Youtube | Vox Indie

YouTube’s Paid Channels are Here and a Counterfeit Cleanup is Past Due

Last week YouTube made official what had long been rumored and announced a new slate of paid channels.

Starting today, we’re launching a pilot program for a small group of partners that will offer paid channels on YouTube with subscription fees starting at $0.99 per month. Every channel has a 14-day free trial, and many offer discounted yearly rates. For example, Sesame Street will be offering full episodes on their paid channel when it launches. And UFC fans can see classic fights, like a full version of their first event from UFC’s new channel. You might run into more of these channels across YouTube, or look here for a list of pilot channels. Once you subscribe from a computer, you’ll be able to watch paid channels on your computer, phone, tablet and TV, and soon you’ll be able to subscribe to them from more devices.

While this announcement is potentially good news in that it offers content creators large and small new ways to monetize their work, unless YouTube purges pirates from the site, it’s is a business model that remains tainted.

I’ve written previously about the various ways YouTube enables (and reaps profit) from movie piracy. With the latest announcement paid YouTube channels, I thought it worth looking at yet another example of their dirty laundry. This time it’s an Argentina-based website that uses popular movie trailers on YouTube to attract customers to its online store selling bootleg DVDs and video games.

I came across the illegal site when I viewed a trailer the French indie film “Tomboy” uploaded to YouTube. The user had uploaded a number of trailers to his YouTube channel and in the description for each, included a link to his illegal website. To add insult to injury, the trailers featured not only a link to the bootleg site but included a its own splashy animated logo edited in.

Here’s the description translated from Spanish:

www.xtopsite.com where you can find the last extrenos on DVD
new http://www.xtopsite.com
Pre release movies 20000 retro releases and unpublished
4000 concerts in Argentina and worldwide with the best sound
1500 Complete TV series, so you can finish watching it so steep that you got
20000 MP3 bands and musicians to upload your best technology
20000 programs to make the impossible possible
20000 playstation xbox360 wii chipiadas for your consoles to play online against worldwide
shipments at home just as fast in 24 hours on market
The best prices, the best quality, over 15 years as leaders in the market $ 3. – C / u cd $ 5 – c / u dvd
Promo: if pedis 100 units or more makes you a discount of% 25. -
orders effected only by form: http://www.xtopsite.com

When I navigated to the website, I found this, a virtual storefront that looks legit enough, but isn’t. How could I tell? Well, the first clue was the DVD for the film “42″ which just recently appeared in theaters. ”42″ is not scheduled to be released on DVD until this summer, August 2013.

The movie “42″ will be released on DVD and Blu-ray in August of 2013.

This site also sells (bootleg) Xbox games, along with advice for finding cracked serial numbers online.

Here’s the specific advice (translated from Spanish):

Clearly these pirates are using YouTube as a means to advertise and drive traffic to their illicit business. Since it’s based in Argentina, they can operate openly with little fear of closure since the country is notoriously lax on piracy. An article published on smartplanet.com sums it up pretty well:

Argentine websites and physical markets questioned for distributing pirated and counterfeit material shows how relaxed local attitudes are toward intellectual property. Students regularly buy photocopies of entire college texts rather than pay for the book, while several Buenos Aires parks fill on weekends with vendors openly selling pirated computer software.

Part of Argentina’s fertile culture of piracy is inspired by a belief that intellectual property rights can be sacrificed in the name of helping the poor and forgotten against large corporations; part is caused by Argentina’s lax enforcement of intellectual property laws; and the rest comes from the country’s isolating economic policies, where import restrictions and high import taxes make buying genuine foreign goods prohibitively expensive.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has placed Argentina on its “watch list” citing copyright infringement as one concern, “However, serious problems persist, including widespread availability of pirated and counterfeit goods, an inefficient judicial system, and a failure to adjudicate civil and criminal cases and impose deterrent level sentences…overall levels of copyright piracy continue to present a problem, as reflected, for example, in a reported growth in piracy over the Internet.”

So while the United States is concerned that Argentinian authorities inaction against IP theft and piracy, a U.S. based company like YouTube help them facilitate it without a problem? As a business that abides by U.S. law, should YouTube/Google do more to prevent an illegal enterprise from using their website to promote/distribute illegal goods?

According to YouTube’s own “Terms of Service” (and I assume U.S. law) the company bears no responsibility in these situations:

The Service may contain links to third party websites that are not owned or controlled by YouTube. YouTube has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for, the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third party websites. In addition, YouTube will not and cannot censor or edit the content of any third-party site. By using the Service, you expressly relieve YouTube from any and all liability arising from your use of any third-party website.

