Google’s “We fight piracy” Gobbledygook

Google’s “We fight piracy” Gobbledygook

by | Copyright, Google, Piracy

google-sign-post-piracyGoogle’s role in online piracy drew headlines recently when News Corps Chief Executive Robert Thomson wrote a letter to European Commissioner for Competition Joaquín Almunia asking that the agency reconsider Google’s February tentative settlement with European Commission to avoid anti-trust charges over its search practices.   In it he criticized Google for its stranglehold over online search and its role as a “platform for piracy.”

The shining vision of Google’s founders has been replaced by a cynical management, which offers advertisers impressively precise data about users and content usage, but has been a platform for piracy and the spread of malicious networks, all while driving more traffic and online advertising dollars to Google. A company that boasts about its ability to track traffic chooses to ignore the unlawful and unsavoury content that surfaces after the simplest of searches. Google has been remarkably successful in its ability to monetize users, but has not shown the willingness, even though it clearly has the ability, to respect fundamental property rights.

In snide response, Google posted its own “Letter to Rupert” (a reference to News Corp’s own controversial and bombastic owner, Rupert Murdoch) on its European policy blog.  Rachel Whetstone of SVP Global Communications penned the letter on behalf of Google to rebut Thomson’s charges point by point.  Her first salvo is unintentionally ironic:

Access to information in any given country, particularly news content, used to be controlled by a relatively small number of media organizations. Today, people have far greater choice. That has had a profound impact on newspapers, who face much stiffer competition for people’s attention and for advertising Euros.

It seems that in Ms. Whetstone’s view, monopolies are a bad thing if we’re talking about the media, but OK if we’re talking about Google?   As Jack Smith writes in a piece for betabeat.com, “Why Google’s Reaction to the News Corp Letter Should Terrify the News Industry:”

But when we think of the news ecosystem, we often forget the one organization to rule them all: Google.

Google is, after all, the master aggregator, curating a list of searchable content — relatively none of which is their own — and making money by putting ads against it.

Predictably Ms. Whetstone also dredges up tired Google talking points to defend the company against charges that it’s a “platform” for piracy:

News Corp:
Google is a “platform for piracy and the spread of malicious networks” and “a company that boasts about its ability to track traffic [but] chooses to ignore the unlawful and unsavoury content that surfaces after the simplest of searches”

Google:
Google has done more than almost any other company to help tackle online piracy.

  • Search: In 2013 we removed 222 million web pages from Google Search due to copyright infringement. The average take-down time is now just six hours. And we downgrade websites that regularly violate copyright in our search rankings.
  • Video: We’ve invested tens of millions of dollars in innovative technology — called ContentID — to tackle piracy on YouTube.

What’s conveniently missing from Ms. Whetstone’s response is the acknowledgement that the only reason Google does “more” to tackle piracy is actually due its own bad business practices.

She trumpets the fact Google removed 222 million pages from its search results.   Shouldn’t she be asking why there are 222 million pages worthy of removal in the first place?  Instead of crowing about how many DMCA notices Google responds to each month, why aren’t its engineers be tweaking algorithms to reduce the number of poison links that appear in the first place?  Talk about trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

The fact is that Google does “more than almost any other company” to enable and encourage (and profit from) online piracy.  For Google it all comes down to simple math.  Removing millions links to infringing and illegal content is more profitable than blocking them in the first place.

The massive takedown numbers Google brags about are the result of its failures, not leadership.

As Thomson’s points out:

The company [Google]  has evolved from a wonderfully feisty, creative Silicon Valley startup to a vast, powerful, often unaccountable bureaucracy, which is sometimes contemptuous of intellectual property and routinely configures its search results in a manner that is far from objective.

It would appear that News Corp’s letter, along with blowback from other European stake-holders has resulted in the collapse of the proposed settlement .  This is a good thing.  As Jack Smith notes in beatabeat.com:

Mr. Thomson’s complaint against Google is actually pretty typical of what critics and the tech media have been saying for years: as users begin to move toward social and search for their news, those platforms gain an enormous level of control over what we see, and we have no way of holding them accountable.

One more thing I’d like to point out about Ms. Whetstone’s letter.   As evidence to bolster her claim the Google is a leader in the fight against online piracy she links to piece of propaganda the company published in the form of the report, “How Google Fights Piracy.”

I wrote a point by point rebuttal when this so-called “report” was issued last September and thought it worthwhile to repost here as a reminder that Google’s rhetoric about fighting piracy is based on platitudes, not performance.

