UPDATE: It seems that Lumen database has finally acknowledged that there is an issue and seen the light. Its operators have announced an important change, limiting access to actual infringing links. Per Torrent Freak:
In a nutshell, takedown notices presented in Lumen’s database will no longer list the precise URLs targeted by copyright holders. Instead, as the image below illustrates, the notices only list how many URLs were targeted at specific domains.
I’ve written about the Lumen, formerly “chilling effects” DMCA database in the past and how it “makes a mockery of the DMCA.” I’ve also pointed out that the site provides a repository for links to to pirated downloads and streams even after they’ve been reported for copyright infringement. Now, with the release of a new browser extension for Chrome and Opera, the database’s questionable practices are in the spotlight once more. The extension, aptly anointed “Google Unlocked,” makes it easy for users to once to bypass takedowns and once again use the search engine to find pirated links to their favorite movies. Its developers claim:
The extension scans hidden links that were censored on Google search results due to complaints. The tool scans those complaints and extracts the links from them, puts the links back into Google results, all in a matter of seconds.
Why are removed links still available online?
When Google removes a link reported for infringement from in its search results it conveniently (for would-be pirates) replaces the removed material with a disclaimer that, in turn, features a link to the original DMCA notice (on Lumendatabase.org) which includes infringing URLs.
Below is an example found today when searching for Captain Marvel downloads on Google.
Notice the Lumen link . Clicking that leads to the original DMCA notice and the list of reported infringing links which, when I chose one randomly, led me to an actual pirated download of the film. Piracy lives!
However, using this extension makes even such rudimentary mouse clicks moot. Basically it seems to, for all intents and purposes, undo Google’s tepid effort to comply with the DMCA. Since operators of Lumen Database refuse to redact any portion of the infringing URLs found in the DMCA notices in its database, this new extension easily restores the pirate links. According to Torrent Freak:
Since by its very nature the tool searches for allegedly infringing links, we aren’t going to demonstrate those here. Safe to say, however, the tool does scan LumenDatabase as advertised and all the removed links do get embedded in the search result page itself, very large numbers of links in some instances.
Lumen provides pirate links with eternal life online
Several years ago I actually tried to bring further attention to this problem by sending Lumen (then Chilling Effects) Database a DMCA notice for my own film. We went through the usual song and dance. I sent the notice, they sent a counter-notice, and when I couldn’t go to court to enforce the takedown, the DMCA notice containing the pirate links went be online. As a creator with no bevy of lawyers at my disposal, I had no alternative and I knew it. I did it to raise awareness.
I even raised this issue in front of various industry stakeholders (including Google) at a 2016 U.S. Copyright Section 512 roundtable discussion in San Francisco. Here’s part of what I said at the the time:
Google removes the link from the search results, yet provides a link to the document that actually has the same link in it. So it may be following the letter of the law. But I don’t think it follows the spirit of the law. And I’m not suggesting that the Lumen Database shouldn’t exist. I think it’s important and I know Berkeley Law used that extensively in their most recent study. But what I would suggest is maybe using technology to redact a little bit of the URL. And researchers who really want to go and look at the information could go to Lumen and actually get the DMCA notice. But it doesn’t need to be so convenient that a user looking for pirated content can find it so easily.
Per usual, my remarks were ignored and the LumenDatabase.org continued its dubious practice of listing all the infringing links in full. Perhaps this new extension, Google Unlocked, will cause some to rethink this approach and pay close attention to Google’s sleight of hand when it comes to compliance with the DMCA. Hey, how about revisiting the DMCA entirely while we’re at it? A girl can dream…..
GOOGLE LOOKS THE OTHER WAY AS PIRACY REPEAT OFFENDERS CONTINUE TO FLOURISH ON GOOGLE DRIVE
I wrote a piece recently about Google’s failure to punish “repeat offenders” on its Google Drive platform so I thought I’d give you another update. Despite having sent DMCA notices for 64 pirated titles (and having them all approved for takedown) the Google Drive account remains active and online, illegally sharing hundreds of pirated films. Note that I sent the DMCA takedown requests over several weeks to repeatedly report the same account holder.
