film and television content, and more than 460 around the world,” he adds.”
That’s really, really NOT a good thing, unless there’s some major level of crossover between services. When you start adding exclusive content into the mix, that still encourages piracy because there’s no way anyone can subscribe to all services. They’ll sub to a couple, then pirate what’s left over. The fundamental problem is the fragmentation of services and where the content is available. Boasting about how *high* that number is misses the point.
Anyway, all that’s happening here is the typical routine – MPAA fails at addressing customer needs, offers a half-assed solution that nobody really likes and then claim victory when others have stepped in to offer decent service. From what I’ve seen, it was a terrible site that didn’t work half as well as things like JustWatch.
So, now they’re pretending that their failure is still a win, despite having utterly failed in their mission, done nothing to stem piracy and will do nothing to address the fundamental issues that made any such site necessary to begin with.
Re: Re:
It would be good to have plenty of alternatives if everybody had equal access to everything and the quality of service determined winners and losers. I’m off to get some unicorn hair and fairy powder to make my potion.
Here, have this list of legal alternatives. The ones that aren’t ridiculously overpriced by themselves are bundled with services such as cable TV. The ones that are cheaper (but not necessarily reasonably priced) and not bundled require installation of borderline malware things on your computer and selling your soul to Lucifer and making love with a polar bear. Or they are blocked in your region.
Yeah, great way to stop piracy.
Large sites are evil
Where does the requirement come from that every site worth their salt must have millions of items available? That’s really what is wrong with system.
I mean, I can easily build a site that has 100 items in it – it just takes few years to get the (digital) products ready, but end users avoid the site because it doesnt have 2 million items available in the catalog.
Re: Large sites are evil
“Where does the requirement come from that every site worth their salt must have millions of items available? “
There’s nothing of the sort. In fact, one of the sites I subscribe to (MUBI) has only 30 titles available for streaming on any given day. The value there comes from curation and discovery.
The problem is – why should people use your site instead of the ones with millions of items available? There’s plenty of ways to do this, but when you have hundreds of competitors people need a way to find you.
Re: Large sites are evil
What’s stopping you then?
Re: Re: Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
“Now where are all those end users who are screaming for more content?”
If the content there is as good as your writing here, they went to somewhere with better quality stuff.
Re: Re: Re:2 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:3 Large sites are evil
“and they did this evaluation without seeing my content”
Well, they’d have to find it first. Putting content up doesn’t guarantee an audience, you have to advertise and otherwise find the audience to get them there. Doubly so if you refuse to use the platforms people are already using and expect them to try something that nobody’s ever heard of.
“I don’t really understand how their evaluation algorithm can do proper job without even looking at my content.”
Whose algorithm? Are you talking about bots now, or don’t you understand the different between them and human beings?
There’s a huge internet out there, and you have to find your audience. You’ll not get it by looking at your server logs wondering why nobody’s there.
Re: Re: Re:4 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:5 Large sites are evil
So, you don’t know the difference? Wow.
Re: Re: Re:3 Large sites are evil
I had a quick look at your site, and the design sucks big time. First glance it is just a collection of thumbnails of psychedelic images, and unless people look carefully at the small plain text at the top of the page, they have no clue what it is about, and even if they find that, they have little clue as to what you are offering.
You problem is most likely to be obscurity, as without people promoting your site, you visitor number will remain low. You fail to capture peoples interest on the home page, and so they will not mention you site to friends.
Re: Re: Re:4 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:5 Large sites are evil
Two weeks, that would not even get an F for effort. It takes sustained effort over months, if not a year or more to start to get the attention needed for a successful product.
Re: Re: Re:6 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:7 Large sites are evil
There are the big sites like Facebook where people with similar interest gather, and someone with social skills can quietly and successfully promote their products there for free. Indeed they are the main ways of building up a business these days.
But then you seem to hate large sites, and so are avoiding the places where your audience is congregating, and if you are not there, then you are nowhere.
Re: Re: Re:8 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:9 Large sites are evil
I count 7 post referencing an alleged site without a link so far. Again I’m going to assume this is purely trolling, ‘cos no-one is that bad at "adverticing" [sic]
Re: Re: Re:10 Large sites are evil
I took a look at the landing page of his site, 4 occurrence of his name above for a link, and it is as I described it](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/09482039613/mpaa-apparently-silently-shut-down-legal-movies-search-engine.shtml?threaded=false#c878). It would take more effort than I am prepared to put in to figure out what is on offer. I suspect his advertising is as good as his comments, a nice windmill for a bit of tilting practice.