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Reposted from 9/16/13:[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]Screen Shot 2013-02-18 at 7.25.31 PM

Claiming to be a “leader” in the fight against piracy is Google’s first mistake

This past week Google issued a report, “How Google Fights Piracy,” in which the tech giant attempts to explain what a great job it’s doing leading battle against online piracy.  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…

On a personal note, one line I found particularly galling was: “Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.”  The claim that Google has been a “leader” in any way in the fight against online piracy is chutzpah at its best.  A more accurate characterization would be that–after years of obfuscation and inaction–Google’s finally taking (some) action. Never mind that such efforts are long overdue and may never have happened had their nefarious business model (profiting off content theft) not been exposed to the light of day.

In an effort to burnish their tarnished image, the authors resort to repeating well-worn and disingenuous Google-spawned memes (which I’ve repeatedly deconstructed on this blog). These include:

  • YouTube makes money for artists so there’s no need to provide a transparent accounting. 
  • DMCA abuse is a considerable problem.
  • Search is “not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites.”
  • Google is committed to “rooting out and ejecting rogue sites” from AdSense. 
  • Google quickly and efficiently terminates Blogger websites that feature pirated content.

google-circle-piracy

I would counter that Google should be doing much more, including:

  • Offer complete transparency with its YouTube content monetization accounting.  It shouldn’t be opaque.  Provide content owners with an accounting breakdown for each and every piece of claimed content.  Reveal precisely how much Google makes monetizing the work of others?  Employ more safeguards to prevent pirates from using YouTube as a stepping-stone to infringing content and do more to prevent bogus claims that allow criminal users to earn money by uploading content they do not own.
  • Stop claiming that Google search isn’t an important link to pirated content and review and remove sites that are in the business of trafficking in pirated content. Allow others into the mysterious “Trusted Copyright Removal Program for Web Search (TCRP).”   After al,  it’s those with the fewest resources (like independent filmmakers and musicians) that have the least access to takedown resources and could benefit the most from access to a such a (supposedly) streamlined process.
  • Offer more transparency as to where AdSense revenues come from and what sites have had accounts disabled.
  • Quickly remove Blogger websites have been reported (and verified) for trafficking in pirated content.

YouTube

Google’s report begins with a warm and fuzzy anecdote about the previously unknown Korean K-pop “artist” Psy whose viral video “Gangnam Style” became an online sensation and generated more than 8 million dollars in ad “deals”  in addition to having been purchased “digitally millions of times.”  According to a footnote, the figures quoted come from an article in New York Magazine, “Gangnam-Buster Profits,”  It’s worth noting that along with Psy’s profits, Google’s bank account did pretty well too:

Number of YouTube views of the “Gangnam Style” video (as of 1 p.m., November 30): 853,942,076

Standard rate YouTube pays to video owners for every 1,000 views: $2

Estimated total YouTube revenue received by Team Psy: $1,707,884.15

YouTube’s estimated cut: $1,366,307.32
(Based on rates provided by Jason Calacanis, CEO of Mahalo, a top YouTube partner.)

I’m not sure what the report authors meant when they wrote “8 million dollars in ad deals” as there’s no documentation to back that claim up…perhaps they were confused and mixed up deals with YouTube “views?”   Even though the actual figures quoted are at best guesses, there’s no denying that the video was a YouTube sensation and made mega-bucks for both the artist and Google–but so what?  What does that really have to do with explaining Google’s anti-piracy efforts?  The answer is nothing.

The tale of this outlier merely seems designed to deflect attention (and disgust) away from Google’s long-standing role in promoting, and profiting from, content theft.  No one’s saying that YouTube doesn’t offer opportunity to content creators–but with opportunity comes responsibility–and that’s where Google still has far to go.

I’ve written previously about the positive aspects of YouTube Content ID and monetization, but there remains that nagging question Google fails to address–transparency. As demonstrated by our dependence on “guesstimates” to calculate the Gangnam Style video’s possible profits, why does Google still refuse to offer content owners specific information about how much money is being made from their work?

Sure, content owners can see how much they earn, but how much does Google take off the top? How much is earned per view, etc?  Such basic information has never been made clear.  Nor are breakdowns offered when there are multiple claimants on a video (i.e. movie mash-up with music from another artist).  Why does Google refuse to offer a “transparent” accounting breakdown of just how much everyone makes off advertising on claimed content?  What’s there to hide?

tomboy youtube.013

Uploads on YouTube that feature links to infringing downloads

Also, try as they might to focus on the positives, YouTube is also still a conduit for illegal activity. Not only does the site provide online pirates with a convenient means to advertise their illegal download links (on other sites) but it also allows thieves (content leeches) to earn income by monetizing bogus claims.

Why doesn’t Google do more on this front?  Simple answer, monetized uploads make them money.  Who cares what the uploaded file actually is and who owns it (never mind the advertisers being ripped off paying for adjacent ads).  Google/YouTube pays these parasitic pirates and pockets more profit for themselves.