Respect copyright laws. Do not share copyrighted content without authorization or provide links to sites where your readers can obtain unauthorized downloads of copyrighted content. It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. Repeated infringement of intellectual property rights, including copyright, will result in account termination. [emphasis added] If you see a violation of Google’s copyright policies, report copyright infringement.
Yet in reality, the company does nothing. And, to make matters worse, while Google refuses to enforce its own policy, the account holder basically says F-you and replaces 57 of those pirated movies that were removed with new links to download via Google Drive and offline sites (mostly Openload.co).
The Google Drive account holder even created a convenient, separate folder (under zipped movies) where visitors can easily download the previously removed pirated films.
If Google had closed this Google Drive account it would have also closed the door on access to hundreds more pirated films. Given that the Google folks clearly have knowledge of this ongoing infringement–after all, its “team” reviewed the files for days before taking them down– why does it continue to get a free pass from liability via “safe harbor?” According to a Fenwick & West publication, “Your Safe Harbor Questions and Answers,” an entity must not only have a policy, but “reasonably implement” it:
What is a “repeat infringer,” and what must I do about repeat infringers? What should my “repeat infringer policy” look like? The DMCA is reasonably clear about the service provider’s obligation concerning users who repeatedly infringe copyrights: to be eligible for the safe harbor, the service provider must “adopt[] and reasonably implement[], and inform[] subscribers and account holders of, … [its] policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders … who are repeat infringers.” (§ 512(i)(1)(A), emphasis added.)
Breaking that down into smaller bites, you must: Adopt a written repeat infringer policy; Notify users of that policy (posting it on your website, as part of your terms of service or “Copyright Policy,” is appropriate); and Reasonably implement the policy. The policy can be complicated, but it can be as simple as this: “It is [OSP’s] policy, in appropriate circumstances, to terminate the accounts of members [or users] who are repeat infringers or are repeatedly charged with infringement.” This is all that is usually required.
Of course I’m not an attorney, but anyone with common sense has to ask how does Google continue to get away with this? The answer appears to be because Google does what Google wants and there’s no entity to stop them. As the current administration has shown, sometimes there seem to be few repercussions in ignoring the law.
WHAT ARE CREATORS SUPPOSED TO DO IN THE FACE OF THIS BAD BEHAVIOR BY GOOGLE?
Lately tech’s shield of omnipotence in the U.S. has (finally) begun to crack, particularly in light of Facebook’s role in last fall’s election sham and the rampant dissemination of fake news across its pages. Meanwhile Google is under fire and financial pressure in Europe over its ongoing unabashed monopolistic practices . However, given the web behemoth is busy spinning its own false narratives and lavishing millions on our representatives in Washington, chances the company will be forced to change its monopolistic behavior in the U.S.–any time soon–remain dim. As Jonathan Taplin noted his recent piece in the The Guardian:
The largest monopoly in America, Google controls five of the top six billion-user, universal web platforms – search, video, mobile, maps and browser – and leads in 13 of the top 14 commercial web functions, according to Scott Cleland at Precursor Consulting.
As the controversial Trump-supporting PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel points out, companies like Google don’t like to advertise this fact. They “lie to protect themselves”, Thiel says. “They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized and attacked. Since they very much want their monopoly profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly – usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition.”
All we can do is to continue to shine a light on Google’s bad practices and call out its mendacity at every opportunity….again and again and again.
Google touts its efforts against piracy on its various platforms, yet, when push comes to shove, the talk is generally more bark than bite. Much has been made about pledges to down rank or flag repeat offender pirate sites via its search engine, but little mention of another Google product where pirates find safe haven, Google Drive.
Per its own abuse FAQ, Google warns that repeat offenders will have their accounts closed:
Respect copyright laws. Do not share copyrighted content without authorization or provide links to sites where your readers can obtain unauthorized downloads of copyrighted content. It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. Repeated infringement of intellectual property rights, including copyright, will result in account termination. If you see a violation of Google’s copyright policies, report copyright infringement.
