Sunday’s Washington Post featured a story, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” that examined the company’s rise to become a top dog among Washington influence peddlers. For Google watchers revelations in the piece, authored by Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold, come as no surprise. However, for those who continue to regard Google as the web’s guardian angel of “free speech,” the story should add a bit of tarnish to its halo, illuminating the company’s extensive back-door maneuverings — the new normal in DC’s world of political puppeteering.
The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google — once a lobbying weakling — has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence.
That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects.
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.
It wasn’t too long ago that Google was leading the charge against Washington insiders, those who deigned to file legislation that would target online content theft, the notorious Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Of course its ginning up hysteria among web users with the rallying cry “don’t break the internet” is simply just another strategic slice of the same (lobbying) pie the company is currently feasting on in Washington. While the contrivances employed differ, the ultimate goal of protecting the company’s interests (and bottom line) lies at the core both of both.
Of course it’s not particularly surprising to find that one of the nation’s most successful and influential company has invested heavily (more than 15 million in 2013) to influence policy by any means necessary. What is important is to see that Google’s anti-SOPA efforts for what they were–skillful lobbying that engaged web users as foils in a much larger game of chess. After the SOPA web blackout, a headline in Tech Crunch gleefully declared, “SOPA Scorecard: Internet 1, Lobbyists 0.” In his story David Binetti gave this appraisal of the (so-called) grassroots efforts that led to SOPA’s defeat.
Think about that for just a second: A well-organized, well-funded, well-connected, well-experienced lobbying effort on Capitol Hill was outflanked by an ad-hoc group of rank amateurs, most of whom were operating independent of one another and on their spare time. Regardless where you stand on the issue — and effective copyright protection is an important issue — this is very good news for the future of civic engagement.
Looking back, such assessments seem almost quaint in their naivety. Following the web blackout, in a post-mortem published on 3digital.com David Rodnitzky got it right:
The SOPA blackout was about as organic as the masses of North Koreans crying in the streets upon hearing of Kim Jong Il’s death. Behind the scenes, the SOPA protest was a well-organized campaign, fueled by the lobbying arms of major Internet corporations.
Moving forward, let’s hope that more people take note. Google is out to protect Google’s interests, not ours.
Marvin Ammori pens a (laughingly) disingenuous anti-copyright screed
This week Google-backed attorney (and fellow at the New America Foundation) Marvin Ammori wrote a piece for Slate, “Hollywood’s Copyright Lobbyists Are Like Exes Who Won’t Give Up” bashing efforts by the rights holders and their representatives to build voluntary consensus to fight online piracy. Ammori argues that such efforts are actually a veiled effort to reintroduce SOPA, the anti-piracy legislation that went down in flames two years ago.
Apparently Mr. Ammori believes (or those paying him do) that we shouldn’t address this issue at all. Legislation is bad and voluntary agreements are bad too. It seems that even talking about the subject is bad.
In his Slate piece Ammori condemned “copyright lobbyists” for discussing such agreements “in hearings and little information-gathering events—the equivalent of an ex just trying to catch up over drinks.” His lame “ex” analogy aside, I must say it’s beyond ironic to see a known confederate of the #1 lobbyist in DC actually condemn lobbying. Just pull back the curtain and you’ll see that Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt is actually the Chairman of the Board for the New America Foundation. The foundation also lists Google as one of its funders.
According to the website Open Secrets, Google spent 15 million dollars lobbying in 2013. 14.6 million of that was for lobbying on issues related to “computers and the internet.” It’s likely that some of those expenditures included sending representatives to “hearings and little information-gathering events” in DC don’t cha think?
Initially Slate failed to disclose Mr. Ammori’s ties to Google, but was forced to “update” the piece with this disclaimer:
Update, March 11, 2014: Disclosure: The author represented Google and other companies fighting SOPA/PIPA in 2011 and 2012. He currently represents Google and other companies on several issues, including copyright reform. These views are his own.
The fact that Mr. Ammori neglected to initially mention his many ties to Google undermines the very gist of his arguments. Sons of Anarchy writer Kurt Sutter wrote a great rebuttal in Slate to Ammori’s piece which begins:
Let’s consider the March 11 anti-copyright rant in Slate by Marvin Ammori, a lawyer working for Google (which somehow he forgot to mention in the article). He compares Hollywood to that insidious “ex who won’t give up” pursuing you and making your life miserable. As a guy with more than a few exes, I have to tell you, Marv, the most insidious ex is the one who hides the truth, steals your money, and lies to all your friends. That’s what Ammori and Google are doing.
I recommend reading Sutter’s entire piece in which he lays bare the true motivations behind Ammori’s post (and Google’s lobbying efforts).
…when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it’s presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It’s so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who’s the friend of the young everyman. Don’t kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a shit about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope.
