by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
Doing the job, but not a very good job
When people talk about effective ways to mitigate the impact of online piracy, YouTube’s Content ID is often used as an example of what works. Unfortunately, despite its role as poster boy for anti-piracy tech, in reality it falls flat as a gatekeeper against online piracy.
Aside from a labyrinth-like user interface that seems likely to have been designed–not to help– but to discourage rights holders from using Content ID, the actual fingerprinting technology behind it can be easily fooled.
YouTube introduced the Content ID system in 2007. At the time, the company was facing pressure from a Viacom lawsuit, among others. According to YouTube, it’s pretty straightforward:
Videos uploaded to YouTube are scanned against a database of files that have been submitted to us by content owners. Copyright owners get to decide what happens when content in a video on YouTube matches a work they own. When this happens, the video gets a Content ID claim.
Looking to make money off work they don’t own, clever YouTube users have discovered ways to fool the technology so their illegal uploads of copyrighted movies and music don’t get flagged, blocked or removed.
I began noticing this phenomenon more lately as I’ve begun to find full, infringing copies of films uploaded that matched content owned by a film distributor I work for. This seems to be happening more often and I was curious as to how these pirated copies had avoided detected by Content ID. When I looked closely I saw that subtle manipulations in brightness had taken place along with slight adjustments to frame size and sometimes the crop of the frame.
When I started poking around YouTube to find other examples of these uploads they were easy to find. It only took me a few minutes to find dozens of copies of a variety of full copyrighted movies, old and new. One title I came across was the movie, Everest. Below are screen captures from two different full uploads of the movie I found streaming on YouTube.
Two full copies of the movie Everest uploaded to YouTube.
In this case the uploader had used several techniques to avoid detection including reversing the frame (note the backwards title), darkening the lower part of the frame and cropping it. Of course, having recently viewed the film on HBO, watching a lousy copy like this on YouTube wouldn’t be my choice, but apparently others didn’t mind. Uploaded only a month ago, the movie had already racked up more than 16,000 views.
Pirate uploads make money for uploader and for YouTube
Why go to all this trouble to manipulate a movie for upload to YouTube? Well, it’s the age-old pirate motivator–money. This uploader, who goes by the name Kenneth Lamb, has claimed ownership of this content and monetized it with ads. He makes money. YouTube makes money. The movie’s actual production companies make nothing.
This YouTube user claims to own rights to Everest movie worldwide and makes money off ads
In an ironic twist, several of the ads that appeared when I was examining (and reloading) this pirated copy of the film were for films including DreamWork’s upcoming movie Trolls and Warner Brother’s Jason Bourne. It’s more than a tad ironic that Hollywood studios are (inadvertently) putting cash in YouTube’s hands via advertising on a pirated copy for one of its own productions.
Ultimate irony that ads for upcoming movie releases are featured on pirated copies of Hollywood films
I don’t deal with music or audio files on YouTube but there are similar manipulations happening there as well where uploaders resample, add noise, etc. to fool the Content ID system into ignoring the file.
What can YouTube do to fix this growing problem? Per usual, the list is long and varied, but begins with asking Google engineers to design better fingerprinting tech. There are other companies that offer digital fingerprinting technology seem to do a better job catching these circumventions. If I can easily uncover an upload is a copy of the movie Everest, why can’t Content ID? You can’t tell me that with all its financial (and technological) resources YouTube doesn’t means to upgrade its system?
Technological solutions exist. It’s just a matter of priorities. Stopping piracy isn’t a priority for YouTube.
Aside from updating its fingerprinting capabilities, YouTube could also improve the Content ID system through providing a better interface, more transparency, better compensation for artists, etc. Of course again that would mean lower profits for Google/YouTube so such straightforward fixes are unlikely. Meanwhile, YouTube makes great hay out of its concerns for poor, maligned users who may have received an erroneous DMCA notice. The company is willing to spend money to defend a few select uploaders but won’t spend resources to fix its broken Content ID system?
