Piracy Doesn't Create A Loss To 'The Economy,' But To A Particular Industry

from the good-point dept

For years, we've pointed out that many claims of "losses due to piracy" are incredibly misleading, but there are different levels of misleading. The first is the claim that every download is a lost sale. While that was popular in the early days, most researchers (finally) avoid this sort of claim, though a few will still try to sneak it in as something along the lines of "value of pirated goods," and then the press will run with that number without making the distinction. A second order of misleading is the claim that whatever "losses" are calculated are "losses to the economy." We see this all the time, with various maximalists insisting that without stronger protections that somehow this money goes away from the economy entirely.

Matt Schruers, over at Project DisCo has a good post discussing this exact point, noting that infringement leads to a redistribution of income. We can argue over whether or not that redistribution is good or bad (or societally beneficial or not), but to claim it's an overall loss to the economy is clearly wrong. He notes how rarely this even comes up in the discussion, which is unfortunate. However, he also points us to this hilarious Adult Swim ad, that I'd not seen before, which explains how piracy feeds babies (except, of course, TV piracy): Matt makes it clear that this is, in no way, a defense of infringement, but rather just a reality. If we're going to be talking about copyright reform, the discussion should be honest, and that means not pretending that the money just disappears from the economy entirely. Like any redistributive economic system, it creates some winners and some losers, and a thorough economic analysis would study carefully who those winners and losers are, and whether having those winners and losers matches up with what the law is supposed to do. Similarly, recognizing that there are always some losers whenever you shift around a redistributive system, it can be worthwhile to look at whether or not it's necessary to do something to help out those who end up with the short end of the stick.

Matt's article is well worth reading -- and remembering, when the next group of "studies" claims massive losses to the economy. However, I'd argue in some ways, he actually understates the nefariousness of the "economic loss" claims that are often used. That's because one of the favorite "loss" stats that maximalists like to use -- such as the annual report that IPI puts out done by Stephen Siwek -- makes use of ridiculous "ripple effect" calculations. That is, they don't just say that "movie piracy costs the economy $6 billion per year," but they then add in a multiplier effect, claiming that this is to count the "ripple effects" of the money not spent on the movie. This is simply bad economics in a variety of ways. First, it's counting the same dollar over and over again:

In IPI-land, when a movie studio makes $10 selling a DVD to a Canadian, and then gives $7 to the company that manufactured the DVD and $2 to the guy who shipped it to Canada, society has benefitted by $10+$7+$2=$19. Yet some simple math shows that this is nonsense: the studio is $1 richer, the trucker is $2, and the manufacturer is $7. Shockingly enough, that adds up to $10. What each participant cares about is his profits, not his revenues.

So not only are they recounting the same dollar over and over and over and over and over again, pretending it's new each time, they're also only counting such ripples in one direction. That is, they assume that the money saved by not purchasing the content in question doesn't go back into the economy productively elsewhere. And, like the "piracy feeds babies" joke above, at times, the "ripple effect" in the other direction can be quite beneficial for the economy. For example, say a small company uses unauthorized copies of expensive software to build an amazing tool that drives all sorts of productivity growth elsewhere. That may be wrong and illegal, but the impact on the economy can actually be quite positive.

Again, the point of all of this is not to say that infringement has no economic impact at all -- or that it's good or bad. There are a lot of different variables at play here. And that's the key point. Any serious look at the economic impact of changing the laws needs to take a look at all of that in determining the overall economic impact, and not just at the aggregate economic impact, but the economic impact throughout the chain. Unfortunately, so far, very few studies appear to go that far, and, instead present very misleading statements about the overall impact on the economy.

Filed Under: copyright, distribution, economics, infringement, losses

Writer of 'Daredevil' Comics: Equating Piracy With Lost Sales Is 'Baloney'

from the if-so,-then-every-stolen-car-is-a-lost-sale dept

It's been pointed out here on multiple occasions that one pirated item does not equal one lost sale. It's a fallacy various rights holders have used for years in order to exaggerate losses (helpful when asking the government to write legislation favoring clunky business models) and to justify stupid, restrictive DRM (helpful for punishing paying customers).