Yet, in reality, this pledge rings hollow. In the past couple months I’ve sent Google numerous DMCA notices requesting the removal of infringing content from a particular Google Drive account. After reviewing the DMCA notice, Google eventually removed the pirated films reported, but the Drive account itself remains active. As of today, May 12th, 2017, the account continues to host and share dozens and dozens of other pirated films. How much is enough Google?
On YouTube account holders get three strikes before their account is closed. Meanwhile, on Google Drive, it appears that one can pile up strikes with no penalty. Why does Google drag its feet? Perhaps it’s because Google Drive accounts are not front and center. One has to know where to look. Fact is that many pirate sites have taken to using Google Drive as a favored repository for stolen content. Upload to drive and share the links and face no penalty.
On YouTube, account holders are allowed three strikes before their account is closed. Meanwhile, on Google Drive, despite warnings to the contrary, it appears that users can pile up strikes with no penalty. Why does Google drag its feet? Perhaps it’s because, unlike YouTube or search, Google Drive accounts operate behind the scenes. One has to know where to look. Fact is, this is one reason many pirate sites have taken to using Google Drive as a favored repository for stolen content. Google has made it (free) and easy to upload stolen content to Drive and share the links with no consequence.
Time for Google to expand Content ID matching to Google Drive so that the hidden pirates can be ferreted out and Google be held accountable
GOOGLE AND BING REACH AGREEMENT IN UK TO DEMOTE PIRATE WEBSITES IN SEARCH RESULTS
Leave it to our friends across the ocean to make some (apparent) progress in the ongoing war against online piracy. According to The Guardian Google and Microsoft have agreed to make changes as to where links to pirated content appear in search results on Google and Bing.
Search engine companies Google and Bing have signed up to a voluntary code of practice aimed at preventing users from visiting disreputable content providers. The code, the first of its kind in the UK, will accelerate the demotion of illegal sites following notices from rights holders. It means those who search for content such as music videos, digital books and football coverage will more likely to be taken to bona fide providers rather than pirate sites, where a user’s security may be at risk.
Reportedly, the changes are supposed to be in place by this summer but put me into the category of “I’ll believe it when i see it.” There’s no mention of how extensive this new approach to results will be. Will it extend beyond the borders of the UK and cover the EU and/or the entire world? There’s also no information as to how exactly the “deprecation” will be triggered? Will it be based on total DMCA takedown requests or other legal efforts like court action? I look forward to seeing what comes of this effort and hope it extends beyond the borders of the UK.
I’ve written in the past about ways in which Google search could cut the number of takedown notices it receives (and the number of pirate links that populate its results) in a piece “How Google could reduce its massive DMCA takedown numbers.” Here’s an excerpt from that post:
WHY NOT TEMPORARILY BLOCK TOP OFFENDERS? PIRATE SITES COULD RISK LOSING TRAFFIC FOR FAILURE TO DEAL WITH TAKEDOWN REQUESTS
What type of pressure am I talking about? I’m suggesting Google create a team to focus on the domains at the top of the complaint list. Google purports to down-rank these domains already, but those claims don’t match up with reality. The company should go further to investigate, and temporarily block, the top offenders from Google’s search results.
If Google blocked the top domains reported for piracy for 30 days, site operators might be induced to better respond to copyright complaints, or risk losing crucial Google search traffic. In essence, it could be a self-regulating, temporary punishment leading ultimately to a correction…
Domain blocked
Domain cleans up its act
Complaints to Google decrease
Domain drops out of top offender list
Domain’s links restored to Google search
If a site operator continued to ignore takedown requests and the domain remains atop of the complaint list, the block could be extended to 90 days, then 180, etc. The initial blockade could be reviewed by a human team, but once added a site is in the queue, Google’s much vaunted algorithms could likely handle such a process.
It seems as though this latest “agreement” may end up serving the same end. At this point it’s too early to tell, but any progress on this front is still progress. As they say in cliche-world, only time will tell.