In addition to their “Terms of Service” YouTube offers users a bit more guidance via their “Community Guidelines,” but here, the only reference discouraging “illegal” activities are “Dangerous Illegal Acts” like bomb making and sniper attacks. Nothing about operating illegal bootleg/counterfeiting operations.

Is the situation any different with YouTube’s parent company Google? Not really since Google’s terms of service follows the same murky (though apparently legal) path.

If the bootleg site is in Iran, Cuba or the Sudan, it seems Google may be forced to act, otherwise, despite lip-service that frowns on “dangerous and illegal” activities, linking to illegal businesses is A-OK. If I’m interpreting the verbiage correctly, bootlegging DVDs is not dangerous per se (which obviously it’s not), then the illegal part is moot. Though Google terms state that users aren’t allowed to create websites, ” that have the primary purpose of redirecting visitors, acting as a bridge page, or driving traffic to another website” it appears that the company does little to stop this activity, at least on YouTube.

Commercial Activity

You may use Google Sites to create websites for your business or to promote your products or services, unless you are in Cuba, Iran, or Sudan. There are some commercial uses we don’t allow. We don’t allow websites that have the primary purpose of redirecting visitors, acting as a bridge page, or driving traffic to another website. We also don’t allow websites that have the primary purpose of profiting from displaying ads from any publisher network, such as sites created with little or no unique content and exist only to display ads.

Copyright

It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. More information about our copyright procedures can be found on this page: http://www.google.com/sites_dmca.html

Unlawful Use of Service

Our products and services should not be used for unlawful purposes or for promotion of dangerous and illegal activities [emphasis added]. Your account may be terminated and you may be reported to the appropriate authorities.

The U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (I.C.E.) has been seizing web domains as part of an ongoing effort to battle counterfeiting across the globe. Perhaps its time to examine the mechanisms by which U.S. companies indirectly aid such criminal enterprises as well? Why not engage some of our own companies in a discussions aimed at reducing their role in enabling these criminal activities?

On another front, why not enlist the YouTube community in helping to report these questionable sites? YouTube has a system whereby users can flag material deemed to be in violation of “rules:”

Users report content that may violate YouTube’s rules by flagging it. YouTube’s rules are outlined in ourCommunity Guidelines. YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When a video is reviewed and determined to violate our Community Guidelines we remove it.

YouTube seems to have no problem allowing its users to flag innocuous kissing scenes from lesbian/gay tv shows and movies, why not give its “community” an easy way to flag material actually links to illegal content–content that does harm? According to YouTube’s community guidelines:

We Enforce These Guidelines

Okay, this one is more about us than you. YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate our Community Guidelines. When they do, we remove them. Sometimes a video doesn’t violate our Community Guidelines, but may not be appropriate for everyone. These videos may be age-restricted. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination. If your account is terminated, you won’t be allowed to create any new accounts. For more information about how the Community Guidelines are enforced and the consequences of violating them, please visit the Help Center.

At present, it’s pretty much impossible notify YouTube about the illegal linking scenario I’ve described in this post because 1) it’s not a “dangerous and illegal act” 2) it doesn’t infringe “my rights.” When I tried to flag the trailer and alert YouTube that this YouTube channel linked to a counterfeit site I was met with a form that required information (like an actual hyperlink to the law being infringed) and legal standing that I don’t posses.

Clearly YouTube doesn’t want to be deluged with false claims, but making an option available for users to report a legal issue that does not involve one’s own trademark or copyright would help.

There may be other technological ways to vet questionable links. Google seems to achieve wonders with its search algorithms. Why not utilize technology to ferret out links to dubious websites posted on their pages? Google regularly labels sites as “compromised” on search results. Of course, when it comes to others attempting to crackdown on criminal websites listed via their search engine Google likens this to an attack on “free speech.”

For now, it seems Google has no legal obligation to worry about its role in facilitating illegal activity like bootleg DVD sales. After all, sharing links to infringing streams and downloads is allowed to fly under the radar, so is it any surprise other savvy pirates link to their sites selling bootlegged copies? Moving forward, one can only hope Google representatives begin to acknowledge this problem and begin to develop efficient and thoughtful ways to deal with it. If Google wants YouTube channels to become a legitimate and profitable means of distribution for content creators, why not get rid of those YouTube users whose activities undermine the livelihoods of these same creators YouTube is attempting to woo?