To blame Hollywood copyright lobbyists for trying to influence law when google does the exact same thing is either ignorant or hypocritical. And to ignore the fact it isn’t just “Hollywood Copyright Lobbyists” but entire countries that are reacting to what they see is Big Tech run rampant, suggests once again the narrative is being controlled in Big Tech’s favor.
Ammori whines about SOPA and he whines about new efforts to create “voluntary” agreements as a possible path forward in the ongoing battle against content theft. Apparently we are essentially damned if we do and damned if we don’t? What are content creators supposed to do? Are we supposed to sit on our hands and watch as tech behemoths like Google continue to enable (and profit from) an illicit online economy that is bleeding creators dry?
Ammori points to the fact that payment processors like PayPal have pulled their services from various websites and warns,
…copyright holders can starve websites of their funding, strip them of their domain names, and remove them from search. The sites at risk include those that enable users to store and share content—if even a fraction of those users might violate copyright. So these agreements can threaten free expression and innovation online for all of us, just to target a few infringers.
Oh please…he really doesn’t have a freakin’ clue does he? Has he ever actually researched online piracy and examined these websites and to see how they operate? Does he really that only a “fraction” of Megaupload or Filesonic’s users were violating copyright? At this point the poor guy is clearly trying to gin up the same tired, hyperbolic, deceitful anti-SOPA rhetoric the tech-industry employed to work web users into a lather. Problem is, it ain’t gonna work any more. As Sutter’s rebuttal makes clear, creators from all walks of life are fed up with piracy profiteers being propped up by companies like Google–tired of the b.s. We’re mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
We’re sick of companies like Google spending millions to defend their business model, acting like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We’re tired of Google pretending this is about “free speech” when, in fact, it’s about their bottom line. We’re tired of the hypocrisy of a company that spends millions to undermine artist’s rights while being the first in line at the courthouse when it comes to protecting its own IP. We’re tired of watching our livelihoods whittled away while others steal our work to make millions. We’re tired of folks like Mr. Ammori pretending to defend the web’s users when they’re really defending the web’s oligarchy.
It’s too bad that piracydata.org isn’t more transparent about its sugar daddy. Like many of the astro-turf anti-copyright entities this one’s tentacles can be traced back to Google, the supposedly aggrieved party whose persecution by anti-piracy advocates that inspired the site’s creation in the first place.
I also included the fact Google acknowledges its cozy relationship with the libertarian mission on its public policy page:
Our U.S. Public Policy and Government Affairs team provides support to a number of independent third-party organizations whose federally-focused work intersects in some way with technology and Internet policy. While this list is continually evolving, some examples of these organizations are: … Mercatus Center…
Yesterday Truth-Out.org published a great expose by Nick Surgey that sheds even more light on Google’s ties to right-wing political interests–interests that extend far beyond controlling the debate around copyright and content theft. The article, “The Googlization of the Far Right: Why Is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?sheds more light on the fact that the Silicon Valley tech giant is underwriting a political agenda that in many ways parallels that of the notorious Koch brothers.
Organizations that received “substantial” funding from Google for the first time over the past year include Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the Federalist Society, the American Conservative Union (best known for its CPAC conference), and the political arm of the Heritage Foundation that led the charge to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act: Heritage Action.
In 2013, Google also funded the corporate lobby group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, although that group is not listed as receiving “substantial” funding in the list published by Google.
Again, this information is not new, but it is important and deserving of ongoing scrutiny. Google’s lobbying budget in 2012 was 18.2 million dollars and the company now ranks number 8 in lobbyist spending among Washington’s influence peddlers. While Google (and Silicon Valley) have generally been associated with more “progressive” causes over the years, as Surgey points out , Google’s funding of ALEC is troubling:
As each day passes and Google’s political influence grows, their corporate mantra “don’t be evil” seems increasingly mendacious and absurd. Perhaps the powers that be at Google should pick up some new bedtime reading. Grimm’s Fairy Tales might be a good choice. Why not begin by reading “Snow White” and note what happens to an evil queen who looks into the mirror and refuses to believe the truth?
The fact that online piracy has flourished over these past few years is nothing new. Neither is its co-dependence on an ever-efficient distribution network, largely developed and maintained by an assortment of tech enterprises based in Silicon Valley . Up to this point, Facebook’s role in enabling this plague of piracy has, for the most part, generally been minimized, if not ignored entirely. But given the ever-expanding influential reach of world’s #1 social network, perhaps it’s time to take a closer look at the site’s role as a purveyor of pirated content.
