Blocking pirate sites is not censorship–it’s common sense
In a move being celebrated by creators worldwide, the Australian parliament has approved the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. The legislation will allow rights holders go to court to request that pirate websites be blocked in Australia. The explanatory memorandum, notes that the purpose of the bill is to “reduce online infringement.”
The bill’s opponents have employed the standard tech talking points, crying censorship and calling its justification “bogus.” They claim to be concerned about collateral damagebut consistently show zero regard for the ongoing “collateral damage” suffered by filmmakers, musicians, and authors whose livelihoods are routinely leached by online thieves. For piracy apologists blocking pirate sites is an anathema. In their view the rights of piracy profiteers (who pocket profits from content theft) trumps the rights of creators at every turn.
Fortunately members of the Australian parliament were able to see through the over-wrought hyperbole and craft legislation that seeks to balance the rights of creators with concerns about online censorship. With the legislation’s passage, Australia joins the UK and a number of other nations in setting up a judicial review process to determine whether certain pirate websites should be blocked. The new Australian law establishes a “high threshold test” for the Court:
The Court must take into account a number of factors before granting an injunction. These factors include:
the flagrancy of the infringement or its facilitation
whether disabling access to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances
the impact on any person likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction, and
whether it is in the public interest to disable access to the online location.
Further reading of the explanatory memorandum demonstrates the rationale for the legislation and, despite rhetoric thrown about by opponents, it seems quite reasonable.
8. Copyright protection provides an essential mechanism for ensuring the viability and success of creative industries by incentivising and rewarding creators. Online copyright infringement poses a significant threat to these incentives and rewards, due to the ease in which copyright material can be copied and shared through digital means without authorisation. [emphasis added]
9. Where online copyright infringement occurs on a large scale, copyright owners need an efficient mechanism to disrupt the business models of online locations operated outside Australia that distribute infringing copyright material to Australian consumers. [emphasis added] In addition, a consequence of fewer visitors at the particular online location may also impact the advertising revenue, which is often an integral element of the business models of these types of entities.
10. The Bill acknowledges the difficulties in taking direct enforcement action against entities operating outside Australia. The proposed amendments are intended to create a no-fault remedy against CSPs where they are in a position to address copyright infringement.
In the United States opponents of such legislation, often funded by tech interests, have successfully conflated sincere efforts to thwart online piracy with the specter of online censorship. However, no matter how they try to slice it, piracy does not = free speech. Websites that profit from piracy are criminal enterprises and are not worthy of protection.
Illegal activity in the brick and mortar world is not sheltered by the “free speech” excuse. Why should online piracy’s black markets be above the law? There are plenty of options for web users around the world to “share” files via any number of legitimate free sites. Sites like Pirate Bay and Kick Ass Torrents should not be thought of as sentinels to safeguard an open internet.
With passage of the law attention has turned to VPNs (virtual private networks) that would allow Australians to bypass blockages but its a red herring. VPNs are not the panacea many claim and, in fact, are often rife with malware and other security concerns. Of course, for the determined downloader there are other ways to get around a blockade, but the law’s intent isn’t really to prevent all access, but rather to deter easy access. The majority of folks who download illegal content online do so not only because it’s free, but it’s also easy. Any roadblock that can redirect these users to legitimate outlets is a welcome one.
Would similar legislation ever pass in the United States? After the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debacle it seems unlikely. Given the lobbying largess of Google and other tech interests in Washington, opponents seem to have constructed a formidable bunker against those who seek to fight online piracy profiteers. After all, some entities within the U.S. tech industry are also piracy profiteers and have a vested financial interest in keeping the Wild West status quo where an online eco-system of online theft for profit is allowed to flourish. Fortunately not every worldwide legislative body is under the thumb of big tech and so bit by bit, progress is being made.
Google’s global reach has global implications when it comes to the law
In a case that could have broad implications moving forward, a Canadian appeals court handed Google a rare legal setback when it upheld a worldwide injunction ordering the search giant to remove results linked to counterfeit hardware. The ruling was an affirmation of a lower court ruling that mandated Google remove certain search results (linking to illegal products) on a worldwide basis.