Operating only a marginal (not great) Content ID system is in YouTube’s best interests
Of course the powers that be at YouTube probably prefer to keep Content ID just the way it is–creaking along, occupying a neutral zone positioned between accolades and scorn. It’s a safe position, one that gives YouTube officials cover when they use disingenuous excuses about their anti-piracy practices to critics, while avoiding any real (legal or financial) consequences.
Content ID does the job just well enough….but that doesn’t mean it does a good job. It could serve as a true model for technological safeguards against piracy, but as now, it’s merely a slight bump in the road for those determined to steal and monetize the works of others. Meanwhile, YouTube continues to pocket advertising cash, make its stockholders happy while leaving filmmakers and musicians on the outside, looking in.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy
Why not make Content ID more accessible and transparent?
Much has been written about YouTube’s Content ID program, a fingerprinting technology that allows rights holders to find and claim their music or movies when uploaded to YouTube. The technology was introduced in 2008 in the wake of Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube and since then has helped (some) creators mitigate the problem of piracy on the popular UGC (user-generated content) site.
Those who have access to the Content ID system can uploaded reference files and use a dashboard to choose how matches should be handled. They can be limited based on audio, video, and length. Matching content then can be blocked, removed, or monetized based on territorial rights.
I’ve written many pieces about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to Content ID so I won’t be redundant here, but this week I read some pieces which highlight some lingering issues that continue to limit the reach (and effectiveness) of this technology–most notably limited access and accountability.
Are audiobooks being ignored?
Author Ryan Holiday published a piece in The Observer asking, “When Will YouTube Deal With Its Audiobook and Podcast Piracy Problem?” He described how using search, he’d found the audio version of one of his books streaming, in full, on YouTube. The audio had been streamed 16,000 times. He observed, “It might not seem like a ton but the book had sold about 50,000 copies in audio—an additional 30% of that figure pirated it through a single video?”
Holiday goes on to repeat the oft-heard lament of filmmakers, musicians, et al who have found their pirated works streaming on YouTube. Like many of them, Holiday believes YouTube needs to make it easier for artists to protect their creations from this type of theft:
For its part, YouTube needs to get its act together and offer tools directly to publishers and authors. Audiobook piracy is real and clearly growing. The idea that songs and television and films all deserve protections from Content ID but authors don’t is absurd.
Now, to be fair, it’s not clear that Holiday himself has ever applied for Content ID access. It seems that the YouTube’s language dissuaded him.
I can continue to file these claims as the author but since I’m not a major publisher with a “substantial body of original material,” I can’t participate in YouTube’s Content ID personally.
If I were an author (or publisher) I would not hesitate to at least try to apply for a Content ID account. I had no difficulty being approved for a Content ID account in 2010 and only own the rights to two films, a feature and a documentary that I co-produced. The companies that distribute my film also have Content ID for their film catalogues.
According to YouTube, acceptance is based on:
…an evaluation of each applicant’s actual need for the tools. Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights…Content ID applicants may be rejected if other tools better suit their needs
The key here is the last sentence. There’s also Content Verification which seems to be another, higher tier of Content ID aimed at large companies. The other “tool” is simply sending a takedown via web form. That may be appropriate in very limited situations, but using it can be time-consuming and also requires a rights holder be proactive in searching for infringing content. Since Content ID does that work for you it’s the key reason it should be made available on a much wider scale. As Holiday noted, one copy of his book was accessed thousands of times….shouldn’t the onus be on YouTube to put a roadblock up to prevent infringement? Why should creators be required to be copyright cops too?
Lack of transparency has long been a flash point for musicians vs. YouTube
Frustration over YouTube’s Content ID and monetization scheme was also at the core of a blog post by 5-time Grammy winner, musician Maria Schneider published on Music Tech Policy. Schneider has become a strong advocate for artists rights and attacks Content ID on a number of levels including skewering YouTube over its lack of transparency (a common complaint among many musicians) and for its apparent refusal to grant access to artists–even those like her–who are Grammy recipients.
Content ID is reserved for big record companies with big catalogues, and probably selected independent artists whom YouTube believes will make YouTube a heap of money…In the press, YouTube has fought back against the recent flood of criticism, saying that all rights-holders can access Content ID – that they can get it through “third-party vendors.” These third party vendors often take between 20% to 50% of the revenue paid by YouTube—after YouTube takes its share.