Google Search

When it comes to reporting on the role Google’s search engine plays in promoting piracy, the report report borrows heavily from the recent (Google-funded) study that alleges “search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.”  Both that study and this report concluded that better SEO optimization on the part of content creators is all that’s required to fix the problem.  Given Google’s report merely repeats talking points from the CCIA repeating part of my response  seems appropriate:

Sorry, but I read the entire paper and found no evidence to support this.  Sure, lots of downloaders bypass search because they are experienced downloaders and know how to go to Pirate Bay or Filestube to find what they’re looking for, but where did they get their start?    Perhaps it’s better to think of search engines like Google as a “gateway” to finding pirated content online.

Google search leads to illegal downloads, counterfeit products, illegal pharmacies and more.  Clearly the search giant can de-list sites engaged in unlawful behavior (like child pornography) but rather than do so in this case, its proxy (the CIAA) gins up headlines to muddy the waters, deflect and obfuscate the real issues at play.

If Google were a brick and mortar mall featuring stores selling bootleg DVDs authorities would step in a force them to shut down the illegal enterprises, but when it comes to the online world the “tech” industry’s constant refrain is that the need to “innovate” trumps the need to do what’s right.  Yet this debate isn’t really about protecting innovation, that’s simply tech-speak for protecting the industry’s bottom line (at the expense of those other innovators, content creators).

Since Google deems search to “not be a major driver of traffic to pirate sites” one wonders why in the same breath, the company touts how efficiently it responds to the 4 million weekly requests it receives in a report on its efforts to  fight piracy?

…today we receive removal requests for more URLs every week than we did in the twelve years from 1998 to 2010 combined. At the same time, Google is processing the notices we receive for Search faster than ever before—currently, on average, in less than six hours.

Google has a strong track record of developing solutions that scale efficiently. The trend line is striking—from more than three million pages for all of 2011 to more than 4 million pages per week today. As the numbers continue to swell, it becomes both more difficult and more important to detect and pick out the abusive  [emphasis added] and erroneous removal notices.

This so-called DMCA “abuse” is another tired red herring.  Google routinely employs to deflect attention from the 4 million pages per week of mostly legitimate ones.  Given the huge volume of takedown requests Google receives it’s no surprise there are errors, but the collective “damage” done by mistaken DMCA notices does not begin to compare to the damage piracy has on content creators. However, Google would like us to believe otherwise.   As I wrote in an earlier post:

Piracy apologists like to focus on erroneous takedowns and highlight stories whereby a 9 year-old in Finland had her computer confiscated, or a grandmother in Colorado had her ISP account wrongfully suspended.  Certainly mistakes happen, and when they do it’s unfortunate, but they are few and far between when compared with the cumulative  harm being done to those whose livelihoods are damaged by rampant online theft.  For every search result removed in error there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, removed for valid reasons.  Sensationalistic anecdotes make for splashy headlines and provide convenient red herrings for those who defend the piracy status quo–big bad Hollywood versus the grandmothers of the world–but meanwhile the genuine stories documenting piracy’s ruin are routinely minimized or ignored.

Also lost in this debate is the fact that if one takes the time to read the DMCA, it’s easy to see that the law actually favors the reported party, not the other way around.  If a site has been removed in error, the owner can use the Google website to file a counter-claim with a click of a mouse.  That immediately puts the onus on the party that filed the original DMCA request to go to court and prove the legitimacy of their claim.  If that next step isn’t taken, the takedown becomes moot.   Filing a court case is a costly endeavor so it’s unlikely that those whose file false DMCA claims, whether in error or purposely, would bother to spend money to enforce a bogus DMCA.  Conversely, those content creators who don’t have deep pockets have little recourse when it comes to enforcing a valid DMCA takedown if the other party, representing an infringing (pirate) website, chooses to file a counter-claim.

Chilling the rights of creators who attempt to protect their work from theft

Demonstrating a (selective) dedication to transparency and warning hat DMCA abuse can be a “pretext for censorship,”  Google touts the fact that copies of all DMCA notices received are posted on ChillingEffects.org, an online “clearinghouse” operated by a various legal clinics that depend heavily on Google donations for financial support.

chilling-effects-email

According to their website, “Chilling Effects aims to support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats,” but it appears they’re not too interested in the threat that illegal content theft  has on the livelihoods of musicians, filmmakers, authors, etc.  From the beginning, Google’s posting of DMCA notices on Chilling Effects seems designed to intimidate those whose rights are being trampled upon.  In this scenario the only thing being “chilled” is the right of content creators to protect their work from theft in order to make a living.

Google also claims to lower the rankings of sites that are repeatedly reported for content theft (another questionable claim), but justifies the fact it refuses to remove such sites, like  the notorious Pirate Bay, entirely.

