This is an update to my post from last week. Google has now removed the 31 additional pirate URLs I reported. The total removed (since April) is 170. Some of the titles removed include re-uploaded versions of pirated films reported earlier. Despite all this, the Google Drive account, as of now, remains online. Hundreds of pirated films remain available. What is exactly is Google’s definition of a “repeat infringer?” Again I ask, how much is enough?
As of today, an additional 31 reported piracy URLs have been removed. The Google Drive account remains active.
Here’s my graphic from last week’s post showing a listing of dates and number of URLs reported (and removed as of last week).
Google touts its efforts against piracy on its various platforms, yet, when push comes to shove, the talk is generally more bark than bite. Much has been made about pledges to down rank or flag repeat offender pirate sites via its search engine, but little mention of another Google product where pirates find safe haven, Google Drive.
Per its own abuse FAQ, Google warns that repeat offenders will have their accounts closed:
Respect copyright laws. Do not share copyrighted content without authorization or provide links to sites where your readers can obtain unauthorized downloads of copyrighted content. It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. Repeated infringement of intellectual property rights, including copyright, will result in account termination. If you see a violation of Google’s copyright policies, report copyright infringement.
Yet, in reality, this pledge rings hollow. In the past couple months I’ve sent Google numerous DMCA notices requesting the removal of infringing content from a particular Google Drive account. After reviewing the DMCA notice, Google eventually removed the pirated films reported, but the Drive account itself remains active. As of today, May 12th, 2017, the account continues to host and share dozens and dozens of other pirated films. How much is enough Google?
On YouTube account holders get three strikes before their account is closed. Meanwhile, on Google Drive, it appears that one can pile up strikes with no penalty. Why does Google drag its feet? Perhaps it’s because Google Drive accounts are not front and center. One has to know where to look. Fact is that many pirate sites have taken to using Google Drive as a favored repository for stolen content. Upload to drive and share the links and face no penalty.
On YouTube, account holders are allowed three strikes before their account is closed. Meanwhile, on Google Drive, despite warnings to the contrary, it appears that users can pile up strikes with no penalty. Why does Google drag its feet? Perhaps it’s because, unlike YouTube or search, Google Drive accounts operate behind the scenes. One has to know where to look. Fact is, this is one reason many pirate sites have taken to using Google Drive as a favored repository for stolen content. Google has made it (free) and easy to upload stolen content to Drive and share the links with no consequence.
Time for Google to expand Content ID matching to Google Drive so that the hidden pirates can be ferreted out and Google be held accountable
GOOGLE AND BING REACH AGREEMENT IN UK TO DEMOTE PIRATE WEBSITES IN SEARCH RESULTS
Leave it to our friends across the ocean to make some (apparent) progress in the ongoing war against online piracy. According to The Guardian Google and Microsoft have agreed to make changes as to where links to pirated content appear in search results on Google and Bing.
Search engine companies Google and Bing have signed up to a voluntary code of practice aimed at preventing users from visiting disreputable content providers. The code, the first of its kind in the UK, will accelerate the demotion of illegal sites following notices from rights holders. It means those who search for content such as music videos, digital books and football coverage will more likely to be taken to bona fide providers rather than pirate sites, where a user’s security may be at risk.
Reportedly, the changes are supposed to be in place by this summer but put me into the category of “I’ll believe it when i see it.” There’s no mention of how extensive this new approach to results will be. Will it extend beyond the borders of the UK and cover the EU and/or the entire world? There’s also no information as to how exactly the “deprecation” will be triggered? Will it be based on total DMCA takedown requests or other legal efforts like court action? I look forward to seeing what comes of this effort and hope it extends beyond the borders of the UK.