Reading the court’s decision, the plaintiff’s arguments–and Google’s responses–are familiar to anyone who’s gone toe to toe with tech behemoth and its shills like the EFF. What’s new is that the appeals court not only upheld the lower court’s worldwide injunction, but it also shot down the tired, oft-used “free speech” canard employed by tech apologists to attack rights holders:
[105] The plaintiffs made considerable efforts attempting to track down the defendants, and find ways to eliminate their websites. The judge’s finding that the granting of the injunction was the only practical way to impede the defendants from flouting the court’s orders amounts to a finding that the involvement of Google in this matter was necessary.
[106] With respect to extraterritorial effects, Google has, in this Court, suggested that a more limited order ought to have been made, affecting only searches that take place on the google.ca site. I accept that an order with international scope should not be made lightly, and that where an order with only domestic consequences will accomplish all that is necessary, a more expansive order should not be made…
[107] The plaintiffs have established, in my view, that an order limited to the google.ca search site would not be effective. I am satisfied that there was a basis, here, for giving the injunction worldwide effect. [emphasis added] I have already noted that applications can be made to vary the order should unexpected issues arise concerning comity.
[108] Finally, I note concerns expressed by Google and by the intervenors Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation concerning the openness of the World Wide Web, and the need to avoid unnecessary impediments to free speech.
[109] The order made in this case is an ancillary order designed to give force to earlier orders prohibiting the defendants from marketing their product. Those orders were made after thorough consideration of the strength of the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ cases. Google does not suggest that the orders made against the defendants were inappropriate, nor do the intervenors suggest that those orders constituted an inappropriate intrusion on freedom of speech.
[110] There has, in the course of argument, been some reference to the possibility that the defendants (or others) might wish to use their websites for legitimate free speech, rather than for unlawfully marketing the GW1000. That possibility, it seems to me, is entirely speculative. There is no evidence that the websites in question have ever been used for lawful purposes, nor is there any reason to believe that the domain names are in any way uniquely suitable for any sort of expression other than the marketing of the illegal product. [emphasis added] Of course, if the character of the websites changes, it is always open to the defendants or others to seek a variation of the injunction.
It’s refreshing to see a court of a law look past EFF hyperbole and distinguish between legit websites and those engaged in criminal activity. Score one for common sense (and the law). It should be noted that in predictable fashion, the EFF characterized the decision as “dangerous precedent” and that allows an intermediate to “edit the internet” and warned that the ruling “lays the groundwork for nations with authoritarian restrictions on speech to also impose their own rules on the global Internet.”
I suppose we should consider it progress that instead of “breaking the internet” we are now only accused of wanting to “edit it?”
Over the years, Google has run roughshod over any effort to impede its take-no-prisoners business practices, but lately its veneer of invincibility seems to have cracked. As this latest ruling demonstrates, courts and regulators (outside the U.S.) are finally beginning to treat Google as the global beast that it is.
In May of 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union found that EU citizens had the “right to be forgotten” and that search engines like Google must remove search results upon request. Last November, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, the group charged with overseeing the ruling, issued guidelines on implementation that .com domains worldwide, not just those in the European Union should be included in requests for data removal.
7. Territorial effect of a de-listing decision In order to give full effect to the data subject’s rights as defined in the Court’s ruling, delisting decisions must be implemented in such a way that they guarantee the effective and complete protection of data subjects’ rights and that EU law cannot be circumvented. In that sense, limiting de-listing to EU domains on the grounds that users tend to access search engines via their national domains cannot be considered a sufficient mean to satisfactorily guarantee the rights of data subjects according to the ruling. In practice, this means that in any case de-listing should also be effective on all relevant domains, including .com. [emphasis added]
In April, the EU’s scrutiny of Google’s business practices became even bolder when it charged the company with anti-trust violations. From the Wall Street Journal:
The European Commission took direct aim at Google Inc. Wednesday, charging the Internet-search giant with skewing results to favor its comparison-shopping service. But the formal complaint may only be the opening salvo in a broader assault that prompts big changes at Google.
European antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said she continues to examine other domains, such as travel and local services, where Google is accused of favoring its own services over those of others. She also opened a second front, intensifying a separate probe of Google’s conduct with its Android mobile-operating system.
Given Google’s growing influence as a Washington lobbying force, don’t expect to see U.S. lawmakers following in the EU’s footsteps any time soon. However, any crack in Google’s armor is progress. While U.S. authorities won’t hold Google accountable, it seems like the rest of the world just might.