While we use the number of valid copyright removal notices as a signal for ranking purposes, we do not remove pages from results unless we receive a specific removal request for the page. As shown on the Transparency Report, we generally receive removal notices for a very small portion of the pages on a site. Even for the websites that have received the highest numbers of notices, the number of noticed pages is typically only a tiny fraction of the total number of pages on the site. It would be inappropriate to remove entire sites under these circumstances.

pirate-bay-google-searchI should add here that when I checked today and did a search for the movie ” a ‘Perfect Ending’ download” the second result (after a paid Netflix link) was none other than a torrent on the Pirate Bay.  So much for re-ranking pirate sites eh?

Why is it inappropriate to remove a site that routinely engages in illegal activity?  If a brick and mortar store’s merchandise routinely includes stolen goods it would be put out of business.  Why does Google hold sites like Pirate Bay in such high regard?  Does every single infringing torrent on Pirate Bay have to reported for Google to consider blocking it?  Is there a tipping point, ever?

AdSense

I could only shake my head when I read that Google  claims to be the industry leader when it comes to  “following the money.”  When I first began blogging about the link between online piracy and profit when my film was released in 2010,  Google wouldn’t even admit there was a problem.  Finally, after having a spotlight shined on their dubious sources of profit, Google has been forced to take action–but a leader they ain’t.

Despite the claim that “Google does not want to be in business with rogue sites specializing in piracy” they’ve yet to provide any documentation to support it. One nugget in the report noted, “…we find that AdSense ads appear on far fewer than 1% of the pages that copyright owners identify in copyright removal notices for Search.”  Does this mean that Google is screening the reported pages for AdSense accounts before removing the link from its search engine?  If so, in the name of “transparency” it would be great to see these results documented.  Speaking of “transparency,” how about letting us “follow the money” to Google’s own bank account.  Just how much money has Google made off advertising on rogue sites over the years?

In my experience with AdSense links were often removed while the site (and its AdSense ads) on other illegal downloads remained active, but looking around the web it does seem that fewer AdSense sponsored ads appear on pirate websites.   I’m thankful some progress appears to have been made, but for Google to infer that it acted willingly to clean up its dirty laundry and  has become leader in the battle against ad-sponsored piracy is just absurd.

Blogger

Last but not least we come to Google’s Blogger hosted websites, a go-to (free) platform favored by web pirates around the world.  According to the report, Google’s efforts to keep the Blogger platform pirate-free should earn the company another feather in its cap.

Blogger is Google’s free blog publishing platform, which enables users to create and update blogs. We remain vigilant against use of the Blogger platform by pirates looking to set up a free website. Consistent with other Google products that host user-uploaded content, we will remove infringing blog posts when properly notified by a copyright owner, and will terminate the entire blog where multiple complaints establish it as a repeat infringer.

Blogger has also created an automated bulk submission tool for copyright owners who have a track record of reliable submissions and a regular need to submit large volumes of takedown notices. This tool allows qualified copyright owners to obtain rapid removals of infringing posts appearing on Blogger.

Sounds good, but as I’ve written many times previously on this blog, the truth with regard to Blogger-hosted websites is not so rosy.  Also, to be honest, Google’s “automated” bulk submission tool is a time-consuming pain.  Why not give content creators a Copyright Management Account that allows for bulk reporting of Blogger sites and search links?  Why should continually have to fill out my name, company, email, etc. each and every time I have more blogger sites and pirate search links to report?  Actually sending an email to Google would be much faster but that’s not allowed.  Ironic that the now defunct Megaupload made it easier to send DMCA notices than Google does…

Google's online removal process is time consuming. Sending an email would be much more efficient.

Google’s online removal process is time consuming. Sending an email would be much more efficient.

More significant is the fact that, in my experience, the word “rapid” should not be part of Google’s lexicon when it comes to targeting piracy on Blogger sites.  Despite repeated reports of piracy and obvious and repeated copyright infringement, many Blogger pirate sites remain online.  I will be posting a follow-up on this subject soon.

blogger-pirates-sites-graphic.

Google-hosted Blogger (blogspot.com) websites are a pirate favorite

There’s no doubt that Google has revolutionized the online world in a variety of positive ways but when it comes to its role fertilizing online piracy, the company has been spinning and deflecting its way through the a minefield for the better part of a decade.  Thanks to outside pressure  the situation has finally begun to improve, but there’s still much to be done before Google can rightfully claim to be a leader in the fight against online piracy.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Digital Damage – Women up for Grabs

Digital Damage – Women up for Grabs

by | Copyright, Law, Photography, Politics, Tech

Vanity_Fair_Hollywood_Issue

Reddit and Vanity Fair are both owned by Condé Nast

The Internet’s dark side, how much is enough?