12 Stepping Through Piracy’s Takedown Maze of Madness

It's easy to find pirated movies via Google
From Google search to a YouTube channel

with links to dozens of movies
Each upload links to off site pirate website
Rights holder can send DMCA to YouTube but...
the illegal links on Google/Blogger

DMCA notice to Google/YouTube doesn't touch
through a pop-up advertisement

To get to movie, you have to click
Get past the ads...

and find the entire movie streamed for free
takedown request to Blogger but...

Rights holder can send another DMCA
hosted on a Russian website VK.com

That doesn't remove the actual stream
you have to find the URL for the stream...

Before you can send a DMCA takedown to Vk.com
a valid cell phone number is required

You'll need register with Vk.com
Finally the URL to the infringing file is revealed
So you can file a DMCA request with Vk.com
and send DMCA to Google to remove search result

and, if you want to be really thorough go back
But in a day or two, the battle begins

all over again with the same pirate's

new YouTube channel

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?

3 Strikes on YouTube and You’re OUT? Maybe…

YouTube account holders accounts are terminated for repeated violations of copyright policies

I have a question for the folks at YouTube. Usually, if a user receives multiple (3 or more) DMCA takedown notices, the associated account is suspended for repeated violations of their copyright policy.

Two weeks ago I wrote about a YouTube account holder, “MyTrailerIsRich,” who makes money piggy-backing off the work of others–uploading and monetizing movie trailers without permission from the rights holders. Since then, I know for a fact that at least four different distributors have submitted a total of at least 8 takedown notices for trailers uploaded (and monetized) by this user without permission.

Yet, as of this morning, the channel (with its 50 million plus views) is still online and earning income for YouTube and the user. Why? The user hasn’t filed a dispute (counter-notice) to protest the takedowns. Could it be because this particular channel has attracted so many views (and so much income)? Could it be that the intermediary that uploaded and claimed the content (Wizdeo) has a special relationship with YouTube? If you look at YouTube’s criteria for account termination you will note that it’s conveniently vague:

Accounts determined to be repeat infringers may be subject to termination. Users with suspended or terminated accounts are prohibited from creating new accounts or accessing YouTube’s community features.

It’s been my experience with YouTube that some users have had their account terminated for 3 violations. It’s also the figure bandied around in Google’s own product forums.

Yet, to date, MyTrailerIsRich’s has received at least 8 and remains online. I’d love to ask someone at YouTube about this, but unfortunately, they won’t respond to email queries. My guess, it’s all about the money. Perhaps YouTube should update its terms to clarify matters and say:

Accounts determined to be repeat infringers may be subject to termination (dependent on how much income they generate for us).

The YouTube channel for “MyTrailerIsRich” remains online despite multiple (at least 8) takedown notices.

YouTube (and Netflix) monetize online piracy

Need more evidence that Google’s YouTube earns income from pirates who upload (and monetize) films for which they don’t own the rights? Well, here’s another example I found today (1/26/13). This time it’s a YouTube user with the moniker “iWatchEpicMovies.” The film in question (one of many the uploaded claimed by the user) is a 1998 Swedish film, released in the United States under the title “Show Me Love.” The original title in Swedish was “Fucking Amal.”

The film was uploaded to YouTube on January 23rd and claimed by the uploader, who asserted “ownership in the following countries: Worldwide.” When you view the film on YouTube it’s monetized with advertising, meaning the uploader and YouTube earn money very view. Not only is the pirated film monetized, but ironically, one of the ads superimposed over the screen is a Netflix ad. So, in this case, Netflix is also benefiting from the presence of this pirated film on YouTube. BTW, Netflix is no stranger to allowing its advertising to be promoted aside pirated movies. I wrote about another recent example of this here.

Pirated film Monetized on YouTube by Google featuring Netflix Ads

Google/YouTube will, as always, claim that it’s the rights holder’s job to police YouTube and to request that infringing content be removed. Of course, in the interim, Google’s happy to make money and Netflix is happy to attract new customers (and make money).

In another ironic twist to this pirated upload, the YouTube user posts this disclaimer “I do not claim copyrights. For entertainment purposes only.” Perhaps “iWatchEpicMovies” should rewrite it to clarify, and say: ”I do not claim copyrights, but I assert ownership (worldwide) for the purpose of making money off something I don’t own.”

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.