Fans of the hit Netflix original series, Orange is the New Black, are standing by, like Cinderella, waiting for the clock to strike midnight on the west coast tonight. When the clock strikes twelve viewers worldwide will be able to (legally) binge watch all 13 episodes of the popular prison ensemble series. Netflix has expanded to dozens of markets in the Americas, Europe and Oceania.
While the series will undoubtedly be widely pirated, now that piracy havens like Brazil have Netflix it will be interesting to see if the problem is less widespread. In fact, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings made news last week by suggesting (with caveats) that illegal piracy actually paved the way for Netflix’s success by changing audience viewing habits.
People have grown to prefer tailoring their viewing habits to their own schedules, a key factor in why Netflix’s appeal has grown. In comments to the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, Hastings explained:
“I think Spain will be one of our most successful countries. There is a high rate of Internet connectivity and a population that is accustomed to the use of electronic commerce and that has shown signs of being interested in our product. We are very optimistic.”
“Well, you can call [piracy] a problem, but the truth is that it has also created a public that is now used to viewing content on the Internet.”
It’s not to say Netflix isn’t worried about the negative impact of piracy. There’s plenty of concern that illegal viewing could negatively impact profits. From Forbes:
Piracy has a direct effect on the attractiveness of Netflix’s exclusive programming. Subscribers may not be interested in viewing these shows at Netflix’s paid platform when they can get the same shows for free. The company even addressed this issue in its last quarterly letter to its shareholders by acknowledging piracy as one of its biggest competitors.
Countries where Netflix is available
There are also plans for Netflix to expand to big markets known as piracy hot spots including China and Russia. Will Netflix turn people away from free downloads in favor on convenient streaming options? That remains an open question. For now at least, progress is being made and more people can sit down tonight and indulge in the season 3 of Orange is the New Black. I can’t wait.
This month marks the five-year anniversary of my first blog post about online piracy and its link to advertising profits. At the time I was pissed. The movie Megan Siler and I had spent three years creating had just been released, and within 24 hours, had found its way online as an illegal download. One illegal copy quickly morphed into many tens of thousands.
What made me angry wasn’t necessarily the fact the film had been pirated. Though certainly I wasn’t pleased, it wasn’t really a shock. I knew in the back of my mind that piracy was an issue. However, I’d never really examined it up close. When I did, I was surprised not only by the how–but by the why. Online piracy was, in fact, an insidious for-profit business cloaked behind a curtain labeled “sharing.”
Online piracy is driven by profit
It turns out our film–like thousands of others, studio and indie–was just click-bait for a flourishing online market driven by greed. The breadth and scope of this illicit online marketplace was shocking. Examining a wide range of pirate websites I discovered an insidious, profitable and widespread economy driven–in large measure–through the complicity of major American corporations.
Sure, some of the major players were well-known thieves like Kim Dotcom whose Megaupload business empire was built on content theft. But many others cashing in on the online feeding frenzy were (and still are) mainstream corporations like Google. Ad service providers and major brand advertisers were (and still are) incentivizing and sustaining online piracy as a profitable venture. It was true five years ago and unfortunately it remains true today. Legit companies supply the blood that feeds the beast.
My original blog at popuppirates.com
I didn’t begin blogging about online piracy for the sake of our film. That’s old news. The reason I’ve continued to spend the past five years investigating and writing about online piracy and copyright issues is because I don’t believe what’s happening to our creative community is fair. I write because I worry about the future of those who earn their living by creating the content we so enjoy. I write because online pirates continue to rip-off creators at every opportunity in order to make a buck.
I also write because worry that online piracy diminishes the diversity of content that’s produced. After all, we won’t know what we’re missing when it isn’t made. Creative voices on the fringes, the most fragile among us, are often the first to go, and it’s often a silent exit. Piracy apologists who believe it’s their right to take what they want– when they want–routinely belittle creators who dare speak out against such theft. For those defending piracy it seems easier to denigrate and devalue artists rather to hear them.