The recent theft and online release of a number of female celebrities’ private photographs is only the most recent link in a chain of online abuse that stretches across the globe. In this instance, the only reason it grabbed headlines and gained its own juvenile hashtag (#Fappening2014) was because the victim list was a who’s who of high-profile Hollywood actresses.  Some characterized the release of the stolen photos as being an isolated incident, a product of the dark recesses of the Internet, of a lone sick-o hacker. If only that were true. The sad fact is that women (and men) are subjected to online attacks like this everyday.

This type of digital damage, a form of virtual sexual assault, a type of revenge porn, needs to be seen for what it is–a crime.  Unfortunately it’s one that, more often than not, goes unpunished.  Most women (and men) who are victimized by these networks of anonymous cowards don’t have the resources to fight back.  Even when they do–as in the case of Jennifer Lawrence, this episode’s most prominent victim–mechanisms to combat this type of digital abuse are limited.  The FBI claims to be investigating, but what are its agents doing about the not-so-famous women whose photos end up shared and used as click-bait on seamy forums (and sub-forums) hosted by sites like Reddit?  Do victims of these crimes have any options to fight back?

In the short term Lawrence and the hacker’s other victims are employing the only tool available to them, the tired old DMCA notice.  The DMCA allows copyright holders to demand that content removed from a hosting website by claiming copyright infringement.  Of course, only sites beholden to U.S. law are obligated to remove “infringing” content and most of the sites that traffic in stolen content are hosted offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law.

In the past Reddit, owned by publishing giant Condé Nast, often deflected DMCA notices, instead advising senders to contact the actual host of the link to request takedowns.  Yet in the wake of this latest onslaught, site administrators have changed their tune.  Why now?  Why are stolen nude selfies of famous actresses more worthy than similar images stolen (and posted) from private citizens?  I also wonder how receptive these actresses will be next time Vanity Fair comes a calling for them to do their annual Hollywood issue? Could that have influenced Reddit’s decision-making?

Reddit administrators of course made no mention of Condé Nast’s corporate interests in explaining their decision to disable the /r/TheFappening (hacked image thread) and related subreddits:

These subreddits were of course the focal point for the sharing of these stolen photos. The images which were DMCAd were continually being reposted constantly on the subreddit. We would takedown images (thumbnails) in response to those DMCAs, but it quickly devolved into a game of whack-a-mole. We’d execute a takedown, someone would adjust, reupload, and then repeat. This same practice was occurring with the underage photos, requiring our constant intervention. The mods were doing their best to keep things under control and in line with the site rules, but problems were still constantly overflowing back to us. Additionally, many nefarious parties recognized the popularity of these images, and started spamming them in various ways and attempting to infect or scam users viewing them. It became obvious that we were either going to have to watch these subreddits constantly, or shut them down. We chose the latter. It’s obviously not going to solve the problem entirely, but it will at least mitigate the constant issues we were facing. This was an extreme circumstance, and we used the best judgement we could in response.

As of now, this explanatory post on Reddit has more than 9,o00 responses, pro and con. In another blog post on the issue that featured a lofty headline, “Every Man Is Responsible For His Own Soul” a Reddit administrator named Yishan explained their reasoning this way.

While current US law does not prohibit linking to stolen materials, we deplore the theft of these images and we do not condone their widespread distribution.  Nevertheless, reddit’s platform is structurally based on the ability for people to distribute, promote, and highlight textual materials as well as links to images and other media. We understand the harm that misusing our site does to the victims of this theft, and we deeply sympathize. Having said that, we are unlikely to make changes to our existing site content policies in response to this specific event.
The reason is because we consider ourselves not just a company running a website where one can post links and discuss them, but the government of a new type of community. The role and responsibility of a government differs from that of a private corporation, in that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers.

So, hands off until really, really famous people are involved?   Only “change our content policies” when people can afford to hire legal representation with teeth?  Reddit operators claim that above all else, they are in the business of protecting “free speech.”  That is, apparently, until said “free speech” gets them in hot water and attracts unwanted scrutiny.  Timothy B. Lee explored this contradiction in a post on Vox, “Why Reddit just banned a community devoted to sharing celebrity nudes”:

Reddit critics also accuse the site of being unduly influenced by media attention. For example, Reddit used to have a subreddit called /r/jailbait that — unsurprisingly — attracted pornographic images of underage women. It was popular enough to win a “subreddit of the year” vote in 2008. It was shut down only after it was the subject of unflattering coverage on CNN. Reddit also banned a subreddit called /r/creepshots, dedicated to “upskirt” photographs, after a Gawker expose on its founder. But other subreddits with equally disturbing content but less media attention remain open for business.

