blogger | Vox Indie

12 Stepping Through Piracy’s Takedown Maze of Madness

[kb_slider Maze]

This past Monday the Wall Street Journal published a thought-provoking piece ”As Pirates Run Rampant, TV Studios Dial Up Pursuit.” Written by Christopher Stewart, the article explored how the television industry, studios, and film distributors are protecting their businesses from the ravages of online piracy. Kathy Wolfe, founder of Wolfe Video, the largest distributor of independent LGBT films in the world, spoke about the challenge of staying in business amid a sea of piracy. She told the Wall Street Journal that she estimates online piracy cost her small company more than 3 million dollars in 2012. In order to prevent that figure from growing, Wolfe spends over $30,000 annually (half the company’s profits) to scan the web for infringing content and send takedown notices. When I spoke with her today, she told me that her company could easily be forced out of business were anti-piracy efforts not in place.

In the meantime, according to Wolfe, they are working hard to develop a robust online streaming business. She says that 38% of their income now comes from online streaming and she expects that percentage to grow “radically” every year. ”Now with our Wolfe on Demand [website], we have a formula that is accessible and affordable,” says Wolfe. She adds that by establishing their own online portal, and not depending on exclusively on other sites (iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, etc), Wolfe can direct a bigger percentage of profits back to the filmmakers.

Despite Wolfe’s success in growing online sales, mitigating piracy has become a fundamental part of protecting their business. ”If it weren’t for our anti-piracy efforts, we certainly wouldn’t be functioning at the level we’re functioning at now,” she says.

After all, it’s still difficult to compete with free and the indie filmmakers who partner with Wolfe (including myself) are fortunate that the company bears the brunt of worldwide anti-piracy efforts. But whether it falls to a small independent film distributor such as Wolfe, or an individual filmmaker, the job of removing pirated content from the web is an onerous (and expensive) one.

Where does one begin? Well, in the example I’m about to outline, these are the 12 Steps a filmmaker would follow in order to remove ONE illegal movie from the web:

Step One: Find the film using Google search.
Step Two: Navigate to the YouTube (Google) channel featuring dozens of pirated movies.
Step Three: From there, click the movie you want and go to the description linking to a Blogger (Google) pirate site.
Step Four: Before you leave YouTube (Google), send a DMCA notice either via Content ID system or email.
Step Five: Navigate to the Blogger (Google) website, click the link.
Step Six: Click past pop-up ads to find the embedded film.
Step Seven: Fill out and send a DMCA notice to Blogger (Google) via online web form.
Step Eight: Click the VK icon on the embedded film to navigate to the host site for the infringing file.
Step Nine: Create an account with VK to find that actual URL of the infringing file
(amid more than 100 other uploads by the same pirate).
Step Ten: Fill out and send a DMCA Notice to VK via the online web form (no email address provided).
Step Eleven: Send a DMCA takedown to Google search to have the original link removed from search (YouTube link) in case Vk.com doesn’t respond.
Step Twelve: Get depressed when you have to begin all over a couple of days later when the Blogger pirate makes a new YouTube channel.

Let’s begin our journey with Google search–unquestionably the world’s most popular path to find links to pirated films. In the example below, I searched for the indie French film “Tomboy.” Thanks to Google, I ended up on a YouTube movie channel with links to more than 100 popular indie films. The films aren’t actually uploaded to YouTube. Instead, a it’s dummy file with the movie poster that includes a link to an external website in its description.

I’ve written before about the fact that YouTube is routinely used by pirates as an efficient means attracting traffic to their pirate websites and the example outlined here is no exception. In this case, the YouTube channel links to an external site also hosted by Google’s on its very own Blogger platform: http://cinegay9.blogspot.com.

If you are an indie filmmaker whose film pirated on this site, how can you remove the link? Well your first step would be to send a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube asking that the link to the pirate site be removed using their online form…

You have to fill in each line but, even when you click and send, your takedown request won’t touch the linked-to pirate’s page even though it’s also a Google entity, in this case a Blogspot.com offering an actual embedded stream of your (pirated) film.

If you click the link below the movie description on YouTube you’ll eventually end up at the pirated blog but, before you can glimpse the page, you’ll have to endure, and click past, a pop-up advertisement featuring ads from a panoply of well-known companies including: Dodge, Network Solutions, Reebok, XBox 360, Norton Software, Comcast and Hootsuite.

After you close the pop-up window, you’ll come to the pirate’s website.

Click the thumbnail for the movie, and after you click through another pop-up advertisement featuring ads from Progressive Insurance, Stanford Hospital, Home Depot, U.S. Forest Service, and Toyota….

you’ll eventually arrive at an actual embedded stream of the full movie:

Ok, so if you’re the indie filmmaker who made this film, what do you do next? Well, before yo leave the Blogger site you can notify Google (again) by sending a DMCA takedown notice to Blogger.