Mark Waid, the writer of Daredevil and Green Hornet comics, as well as a distributor of digital comics via his own site Thrillbent, made this point during a recent panel at Comic Con International. (via Nate Hoffelder)

“I think it is not only unaffected by piracy, it benefits from pirating. You cannot stop pirating of comics. It’s like trying to push the tide back with a broom. You can either be angry about it, and resistant, and fight and clamp down harder, or you can find ways to make that tool work for you. With Thrillbent, we offered all our files free to download on a weekly basis, so you can read them free on the site and you can also download them for free, and that way, sure enough, we got to control the quality of the image, we got to make sure it was not out of focus or crappy or corrupted files or whatever, we got to make sure there was a placard at the end that says, hey, if you like this come to Thrillbent for more stuff, and that worked wonders for us. And I know that pumped up our traffic. That is not the answer for every publisher, but I will go to my grave not buying the baloney that every pirated comic was a lost sale.”

Rather than seeing the drawbacks inherent in digital distribution, Waid (along with others at the conference) see opportunities that weren't previously available with physical distribution. Digital distribution has pushed comics to new audiences in places where brick-and-mortar stores would be impossible or unsustainable, like foreign countries (or "Mississippi," as Waid pointed out). The end result is growth across the board, both physical and digital.

[A]s Joe Field [owner of Flying Colors Comics in Concord, CA] pointed out early in the discussion, both digital and print sales are growing. "In my 27 years in this business, this is probably the closest we have gotten to having all cylinders clicking at the same time," he said. "There are a lot of reasons for that, and I'll grant that digital plays a part in that because digital has created a universality in the availability of comics. Had there been some way to instantly open 10,000 good brick and mortar stores, well located, in places all around the globe, maybe digital wouldn't be growing the way it is."

Essential to the growth of digital platforms is the removal of barriers like DRM, something that restricts content to certain devices or certain countries. More comics are attempting to run DRM free, including Image Comics and a handful of others. Thrillbent runs DRM-free and allows for downloads of purchased items while others have moved their comics exclusively to cloud services, which can be their own forms of DRM, as Waid points out.

"Personally, I actually like owning the files," he said. "I'm comfortable enough with cloud-based stuff, but given a preference, I'd rather own the files just because I don't want to be in a situation where I don't have internet connectivity and I suddenly remember that album I wanted to listen to or the comic book I wanted to read and I don't have access to the cloud at that moment. But that's just me. Part of doing this through the [Thrillbent] storefront, it's, let's give it a whirl and see, and we'll feed that data back to everybody."

As Waid states, his distribution scheme won't work for every player in the content industry. But his underlying point is essential: treating piracy as lost sales tends to result in actions that are ultimately customer-unfriendly. It shifts the focus from providing the best possible experience for paying customers to anti-piracy efforts, something that rarely pays off in the long run. Most of this seems to be based on the rationale that doing "something" to fight piracy is better than making no effort at all, even if those who have dumped a ton of money into these efforts rarely produce any data showing a positive return on investment. Waid's response -- trusting your paying customers and treating piracy more as a vehicle for exposure than anything else -- just makes more sense.

Filed Under: comics, copyright, drm, infringement, mike waid

The End Of The Original Three Strikes Program, And Other Stories About Online Infringement From On The Media

from the listen-up dept

I'm an avid listener of the radio show On the Media, and the latest episode touched on a variety of topics concerning copyright infringement online that may interest some folks here (after their discussion of how the press reported on Anthony Weiner's latest Weinering and the UK porn filter). The section on infringement kicked off with a fantastic segment with our own Glyn Moody discussing the end of the original Hadopi program, which will no longer be kicking people off the internet, and has shut down the costly bureaucracy that ran such a program (moving some of the people into another agency). He also discusses how increasing evidence has shown that having legal alternatives reduces infringement.

The other story that caught my attention was a brief interview with Alex Winter about his new documentary called Downloaded which I've been meaning to watch. From everything I've heard, Winter does a great job telling the story of the original Napster and its battles, while also profiling those who lined up against it. The documentary doesn't "take one side," but shows that the story was a lot more complex and nuanced than many made out at the time. If you enjoy that, you might also like a much longer interview with Winter (who, you might also know as "Bill" alongside Keanu Reeve's "Ted" in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure) that was aired recently on The Nerdist.