I’ve written in the past about ways in which Google search could cut the number of takedown notices it receives (and the number of pirate links that populate its results) in a piece “How Google could reduce its massive DMCA takedown numbers.” Here’s an excerpt from that post:
WHY NOT TEMPORARILY BLOCK TOP OFFENDERS? PIRATE SITES COULD RISK LOSING TRAFFIC FOR FAILURE TO DEAL WITH TAKEDOWN REQUESTS
What type of pressure am I talking about? I’m suggesting Google create a team to focus on the domains at the top of the complaint list. Google purports to down-rank these domains already, but those claims don’t match up with reality. The company should go further to investigate, and temporarily block, the top offenders from Google’s search results.
If Google blocked the top domains reported for piracy for 30 days, site operators might be induced to better respond to copyright complaints, or risk losing crucial Google search traffic. In essence, it could be a self-regulating, temporary punishment leading ultimately to a correction…
Domain blocked
Domain cleans up its act
Complaints to Google decrease
Domain drops out of top offender list
Domain’s links restored to Google search
If a site operator continued to ignore takedown requests and the domain remains atop of the complaint list, the block could be extended to 90 days, then 180, etc. The initial blockade could be reviewed by a human team, but once added a site is in the queue, Google’s much vaunted algorithms could likely handle such a process.
It seems as though this latest “agreement” may end up serving the same end. At this point it’s too early to tell, but any progress on this front is still progress. As they say in cliche-world, only time will tell.
Time for YouTube to get serious about cleaning up all the junk, spam and malware files on its site
YouTube is great for finding videos about pretty much everything. Need to learn how to fix a furnace or use the latest camera equipment? There’s bound to be a video shows you how. Unfortunately, amid the useful stuff, YouTube is also chock full of garbage. The question is, with its massive technical resources, why doesn’t the site do a better job keeping house?
I’ve written before about the epidemic of fake “full-movie” uploads that fill YouTube. That was in 2012. Now, six years later, the problem still exists. Apparently, YouTube isn’t concerned that its pages are full of spam files, many of them fake pirate movie uploads that lead users to sites rife with malware and money-making scams.
These fake uploads, promising full copies of hundreds of films, both indie and mainstream, are easy to find. Go to YouTube, search for a specific film title using the term “full movie,” and voilà, most results will lead to garbage. These bogus uploads fall into two categories. Some offer links to other dubious websites while others are merely dummy files uploaded to generate advertising income(for the user and YouTube). Some do both.
As for these offsite scam movie/gaming portals, it’s difficult to figure out who is actually behind them. The site URLs vary and include tzarmedia.com, gnomicfun.com, cnidaplay.com, jabirufun.com,flogame.com, among dozens of others. Curiously, a WHOIS search for these various domains indicates they are all registered via the same domain registrar, enom.com. One can’t help but suspect that this particular business model is being orchestrated by a few, linked operators. When I called their customer service number to ask questions I was given the proverbial run-around. Other contact information was essentially non-existent.
These scam movies sites share domain registrar and likely more
Why are such dummy files an issue? Not only do they pollute legit searches for content on YouTube, but they make the process of reviewing pirated content more difficult for rights holders. When I search for copies of my film using my Content ID account, I have to wade through dozens of these fake uploads.
Removing them is an incredibly time-consuming task as it seems YouTube has purposely chosen to make the Content ID dashboard as inconvenient as possible for users.
When I get page of results that is nothing but dummy uploads why can’t doesn’t YouTube offer a select all option so that I can remove them en masse? Instead–if I want to remove them–I’m forced to click and open each one and go through a 5 step process: select takedown, select title, acknowledge, fill in my signature and then click takedown. Instead, why not offer a select all option?
Another interesting twist is that many of these fake movie uploads also share links to legit social media sites like MTV’s Facebook or The Wrap’s Twitter account. I checked to see whether the operators of these sites knew about this and was assured they didn’t. It would appear these dummy uploads include such links drive more traffic to the bogus uploads and make them seem legit.
What can YouTube do to prevent this scheme? Why not utilize their own fingerprinting tech (Content ID) to detect and block these dummy files? If necessary, why not employ a team of actual humans to help with the task. I imagine if their engineers put their minds to it the task would be a relatively simple one. Certainly YouTube can afford to invest in keeping its house tidy?