Re: Re: Re:11 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:12 Large sites are evil
Guys, I don’t have a problem if we feed trolls who actually believe what they state, but tp is literally just yanking our chain.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180409/15222139597/malibu-media-picks-fight-with-wrong-defendant-now-facing-abuse-process-allegations.shtml#c743
Re: Re: Re:13 Large sites are evil
Having seen his site, its lack of design elements is in line with his opinions on copyright. The claim to be trolling may be trolling, but the site is consistent with someone who will not use the works of others, even those made available for free, unless absolutely necessary, like operating systems and HTML.
Re: Re: Re:14 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:15 Large sites are evil
He says, using a free website based on free software and free network protocols, presumably using a free web browser.
If you’re so opposed to free, go somewhere you have to pay to make your idiotic assertions.
Re: Re: Re:16 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:17 Large sites are evil
Only in your world. The rest of the world seem pretty profitable when they have products people wish to buy.
But, your hypocrisy is noted.
Re: Re: Re:15 Large sites are evil
You obviously do not Understand the free software/hardware ecosystem. It generates a synergy that expands the power and ability of individuals and companies, like Prusa Research and Red Hat to quote two. Both of those companies contribute to the software and design communities of which they are parts, have no secret designs or software, have a lot of of competitors that use their designs and software, and are still thriving.
Makerbot was open source, but when bought by Stratasys it went closed source and downhill.
Re: Re: Re:12 Large sites are evil
“outside vendor in my local area”
But, why? How would that attract any real business compared to using the existing online communities that you can use for free?
Re: Re: Re:7 Large sites are evil
“Even the 2 weeks costed like 1500 euros, without a single dime returned from the investment”
Because you chose a very expensive venue with little reach toward any audience who would be interested in your product. Why do that rather than go where your likely audience would be, for very little money?
You’re failing because you really don’t know what you’re doing.
Re: Re: Re:8 Large sites are evil
What PaulT said. Aim at your audience. If it’s for coders, where can coders be found?
Re: Re: Re:7 Large sites are evil
tp, WHO are you aiming at? Busses might not be the best way to promote a gaming code website.
Re: Re: Re:5 Large sites are evil
“It was shown for 2 weeks before xmas in there to check if there’s any interest in such products.”
Erm, if true, you really don’t know what you’re doing. Even a cursory glance at the site makes it obvious that it’s not something that would interest the mainstream audiences that such ads would be targeted to. Plus, there’s no local limitation to the reach of your “product”, so why would you only target a very small local area where you have no need to have an offline presence?
You should be targeting ads to sites where people who are interested in what your site does, maybe going to relevant forums and encouraging discussion on it and how it can be improved. Bus adverts and barely visible links on sites where you display how you don’t know what you’re doing are going to cut it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:7 Large sites are evil
“Local area is like testing ground for checking whether the concept works at all.”
Only if you live in a place where people require the service. If you’re setting up a bakery, sure test it out in your local area before setting up franchises elsewhere. A purely online service? Ridiculous. Yo only limit yourself to the random collection of people you are in physical proximity to, and communication beyond that is the very reason this medium exists.
Let me put it this way – you’re using a site accessed from all over the world to argue that your website should only be advertised on buses to people sitting near you. That’s plainly ridiculous.
“3d printing seems to be the primary area of interest for these technologies, but there can be more niche areas that find such tech useful”
Do any of the people who would be interested in such things live in your local area?
Re: Re: Re:6 Large sites are evil
I would suggest that the first thing needed is a redesign of the site so that someone reaching the landing page can see what it is about.
Re: Re: Re:7 Large sites are evil
Agreed. Put some of the information from the About page on the Home page. If people can’t tell at a glance what a website is for and what it’s about, they click off.
Look at mine. Can you tell what it is from the Home page? Whether you are interested in my ravings is not the point; can you tell what the site is and what it is for at a glance? http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/
That is what you need to do.
Re: Re: Re:3 Large sites are evil
_and they did this evaluation without seeing my content?_
I don’t need to see your content. I already know you’re a tool not worthy of further funding.
I choose to avoid your poor excuse for content. It’s not pirating, but it sure as hell doesn’t earn you a penny. That’s what you get for being, in your own words, “a professional troll”.
Re: Re: Re:4 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:5 Large sites are evil
There have been several criticisms of your site, and you approach to garnering interest, suggesting what needs to be done to improve you chances of success. All that has come from you is woe is me, nobody is interested in what I am doing, and that alone is enough to poison the well of any support that you might have garnered here.
Re: Re: Re:5 Large sites are evil
I don’t even know you have a Facebook page. Your behavior on this site tells me all I need to know, you’re the sort of asshole who thinks suing children to protect your virtual bottom line should be commended, instead of criticized. That sufficiently disgusts me to avoid your product, not that it’s difficult if all you did was advertise it on two buses. In a country I don’t even live in. Oh no, that’s probably piracy in your book! Want to call the MPAA on me?
