Category Archives:  Publishing

Google Complains that it’s Hard Work to Remove Reported Pirate Links

I came across a story published on today’s Torrent Freak highlighting the conflict between content creators and Google over the search giant’s search results that routinely point to pirated content.  As I pointed out in a blog post last week, despite Google’s much ballyhooed August announcement that they would downgrade (not remove) search results for sites routinely reported for piracy, not much has changed.

Per TorrentFreak, and in typical Google fashion, Google’s Legal Director Fred von Lohmann, employs the oft-used boilerplate, disingenuous refrain that the rise in takedown requests could be considered an attack on free speech:

“As policymakers evaluate how effective copyright laws are, they need to consider the collateral impact copyright regulation has on the flow of information online.”

Von Lohmann goes on to complain that when Google instituted their “new” search ranking policy, they received more than 250,000 takedown requests per week and that number has grown to more than 2.5 million.  While von Lohmann characterizes this trend as evidence that  ”flow of information online” is being obstructed,  I see it as evidence that there is a ton of infringing content/product online that has, until now, efficiently flowed (via Google search) from thief to consumer, impervious to any limit or law.  Why should we have sympathy for sites linking to pirated or counterfeit goods?  How is that an attack on free speech?  It’s not.

Why is that the rights of piracy’s victims–the content creators large and small who work to create films, music, books and more–are discounted in favor of thieves who profit from their crimes?  Check out those reported search results and you will find hundreds of websites that make money by distributing access to pirated/stolen goods, some in digital form, some as tangible (counterfeit) products.  Marc Miller, MPAA’s Senior Vice President for Internet Content Protection points out this inconsistency in TorrentFreak:

“Google’s reading of the data is missing some critical perspective: if the process is cumbersome for Google, it is even more cumbersome for the creators and makers who must constantly be on the lookout to protect their work from theft,”

Piracy apologists like to focus on erroneous takedowns and highlight stories whereby a 9 year-old in Finland had her computer confiscated, or a grandmother in Colorado  had her ISP account wrongfully suspended.  Certainly mistakes happen, and when they do it’s unfortunate,  but they are few and far between when compared with the cumulative  harm being done to those whose livelihoods are damaged by rampant online theft.  For every search result removed in error there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, removed for valid reasons.  Sensationalistic anecdotes make for splashy headlines and provide convenient red-herrings for those who defend the piracy status quo–big bad Hollywood versus the grandmothers of the world–but meanwhile the genuine stories documenting piracy’s ruin are routinely minimized or ignored.

Also lost in this debate is the fact that if one takes the time to read the DMCA, it’s easy to see that the law actually favors the reported party, not the other way around.  If a site has been removed in error, the owner can use the Google website to file a counter-claim with a click of a mouse.  That immediately puts the onus on the party that filed the original DMCA request to go to court and prove the legitimacy of their claim.  If that next step isn’t taken, the takedown becomes moot.   Filing a court case is a costly endeavor so it’s unlikely that those whose file false DMCA claims, whether in error or purposely,  would bother to spend money to enforce a bogus DMCA.  Conversely, those content creators who don’t have deep pockets have little recourse when it comes to enforcing a valid DMCA takedown  if the other party, representing an infringing (pirate) website,  chooses to file a counter-claim.

There’s no denying the current process is rather unwieldy and somewhat broken, but when it comes to rights being at risk, I don’t believe Google has much to complain about.  Sure it costs time and money to process the takedowns and remove offending search results–but isn’t that just the cost of doing business?  There’s a price paid by those who create content–why should it be any different for those who profit by disseminating it?

Monday Memo

 

If you’re an indie musician, filmmaker, artist etc. it’s likely that you have a Facebook Page to promote your work or business.  Over time, through hard work and conscientious social media marketing, you’ve built up quite a following.  When you post updates to your page you expect that fans will see them right?  Well, think again.  Thanks to a change in their algorithm (and need to bolster revenues) Facebook has quietly altered the way their fan pages work.  If you want all your fans (not just 20%)  to see a post in their news feed, you’ll have to pay the privilege.  A recent story in the New York Observer explains this new reality.

It’s no conspiracy. Facebook acknowledged it as recently as last week: messages now reach, on average, just 15 percent of an account’s fans. In a wonderful coincidence,Facebook has rolled out a solution for this problem: Pay them for better access.

Usenet, a website that offers (paid) subscribers access to a variety of “news groups” has long seemed immune from DMCA takedown notices.  Could that be changing?

 

 

Content creators and ISPs (internet service providers) have come to agreement on a voluntary “Copyright Alert System” to begin at month’s end.