However, even if the Blogger page disappears, the online stream doesn’t. So what’s the next step? Well, at first glance the video is clearly hosted on a Russian site, vk.com (a site like Facebook). However, if you click the VK logo, you don’t end up at actual film, but rather a page full of uploaded (pirated) movies on this pirate’s Vk.com account (seen below).

Click on the film and nothing happens so uncovering the actual stream file and URL seems hopeless. But, if you’re really persistent, there is a way. To do so you must create an account at VK.com (and give up your cell phone number). It’s a major pain involving a text message with a confirmation code, etc.

Once you have an account and log in, you’ll finally be able to navigate to the infringing file and find the actual URL you’ll need to report in your takedown notice.

There’s no guarantee that any of these pages or links will be removed so in order to be totally thorough, you may want to file a DMCA notice to have Google remove the original search result that led you to your pirated film in the first place.

Of course, after all this work, you think you’re finished right? After all, you check back with YouTube and the pirate who started this whole process account has been terminated for “multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement.”

Victory right? Well, not so fast…revisit Google search and you’ll discover that Cinegay9blogspot’s channel has been reincarnated with the user name reotereds. Guess it’s time to start the DMCA takedown process all over again…

YouTube pirate wastes no time in generating a new channel to attract traffic to his blogger-hosted pirate website

Tell me again why artists, photographers, filmmakers and musicians should have to go to these lengths to protect their work from thieves? Wouldn’t our time be better spent creating our art, rather than having to police it so that we can earn a living and afford to spend time to create something new?

Netflix Ads + Google Blogspot + Stolen Movies = Piracy Profits

As the Annenberg Innovation Lab releases its February “Ad Transparency Report” on major brands link to advertising on pirates sites it’s also worth taking a look (again) at yet another recent example as to how Google–along with Netflix in this case–continues to incentivize, and monetize, online piracy.

Google-hosted site features ads for Netflix and active (free) download links for a popular movie.

This is a Google-hosted website (via their Blogger platform) that features (as of yesterday) active download links to the Hollywood hit “The Dark Knight Rises.” Note the (Google-served) advertising to the right. At the top of the list is an ad for Netflix. Now, I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again….Why go to Netflix and pay to watch the movie when you can click a download link and watch it for free?

Remember, Google is earning money, Netflix is gaining customers (earning money) and the Blogger pirate is earning money. The film’s distributor, Warner Brothers, earns nothing. Sure, the studio is part of “big” Hollywood, but please remember–big Hollywood employs hundreds of thousands of “little” people who toil behind the scenes. These grips, gaffers, caterers, drivers, makeup artists, script supervisors, carpenters, etc. depend on these Hollywood-generated jobs to put food on the table. This is not a victimless crime.

There is no reason on earth that Google (and Netflix) can’t do a better job vetting websites where their advertising appears. Profits for both are soaring. Rather than hire additional staff to deal with these issues, it appears both companies are happy with apparently profitable, yet shameful, status quo.

Profits for Google and Netflix are robust.

Despite lip-service to the contrary, neither company seems willing to take voluntary action for fear that it could impact their bottom line. So what’s left? As Dennis Kneale of Fox Business wrote in his piece today:

The report deploys a new weapon in the assault on online piracy: public shame. The USC Annenberg lab’s director, Jonathan Taplin, hopes that publicly identifying the offending ad-nets will persuade them to block pirate sites entirely.

Ad supported piracy is nothing new, but finally the public is starting to pay attention. Shame on Google and shame on Netflix and all the other established companies that continue to look the other way.

Chronic, Ill-Gotten Gains–Google’s Web of Piracy Profit

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

— Sir Walter Scott

Surprise, surprise–Google announced today that its profits “surged” this quarter thanks to an increase in online advertising revenue. A company press release heralded the report:

We ended 2012 with a strong quarter,” said Larry Page, CEO of Google. “Revenues were up 36% year-on-year, and 8% quarter-on-quarter. And we hit $50 billion in revenues for the first time last year – not a bad achievement in just a decade and a half. In today’s multi-screen world we face tremendous opportunities as a technology company focused on user benefit. It’s an incredibly exciting time to be at Google.”

The company’s stock price jumped nearly 5% on the news. So, while Google executives and its shareholders are happy, one has to ask–how much of that “revenue” continues to come from not-so-ethical sources? I hate to sound like a broken record, but until Google gets its act together, I will continue to point out its duplicity with regard to online piracy and its ad revenue.