Re: Re: Re:6 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:7 Large sites are evil
“This is why I spent my life creating these entertainment stuff for the children, so that I can backstab them and sue the bastards? “
Why not? That;’s what your heroes at the MPAA do.
Also, your site is devoid of entertainment value, but arguing with your nonsense here is kind of entertaining. Thanks for giving it to us for free!
Re: Re: Re:8 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:9 Large sites are evil
Now you have been programmed to buy my product when the money gathering operation can be ramped up.
Sure, go ahead and wait for the money to start rolling in. I’m sure the people who saw your two buses are falling over themselves to fund your next litigation campaign.
Re: Re: Re:10 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:11 Large sites are evil
Everyone else will keep the same slogan they’re always used – “if your product isn’t worth anything, you don’t get anything”.
I know it’s hard to accept that you put in a lot of work but still failed, but that’s what happens to most businesses in the first year. Trying to force people to buy your product even if they don’t want it is not the answer to that painful truth.
Re: Re: Re:9 Large sites are evil
“Now you have been programmed to buy my product “
You spelt “avoid” wrong. You’re actually reducing your potential market with your arguments here, all while deluding yourself that you’re owed something.
You are a truly impressive specimen.
Re: Re: Re:10 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:11 Large sites are evil
So, do you actually have a psychological condition, or do you just playact when you have an audience?
Re: Re: Re:11 Large sites are evil
And this is why I’m not interested in your site or your product – to view, or buy, or pirate, or know it exists. I don’t need any further insight to realize you’re peddling the finest horseshit. And knowing how rightsholders are you’ll probably sue me if I tried to do anything aside from eating it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:13 Large sites are evil
Thanks for confirming what antipiracy stands for: if somebody feels he’s not filthy rich enough he’s entitled to sue anyone and everyone until he’s satisfied regardless of relevance.
And you think we’re supposed to fund this sort of self-centered behavior. Fuck that noise.
Re: Re: Re:14 Large sites are evil
Re: Re: Re:15 Large sites are evil
Here’s an option.
Move to Nigeria and be a full-time 419 scammer. You’ve already got plenty of practice.
Re: Re: Re:5 Large sites are evil
“You took my face image from facebook and decided based on the photo that any service that I can create is not worthy? “
Nobody cares what you look like. We’re only evaluating you on your actions here and the poor quality work you linked to.
Re: Re: Re:6 Large sites are evil
Not to mention your poor website design; web design is not about providing a pretty landing page.
Design without purpose is decoration – Jeffrey Zeldman.
Web design is about providing your intended audience with an easy-to-navigate at-a-glance view of what the site is for. If you put what they want where they can find it they’ll keep coming back.
Re: Large sites are evil
The advantage of large sites is not just the number of items available, but also the network effects, and the social networking that goes on in a large site like YouTube that allow it.
they are obviously running out of money so by shutting down their legal offering, they are forcing people back on to the less than legal options so that more court wins can be given and more money made in fines from those who then lose everything, including their families, and in some cases, their lives! all over a fucking movie that is only ‘make believe’ and that the world can live without!! nothing entertainment wise is so important that it MUST exist! only those making money from these industries regard everything they do as earth-shatteringly indispensable!! and that includes the bastards in government, law enforcement and the courts who are accepting bribes, just to keep these industries alive!!
“And now comes the news that the MPAA actually shuttered the site months ago.”
So useful no one noticed it gone until the one user who tried it back at the beginning went back a month ago to see if it had improved and saw it was gone!
A good start
Wow! And you only need to subscribe to 713 of them to be able to access all the lawful content!
I found a link to this site last year through an article talking about how horrible it was. I wanted to try it for myself.
Putting in any movie released within a year (but older than 6 months): 0 results found
I also put in well known older movies, such as “Die Hard”: 0 results found
Then I put in “Transmorphers”, a direct-to-confused-consumer movie: 7 results found, with Netflix being #1
The website may have been designed to help people find legal alternatives.
Instead, it showed them few, if any, options actually existed.
It’s no wonder the MPAA took it down.
I’m starting a campaign to get tim geigner removed from Techdirt. The reason? read on…
He used MPAA and Innovate in the same sentence. Thats basically like putting a billion tons of matter and antimatter into a sandwich.
Tim, You could have killed us all*
* this was sarcasm btw for the froth-at-the-mouth weirdoes that often come to techdirt just to make stuff up
MPAA silently pretending their lobbying aka bribing works.