Among the other segments is one report on the Joel Tenenbaum case that includes interesting interviews with Tenenbaum himself, his main lawyer Charles Nesson who crafted the disastrous and ill-thought-out strategy of his legal campaign, and also the judge in the original district court trial, Nancy Gertner, talking about how she couldn't believe how frequently the RIAA was taking advantage of clueless kids doing some file sharing. Also, a discussion with author Peter Mountford about helping a Russian translator make an unauthorized translation of his book (a story we covered as well), and finally the show checked with the FBI about how truthful the FBI warning is at the beginning of every DVD you watch (answer: not very).

As always, lots of good stuff.

Filed Under: alex winter, copyright, downloading, infringement, peter mountford, three strikes

If The Feds Say Collecting Data Is Not A Search Until It Looks At Them, Is It Not Piracy Until You View The File?

from the just-saying... dept

One of the (many) governmental excuses that have been spread in an attempt to defend the NSA surveillance practice of collecting every bit of data is that just the collection isn't a "search and seizure." That is, they claim that until they actually look at the data they've collected, they haven't even triggered a 4th Amendment issue. Of course, most people find that sort of redefinition difficult to believe from just a common sense standpoint. However, security guru Tom Ritter jokingly spun this around on Twitter recently:

Hey, so according to the government, I can download movies, and it isn't piracy until I watch them, right?

Okay, so I can already hear the copyright maximalist wonks banging away at their keyboards to mention that the exclusive rights provided under copyright law include reproduction and distribution, so merely making a copy via a download could violate those two rights. And, of course, that's how the courts have seen it. But, the point he's making is actually quite reasonable. Yes, according to common sense and the basic definitions in English we all know, when the NSA hoovered up all the data about all of your communications, most normal people would think it's a search. But, now that the feds are admitting that normal English doesn't apply, and that they can hold all your data without violating any law, it seems only fair to flip that around on them. So, even if basic English says that downloading a copy likely involves potentially infringing on the reproduction right, if we just use the NSA's dictionary, clearly, copyright holders should need to also prove that the file itself was opened. Otherwise, it's as if nothing at all happened...

Just to reinforce this for the angry maximalists (assuming they read this far): this post is not actually about copyright law -- it's about the NSA's defense of surveillance. Also, learn what sarcasm means. Don't bother spewing something stupid now.

Filed Under: collecting, copyright, infringement, nsa, nsa surveillance, search, tom ritter

California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft

from the hmm... dept

I was a bit confused to see California Attorney General Kamala Harris announce that she, with the help of the MPAA, had broken up an "online piracy ring" that was streaming movies online. That's because Harris has no authority when it comes to copyright issues. Copyright is a federal, not state law, and copyright cases need to be in federal court. But that's not what happened here. Instead, she rounded up a trio of brothers, Hop, Tony and Huynh Hoang... and charged them with grand theft, conspiracy and receiving stolen property. I was wondering if there was any actual "theft" going on here, or if Harris is simply redefining theft to get around federal preemption rules for copyright infringement. From her statements, it sounds like a blatant attempt to get around federal preemption as a favor to the MPAA.

“Digital piracy is theft. It is a serious crime that harms one of California’s most important economic engines – our entertainment industry,” said Attorney General Harris. “This case sends a clear message that the California Department of Justice will investigate digital piracy and prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law.”

Except that infringement and theft are two very different issues, which are taken care of under two very different laws. I know that the MPAA loves to call infringement "theft" but it does not make it legally "theft."

Separately, it's worth pointing out that the details of this case, once again show that the claims of people that various "pirate" sites are making tons of money doesn't have much support:

Over the 18 months of the website’s operation, the brothers earned approximately $150,000 in advertising revenue.

So, 18 months, 3 brothers, $150,000. That's $50,000 per brother. Or, about $33,000 per year, per person, not counting expenses. If the sites were even remotely popular, most of that money went towards hosting. So, not exactly a huge moneymaker.

Either way, the bigger issue here appears to be the attempt by the MPAA and AG Harris to redefine copyright law as "theft" to avoid a federal case concerning copyright. That's an incredible attempt to change the meaning of the law, which one hopes a judge will toss out on preemption grounds. If these brothers actually did what they're accused of, why not go after them on copyright infringement grounds? It seems likely that the MPAA has been just waiting for a case like this to try to circumvent the basic tenets of copyright law, to pretend that laws on theft apply.