Why is do advertisers allow themselves to be part of this junkyard?
Perhaps YouTube doesn’t take action against such uploads because it makes money off them? Here are just a few examples I found recently–bogus uploads with advertisements for New York Life, Walmart, Tide and Walgreens. These fake pirate full-movie uploads emblazoned with ads are a dime a dozen on YouTube. Do these advertisers know what they’re paying for? Do they care? Perhaps TAG, the Trustworthy Accountability Group, should take a look at this situation and pressure YouTube to take action.
Can you think of any other business that could get away charging money this for type of thing? Isn’t Internet commerce–and YouTube–mature enough at this point to operate a business where what you see is what you get? Apparently not… Imagine walking down the aisles of Target and finding half the merchandise to be knock-offs or empty boxes?
It’s not only the spam fake movie uploads and advertising scams that are problematic. As a study by the Digital Citizens Alliance found, YouTube is also rife with uploads that link to various types of malware including RATS (Remote Access Trojans), used by hackers to install malware that hijacks computers of unsuspecting internet users. Why is it OK for YouTube to continue to allow activity that scams–and possibly endangers–users?
As I mentioned, YouTube has the technical expertise and financial means to develop better algorithms and Content ID matching to weed out these garbage uploads if it chose to do so. Until then, the site will increasingly resemble a hoarders home with junk stuffed into every conceivable corner. Is that any way to run a business?
Why not make Content ID more accessible and transparent?
Much has been written about YouTube’s Content ID program, a fingerprinting technology that allows rights holders to find and claim their music or movies when uploaded to YouTube. The technology was introduced in 2008 in the wake of Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube and since then has helped (some) creators mitigate the problem of piracy on the popular UGC (user-generated content) site.
Those who have access to the Content ID system can uploaded reference files and use a dashboard to choose how matches should be handled. They can be limited based on audio, video, and length. Matching content then can be blocked, removed, or monetized based on territorial rights.
I’ve written many pieces about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to Content ID so I won’t be redundant here, but this week I read some pieces which highlight some lingering issues that continue to limit the reach (and effectiveness) of this technology–most notably limited access and accountability.
Are audiobooks being ignored?
Author Ryan Holiday published a piece in The Observer asking, “When Will YouTube Deal With Its Audiobook and Podcast Piracy Problem?” He described how using search, he’d found the audio version of one of his books streaming, in full, on YouTube. The audio had been streamed 16,000 times. He observed, “It might not seem like a ton but the book had sold about 50,000 copies in audio—an additional 30% of that figure pirated it through a single video?”
Holiday goes on to repeat the oft-heard lament of filmmakers, musicians, et al who have found their pirated works streaming on YouTube. Like many of them, Holiday believes YouTube needs to make it easier for artists to protect their creations from this type of theft:
For its part, YouTube needs to get its act together and offer tools directly to publishers and authors. Audiobook piracy is real and clearly growing. The idea that songs and television and films all deserve protections from Content ID but authors don’t is absurd.
Now, to be fair, it’s not clear that Holiday himself has ever applied for Content ID access. It seems that the YouTube’s language dissuaded him.
I can continue to file these claims as the author but since I’m not a major publisher with a “substantial body of original material,” I can’t participate in YouTube’s Content ID personally.
If I were an author (or publisher) I would not hesitate to at least try to apply for a Content ID account. I had no difficulty being approved for a Content ID account in 2010 and only own the rights to two films, a feature and a documentary that I co-produced. The companies that distribute my film also have Content ID for their film catalogues.
…an evaluation of each applicant’s actual need for the tools. Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights…Content ID applicants may be rejected if other tools better suit their needs
The key here is the last sentence. There’s also Content Verification which seems to be another, higher tier of Content ID aimed at large companies. The other “tool” is simply sending a takedown via web form. That may be appropriate in very limited situations, but using it can be time-consuming and also requires a rights holder be proactive in searching for infringing content. Since Content ID does that work for you it’s the key reason it should be made available on a much wider scale. As Holiday noted, one copy of his book was accessed thousands of times….shouldn’t the onus be on YouTube to put a roadblock up to prevent infringement? Why should creators be required to be copyright cops too?