It’s important to note that Reddit’s “business” is ad-based.  And,  like so many enterprises on the web, attracting users by offering access to tainted goods.  T.C. Sottek writing for The Verge pulls no punches, characterizes Reddit as a “failed state:”

…Reddit feels really bad that your stolen nude photos are being shared all over its website, but won’t do anything about it unless you’re privileged enough to understand the copyright system or able to afford a lawyer who does. And unlike (many) governments, Reddit has profit motives — it makes money when people share nude photos because men are pervs and there’s a huge audience out there for naked women, perhaps especially for naked women who haven’t given us consent to share their bodies.

…If Reddit wants to be thought of as a government, we’ll call it what it is: a failed state, unable to control what happens within its borders. At minimum, Reddit is a kleptocracy that speaks to lofty virtues while profiting from vice. It might be forgivable if we were talking about taxing cigarettes and booze, but we’re not talking about that. What we’re talking about is more like sexual assault, condoned by a state that earns revenue from it. “Reddit doesn’t have much of an interest in banning questionable content,” Wong wrote last year. “‘Family-friendly’ is out, ‘edgy’ is in.” Are those the words of a president, or a pimp?

Yishan‘s pompous post offers the notion that Reddit should be thought of as “the government of a new type of community…that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers,”  Of course those lofty, utopian guiding principles are quickly abandoned when bad publicity threatens to undermine the site’s net-worth. Funny how quickly the illusion of (ill-conceived) idealism can be shattered by cold, hard cash. The truth is that Reddit’s days as a freewheeling cesspool may be numbered if hopes to succeed with efforts to transform itself into a larger (legitimate) moneymaking enterprise. As  Mike Issac  explains in a piece for today’s New York Times:

…The site has lately redoubled its efforts to become a thriving, profitable business, stepping up its advertising efforts and going on a hiring spree.

“The Achilles’ heel for a lot of these sites is that their plans to monetize themselves often directly affect how they structure their platforms,” said Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy advocacy group.

Reddit is also reportedly in the process of raising more than $50 million in venture capital, according to the technology site Re/code, which could value the company at upward of half a billion dollars.

Reddit, then, may have to rethink its classic laissez-faire approach to content, especially if it wants to be courted by big-budget advertisers.

Reddit online sewerWhile market influences may be one factor in influencing a limited clean up of websites like Reddit, isn’t it time to ask whether our laws need to be updated to better manage this type of online crime?  Free speech is often touted as the reason we must allow these sites to exist (and thrive) often at the expense of victims not as well known as Jennifer Lawrence.   Yet theft and dissemination of stolen photographs is not speech, it’s abuse, and it’s time to acknowledge as much. Free speech absolutists, like Reddit’s operators, argue that any push back would stifle “innovation,” but what’s really innovative about sharing stolen selfies?

While it’s impossible to scrub the web of seedy threads like those on Reddit, can’t we at least try to make progress in limiting the damage?  If sites like Reddit take pride in being user-driven, why not put more legal liability on those users? Also, why not put more pressure on parent companies like Condé Nast to stem this illegal and abusive behavior on its properties?

Supporting and sustaining a healthy Internet and ridding it of abusive and illegal content need not be mutually exclusive.  At the very least lawmakers at the federal level should confront this issue as some of their state counterparts have done in enacting laws against “revenge porn.”

 

 

 

Handy list of DMCA email addresses for notorious pirate sites

Handy list of DMCA email addresses for notorious pirate sites

by | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy

Ellen Seidler's view of the DMCA and its effectiveness in protecting content creators from copyright infringement and piracy.

Content creators know how time consuming it is to send DMCA takedown notices to sites that pirate your movies, music, photographs, etc.  Equally tedious is trying to find the correct DMCA email address to send the actual takedown notice to.  Usually it’s a matter of clicking through a maze of irritating pop-up ads and captcha-codes.  With new cyber-locker pirate sites appearing every day, it’s sometimes hard to keep ones email address book up to date.

So, for those of you who are stuck in DMCA hell, here’s a little something to brighten your date….a list of email address I discovered for the most popular pirate cyber-locker sites.  Of course–given the broken system we have in place to protect copyright holders from theft–there’s no guarantee that even if you do send a takedown notice that the file will be removed, but in for most, it’s worth a try.

List of email addresses to send DMCA takedowns notices to for most popular pirate websites

http://voxindie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/master-dmca-email-addresses-list.pdf

Here’s a link to the PDF: DMCA email addresses list

Indie music fights Google – Amazon .music top level domain grab

by | Google, Music, Tech

top level domain names

Google’s anti-SOPA plea

Google and Amazon want to rule the top level domain web universe

(this piece originally posted on 9/12/12 but I’ve updated it to include new information on efforts by representatives of indie musicians to thwart this top level domain name power grab by Google and Amazon)

If you read the propaganda promoted by Google during last year’s SOPA debate, you would have come across pleas like this:

More than any time in history, more people in more places have the ability to make their voices heard. Just as we celebrate freedom, we need to celebrate the tools that support freedom. Add your voice in support of a free and open Internet.