In the wake of this bullish news from Google I thought I’d point out a recent case study that demonstrates the myriad of ways Google supports (and profits from) piracy. This particular pirate movie website (shown below) is hosted on Google’s free “Blogger” platform. As with most other posts on the site, this one (published 1-18-13) features an embedded movie (a complete version of the indie film David’s Birthday) hosted via Google’s YouTube. The advertising above, and to the right of the embedded film, is served up by Google’s AdSense. Oh, and I found this site using Google’s search engine.

This Google-hosted blog features pirated films hosted on YouTube as well as AdSense advertising.

What makes this situation particularly troubling is that this blog had already been reported to Google (via their DMCA system) in December of 2012.

After receiving a takedown notice from Google the site’s owner posted a response, saying that he was considering closing it.

Blogger site owner received this notice from Google. Despite the warning and repeated violations of Blogger “Terms of Use” the site remains online.

He apparently had a change of heart, and within a few days, resumed posting (infringing) content on his site –including (ironically) the aforementioned “David’s Birthday” despite its having been cited in the December DMCA notice. This time, instead of posting infringing download links, he’s chosen to embed movies streamed via YouTube, each coupled with AdSense ads.

So, despite having been reported for multiple infringing links, the site remains up and running. In the meantime, Google appears to be in no hurry to take it offline. Don’t they have an obligation to remove the site? The language in Blogger’s Terms of Service outlining their “content policy” is conveniently vague. When a site violates its policy Google promises to take action “based on the severity of the violation” but it’s not really clear what criteria is used to measure the “severity” of a reported violation.

Blogger’s terms of service

As for the AdSense, its “Terms of Service” seem pretty straightforward. Well, sort of…

Prohibited Uses. You shall not, and shall not authorize or encourage any third party to…

(v) display any Ad(s), Link(s), or Referral Button(s) on any Web page or any Web site that contains any pornographic, hate-related, violent, or illegal content;

6. Termination; Cancellation…Google may investigate any activity that may violate this Agreement. Google may at any time, in its sole discretion, terminate all or part of the Program, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate the participation of any Property in all or part of the Program for any reason.

Since Google seems to have “investigated” this website in response to multiple DMCA notices, why is this AdSense account allowed to remain active? Does the aggrieved party have to file a DMCA with Blogger and with AdSense over and over again? It’s hard to imagine that Google’s copyright “team” isn’t aware these violations. Does Google not have the money to hire staff to follow-up on reported sites to enforce compliance? Is Google complying with U.S. law? What is meant by the caveat “its [Google's] sole discretion?”

Does looking at the actual law clarify matters? According to Title 17 of U.S. Copyright Law, “conditions for eligibility” for “limitations on liability” include:

(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—

(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; (emphasis added)

How exactly does Google define a “repeat infringer?” They apparently don’t.

In a post published in September of 2011 on its own Public Policy Blog entitled “Making Copyright Work Better Online-A Progress Report,” Google gave itself a pat on the back, asserting that the company had made great strides in discouraging ad-sponsored piracy.

Improving our AdSense anti-piracy review. We have always prohibited the use of our AdSense program on web pages that provide infringing materials, and we routinely terminate publishers who violate our policies. In recent months, we have worked hard to improve our internal enforcement procedures. In April, we were among the first companies to certify compliance in the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB’s) Quality Assurance Certification program, through which participating advertising companies will take steps to enhance buyer control over the placement and context of advertising and build brand safety. In addition, we have invited rightsholder associations to identify their top priority sites for immediate review, and have acted on those tips when we have received them.

Sounds good right? On paper perhaps, but given the continued and pervasive presence of Google-sponsored advertising on pirate sites throughout the web, the reality is that Google’s public pledge appears to be carefully crafted lip-service designed to obfuscate the facts, rather than a representation of any meaningful progress.

Over the past two and a half years I’ve written extensively about Google’s ongoing link to ad piracy profits. Earlier this month USC’s Annenberg Innovation Lab released a report documenting the fact that search giant is at the head of the pack when it comes to monetizing (and subsidizing) online piracy via its ad networks. The relationship between Google and online piracy seems clear as day.

Yet, in the meantime–Google apparently plays fast and loose with the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision. Given the fact they have teams of lawyers, one has to assume the company is careful to follow the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of it. Did the legislators who crafted the DMCA really intend for the law to enable entities like Google to hide behind the shield of safe harbor, under the guise of “innovation and free expression”–while simultaneously make (lots of) money monetizing stolen content? I doubt it.

