As many of you know all too well, successfully removing your pirated work from online sites is a time consuming task. Not only does you have to find the infringing content, but have to spend time crafting a DMCA notice to send to the service provider hosting the illicit links and/or files. I recently was […]
As many of you know all too well, successfully removing your pirated work from online sites is a time consuming task. Not only does you have to find the infringing content, but have to spend time crafting a DMCA notice to send to the service provider hosting the illicit links and/or files.
I recently was notified about some links shared by a Twitter account that led to some pirated movies. At first I attempted to use Twitter’s web form, but it REQUIRED me to log-on to a Twitter account in order to send a DMCA notice via their web form. Sorry.
I don’t think there’s anything in the law that requires DMCA senders to have an actual account with service provider???? For me, the most efficient approach was to send the take-down notice directly Twitter’s designated DMCA agent listed in the US Copyright Office directory of DMCA agents. Here’s what I found:
Ok, so there’s an email address ([email protected]) clearly listed (as required by law) and so I sent my DMCA notice to that email address. I quickly received an automated response from [email protected] telling me, essentially, that Twitter ignored my request and that I must use their web form instead.
Now, I didn’t send an email “attachment.” I sent an email with the language of the DMCA notice and the infringing links included in the body of the email.
Twitter surely does deal with massive numbers of DMCA take down requests daily, but that’s not my problem. Attempting to force notice creators to log into their system in order to access a clunky web form not only adds greater burden by eating up valuable time, but makes record keeping on much more difficult. Emails provide me with a record of both the reported links and the time/date I sent the notice to Twitter.
This is the kind of stuff that has been happening for a long time with the DMCA. Service providers do everything they can to erect roadblocks to creators who are trying to protect their work from online theft. While Twitter is not alone in this behavior–the real question remains–why are these companies allowed to repeatedly flout the law?
Meanwhile, even a small effort toward progress like the CASE Act, which would provide creators access to a modicum of relief via a small claims process, is being held up in the Senate by Ron Wyden at the behest of tech companies, some of which happen to be big donors.
Twitter’s DMCA “process” is simply one more in a long list of examples as to why the the DMCA doesn’t work. Big tech companies simply ignore the rule of the law and make efficient take-downs as difficult as possible on creators.
U.S. based companies assist pirate websites by providing cover for their illegal piracy business while pocketing their own dirty money in the process.
As piracy has evolved and enforcement efforts increase, pirate entrepreneurs have been forced to set up shop in far offshore to avoid the long arm of U.S. law. What’s troubling is how U.S. companies help them evade the law by providing cover for their illegal piracy business while at the same time pocketing their own dirty profits in the process.
I previously wrote about U.S. based Cloudflare and its link to piracy websites. Unfortunately, Cloudflare is not alone in assisting online pirates.
Follow along as I take an obstacle course–the type creators face every day trying to protect their work–to see the way U.S. companies–in this case GoDaddy owned Sucuri–help criminals cloak their activities and keep their illegal sites operating smoothly.
While Google claims to have cleaned up its act, the reality is that with a single search I quickly found a website featuring a cache of pirated movies. It wasn’t difficult.
No surprise, the 2nd Google result led directly to a site offering a cornucopia of pirated popular lesbian-themed films and television shows, both Hollywood and indie fare.
I chose an indie feature and with a click began my journey through the maze to uncover where the stream for the stolen movie was actually hosted.
Finding the actual source code is a huge pain….I was forced to click through a series of popup ads–after all, that’s how these online pirates make money. Finally, I used Firefox’s web developer tools to scan through the source code as the movie streamed and eventually uncovered the pirate link I was looking for.
When I clicked that link, I ended up at the actual full stream for the film.
Turns out the file is hosted on site called “gounlimited.to” but isn’t much help. As I discovered, and Torrent Freak has previously noted, this particular pirate website brags that it ignores the DMCA. and uses that fact as a selling point. Per Torrent Freak, this isn’t the operators only rodeo either, “Faced with a lack of stable ‘takedown resistant’ hosting providers to stream videos from, Bader decided to start one of his own, GO Unlimited.”
Of course, like all piracy sites, this operation is in the business of making money off stolen goods so its content is populated thanks to minions worldwide enticed by a cash rewards with payouts based on the number of eyeballs each illegal upload attracts. It’s the typical cyberlocker scenario. For the record, I will also be contacting PayPal to ask why they remain affiliated with this criminal operation, but I digress….
Since Go Unlimited brags about ignoring the DMCA and offers no contact information, the next step is to investigate registrar and host. The .to domain is popular among shady sites for a reason and information isn’t listed in the typical WHOIS database. The .to domain offers its own search, but offers little in the way of actual information. The registrar cares little about criminal enterprises.
What next? Turns out a U.S. based company, GoDaddy’s Sucuri is listed as the IP provider. Sucuri does business with a pirate website, but explains that its not responsible in its disclaimer (poor spelling aside) this way:
The Sucuri Firewall is a passthrough proxy WAF & CDN service. Sites using our service will point their DNS records at Sucuri IP’s, but all content is actualy (sic) hosted outside of the Sucuri network.
The excuse that they don’t “host” the content is a bit weak considering that the pirated data does flow through Securi servers on their way to the end user. Essentially the excuse goes like this, “We only provide the ingredients used to bake the cake, not the finished cake.” Pretty lame excuse. While perhaps legal, it certainly doesn’t seem moral. The question is, WHY do we allow U.S. companies to do business with sites that ignore U.S. copyright law?
In a further insult, Sucuri lists publisher Harper Collins as one of its customers. Ironic that Sucuri PR folks see no conflict of interest in servicing a piracy operator aside one of its potential victims. (Note book publishers and authors are suffering mightily due to e-book piracy).
So what’s the solution? Once again the DMCA needs to be updated for the 21st century. I’ve written about this issue extensively in the past, and you can read those thoughts here. Clearly, third parties who are knowingly complicit providing infrastructure for criminal enterprises need to be held to greater account when a client ignores the law.
Once again a possible path forward can be found by looking at the European Union. Last month a court in Italy ruled against Cloudflare, ordering the company to cease doing business with an illicit website.
The courts used the EU’s Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, to justify its judgement against Cloudflare. The law cited provides a legal “framework” for electronic commerce. It’s time for U.S. lawmakers to enact similar safeguards for U.S. creators. Participating as a for profit player in the piracy ecosystem should not be a legal business model in the United States.
U.S. based companies assist these efforts by literally providing cover for their illegal piracy business while pocketing their own dirty money in the process.