Google’s updated piracy report offers the some well-worn excuses
It’s that time of year. The time of year where Google rolls out a shiny update on its “How Google Fights Piracy” report. Google began the tradition in 2013. At the time I noted that Google’s claim to be a “leader” in the fight against piracy was its first mistake. With today’s update, it appears the Silicon Valley giant hasn’t backed down from that dubious claim (or many others).
Katie Oyama, Senior Policy Counsel, Google asserts that, “We take protecting creativity online seriously, and we’re doing more to help battle copyright-infringing activity than ever before.” Yet, in spite of Oyama’s rosy quote, in truth the reality (for creators) battling online piracy continues to be a bleak one.
Google search continues to list pirate links at the top of results
For the moment I’ll focus on Google search. The report claims, “…Google does not want to include any links to infringing material in our search results, and we make significant efforts to prevent infringing webpages from appearing.” It goes on to outline what Google’s doing to remedy the issue including this nugget:
Google believes that providing convenient, compelling, legitimate alternatives is one of the best means of fighting piracy. Accordingly, Google has launched a number of initiatives to present legitimate alternatives to users as part of search results, including providing advertisements on queries for movies and music to link users to legitimate means of purchasing content.
The reports also notes that it has focused on providing, “Clean results for media-related queries users actually type: Thanks to the efforts of Google’s engineers, the vast majority of media-related queries that users submit every day return results that include only legitimate sites.”
Oh Yeah, I’ve heard this line before, but unfortunately it isn’t true. This morning, after taking a gander at the report I went to Google search to search for the recent indie film Carol. I typed in a pretty logical query–the kind “users submit every day” — choosing the phrase “watch Carol online.” The VERY TOP RESULT took me–instantly–to a full, high-quality, pirated, illegal stream of the film.
Top result leads to full, pirated stream of the movie
Ok, so maybe the word “online” is too linked to piracy….so let’s drop the term and use only the terms, “watch Carol,” the first result was identical and led to the same pirated stream. Yeah, there was was ad offering legit links at the top (which is a good thing) but unfortunately pirated versions remained front and center and at #1 in the actual search results..
So much for their well-oiled talking point. The fact is that Google search still provides a direct path to pirated content.
If some innocent person is simply looking for a way to (legally) watch Carol uses Google search instead of wheretowatch.com, why does the FIRST link in Google’s results offer a pirated version? I didn’t say I wanted to “watch Carol free” I said merely that I wanted to “watch Carol.” Is that a pretty standard approach to consuming movies??? Watching them???
Does Google really believe that watch isn’t a term people use every day to search for a movie online?
The only time I found somewhat clean results was by using the term “Carol movie.” Now, forgive me, but it someone is looking to “watch” a film doesn’t it make sense they’d use that same term in a search query? Apparently Google’s engineers didn’t think so. For them it seems that using the term “watch” is not a word worthy of inclusion amid their “vast quantity of media-related queries” when it comes to searching for a film title?
It’s also important to note that when I started typing in the terms “Carol mov…” Google’s own auto-complete provided the suggestion (carol movie online) which leads directly to the same pirated stream of Carol listed at #1 (see below).
Google auto-complete offers up a term that leads directly to pirated copy of the film
I’ll be examining Google’s report further and will follow up with another post, but I couldn’t let the announcement of this update slide by with nary a mention. There’s much more to sift through, but I’d venture to guess it will be more of the same old, same old. As I noted in my analysis of an earlier version of this Google report:
After reading it I think a more accurate title would be “Why Google Shouldn’t Have to Fight Piracy Because it Offers so Much Other Good Stuff.”
While the report does outline various positive steps Google’s taken (under duress) to mitigate its role in incentivizing and enabling piracy, most of the document reads more like an evangelical tome as to how their innovations have benefited content creators, blunting any collateral damage that may have occurred. In other words, let’s overlook the bad in favor of the good…
I have a feeling not much will have changed…If there’s any truth in the claim that Google is “doing more” it’s because it’s allowing morepirated content than ever on its products.
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