I highly recommend reading Schneider’s post for her account of how Content ID has failed her and other musicians. As a filmmaker, in terms of using Content ID simply to combat piracy, my experiences have differed, but I do share many of her overall concerns. Unfortunately, the fact she (and others) are apparently being denied direct access to Content ID tools is an ongoing issue that inflames the lingering, legitimate mistrust creators have with Google.
Does it really need to be this way?
In spite of years of ongoing complaints like these, neither Google nor YouTube seem really to have made a genuine effort to work with artists–instead preferring to stonewall or sidestep debate. When YouTube officials do comment, they often find themselves tangled up in webs of their own making, as was the case when musician Zoe Keating took them to task in a very public exchange. Why not work with creators to solve some of these problems instead of demonizing them? There are ways to find common ground if only the powers that be at Google would care to (really) listen.
Content ID could make it easier for creators of all stripes to ask permission instead of simply taking content
Moving the Content ID machinery out of the shadows could pay dividends in other ways–perhaps by helping bridge the divide in disputes over copyright. Maarten Zeinstra, an “advisor on copyright and technology” recently penned a thoughtful blog post proposing that YouTube’s Content ID could become a useful tool for those who interested in utilizing content in legitimate ways. His piece, “YouTube should open up Content ID” was published this past May on the Dutch website, Kennisland. In it, Zeinstra noted:
YouTube should open up Content ID and make their register of rights holders publicly available...Let anyone be able to contact the rights owners of a certain clip or publicly contest that ownership. This creates an innovative new possibility in using content with permission or under copyright exceptions, and create legal certainty for copyright holders and remixers alike.
Now, I’m a tad skeptical as to what he means by “contest that ownership” but I’m open to the possibility that he’s merely describing a middle ground. If someone wants to make a mashup video using clips from my film or segments of archival footage from my documentary they could use Content ID to find that I am the rightful owner of the footage and can ask permission. Personally, I support the idea of fair use but also appreciate the fact that one should ask permission. I did so with footage used in my documentary and was always met with a positive response. Perhaps opening up Content ID in this way could foster a new respect for the work of creators and support the idea of asking, and not simply taking.
Improving Content ID would be in everyone’s best interests
Clearly, Google needs to do a much better job in providing access and accountability with its Content ID and monetization programs. Expand outreach to indie artists. Include them in discussions about how to improve Content ID. Update the interface to make it more intuitive and user-friendly. Open the books so that creators can see exactly how much revenue is earned and where it goes. Be innovative and use Content ID to open new avenues to legitimate use of copyrighted content.
There’s little doubt that YouTube’s Content ID is a powerful tool that’s in dire need of an overhaul, both in terms of who uses it and how it’s used. This technology could provide so much more than it now does–but the ball is in Google’s court. I won’t hold my breath waiting for something to change–but there’s always hope isn’t there?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Why doesn’t YouTube make it easier for people to work things out when there’s a dispute over content?
Every week it seems there’s a new headline bemoaning content that has been mistakenly removed from YouTube due to bogus copyright claims. This so-called “takedown abuse” makes for good headlines, but per usual, there’s much more to the story of what happens behind-the-scenes on YouTube with various types of claims on copyrighted content.
Perhaps in reaction to some of these inflammatory headlines, YouTube recently announced it was creating a team dedicated to “minimize mistakes” when videos are removed from the site. The announcement came via a post on Google’s own blog:
…Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about the enforcement of our policies, from video takedowns to channel demonetization. We want you to know that we monitor video takedowns very closely, and while we haven’t seen a big change in the overall rate of removals, it’s true that we do make mistakes. For this, we’re sorry and we strive to do better by you, our community.
The good news is that the feedback you’ve raised in comments and videos on YouTube and beyond is having an impact. It’s caused us to look closely at our policies and helped us identify areas where we can get better. It’s led us to create a team dedicated to minimizing mistakes and improving the quality of our actions. And it’s encouraged us to roll out some initiatives in the coming months that will help strengthen communications between creators and YouTube support. We’ll also make improvements to increase transparency into the status of monetization claims. And of course, as we work to implement these improvements as quickly as we can, we’ll continue to take your feedback seriously.
