by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy
Headlines say one thing, Google’s actions say another
Despite headlines, it’s still business as usual for Google — Piracy sites full of malware and deceptive ads remain at top in Google search results
Last fall Google introduced a series of steps to strengthen its Safe Browsing initiative announcing it would include protection against, “social engineering attacks – deceptive tactics that try to trick you into doing something dangerous, like installing unwanted software or revealing your personal information (for example, passwords, phone numbers, or credit cards).
In February Google went further and announced it would add protection against what it called “deceptive embedded content, like social engineering ads” to its “Safe Browsing” strategy. According to Google, such sites would:
- Pretend to act, or look and feel, like a trusted entity — like your own device or browser, or the website itself.
- Try to trick you into doing something you’d only do for a trusted entity — like sharing a password or calling tech support.
If a user attempted to visit such a site, Google said this warning screen would appear.
Of course to benefit from “safe search” one has to set Chrome preferences to “protect you and your devices from dangerous sites.”
Is re-posting 2 month old news Google’s technique for generating positive headlines?
Today, the very same post re-posted on Google’s Official Webmaster Central Blog. Why repost an old post? Could it be Google’s way of generating positive headlines and muddying the waters as to its real business practices? Despite the fact today’s post was identical to the February announcement, a new round of headlines splashed across multiple websites making it seem like the “news” was new news….Google’s PR folks must be patting themselves on the back.
Google explains Safe Browsing this way:
Google’s Safe Browsing technology examines billions of URLs per day looking for unsafe websites…
When we detect unsafe sites, we show warnings on Google Search and in web browsers.
These unsafe sites fall into two categories, both of which threaten users’ privacy and security:
- Malware sites contain code to install malicious software onto users’ computers. Hackers can use this software to capture and transmit users’ private or sensitive information.
- Phishing sites pretend to be legitimate while trying to trick users into typing in their username and password or sharing other private information. Common examples are web pages that impersonate legitimate bank websites or online stores.
Google’s “safe search” warnings are nowhere to be found on piracy websites I checked as part of a little test I conducted today using Google Chrome.
Using Google search I looked for the recently released film ‘Carol’ using the search terms, “watch carol online.”
What I found was the same old, same old. In typical Google fashion, three out of the top four results lead to pirate websites that offer up free, full pirated copies of the movie. In addition–contrary to Google’s new “safe browsing” policy–all two of the pirate sites featured embedded and pop-up featuring the very type of deceptive content Google claimed it would slap with warnings. Despite this, nary a Google “warning” to be found on any of these sites.
3 out of 4 top results are for piracy sites that feature malware or Google advertising
Google warns against visiting scam sites, but continues to send consumers there via its search engine?
What’s even more puzzling is that I Google’s “safe search” initiative is also more talk than action when sites (flagged warnings about “deceptive content”) that are found via its own search engine.
Below is an example from a SolarMovie site which offers up links to pirated movies galore. Amid the pirated movies were sporadic warnings from Google. If Google is serious about protecting users from malware and phishing scams, why not simply remove these flagged sites from Google search?
Of course Google hypocrisy is nothing new. Google flacks can generate all the fresh headlines they want by reposting old news, but in the end, the story remains the same. The team from Mountain View talk a good game, but in reality, nothing changes. Google search continues to point the way to pirated content, malware or scams be damned…maybe the safest way to browse is to avoid Google entirely?
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Piracy
Is online ad industry becoming more accountable? Yep, but there’s still (much) more to be done.
Some good news on the ongoing fight against ad sponsored piracy. Today, Group M, a major player in global media investment announced efforts to ensure that their media partners become certified providers of, or follow anti-piracy advertising guidelines established by the Trustworthy Accountability Group’s (TAG). John Montgomery, Chairman, GroupM Connect, North America and Co-Chair of the TAG Anti-Piracy Working Group characterized the move as a big step forward in the fight against ad-sponsored online piracy:
We’re in the business of giving the world’s most valuable brands marketing advantage with smart media strategies. This inherently means we’re vigilant for clients’ brand safety. Our work with TAG in the development and now full adoption of anti-piracy guidelines is a major leap forward…Fighting pirates of copyrighted content required every ounce of our tenacity and ingenuity, but with the advent of TAG’s Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy, we have powerful new tools and safeguards.”