Filed Under: california, copyright, infringement, kamala harris, preemption, streaming, theft
Companies: mpaa

Once Again, Convenience Trumps Free, As Few People Pirate Arrested Development

from the over-and-over-and-over-again dept

We've pointed out over and over and over again for years that for many people (certainly not all, but enough to make a huge difference) convenience trumps free when it comes to getting content. The latest example of this in action is the fact that way fewer people downloaded the new Arrested Development from unauthorized sources than other similarly hyped TV shows. As you probably know, the new Arrested Development was released via Netflix, rather than TV, and all episodes were immediately available. Unlike other TV shows that are tied to cable and hardly available online at all, Arrested Development was easy to watch online for those who had a Netflix account (which also doesn't require additional fees to watch the show if you already have a subscription).

So: it was available online, easy to watch, no marginal cost (if you had the subscription) and available on multiple platforms without limitation (i.e. no "you must watch within 24 hours").

The bizarre thing is that so many of the efforts by the entertainment industry seem to be designed to make things less convenient. They don't make it available online. They require you to have a cable account. They have added costs per episode or show. There are requirements about how long you have to watch it. And then they wonder why there's so much infringement?

If you offer a good product, that focuses on access and convenience, people are clearly willing to pay. This has been the lesson for well over a decade. It's amazing that it still needs to be repeated.

Filed Under: access, arrested development, convenience, copyright, infringement
Companies: netflix

Judge Rejects Lawsuit Against YouTube As 'Frankenstein Monster Posing As A Class Action'

from the good-ruling dept

You may recall that soon after Viacom sued YouTube, the Premier League football association (which is notorious for aggressively seeking to enforce its copyrights) sued as well, and sought to turn its case into a class action lawsuit for basically anyone who might have had their copyright-covered works uploaded to YouTube. The court has now eloquently smacked that attempt down, pointing out that the issues for different individuals and organizations would be totally different, making it inappropriate to lump them all together.

Forty five years ago Judge Lumbard of the United States Court of Appeals for this circuit called a case a "Frankenstein monster posing as a class action." ... The description fits the class aspects of this case.

The putative class consists every person and entity in the world who own infringed copyrighted works, who have or will register them with U.S. Copyright Office as required, whose works fall into either two categories: they were subject of infringement which was blocked by YouTube after notice, but suffered additional infringement through subsequent uploads (the "repeat infringement class"), or are musical compositions which defendants tracked, monetized or identified and allowed to be used without proper authorization (the "music publisher class"). Plaintiffs assert that there are "at least thousands of class members" the Repeat Infringement Class, and "hundreds" in the Music Publisher Class...

It then goes on to point out that YouTube is just the platform, and just because infringing content is uploaded to YouTube, it doesn't automatically make YouTube liable. It notes that "YouTube does not generate infringing material." And, given that, the situations of various potential class members is quite different. Then there's a strong point related to all of this: because there are all sorts of different issues related to copyright, "copyright claims are poor candidates for class-action treatment." Specifically, there would need to be specific evidence relating to each individual infringement, and that makes it silly to do this as a class action.

Here to make resolutions which advance the litigation will require the court to determine, for each copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, whether a copyright holder gave notices containing sufficient information to permit the service provider to identify and locate the infringing material so that it could be taken down. That requires individualized evidence. Further, the analysis required to determine "fair use," and other defenses, is necessarily specific to the individual case.

The court points out that the benefit of a class action is that there's "an issue that is central to the validity of each of the claims in one stroke" but that's clearly not true with mass copyright claims. Given all that, the class certification (for both classes) was denied.

Filed Under: class action, copyright, infringement, videos
Companies: google, premier league, youtube

Canadian Anti-Infringement Enforcement Company Caught Using Infringing Photos On Its Website

from the casual-infringement-for-all! dept

IP "enforcement" is a Herculean task (according to the enforcers), one that requires so much time and energy that those pursuing infringers barely have time to make sure their own backyard is clean. Many in the copyright industry (or closely affiliated) have been caught infringing on others' copyrights: hosted infringing material. SOPA pusher Lamar Smith. NBC Universal. Righthaven. The US Copyright Group. The list literally goes on and on.