— Spencer from YouTube’s Policy Team
Improving “transparency” on YouTube’s Content ID System would across the board is needed
Unfortunately, YouTube’s new initiative seems only to address “transparency” having to do with monetization claims, not Content ID in general. Content ID is the fingerprinting system that YouTube established to help rights holders protect their creative work from online piracy. Though imperfect, it’s certainly better than nothing but there are many ways to improve it.
If the YouTube team is serious about improving the way Content ID works it could help fix what’s broken is by increasing transparency throughout the system, particularly when it comes to disputes over how content is claimed.
In particular, I’d suggest a simple fix that would benefit both copyright holders and YouTube uploaders–allow people to communicate directly when Content ID claims are disputed. If this happened, many misunderstandings could be worked out to the satisfaction of everyone involved.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s say you have a film and someone uploads some scenes from it that are matched via Content ID. It’s a clip that lasts, only several minutes in length and you’ve set up Content ID to match and monetize clips of this length. The matched content is not commentary or a review, only a mashup of scenes taken from your film. You receive notification via your Content ID dashboard that the uploader has “disputed” your monetization claim. (Never mind that this doesn’t involve a takedown, only monetization of the clip).
You take a look at the claim and the justification for filing the dispute. It says:
Reason: All non-original content is in the public domain
Note: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use”; for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Ok, clearly there’s some confusion here. First of all, the uploaded clip is NOT in the “public domain” –it’s surprising how often I see this justification and how many people don’t have a clue as to what it actually means–and secondly, there’s no real criticism, comment, news reporting, etc. going on with the excerpt.
Even so, you have no wish to actually remove the clip from YouTube, only claim it and monetize it. Seems reasonable right? Well, in this case, the sender does not allow messages to be sent (via her channel) and no email is provided so there’s no way to contact her to explain the situation. You only want ads to appear with the video (to help you pay down that production debt)–not remove or block it. In this case the only recourse is to “reinstate” the claim and hope the uploader doesn’t file–what would be–a bogus counter-notice.
YouTube user disputed monetization claim with erroneous justification
Why doesn’t YouTube provide a way for parties to contact each other?
All this confusion could be avoided IF there was simply a way for both parties to discuss things. Why doesn’t YouTube, as part of this dispute form, allow the recipient to send a message to the uploader who disputed the claim. Personal information could be protected, BUT a conversation (via email or message) could be had and most likely clear up any confusion over the claim.
As shown in example below, this uploader who filed a dispute doesn’t have a contact sender option on her YouTube channel. In this scenario the rights holder’s only recourse would be to do nothing OR reinstate the claim and risk further misunderstanding.
Not every dispute needs to escalate
Because there’s no way to have a dialogue these situations often escalate into an actual counter-notice being filed. It’s ironic that at that point the party that files a counter-notice has to provide accurate contact info. Of course, many do not but that’s a post for another day. When a dispute reaches this level, the only way for the rights holder to keep their work off YouTube is to spend money and file in federal court.
For most indie creators, this is where the story ends. Their content goes back up on YouTube and nothing more can be done. For all the talk of abusive takedowns, there’s not much press coverage for the ongoing problem of abusive (and false) counter-notices.
Bottom line, in many cases, folks could simply work things out if YouTube made it easier to communicate. Seems like a simple move. Can’t we just all try to get along?
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
by Ellen Seidler | Google, Tech
YouTube and some of its advertisers apparently have no problem making money off videos of the WDBJ shooting incident
When it comes to making money, management at YouTube apparently has no shame
It’s no secret that YouTube slaps advertising on pretty much anything without regard for subject matter or ownership, but making money off of last week’s on-air murder of WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman Adam Ward is a new low. A source tipped me off to the fact that a number of opportunistic (and shameless) YouTube “partners” have uploaded and monetized clips of both the station’s live broadcast and the video taken, (and uploaded to Twitter) by the deranged murderer as he executed the two journalists during a televised live-shot for the morning news.