According Google and other opponents in the tech industry, if the Stop Online Piracy Act were to pass, the internet would be “broken” and no longer “free.”  A questionable concept, particularly when Google was against the legislation because it would impinge on  their unfettered ability to make money (no matter the source).Google's top level domain name grab

At the time, Google’s anti-SOPA activism was seen by many as more opportunistic than altruistic, and today that view seems to be further  vindicated.  According to a  report from Consumer Watchdog on  ICANN’s proposed addition of “top-level” domain names that noted, “Google has ponied up $18.7 million to buy 101 domain strings like .eat, .buy, .book, .free, .web, and .family.”  They also want to own the domain string for “tech.”

A post on Google’s official blog explains their pursuit of these top-level names and characterizes the effort by employing their favorite,  well-worn noun- “innovation.”  In this case, however, it appears merely to be a euphemism for “control.”  From their blog:

In 2008, ICANN announced a program to expand the number of generic TLDs (think .com, .org, .edu), developed through its bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process, in which we participate. Given this expansion process, we decided to submit applications for new TLDs, which generally fall into four categories:

  • Our trademarks, like .google
  • Domains related to our core business, like .docs
  • Domains that will improve user experience, such as .youtube, which can increase the ease with which YouTube channels and genres can be identified
  • Domains we think have interesting and creative potential, such as .lol

We want to make the introduction of new generic TLDs a good experience for web users and site owners. So we will:

  • Make security and abuse prevention a high priority
  • Work with all ICANN-accredited registrars
  • Work with brand owners to develop sensible rights protection mechanisms that build upon ICANN’s requirements

We’re just beginning to explore this potential source of innovation on the web, and we are curious to see how these proposed new TLDs will fare in the existing TLD environment. By opening up more choices for Internet domain names, we hope people will find options for more diverse—and perhaps shorter—signposts in cyberspace.

Ah, “signposts”….what a helpful sounding term.  What Google really seeks to do looks more like a takeover– a move to control just about everything online, from search to domains.  Consumer Watchdog expressed this concern in a letter sent to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

We believe the plans by Google and Amazon are extremely problematic and call on you to help prevent their implementation. It is one thing to use a Top Level Domain name that is associated with your brand name. In Google’s case that might be .Google or .YouTube or .Android. Similarly it makes make sense for Amazon to acquire .Amazon or .Kindle. But, that is not what is happening.

Google has ponied up $18.7 million to buy 101 domain strings like .eat, .buy, .book, .free, .web, and .family. Amazon is close behind the Internet giant applying for 76 domain strings including such names as .free, .like, .game, and .shop.

If these applications are granted, large parts of the Internet would be privatized. It is one thing to own a domain associated with your brand, but it is a huge problem to take control of generic strings. Both Google and Amazon are already dominant players on the Internet. Allowing them further control by buying generic domain strings would threaten the free and open Internet that consumers rely upon. Consumer Watchdog urges you to do all that you can to thwart these outrageous efforts and ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth while serving the interests of all of its users.

It would appear that the timing of the recent formation of a new tech Washington lobbying group “The Internet Association” is fortuitous.  Member companies include : Amazon.com, AOL, eBay, Expedia, Facebook, Google, IAC, LinkedIn, Monster Worldwide, Rackspace, salesforce.com, TripAdvisor, Yahoo!, and Zynga with their stated mission:

The Internet Association, an umbrella public policy organization dedicated to strengthening and protecting a free and innovative Internet.  The Internet Association will relentlessly represent this critical economic sector, in partnership with Main Street businesses and individual users, to ensure that the Internet will always have a voice in Washington and a seat at the table.

The most important question going forward would not seem to be will the internet have a voice, but whose internet will it be?  Will it be the “free” one–or one owned by Google, Amazon and co?

Update 8/21/14

While Amazon has been denied the right to its own moniker .amazon–since it appears that there’s major South American waterway that “owned” the name long before–the fate of many other top level domains, including .music, remains up in the air.  Fortunately it seems that creative artists are beginning to take notice and speak out against this land grab by Google and Amazon (and their ilk).  From The Hill:

An independent music lobbying group is pushing to have the music community, not tech companies such as Google and Amazon, take control of the new Internet domain ending .music.

The American Association of Independent Music published a letter on Wednesday urging that ICANN not give the .music domain to companies like Google or Amazon, but instead hand it over to a non-profit entity:

We have followed the ICANN process and are very concerned of what might happen if ICANN does not select a  music community supported organization, which understands the needs of our International music industry, to own and manage the .music gTLD. Our members’ livelihoods depend on the ability to license copyrights in a free  market. This makes it essential to have regulatory partners that will help advance a worldwide enforceable regime for the protection of intellectual property online that enhances accountability at all levels of the online distribution chain and that deals effectively with unauthorized usages.