TAG’s announcement of its anti-piracy initiative last February was received as positive news by those leading the battle against online theft.
“We are glad to see brands taking the initiative to deploy validated tools and technologies to keep their ads off of infringing sites…While this is an important first step, ultimate success will require widespread adoption by advertisers, ad agencies, and ad placement entities. Consumers and creators should continue to monitor this issue and encourage brands and ad tech companies to do the right thing.” -Sandra Aistars, Chief Executive Officer of the Copyright Alliance,
It’s also worth noting that TAG’s certification process–included as part of GroupM’s new standards–will require actual proof of compliance to standards in order to be validated.
Through the program, providers of anti-piracy tools and services will be validated as Digital Advertising Assurance Providers (DAAPs) by independent third-parties including Stroz Friedberg and Ernst & Young, working with TAG. To be validated, DAAP companies must show how they identify risky sites, prevent ad placement, disrupt site transactions, monitor and assess the safety of ad placements, and/or prevent payment to sites that are deemed likely to offer pirated content or counterfeit goods. The first validated DAAPs are expected to be named in Q3 2015, and GroupM will require that all of its partners receive such validation by Q1 2016.
When it comes to the fight against online piracy any news is good news, but unfortunately there’s still much work to be done. As I’ve argued for more than five years, cutting of the blood supply that incentivizes and sustains online pirates is crucial if we are going to turn the tide against out of control online theft for profit.
What about the other online advertising elephant in the room?
Stopping advertisers from putting cash into the pockets of notorious pirate websites around the globe is one thing, but what is TAG doing about ad placement on supposedly legit sites like YouTube? Is YouTube considered a “risky site” and if not, why not?
This past month I’ve questioned why major advertisers are so lackadaisical about ad placements on questionable YouTube content that includes pirated movies, clips of live-TV murders, (RATS) spyware, or terrorist recruiting videos.
At the time of TAG’s announcement last February, Linda Woolley, its President and CEO, was quoted in a press release:
It is critical that online advertisers be able to protect themselves from potential brand damage from piracy, fraud, and malware and safeguard their marketing investments. This initiative will help marketers identify sites that present an unacceptable risk of misappropriating copyrighted content and selling counterfeit goods, and it will help them remove those sites from their advertising distribution chain.
In that same press release, GroupM’s Montgomery noted:
“An advertiser’s brand is its most precious possession, and this program will help us ensure that our clients’ brands are not put at risk through unintentional placement on sites that promote pirated content, counterfeit goods, or other illegal activities. We look forward to working with TAG on this and other programs to help strengthen the advertising ecosystem by addressing systemic problems like piracy, malware, fraud, and lack of transparency.”
If protecting an “advertiser’s brand” as its “most precious possession” is truly a priority perhaps TAG-certified providers should also expand its focus to include sites like YouTube, a virtual cornucopia of monetized garbage that makes major brands look bad. Not only is placement of ads next to questionable content routine, but both the uploaders of questionable content AND YouTube are making money off it.
In June of 2014 I wrote a post, “Enough Playing Nice with the Advertising Industry over Ad Sponsored Piracy” in which I made this observation in response Creative Future’s letter to ad industry executives praising their efforts against ad sponsored piracy:
Of course some action against ad-sponsored piracy is better than none, but news flash, ad-sponsored piracy is not news. Every few months it seems some new initiative is announced, yet in reality, in the land of the online pirates and their quest for profits, nothing much has changed.
Perhaps I’m too impatient, too demanding….Certainly today’s announcement by Group M isn’t bad news, but talk only takes us so far. I’m waiting for more progress–for days when I don’t visit YouTube and see this:
Ads for major brands on clips of LIVE-TV murder
Ads for major brands on pirated movie on YouTube
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Facebook has long turned a blind eye to profiting from piracy on its pages. Has the worm finally turned?
This past week Facebook reached a milestone when, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg, more than one billion users logged on to the social media site in a single day. Part of that growth has come from video views (4 billion per day) and so this week Facebook also announced it would (finally) tackle the online piracy that has long plagued the site.
