The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument

For years, years, the MPAA's public fight against piracy has chiefly consisted of a moral argument against it. Proclamations of the end of movies, the downtrodden future of filmmakers, and claims about piracy being equatable to outright theft were the tools of a Hollywood lobbier that itself exhibited the most underhanded sort of tactics in its attempts to get the internet to stop being the internet. It seems facile to state that this moral argument failed to find any purchase with the public, as filesharing went mainstream anyway. The reasons for this should be rather obvious: the arguments the MPAA made and the dooms it foresaw for itself and its industry were provably false. File sharing and piracy are a thing, yet movies still make gobs of money, allowing the MPAA to pay its executives the sort of handsome sums reserved for successful agencies. Still, Hollywood kept to its talking points. Piracy is wrong. Morally wrong.

But it seems that even the MPAA is ready to concede that it has fully lost this argument with the public. The latest from those that worked for the MPAA appears to be that it now wants to switch narratives from a moral argument to one of public danger.

The MPAA's former VP of Worldwide Internet Enforcement says that the industry narrative on piracy is no longer based on trying to get people to act ethically. Hemanshu Nigam says the discussion today is based around the dangers that pirate sites can pose to those who visit them. Few listened before, will they listen now?

Hemanshu Nigam is a former federal prosecutor, ex-Chief Security Officer for News Corp and Fox Interactive Media, and former VP Worldwide Internet Enforcement at the MPAA. In an interview with Deadline this week, he spoke about alleged links between pirate sites and malware distributors. He also indicated that warning people about the dangers of pirate sites has become Hollywood's latest anti-piracy strategy.

"The industry narrative has changed. When I was at the MPAA, we would tell people that stealing content is wrong and young people would say, yeah, whatever, you guys make a lot of money, too bad," he told the publication. "It has gone from an ethical discussion to a dangerous one. Now, your parents' bank account can be raided, your teenage daughter can be spied on in her bedroom and extorted with the footage, or your computer can be locked up along with everything in it and held for ransom."

Now, while Nigam works for the DCA (Digital Citizens Alliance), and the DCA is in part funded by the MPAA, it's worth carefully examining his and the MPAA's stance here to see whether this tactic will be any more effective than the previous moral argument. I think it's likely to fail, for several reasons. The first, as the TorrentFreak post points out, is that those that pirate content are consumers in the business sense. They are a form of customer for the sites that offer this sort of pirated content and they have all the same whims and wills of any paying customer. In other words, a site that lures the public in with pirated content for the purpose of deploying malware to them isn't going to keep its traffic for long.

In the Deadline piece, however, Nigam alleges that hackers have previously reached out to pirate websites offering $200 to $5000 per day "depending on the size of the pirate website" to have the site infect users with malware. If true, that's a serious situation and people who would ordinarily use 'pirate' sites would definitely appreciate the details. For example, to which sites did hackers make this offer and, crucially, which sites turned down the offer and which ones accepted?

It's important to remember that pirates are just another type of consumer and they would boycott sites in a heartbeat if they discovered they'd been paid to infect them with malware. But, as usual, the claims are extremely light in detail. Instead, there's simply a blanket warning to stay away from all unauthorized sites, which isn't particularly helpful.

These sorts of blanket statements to stamp out piracy generally have the ring of a scare tactic for these reasons. Still, scare tactics can certainly work. Will this one? Again, I think not, due to a point we made earlier: file sharing is now mainstream. How many readers of Nigam's interview will be able to easily say that the doom he's warning them of hasn't happened to them as they've engaged in file sharing? The number is going to be quite large, it stands to reason. Rather than the scare tactic working, then, this will come off more like a Reefer Madness for piracy, an analogy everyone from TorrentFreak to the author of the Deadline interview seems to be making. If that happens, the DCA and MPAA take yet another hit to their credibility. There is even evidence that the public generally isn't listening to this latest argument of danger and those that are, are not particularly impressed.

Earlier this year the DCA launched a video campaign, enrolling 15 attorney generals to publish their own anti-piracy PSAs on YouTube. Thus far, interest has been minimal, to say the least. At the time of writing the 15 PSAs have 3,986 views in total, with 2,441 of those contributed by a single video contributed by Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel. Despite the relative success, even that got slammed with 2 upvotes and 127 downvotes.

A few of the other videos have a couple of hundred views each but more than half have less than 70. Perhaps most worryingly for the DCA, apart from the Schimel PSA, none have any upvotes at all, only down. It's unclear who the viewers were but it seems reasonable to conclude they weren't entertained.

Not a great start for this narrative shift, to be sure. The public is steadily becoming more educated on the dangers of malware and viruses, as well as the proper security strategies for their electronic devices. Because of that, vague doomsayers warning of the digital apocalypse stemming from file sharing sites that have only become more popular aren't likely to find a great deal of fertile ground for their efforts.

On a related note, is all of this really easier and more effective than simply coming up with better ways to make money in the digital economy?