When I recently sent a DMCA notice to the Chilling Effects database to highlight the hypocrisy of Google’s message that it “fights piracy” my move was met with predictable derision. Few on the copyleft seemed to understand that it really wasn’t about me, or our film. The same scenario happens day after day to all types of creators who send takedown notices to Google. I used our film as an example (because I could) in order to make a point about how Google (and Chilling Effects) conduct business–removing links, but replacing the original link with another link back to a page featuring the original link. It’s a duplicitous shell game that mocks the very intent of the DMCA.
“I figured you are stupid Gay”
One blogger was so bent out of shape by my takedown notice to Chilling Effects he wrote his own post. He sent me a series of messages via my Vox Indie Facebook page and attempted to point out the futility of my anti-piracy efforts. Apparently crabbed when I didn’t respond, in a fit of pique, he resorted to childish name-calling:
A screencap showing partial excerpt of a blogger’s FB messages to me.
So much for thoughtful discourse eh? For the record, I am “Gay.” As for stupid, well, that “blogger” certainly thinks so. It would appear he has a problem with stupid Gayswho dare to speak out in defense of creators. For the record I didn’t bother to read his blog post which–given the tone of his messages–was probably not particularly friendly, nor thoughtful.
That particular blogger was not the only one to mock my attempt to highlight Google’s DMCA shell game; though I must say I’ve not really experienced the homophobic angle before. TechDirt, a site well known for its not-so-friendly views on copyright, also recently posted a harangue about my DMCA notice to Chilling Effects. That piece featured the subheading “from the stupidity-in-Russian-doll-form dept” so it would seem that the word “stupid,” in various forms, is a popular term for frustrated anti-piracy apologists to use when writing rebuttals. I imagine their dependence on the word is merely a further sign they have no cogent argument at the ready.
As the saying goes, “sticks and stones…” However, the upside is that my efforts to bring attention to the damage done by online piracy are clearly having the desired effect.
LGBT Filmmakers are among those whose voices are diminished by online piracy
Pirates sites around the world stealing LGBT films
I should also point out that LGBT filmmakers regularly send me emails asking what they can do to protect their films from online piracy. Some of them have spent years trying to bring their vision to the big screen and when they see their newly released film showing up as downloads and streams on pirate sites across the globe they are crushed. I wrote a piece about this some time ago, but it’s worth reminding audiences that these are some of the independent voices that are damaged when we allow online theft to flourish.
How can we change the status quo? We speak out. The good news is that we are. Artists across the spectrum have begun to focus frustration into action. We’ve begun to speak out and formed coalitions, demanding with one voice that our representatives in Washington take action to better safeguard creative work (and livelihoods) in the digital age. Whether it’s by re-tweeting for the #IRespectMusic campaign or joining the new Content Creators Coalition, as WE come together, WE will make progress–of that I am sure.
I didn’t make a film in order to become an “anti-piracy” activist. I made a film with my (also gay) filmmaker friend Megan Siler because we had a creative idea we wanted to share with lesbian audiences. However, once our film was released, and subjected to the online piracy pulverizer, this particular stupid Gay couldn’t look the other way. It opened my eyes to what was happening across the board to content creators of all stripes–and it wasn’t OK.
Hopefully, over these past years, through my research and subsequent blog posts, I’ve helped frame the debate over piracy in a way that exposes criminal nature of online piracy and motivates others to acknowledge it’s a problem in search of a solution. I also hope readers can better appreciate the long-term value of safeguarding our creative communities large and small.
Here’s to the next five years and hoping creators continue to make progress against the scourge of online piracy…I may be stupid, but I’m also stubborn. 🙂
Richard Prince is not an artist, he’s a con-artist.
Ripping off artists in the name of ART is not OK
How long are we going to continue to let small artists get screwed by those with deep pockets? Talk to any small creator–filmmakers, musicians, photographers, artists, authors–and ask whether they’ve had their work stolen (and monetized) by others and most will likely say “yes.” Then ask them what they did about it. The answer will likely be, “nothing.”
Right now a con-artist named Richard Prince is busy raking in the dough by selling Instagram photographs taken by others. Oh yeah, he adds some drivel and emojis to the bottom of each photo before he blows it up a 65 x 48 print. Yes art is often derivative, and yes these photographs are altered–but, in essence, at its core, the art remains a photograph taken (and owned) by someone else.
Prince, and the Gagosian Gallery where his work was shown, apparently have no qualms about blatantly appropriating and cashing by selling the work of other artists without their permission. As a Paddy Johnson noted so succinctly in a piece he wrote for Artnet News, “Richard Prince sucks.”