In the past I’ve written about the popularity of Google’s blogger platform among pirate entrepreneurs because it offers both an easy (and free) way to distribute stolen movies and make money via online ads. How does Facebook fit into this equation? Well, just as legit businesses use Facebook to gain customers, pirate profiteers around the world also utilize its popularity to attract users to their illegal websites. Check out any pirate site on blogspot.com, or anywhere else on the web for that matter, and you’re likely to find a link to the site’s Facebook pages (as well as other social networking sites like Twitter).
The Facebook page (shown below) for the FilmesYouTube site (shown above) boasts more than 166k “likes.” The Facebook page sends visitors to the pirate website, and also features numerous posts which link directly to easy-to-use, active streams and download links for a variety of popular movies.
Facebook links directly to full stream of pirated movie starring Tom Cruise.
Depending on one’s preference, one can either watch the movie online or download a copy. Either way it’s free–the only inconvenience being a pop-up ad or two.
Facebook links to full stream (and download links) to GI Joe.
In this example, it appears that this Facebook pirate has also been busy creating multiple websites that also link to mirrored Facebook pages. If one notes the “likes” listed on this page, you’ll find links to several other “free” movie sites setup in a similar fashion. This redundancy may be in part due to concerns that one or more of these pirate sites could go offline. However, given the fact this particular page boasts 166K “likes” it appears this fan page has been active for some time.
The common thread between the Facebook pages and the pirate websites is that both generate income from advertisements. The more visitors, the more money for Facebook and, in turn, the more traffic to the pirate sites which,in turn, generates more ad profits for the online pirate entrepreneur. Who’s left out of this equation?-the content creator of course.
When I viewed the above page it featured “sponsored ads” promoting Capitol One and Discover credit cards, along with political PACS and Ancestry.com. Do these entities realize that the sponsored advertising they’re paying Facebook for appear adjacent to pirate links to bootleg, illegal movie downloads? I doubt it.
As for advertising on the actual pirate web site (which translates into motive and money for the pirate) I found ads for Amazon.com and others served up by the Ad Council, a U.S. based non-profit whose mission is to “deliver critical messages to the American public.”
Perhaps the time has come for the Ad Council to add anti-piracy messages to their slate of “critical” messages for the American public?
Like Google, Facebook offers rights holders the opportunity to send DMCA takedown requests to have these illegal links removed. Unfortunately, Facebook mirrors Google in another way–when it comes to DMCA notices, usually only individual posts are removed, not the infringing page.
It’s been my experience that when I’ve reported infringing content to Facebook via a DMCA only the post with the pirate link is removed. The Facebook page, with dozens more pirated offerings, remains online. I can understand if only a single link is reported, but what about a site that’s repeatedly reported for copyright infringement? From what I’ve seen such sites generally remain online. If it’s obvious that the page is dedicated to promoting pirated content, why leave it online?
I’ve asked Google this same question, if a site is reported for promoting infringing (illegal) downloads why not remove it? Surely Facebook has the staff to investigate and determine whether a site exists purely to traffic in stolen content. If not, why not? Why is it OK for a company with the reach and financial resources of Facebook to look the other way? Their censors often seem all to eager to remove photos of breastfeeding mothers or LGBT movie advertising. Why not go after pages that are trafficking in illegal content?
I’ve tried to contact Facebook to ask for clarity on the criteria, if any, they have for removing pages and will update this post if I should receive a response. Given my past experiences with inquiries to Facebook, I’m not optimistic that I’ll hear back anytime soon. The “community standards” that define what type of “expression is acceptable” is conveniently vague when it comes to copyright and intellectual property:
Before sharing content on Facebook, please be sure you have the right to do so. We ask that you respect copyrights, trademarks, and other legal rights.
Facebook is careful to point out, however that the decision as to whether to remove content reported for violating their terms is entirely up to them.
The link between piracy’s advertising profits and those of so-called legit entities like Google (including YouTube, AdSense, Blogger & search) and the corporations they service ads for has been well-documented so that fact that Facebook is a part of this web of illicit profit is no real surprise. However, it’s worth asking once again, why isn’t something being done?
The notorious Pirate site Movies2k even boasts it’s own Facebook page.
How is that mainstream tech companies like Google and Facebook–and those who pay to advertise with their networks–continue to look the other way and ignore their role in providing both a motive, and a means, for this illegal activity to occur? The obvious answer is that profit trumps morality when it’s a matter of making millions. In this era, and until the law adapts, there’s little to no risk in skirting U.S. law in order to maintain their cash cows. Clearly the fact that this is tainted revenue doesn’t matter to these companies or their stockholders. With the amount of lobbying muscle they’re displaying in Washington these days, things appear unlikely to change any time soon.
Updated (4-16-13) to add the response I received from Facebook. Just as I suspected, nothing but boilerplate verbiage. Here it is:
Facebook may “stand ready” to respond, but in my experience, they don’t do much else.
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
Google’s True Colors as Lobbying Goliath Revealed