In recent months, as a result of its increased focus on encouraging video uploads, the social media giant has faced growing criticism that it allows “freebooters” to rip-off (monetized) YouTube videos and repost them on Facebook, thereby cannibalizing creators’ profits. According to Time’s Victor Luckerson:
Online video creators, who make money by selling advertising against their content, are increasingly frustrated with the problem. In June, George Strompolos, CEO of the multichannel network Fullscreen, said on Twitter that pirated versions of Fullscreen creators’ videos were racking up more than 50 million views on Facebook. This month, Hank Green, longtime YouTube vlogger and co-founder of the online video conference VidCon, penned a diatribe against Facebook’s video policies, arguing that the social network’s preference for Facebook-native videos in its News Feed algorithm encourages theft of creators’ YouTube videos. –
Of course the same thing has happened to filmmakers for what seems like forever, but it now appears complaints (and users) have reached critical mass so Facebook may finally have to confront the rampant copyright abuse that flourishes on its pages.
Given that Facebook has its sights set on competing with YouTube as the go-to (monetized) video platform–in order to effectively compete–it seems Facebook’s days of skipping around copyright compliance may have come to an end. Following in YouTube’s Content ID footsteps, Facebook will begin to rollout its own content fingerprinting technology. According to Recode two of Facebook piracy’s loudest critics will be the first in line to test the technology:
Now Facebook says Jukin and Fullscreen are two of its initial launch partners for the new technology, along with Zefr, a service company that helps content owners track their clips on YouTube. Facebook says it is also working with major media companies on the effort, but won’t identify them.
original image-iStock
Despite this news, Facebook still has a long way to go. Not only does it need to implement and effective content matching technology (and user interface), but it also has to figure out how to split up ad profits. If history is any indication, monetization income is likely to favor Facebook rather than creators.
As with YouTube, video monetization also opens the door to scammers and may in fact worsen the problem of bootleg uploads. YouTube, despite its Content ID system, is a tangled mess. Scammers routinely upload stolen and/or dummy content and monetize it. Perhaps Facebook will do a better job and learn from YouTube’s bad example, but I’m not holding out much hope.
Has the Ostrich finally (been forced) to pull its head out of the sand?
Meanwhile Facebook, like Google, still provides fertile ground for online pirates to share their stolen goods and it’s not limited to video uploads. Like their legit counterparts, it seems every online pirate website also has its own Facebook page to share illegal links and drive traffic and ad dollars to their sites. In typical fashion, Facebook also makes money from these pirate pages by placing advertising on them. Per usual, it’s the creators who lose.
The DMCA’s safe harbor provisions have allowed this Wild West to flourish. Some call it “innovation,” but for creators, it’s just plain theft. Facebook has profited from piracy for a long time. Its proposed actions against piracy are long overdue.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Law, Piracy
BI screencap-Ashley Madison on Pirate Bay- click for story
Ad sponsored piracy run even more amok
This has to be the irony of ironies. According a piece by Lara O’reilly in Business Insider, advertising for Ashley Madison is popping up on the Pirate Bay in searches for the hacked data. At the bottom of the results that list the complete torrent to the stolen files there’s an ad for Ashley Madison’s website. I suppose given all the bad publicity of late, the extra-marital affair website needs to find customers wherever it can eh? According to Business Insider:
A check of the source code reveals that the ad is being served by a Barcelona-based ad network called ExoClick.
ExoClick lists on its website that its partners include well-known brands, including bookmakers William Hill, Bet365, and Ladbrokes. The company has featured in Deloitte’s Fast 500 ranking of the fastest-growing technology companies for three years in a row.
Business Insider has contacted ExoClick to ask why the Ashley Madison campaign is running, and also why an ad appeared on Pirate Bay, which is often blacklisted by advertisers because it is notorious for illegal filesharing of copyrighted material. It can be extremely damaging to brands’ reputations for their ads to appear next to illegal or indecent content, and for their companies to be seen to be funding piracy websites through their advertising spend.
Of course Avid Media’s parent company has sent DMCA notices to various web operators to block publication of the hacks, but as everyone knows Pirate Bay sites are impervious to DMCA takedown requests. I’d previously written about the fact that using the DMCA to block release of the hacked data is a questionable application of the law. As of this morning it seems the ads are no longer showing up on the Pirate Bay website. It looks like Avid Media sent a takedown notice to its own advertising folks instructing them to remove the ad and stop sending money Pirate Bay’s way.