The benefits of the music community running the .music gTLD include maximizing the protection of intellectual property and incorporating appropriate enhanced safeguards to prevent copyright infringement, cybersquatting and any other type of malicious abuse. The community-based approach ensures that the string is managed under music-tailored registration policies. Such policies include registrant authentication, naming conditions which only allow registrants to register under their names or acronym and restricting content and usage to only legal music–related activities. This will ensure that any monies generated through .music will flow to the music creator community not pirates, unlicensed sites, or giant search engines.

We note two of the applicants are Amazon S.a.r.l (Amazon) and Charleston Road (Google). Both of these companies have exhibited a disregard for properly compensating music creators based upon music usage and for not protecting copyrights. Both have not valued Independent creator’s copyrights on the same equitable basis as larger copyright creators.

That last sentence pretty much says it all.  If ever there was a time the creative community to speak up, it’s now, but musicians aren’t the only ones raising concern.

FairSearch.org is also fighting tooth and nail against Google’s efforts to control top level domains, including .search.  A report published on its website exactly one year ago (August 22, 2013) summarized its opposition:

FairSearch hopes ICANN rejects Google’s applications to control new gTLDs to prevent the far reaching competitive implications of giving Google even more power over consumer and competitor data to increase its dominance online. The New York Times summed up this risk more generally in an article this week:

“There’s a larger issue at stake, however. Advocates of Internet freedom contend that such an expanded address system effectively places online control over powerful commercial and cultural interests in the hands of individual companies, challenging the very idea of an open Internet…”

We couldn’t have said it any better.

The ball is now in Google’s court, as industry news site TheDomains.com put it, “So Now What Will Google Do With Its New gTLD Application For .Search?” Regardless, the competition concerns remain around giving Google more ability to control Internet usage by allowing it to control access to key gTLDs soon to be put into use by ICANN.

FairSearch continues to oppose Google’s applications to control these top-level domains.

Did Piracy Tank Expendables 3?

Did Piracy Tank Expendables 3?

by | Film, Law, Piracy

the-expendables-3Did the pre-release piracy of Expendables 3 play a role in an abysmal opening weekend box office?

When a high-quality copy of Expendables 3 starring Sylvester Stallone was stolen and released on pirate (torrent) websites last month and downloaded millions of times, the were fears that the theft would hurt the film’s return at the box office.  Looking at this weekend’s results for the 3rd installment of the popular franchise, it would seem those fears have become a reality as the film earned an anemic 16.2 million, 10 million less than expected.  From  in Variety:

“This is really a clear situation where this had an impact,” said Phil Contrino, vice president and chief analyst of BoxOffice.com. “It’s hard to measure, but the ripple effect, not only of the downloads, but of the word-of-mouth that spread as a result, can be seen in the soft opening.”

The film’s initial numbers are the worst in series history. The original “Expendables” launched to $34.8 million in 2010 while the second installment debuted to $28.6 in 2012.

Variety cites other possible factors beyond piracy, like “franchise fatigue”, that may have played a role in the disappointing returns, but given the fact that the film missed expectations by a whopping 10 million dollars the pre-release piracy was most certainly a factor in the equation.  As Lang writes:

However, some research suggests that piracy can take a big chunk out of ticket sales. A 2011 study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers found that when a film is pirated prior to release, it loses nearly 20 percent of its potential revenue.

Why pay to see a film at the theater when you can see a high-quality version online, for free?  It’s the lament of filmmakers worldwide who regularly see their works stolen and distributed by online thieves.  Let’s remember, of course, that these online web pirates DO make money and it comes at the expense the filmmakers (and their investors).

The fact that the piracy of Expendables 3 took place  three weeks before it’s planned release made it particularly damaging.  Piracy apologists probably cheer the damage done to Hollywood and care little about those who make their livings working to produce films like this.   Others do care.  The California legislature is poised to pass AB 1839 a bill  increase the state’s film production tax credits four-fold in order to keep the film production industry (and the people who work for it) in California.  As one of the bill’s co-sponsor told the Washington Post:

“I’ve heard from so many people over the past year who have told me about their family being torn apart because production left the state,” Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D), a bill co-sponsor, said in a statement.  “This proactive effort ensures well-paying jobs stay in California and families remain together.”

Tax credits aside, another way to keep the film industry healthy is to do more to combat the scourge of online piracy. Lionsgate, the studio distributing Expendables 3, has already gone to court in an effort to blunt further damage, but nothing can undo what’s been done.  Hollywood has taken a hit and so too have those who earn their living working there.