So, while there’s no doubt Prince is a phony, piggy-backing off the work of Instagram artists; the question is–returning to my original query–Can the photographers whose pictures were stolen do anything to stop Prince’s outrageous fraud? Well, not really. You see, quite simply, Mr. Prince is loaded and the people he steals from are not.
Prince’s scam, disguised as art, is nothing new. Over his career he’s developed a reputation as a serial thief and has ended up in court before. Two years ago he prevailed (partially) on appeal in a suit brought by photographer Patrick Cariou who claimed copyright infringement when Prince produced a series of photographs based on Cariou’s work. Ultimately a settlement was reached.
For his part Prince purports not to care much about copyright, telling Russhumazine.com:
…sometimes it’s better not to be successful and well known and you can get away with much more. I knew what I was stealing 30 years ago but it didn’t matter because no one cared, no one was paying any attention.
Why should he care? With millions in the bank Prince can afford not to. Does his past legal success mean he’d win this round? Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out since filing a lawsuit costs mega money–money that most everyday creators don’t have.
Doe Deere, one of the Instagram artists whose work was stolen, posted this response on the social media site aside the photo Prince filched:
Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it’s just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It’s already sold ($90K I’ve been told) during the VIP preview. No, I’m not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it! ? #lifeisstrange #modernart #wannabuyaninstagrampicture
Once again we’re left with a scenario where a rich charlatan can get away with stealing from the little guy.
It’s a scenario that’s played out many times. We’ve witnessed similar rip-offs by corporate interests that routinely steal the work of artists. Sam Levin wrote an expose for the East Bay Express last year documenting the ways in which artists are routinely victimized by such theft:
Visual artists and designers throughout the Bay Area and across the country are, at alarming rates, facing copyright infringements from large retail and wholesale companies stealing their intellectual property for their own products and profit. As artists increasingly promote their work and crafts online — through Etsy or their own websites and Facebook pages — corporations are stealing their designs and mass-producing them for sale.
Here too, an artist whose work is stolen has little recourse when it comes to fighting back. Even if they do, Levin points out that any settlement is likely to be paltry and include a non-disclosure agreement, thereby shielding the thief from any negative public shaming.
The time has come for Congress to establish a small claims court for copyright
Perhaps the time has come to get serious about establishing a copyright small claims court. It’s an idea the U.S. Copyright Office spent several years studying. A report summarizing its findings was sent to Congress in September of 2013. It outlined potential bureaucratic hurdles and ultimately recommended “the creation of a voluntary system of adjudication to be administered by the Copyright Office.” In any case, the report’s findings reinforce the need for some type of action on this issue. From the introduction:
While infringement is nothing new when it comes to the world of creative works, there is no question that it has proliferated with the ascendance of digital culture and the unprecedented desire for content. Today it is not only easy to make unauthorized copies, but to do so at virtually no cost, much to the detriment of authors and the market for their works. …Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, as the rate of infringement has increased, so too have the barriers to pursuing copyright claims in the federal courts. These barriers are largely practical: federal litigation is expensive and time-consuming, and therefore out of reach for many copyright owners…If exclusive rights are unenforceable, they are weakened as the pillars of the copyright law, and public respect for our nation’s creativity is eroded in turn.
Other documentation gathered for the report included this startling nugget:.
In fact, one recent survey found that, as of 2011, the median cost for litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at risk was $350,000.
More analysis of the report can be found by Jonathan Bailey’s post on Plagiarism Today.
Yet here we are. More than a year and a half has passed since the Copyright Office published its recommendations, Congress has yet to act. I realize the wheels of progress move at a glacial pass in Washington, and there are other copyright-related issues being bandied about, but let’s hope this idea will move to the front burner soon.
Bottom line, establishing a small claims court where copyright claims could be heard would at least level the playing field a bit. Small creators would not have to sit idly as skunks like Richard Prince co-opt their work and make money at their expense. Obviously damages are limited in small claims court, but at least those whose work is stolen could seek redress and perhaps, collectively, turn the tide against this type of chronic theft.
Prince can afford to go to court. The Instagram users he stole from cannot. There has got to be a better way don’t you think?
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
Blocking pirate sites is not censorship–it’s common sense