While there has been an ongoing debate among news organizations about how to handle the disturbing footage, there should be no debate as to whether this footage is monetization worthy. Earlier this year YouTube (and advertisers) were embarrassed by reports of advertisements appearing on terrorist recruiting videos. Now this.
The ads appear as sidebar ads, pre-roll ads, and overlay ads. It wouldn’t be difficult for YouTube to prevent this type of disturbing video from being uploaded in the first place, much less monetized. After all, YouTube brags about what a great job its Content ID program does keeping infringing content off the site. Why not use it to block these type of uploads? Can’t YouTube use its own technology to safeguard advertisers?
While the debate as to whether these clips are newsworthy will continue, are videos depicting the cold-blooded murder of two people really ad-worthy? Where are the advertisers in all this? Are they even aware of where their ads appear? They are culpable in this fiasco too. When ads were placed on ISIS videos advertisers several advertisers expressed their displeasure with YouTube and pledged to take action. With this latest revelation it appears their words may have simply been spin control. After all, we’ve heard time and time again how the ad industry is concerned about “brand integrity” online. Perhaps the industry should look at the consistent lack of “integrity” in YouTube’s monetization practices?
As for YouTube itself, in the past, company representatives have defended its hands-off approach. When called out for the ads on ISIS recruiting videos earlier this year a spokesman tried to justify YouTube’s approach in a statement to NBC News:
“YouTube has clear policies prohibiting content intended to incite violence, and we remove videos violating these policies when flagged by our users. We also have stringent advertising guidelines, and work to prevent ads appearing against any video once we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partners,” a YouTube spokesperson said Tuesday in a statement to NBC News. YouTube videos are frequently preceded by ads that are picked at random by an algorithm. That means often neither YouTube nor the advertiser will know what ads are playing before which videos.
WDBJ Shooting videos make money for YouTube and its “Partners”
YouTube boasts its monetized videos provide “Advertiser Friendly Content”
YouTube purports to require that partner monetized videos provide “advertiser friendly content.” What exactly is that? Well, this is how YouTube explains its standards on for its “Partner Program” :
Even though content may be acceptable for YouTube under our policies, not all of it is appropriate for Google advertising. Google has principles around what we monetize that we expect our content creators who want to monetize to comply with. Advertisers also have their own standards and requirements on the type of content that meets their individual needs. [emphasis added] Learn more below about how YouTube defines “advertiser-friendly” content and how we prevent ads from serving against videos that do not meet this criteria.
In short, advertiser-friendly content is appropriate for all audiences, from our youngest to older viewers. It is content that has little to no inappropriate and/or mature content in the video stream, thumbnail, or metadata such as video title. If there may be inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic where the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain, and not offend or shock.
Content that YouTube considers to be inappropriate for advertising includes but is not limited to:
-
Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
-
Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
-
Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
-
Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
-
Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown
If any of the above describes any portion of your video, then it may not be approved for monetization. In cases where monetization is approved, your video may not be eligible for all of the ad formats we offer. YouTube reserves the right to not monetize a video, as well as suspend monetization feature on channels who repeatedly submit videos that violate our policies.
The implication here is that some sort of quality control is happening. The Partner Program information continues with this disingenuous gem:
How do we qualify content as “advertiser-friendly”?
YouTube relies on sophisticated technology and our policy enforcement processes when determining if a video is suitable for advertising. [emphasis added] We have trained systems that automatically check various features of a video – from the video title, metadata, and visual imagery – and makes a decision on how appropriate this video is for general advertising.
In conjunction with these automated checks, we also depend on our user community to flag inappropriate videos to us for our review. Depending on the nature of the policy violation, videos can be removed from the site or age-restricted. Monetization is disabled on age-restricted videos and Google will immediately stop serving ads on these videos.
Sophisticated technology? Huh? Did YouTube’s “sophisticated technology” deem video depicting the murder of two innocent people suitable? The implication here is that some sort of quality control is happening, but that’s not at all the case. Crap uploaded by “partners” (aka scammers) routinely gets monetized on YouTube by without any sort of approval process. Whether its videos for ISIS or those promoting peeping Toms, it’s only when someone flags it or publishes a story, that YouTube takes action and even then, too little, too late.