Lack of transparency has long been a flash point for musicians vs. YouTube
Frustration over YouTube’s Content ID and monetization scheme was also at the core of a blog post by 5-time Grammy winner, musician Maria Schneider published on Music Tech Policy. Schneider has become a strong advocate for artists rights and attacks Content ID on a number of levels including skewering YouTube over its lack of transparency (a common complaint among many musicians) and for its apparent refusal to grant access to artists–even those like her–who are Grammy recipients.
Content ID is reserved for big record companies with big catalogues, and probably selected independent artists whom YouTube believes will make YouTube a heap of money…In the press, YouTube has fought back against the recent flood of criticism, saying that all rights-holders can access Content ID – that they can get it through “third-party vendors.” These third party vendors often take between 20% to 50% of the revenue paid by YouTube—after YouTube takes its share.
I highly recommend reading Schneider’s post for her account of how Content ID has failed her and other musicians. As a filmmaker, in terms of using Content ID simply to combat piracy, my experiences have differed, but I do share many of her overall concerns. Unfortunately, the fact she (and others) are apparently being denied direct access to Content ID tools is an ongoing issue that inflames the lingering, legitimate mistrust creators have with Google.
Does it really need to be this way?
In spite of years of ongoing complaints like these, neither Google nor YouTube seem really to have made a genuine effort to work with artists–instead preferring to stonewall or sidestep debate. When YouTube officials do comment, they often find themselves tangled up in webs of their own making, as was the case when musician Zoe Keating took them to task in a very public exchange. Why not work with creators to solve some of these problems instead of demonizing them? There are ways to find common ground if only the powers that be at Google would care to (really) listen.
Content ID could make it easier for creators of all stripes to ask permission instead of simply taking content
Moving the Content ID machinery out of the shadows could pay dividends in other ways–perhaps by helping bridge the divide in disputes over copyright. Maarten Zeinstra, an “advisor on copyright and technology” recently penned a thoughtful blog post proposing that YouTube’s Content ID could become a useful tool for those who interested in utilizing content in legitimate ways. His piece, “YouTube should open up Content ID” was published this past May on the Dutch website, Kennisland. In it, Zeinstra noted:
YouTube should open up Content ID and make their register of rights holders publicly available...Let anyone be able to contact the rights owners of a certain clip or publicly contest that ownership. This creates an innovative new possibility in using content with permission or under copyright exceptions, and create legal certainty for copyright holders and remixers alike.
Now, I’m a tad skeptical as to what he means by “contest that ownership” but I’m open to the possibility that he’s merely describing a middle ground. If someone wants to make a mashup video using clips from my film or segments of archival footage from my documentary they could use Content ID to find that I am the rightful owner of the footage and can ask permission. Personally, I support the idea of fair use but also appreciate the fact that one should ask permission. I did so with footage used in my documentary and was always met with a positive response. Perhaps opening up Content ID in this way could foster a new respect for the work of creators and support the idea of asking, and not simply taking.
Improving Content ID would be in everyone’s best interests
Clearly, Google needs to do a much better job in providing access and accountability with its Content ID and monetization programs. Expand outreach to indie artists. Includethem in discussions about how to improve Content ID. Update the interface to make it more intuitive and user-friendly. Open the books so that creators can see exactly how much revenue is earned and where it goes. Be innovative and use Content ID to open new avenues to legitimate use of copyrighted content.
There’s little doubt that YouTube’s Content ID is a powerful tool that’s in dire need of an overhaul, both in terms of who uses it and how it’s used. This technology could provide so much more than it now does–but the ball is in Google’s court. I won’t hold my breath waiting for something to change–but there’s always hope isn’t there?
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
Why not make Content ID more accessible and transparent?