Companies allowing ads to be displayed on pirate websites (or alongside pirate scams on YouTube) is nothing new, but this puts an entirely new twist on the problem.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Law
Youtube slaps ads on scam uploads and collects dough from advertisers who look the other way.
It’s not news that Google doesn’t take kindly to anything standing in the way of revenue. Its business practices on YouTube are no exception.
In order to stuff the mother ship’s coffers, YouTube will monetize just about any crap upload, whether it’s a terrorist recruiting videos or scams linking to pirate websites. When Google monetizes these uploads both it and the uploader make money from the ads. Does anyone care about this dirty income?
Two years ago stories surfaced showing YouTube monetized Al Qaeda videos. At the time a YouTube the Daily Mail quoted a YouTube spokesperson as saying:
‘We also have stringent guidelines regarding advertising on the site, and we may choose to stop placing ads against any video or channel if we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partners.’
Ad for Amazon Prime links to scam pirate movie website
As with most of Google’s dubious business practices the attitude is shoot first, ask questions later (if caught). Is it really OK with advertisers that their ad budgets go to support YouTube and scam account holders (or terrorists)?
I wonder if the folks at Amazon Prime know where its YouTube ad dollars actually go? Do they realize Amazon Prime ads pre-roll on scams for pirate movie websites? It’s likely some of the productions pirated are Amazon Prime originals like Transparent. Does Amazon, or any advertiser on YouTube, demand any sort of accountability as to where their advertising appears?
I’ve written more than one blog post about these shady YouTube monetization practices, but it’s like the movie Ground Hog Day--nothing changes.
Earlier this year Google/YouTube was again called out for ads on terror group videos. This time ads played with ISIS recruiting videos. Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Toyota and Anheuser-Busch were among those who ads played alongside terror videos and Google scurried to remove the ads once it was outed by the press. Though clearly not pleased, advertisers didn’t say much, perhaps not wanting to draw more attention to an embarrassing situation. According to a report on NBC News:
“Our ads should not have appeared and we’re working with YouTube to understand how it happened and to avoid it happening again,” Proctor & Gamble said in a statement to NBC News. Other companies whose pre-roll ads were spotted on since-removed ISIS-related videos — Toyota, Anheuser-Busch and smartwatch maker Pebble — didn’t immediately respond to an NBC News request for comment.
Of course ads on videos linking to scam pirate movie sites are clearly not in the same category as ISIS recruiting videos, but the underlying issue remains the same. Where are the standards?
Why does Google depend on its community guidelines as a means to vet content for monetization rather than hire a staff to do it?
Why does Google allow YouTube to monetize uploads without checking them first? Where are the gatekeepers? Why doesn’t Google, with all its riches, hire staff to review content before ads appear on videos? Google wont’ stand in the way of users uploading pirated movies or hate videos but certainly it could vet the videos to determine if they are appropriate for monetization. Why don’t advertisers demand as much?
There’s a reason Google flacks pull out the same old rhetoric when any of its YouTube policies are scrutinized. For Google, muddying the waters by mixing its protect free speech message with its unfettered approach to monetization is a savvy tactical move. It’s a smoke bomb that provides political cover so YouTube can continue to rake in big bucks and avoid accountability.
It’s one thing to hide behind the shield of free speech by allowing unrestricted uploads, but making money off them is quite another. The two are very different issues, yet Google gets away with treating them as one in the same.
Those with enough clout to force change seem either impotent, or unconcerned. Despite the ad industry’s formation of the Trustworthy Accountability Group and its “Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy” there seems to 
have been little effort, beyond weak rhetoric, to call Google to account for its bad business practices.
Where’s TAG when it comes to Unilever’s ad promoting its sustainable business practices or the Weinstein Company promoting its upcoming movie No Escape on scam pirate uploads? Why don’t industry representatives demand accountability from Google?
Do the advertising folks for Intel, Lexus, Sanuk Shoes, Oxiclean, Sandals Resort, the Weinstein Company and Disney care that their ad campaigns underwrite criminals? Does anyone care?
The advertising industry needs to take charge and force change. I can write blog post after blog post documenting the myriad of ways YouTube scams advertisers (and the public) but unless those who send money Mountain View’s way demand accountability, nothing will change.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics
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 damage but 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.