Even the advertising industry recognizes that this is a area of concern. In May of last year The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and the America Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s) issued a statement entitled, “Best Practices to Address Online Piracy and Counterfeiting.” The statement included the following:

(i) All such intermediaries shall use commercially reasonable measures to prevent ads from being placed on such sites;

(ii) All such intermediaries shall have and implement commercially reasonable processes for removing or excluding such sites from their services, and for expeditiously terminating non-compliant ad placements, in response to reasonable and sufficiently detailed complaints or notices from rights holders and advertisers;

(iii) All such intermediaries shall refund or credit the advertiser for the fees, costs and/or value associated with non-compliant ad placements, or provide alternative remediation.

So, back to Google. Would a “reasonable measure” include removing AdSense ads from a site reported for piracy? What about reimbursing the advertiser who paid Google for these “non-compliant” ads and how does the fact Blogger is a Google-hosted site factor in? Should ad services do business with hosts that routinely serve pirated ads? In other words, should Google (AdSense) do business with itself (Blogger) if they are to honor these “best practices?”

My head is spinning. I guess that’s just the way the powers that be at Google like it.

Blogspot.com, a Bridge to Piracy?

Much attention has been paid to Google’s role in supporting and profiting via online piracy through online advertising, but there’s another Google enterprise that bears further scrutiny–its “Blogger” hosted websites.

Google’s Blogger platform, like WordPress, offers users around the world a convenient, easy-to-use and free hosting platform to create a website/blog. Most sites are anchored by the Blogger domain blogspot.com although users can also use a custom domain name.

These Blogger-hosted sites are ubiquitous throughout the web and feature blogs offering a wealth of original content, from recipe ideas to personal journals. However, amid the multitude of legitimate users, with a quick (Google) web search, one can easily find a more nefarious use of Blogger websites–virtual emporiums for pirated content.

Of course it’s unreasonable to expect Google to police what could be millions of blogspot sites around the globe. But what happens when a copyright holder discovers a site that is offering illegal links and/or streams to their pirated work? According to Google, it’s a violation of their Blogger “Content Policy”:

Copyright: It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. More information about our copyright procedures can be found here. Also, please don’t provide links to sites where your readers can obtain unauthorized downloads of other people’s content.

If a rights holder finds a Blogger site that violates this policy, Google offers this this online DMCA form to report the site.

It’s a relatively efficient and reasonable process. But what happens to these pirate sites once they are reported? Google explains the consequences for violating the policy as follows:

Our team reviews these flags for policy violations. If the blog does not violate our policies, we will not take any action against the blog or blog owner. If we find that a blog does violate our content policies, we take one or more of the following actions based on the severity of the violation:

Put the blog behind a ‘mature content’ interstitial

Put the blog behind an interstitial where only the blog author can access the content

Delete the blog

Disable the author’s access to his/her Blogger account

Disable the author’s access to his/her Google account

Report the user to law enforcement

What’s not clear is what criteria Google uses to measure the “severity of the violation.” At the bottom of the online Blogger DMCA form Google explains account disabling:

Account Disabling

Many Google Services do not have account holders or subscribers. For Services that do, Google will, in appropriate circumstances, disable the accounts of repeat infringers. If you believe that an account holder or subscriber is a repeat infringer, please follow the instructions above to contact Google’s DMCA agent and provide information sufficient for us to verify that the account holder or subscriber is a repeat infringer.

Is it up to the entity who files the DMCA to prove that the Blogger user is a “repeat infringer?” Doesn’t Google have a way to measure how many times a Blogger site has been reported? Exactly how many violations does it take before an account is disabled? What is Google’s definition of “appropriate circumstances?”

In my experience, upon receiving a DMCA, Blogger does remove pages that include the (reported) illegal links, but generally the blog itself (with dozens, if not hundreds of other illegal download links to other films) remains online, even after receiving multiple DMCAs. Note that these sites aren’t offering any original editorial content. They are sites dedicated solely to disseminating illegal links and streams to popular films, willfully disregarding Google’s stated policies. Yet even after receiving complaints, the “Google Team” allows these sites to remain in operation.

As with most pirate sites, it’s not an altruistic endeavor, but one driven by the profit-motive. These sites feature ads, often requiring users to click-thru an advertisement before reaching the “free” download most often hosted on a cyber-locker site.

Yet, as is often the case with Google products and services, transparency is an anathema. Why not be specific about the criteria used to “disable” these pirate blogs. How many violations does it take? Why not institute a 3-strike policy? The site operator would receive a warning on the first strike, advertising would be disabled on a second strike (this is an option in the Blogger dashboard) and a third strike would result in the site being removed. As with any DMCA complaint, the site operator should be able to counter any notice sent in error. Simple as that.

Google’s Blogger platform makes website creation easy. Why not do more to make operating a pirate site hard?