The progressive series of alerts is designed to make consumers aware of activity that has occurred using their Internet accounts, educate them on how they can prevent such activity from happening again (for example, by securing home wireless networks or removing peer-to-peer software), and provide information about the growing number of ways to access digital content legally.

“Six Strikes” aside, the ISPs involved have made it clear that no user accounts will be terminated.  Let’s hope the goal of educating the public and reducing piracy is met. More information on the new alert system can be found here.

A new kindle book by author Morris Rosenthal provides a how-to for those who find their work uploaded (illegally) online.  The book “An Author’s Guide to Fighting Internet Copyright Infringements”  He explains his motivation in writing the book on Amazon.com:

I’ve probably spent more time fighting copyright infringements than writing books over the last six years. In one case, I went as far as a two and a half year fight in Federal court. But the bulk of my time has been wasted sending DMCA notices to sites that take down one infringement only to put up another.

After years of frustration I had given up even trying, but when copyright infringements began appearing above my own pages in Google search following their 2011 Panda update, fighting infringements took on a new urgency.

I took a “look inside” and from what I read, it looks promising as a guide to navigating Google’s DMCA process and the web at large. You can purchase the book for a mere 99 cents on Amazon here.

Alan D. Mutter looks at the decline in newspaper ad revenues on his blog Reflections of a Newsosaur:

With the objective evidence suggesting that the newspaper business is living on borrowed time, publishers should be using their residual economic power, brand power and marketing power to develop new digital products to protect and sustain their valuable franchises.  Or else.

 

Monday Memo

Correction to my earlier post on North Country Gazette.

Please note that my earlier post about the North Country Gazette ceasing publication was in error.  The publisher, June Maxam wrote me to explain that the paper is not ceasing publication.  I apologize for the error.

With the Election Over, Attention Turns Back to Congress and What Awaits Musicians

Chris Castle takes to the pages of Huffington Post to explain five reasons why musicians (and those who care about music) should not support the misleadingly titled “Internet Radio Fairness Act.”  Here’s Reason #3:

3. Pandora Wants to Legislate Profits on the Backs of Artists: Now that Pandora has a $2 billion or so market cap, the simple truth is that Pandora is trying to legislate its profits on the backs of artists and so does Google and Sirius XM — a company that has $1.5 billion in cash on their balance sheet. This is just about money, it’s not about music.

But for musicians, the salary remains the same.

Read Chris Castle’s full post “The Tide has Risen-Five Reasons to Worry About the Radio Fairness Act” here and more on the growing political debate in a November 4th story from the NY Times “Fight Builds Over Online Royalties.”

 

China Daily Reports that Free Music Online is Coming to an End

I’ll believe that headline when I see it, but when it comes to cracking down on piracy in China I suppose any news is good news.  The China Daily is reporting that online music distributors in China are in talks with  Warner Music Group, Universal Music and Sony Music Entertainment to “charge” for music downloads.  Not everyone is supportive, nor optimistic about the proposed effort.  Read the entire story on China Daily here.

 

Debate Over Internet and Tech Issues Keep Low Profile During Campaign

Despite a long and cantankerous campaign, neither candidate seemed to pay much attention to issues surrounding the internet and technology.  That’s bound to change once the dust settles.  For a breakdown on the two campaigns and their take on technology issues, check out this report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

 

The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy

The New York Times reveals the truth behind what we all suspected.  You’d be well advised to read those customer reviews touting the latest online offering with a grain of salt because, like Twitter followers and politicians, many are bought and paid for.  From the NY Times:

Reviews by ordinary people have become an essential mechanism for selling almost anything online; they are used for resorts, dermatologists, neighborhood restaurants, high-fashion boutiques, churches, parks, astrologers and healers — not to mention products like garbage pails, tweezers, spa slippers and cases for tablet computers. In many situations, these reviews are supplanting the marketing department, the press agent, advertisements, word of mouth and the professional critique.

To read the full story in NY Times, go here.

E-books popularity continues to grow

Some good news for the publishing industry as the popularity of e-books continues to grow.  According to a study released by the Book Industry Study Groupthe Association of American Publishers, e-book sales totaled more than $2 billion in 2011, more than double the 2010 figurs of $869 million.

“The BookStats survey encompasses all sizes of publishers. No matter what size of publisher you are, digital is an integral part of your strategy — but it’s a matter of degree,” said Tina Jordan, vice president of the AAP, referring to the difference in how large and small publishers perform digitally. -digitalbookworld.com