Here we are again, discussing an entity so concerned with outside infringement, it can hardly be bothered to notice the infringement within its own walls. Canipre, the Canadian "forensics software" company that has hunted down IP addresses for a "million pirates" on behalf of lawsuit-happy studios like Voltage Pictures ('Hurt Locker,' anyone), has decked out its (rather overdramatic) website with the unlicensed photos belonging to others.

Canipre, as a company, offers to track down people who are illegally downloading copyrighted material from record companies and film studios. According to their website, they have issued more than 3,500,000 takedown notices, and their work has led to multimillion dollar damages awards, injunctions, seizure of assets, and even incarceration.

In a recent interview, Canipre's managing director Barry Logan explained that it's about much more than just money—he's hoping to teach the Canadian public a moral lesson:

"[We want to] change social attitudes toward downloading. Many people know it is illegal but they continue to do it... Our collective goal is not to sue everybody… but to change the sense of entitlement that people have, regarding Internet-based theft of property.”

Well, it seems the "sense of entitlement" goes all the way up. Here's a screencap of Canipre's website that features a self-portrait by Steve Houk.


We'll quote Vice here:

So, just to be clear: Canipre has written "they all know it's wrong and they're still doing it." Referring to copyright theft. On top of an image that they are using without the permission of the copyright holder. On their official website.

Houk says no permission was given to use his photo. He contacted Canipre directly to discuss its infringement and to point out that is was "disheartening" to see a company claiming to "champion intellectual property rights" obviously disregarding the rights of others. This led to Canipre's marketing director firing off a volley of emails and phone calls before finally deciding to pass the buck.

Logan claimed that the company used a 3rd party vendor to develop their website and that the vendor had purchased the image from an image bank.

I pointed out to Logan that if that was true, he had basically paid his vendor to rip off other people's creative work. Logan told me that he would contact his web provider and have the image removed. He also told me that he would provide me with the name of the website developer and the name of the image bank where they obtained my photo.

So, it's important that Canipre maintains a presence on the web that properly (and noirishly) delivers its message on the importance of intellectual property rights, but not important enough to dot i's, cross t's and make sure its "third party vendor" isn't simply grabbing images from "the internet" (or image banks with their own infringement problem).

Logan has yet to provide the name of the developer or the image bank, so it still remains somewhat of a mystery which 3rd party vendor slapped Houk's photo onto an IP enforcer's website. And this photo, taken by Sascha Pohlflepp. And this one, taken by Brian Moore. At this point, all of the infringing photos have been taken down, but only after Vice called attention to Canipre's actons.

The ironic thing about the last two photos is that they're both Creative Commons-licensed, meaning all Canipre (or its vendor) had to do was properly attribute the photos. But neither could be bothered.

Now, some might say that in the scheme of things, Canipre's infringement is nothing compared to the infringement it's fighting. But here's the difference. Canipre is a company that helps studios like Voltage sue alleged infringers based on not much more than an IP address. File sharers aren't turning a profit or presenting themselves as righters of the world's wrongs. If you're going to put yourself in the position of "educating" people (via mass lawsuits) about the importance of the intellectual property rights you're being paid to protect, you had better make sure you're not stepping on the IP toes of others.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, infringement, licenses, photographs
Companies: canipre, voltage pictures

Once Again Top Downloaders Are Top Spenders, According To UK Gov't Study

from the how-many-times-does-it-have-to-be-said? dept

If there's one clear trend that has emerged in recent years, it's that those who download and share unauthorized copies of files the most also tend to be the most avid purchasers of similar material. This completely negates the copyright industry's rhetoric that people who share files are just a bunch of freeloaders, suggesting instead that it's more a matter of sampling materials before going on to buy. It also implies that instead of seeking to punish such downloaders, the copyright companies should actually try to nurture them as potentially their best customers.

Even worse for the maximalists is that much of the new research revealing this trend is being conducted not by groups wearing eye patches and sporting wooden legs, but by government bodies keen to better understand the underlying dynamics of the online world. We wrote about one such study back in November, which had been commissioned by the UK regulatory body Ofcom -- the epitome of dull respectability. A follow-up report with the ponderous title "Online copyright infringement tracker benchmark study 'Deep Dive' analysis report" (pdf) has now appeared offering additional insights into why people download and stream unauthorized copies, how much they spend anyway, and what might encourage them to spend even more. The large sample size -- over 10,000 people -- makes its findings particularly valuable.