Money over morals is the YouTube mantra
Of course one of the videos (with advertising) that I saw had attracted more than 600,000 hits. Eyeballs mean money for YouTube and the partner who uploaded the video, never mind he didn’t own the rights to it. Apparently money matters more than ethics.
Where are the advertisers in all this? YouTube infers that they have their own “standards” that must be met. Do these clips showing the murder of two people on live TV qualify? Do Celebrity Cruises, Hitachi, NFL GamePass, SolarCity, Book of Mormon Musical, Sprint, Save the Children, PayPal, Honda, Flir, Claritin and other major brands really want their products slapped onto these videos?
WDBJ officials could probably get some of these videos taken down, but I imagine they probably have better things to do–like mourn their colleagues–than send DMCA notices to YouTube.
I can’t imagine what it must be like for the family and friends of these victims to know that the murder of their loved ones has become a money-making opportunity for the likes of YouTube/Google. It’s beyond shameful and there’s absolutely no excuse. YouTube needs to clean up its act and if company officials won’t make it happen, advertisers better demand better accountability.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Facebook has long turned a blind eye to profiting from piracy on its pages. Has the worm finally turned?
This past week Facebook reached a milestone when, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg, more than one billion users logged on to the social media site in a single day. Part of that growth has come from video views (4 billion per day) and so this week Facebook also announced it would (finally) tackle the online piracy that has long plagued the site.
In recent months, as a result of its increased focus on encouraging video uploads, the social media giant has faced growing criticism that it allows “freebooters” to rip-off (monetized) YouTube videos and repost them on Facebook, thereby cannibalizing creators’ profits. According to Time’s Victor Luckerson:
Online video creators, who make money by selling advertising against their content, are increasingly frustrated with the problem. In June, George Strompolos, CEO of the multichannel network Fullscreen, said on Twitter that pirated versions of Fullscreen creators’ videos were racking up more than 50 million views on Facebook. This month, Hank Green, longtime YouTube vlogger and co-founder of the online video conference VidCon, penned a diatribe against Facebook’s video policies, arguing that the social network’s preference for Facebook-native videos in its News Feed algorithm encourages theft of creators’ YouTube videos. –
Of course the same thing has happened to filmmakers for what seems like forever, but it now appears complaints (and users) have reached critical mass so Facebook may finally have to confront the rampant copyright abuse that flourishes on its pages.
Given that Facebook has its sights set on competing with YouTube as the go-to (monetized) video platform–in order to effectively compete–it seems Facebook’s days of skipping around copyright compliance may have come to an end. Following in YouTube’s Content ID footsteps, Facebook will begin to rollout its own content fingerprinting technology. According to Recode two of Facebook piracy’s loudest critics will be the first in line to test the technology:
Now Facebook says Jukin and Fullscreen are two of its initial launch partners for the new technology, along with Zefr, a service company that helps content owners track their clips on YouTube. Facebook says it is also working with major media companies on the effort, but won’t identify them.
original image-iStock
Despite this news, Facebook still has a long way to go. Not only does it need to implement and effective content matching technology (and user interface), but it also has to figure out how to split up ad profits. If history is any indication, monetization income is likely to favor Facebook rather than creators.
As with YouTube, video monetization also opens the door to scammers and may in fact worsen the problem of bootleg uploads. YouTube, despite its Content ID system, is a tangled mess. Scammers routinely upload stolen and/or dummy content and monetize it. Perhaps Facebook will do a better job and learn from YouTube’s bad example, but I’m not holding out much hope.
Has the Ostrich finally (been forced) to pull its head out of the sand?
Meanwhile Facebook, like Google, still provides fertile ground for online pirates to share their stolen goods and it’s not limited to video uploads. Like their legit counterparts, it seems every online pirate website also has its own Facebook page to share illegal links and drive traffic and ad dollars to their sites. In typical fashion, Facebook also makes money from these pirate pages by placing advertising on them. Per usual, it’s the creators who lose.
The DMCA’s safe harbor provisions have allowed this Wild West to flourish. Some call it “innovation,” but for creators, it’s just plain theft. Facebook has profited from piracy for a long time. Its proposed actions against piracy are long overdue.