Here's one of the key results:

The Top 10% Infringers accounted for just 1.6% of the 12+ internet user population, but were responsible for 79% of infringed content. The Top 20% infringers, accounting for 3.2% of 12+ internet users, were responsible for 88% of infringements.

…

Despite their high levels of infringement, the Top 20% Infringers also accounted for 11% of the legal content consumed. The Top 20% Infringers also spent significantly more across all content types on average than either the Bottom 80% Infringers or the non-infringing consumers (£168 [$250] vs. £105 [$160] vs. £54 [$83] over the six month period covered).

As mentioned above, by now this is pretty much as expected, since survey after survey shows the same. But the current research explores a number of other aspects in greater depth, and presents new results we've not seen before. For example, in answer to the question "what would make you stop downloading or streaming content illegally?", the top answers by those downloading and spending the most were in the following order:

If legal services were cheaper
If everything I wanted was available legally
If legal services were more convenient\flexible
If everything I wanted was available legally online as soon as it was released elsewhere
If it is clearer what is legal and what isn't
If legal services were better
If a subscription I was interested in became available

As that makes clear, the main obstacles stopping them spending even more is unreasonable pricing and lack of availability -- things that the copyright world is still dragging its feet over.

The new analysis also tries to break down those accessing unauthorized copies into four broad categories that reflect their different attitudes. These are:

1. Justifying Infringers (9% of infringers, 24% of infringed volume, 2% of total digital consumers)

2. Digital Transgressors (9% of infringers, 22% of infringed volume, 2% of total digital consumers)

3. Free Infringers (42% of infringers, 35% of infringed volume, 10% of total digital consumers)

4. Ambiguous Infringers (39% of infringers, 20% of infringed volume, 9% of total digital consumers)

It's well worth reading the full report to see what the detailed analysis reveals about each of them. The research also tries to understand the different kinds of users who always access authorized copies, both paid and free, and then compares them in a variety of ways with the other group.

All-in-all, this is a valuable contribution to the field, and Ofcom is to be congratulated for continuing to commission innovative research that tries to get beyond the simplistic statistics that have hitherto been used to justifying ever-harsher punishments, in order to understand how the interests of both public and creators can be better aligned for their mutual benefit.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: best customers, downloaders, infringement, uk
Companies: ofcom

Indian Studio Uploads Pirated Version Of Its Film To Its Official Youtube Account

from the man,-that-kamal-ddr-sure-makes-a-ton-of-movies dept

I can't imagine what went wrong here. You'd think an official Youtube account for a movie studio wouldn't be lacking in non-infringing content to upload. Nonetheless, India's Saregama Movies somehow ended up with a pirated movie as an official upload. Not only that, but the pirated version had gathered nearly 166,000 views before being taken 'round back and privatized by the studio. Twitter user Last Avenger screencapped the miscue in all its glory.

A search for Kamal DDR will bring up hundreds of listing, all pointing to various torrent links. Kamal DDR apparently "supplied" this copy to Saregama, although exactly how that ended up on the official channel rather than the studio's own un-pirated version remains a mystery.

Returning to the scene of the self-inflicted crime (as it were), viewers are now greeted with the familiar skewed-emoticon-o'-public-embarrassment.


No explanation for this switch-up has been provided by Saregama, so we're left with speculation. Could it be that torrenting the file was easier than finding it on the server? Was this preserved on a Saregama hard drive as evidence and labelled unclearly? Was this a disgruntled employee's last act? Rogue administrator? Are the phone calls truly coming from inside the house, torrentially-speaking? It also appears that this issue may not be limited to this film. Roughly a third of the links on Saregama's Upload list dead end with a "page not found" message.

Maybe original and pirated copies mingled freely within Saregama's local storage, much as they do on the open market. India's struggle with truly rampant piracy (as compared to the non-rampant piracy that is fretted about constantly by lobbyists and ICE heads) has been well documented and yet the country still cranks out roughly 80 million films (estimated) every year.

At the end of the day, Saregama's house is (mostly) back in order. Only the quizzical private-video-face remains, along with a selection of full-length films from the Saregama catalog (many with English subtitles) and a few unanswered questions.

Filed Under: india, infringement, movies, upload, youtube
Companies: saregama movies