by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Politics
This month marks the five-year anniversary of my first blog post about online piracy and its link to advertising profits. At the time I was pissed. The movie Megan Siler and I had spent three years creating had just been released, and within 24 hours, had found its way online as an illegal download. One illegal copy quickly morphed into many tens of thousands.
What made me angry wasn’t necessarily the fact the film had been pirated. Though certainly I wasn’t pleased, it wasn’t really a shock. I knew in the back of my mind that piracy was an issue. However, I’d never really examined it up close. When I did, I was surprised not only by the how–but by the why. Online piracy was, in fact, an insidious for-profit business cloaked behind a curtain labeled “sharing.”
Online piracy is driven by profit
It turns out our film–like thousands of others, studio and indie–was just click-bait for a flourishing online market driven by greed. The breadth and scope of this illicit online marketplace was shocking. Examining a wide range of pirate websites I discovered an insidious, profitable and widespread economy driven–in large measure–through the complicity of major American corporations.
Sure, some of the major players were well-known thieves like Kim Dotcom whose Megaupload business empire was built on content theft. But many others cashing in on the online feeding frenzy were (and still are) mainstream corporations like Google. Ad service providers and major brand advertisers were (and still are) incentivizing and sustaining online piracy as a profitable venture. It was true five years ago and unfortunately it remains true today. Legit companies supply the blood that feeds the beast.
My original blog at popuppirates.com
I didn’t begin blogging about online piracy for the sake of our film. That’s old news. The reason I’ve continued to spend the past five years investigating and writing about online piracy and copyright issues is because I don’t believe what’s happening to our creative community is fair. I write because I worry about the future of those who earn their living by creating the content we so enjoy. I write because online pirates continue to rip-off creators at every opportunity in order to make a buck.
I also write because worry that online piracy diminishes the diversity of content that’s produced. After all, we won’t know what we’re missing when it isn’t made. Creative voices on the fringes, the most fragile among us, are often the first to go, and it’s often a silent exit. Piracy apologists who believe it’s their right to take what they want– when they want–routinely belittle creators who dare speak out against such theft. For those defending piracy it seems easier to denigrate and devalue artists rather to hear them.
When I recently sent a DMCA notice to the Chilling Effects database to highlight the hypocrisy of Google’s message that it “fights piracy” my move was met with predictable derision. Few on the copyleft seemed to understand that it really wasn’t about me, or our film. The same scenario happens day after day to all types of creators who send takedown notices to Google. I used our film as an example (because I could) in order to make a point about how Google (and Chilling Effects) conduct business–removing links, but replacing the original link with another link back to a page featuring the original link. It’s a duplicitous shell game that mocks the very intent of the DMCA.
“I figured you are stupid Gay”
One blogger was so bent out of shape by my takedown notice to Chilling Effects he wrote his own post. He sent me a series of messages via my Vox Indie Facebook page and attempted to point out the futility of my anti-piracy efforts. Apparently crabbed when I didn’t respond, in a fit of pique, he resorted to childish name-calling:
A screencap showing partial excerpt of a blogger’s FB messages to me.
So much for thoughtful discourse eh? For the record, I am “Gay.” As for stupid, well, that “blogger” certainly thinks so. It would appear he has a problem with stupid Gays who dare to speak out in defense of creators. For the record I didn’t bother to read his blog post which–given the tone of his messages–was probably not particularly friendly, nor thoughtful.
That particular blogger was not the only one to mock my attempt to highlight Google’s DMCA shell game; though I must say I’ve not really experienced the homophobic angle before. TechDirt, a site well known for its not-so-friendly views on copyright, also recently posted a harangue about my DMCA notice to Chilling Effects. That piece featured the subheading “from the stupidity-in-Russian-doll-form dept” so it would seem that the word “stupid,” in various forms, is a popular term for frustrated anti-piracy apologists to use when writing rebuttals. I imagine their dependence on the word is merely a further sign they have no cogent argument at the ready.
As the saying goes, “sticks and stones…” However, the upside is that my efforts to bring attention to the damage done by online piracy are clearly having the desired effect.
LGBT Filmmakers are among those whose voices are diminished by online piracy
Pirates sites around the world stealing LGBT films
I should also point out that LGBT filmmakers regularly send me emails asking what they can do to protect their films from online piracy. Some of them have spent years trying to bring their vision to the big screen and when they see their newly released film showing up as downloads and streams on pirate sites across the globe they are crushed. I wrote a piece about this some time ago, but it’s worth reminding audiences that these are some of the independent voices that are damaged when we allow online theft to flourish.
How can we change the status quo? We speak out. The good news is that we are. Artists across the spectrum have begun to focus frustration into action. We’ve begun to speak out and formed coalitions, demanding with one voice that our representatives in Washington take action to better safeguard creative work (and livelihoods) in the digital age. Whether it’s by re-tweeting for the #IRespectMusic campaign or joining the new Content Creators Coalition, as WE come together, WE will make progress–of that I am sure.
I didn’t make a film in order to become an “anti-piracy” activist. I made a film with my (also gay) filmmaker friend Megan Siler because we had a creative idea we wanted to share with lesbian audiences. However, once our film was released, and subjected to the online piracy pulverizer, this particular stupid Gay couldn’t look the other way. It opened my eyes to what was happening across the board to content creators of all stripes–and it wasn’t OK.
Hopefully, over these past years, through my research and subsequent blog posts, I’ve helped frame the debate over piracy in a way that exposes criminal nature of online piracy and motivates others to acknowledge it’s a problem in search of a solution. I also hope readers can better appreciate the long-term value of safeguarding our creative communities large and small.
Here’s to the next five years and hoping creators continue to make progress against the scourge of online piracy…I may be stupid, but I’m also stubborn. 🙂
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Piracy
Today the Digital Citizens Alliance* released a follow-up to last year’s report that examined the connection between online piracy and advertising profits. According to results documented in today’s release, Good Money Still Going Bad, not much has changed. Tainted revenue totals from 2014 aren’t very different from 2013. The 589 websites included in the report generated 209 million dollars from advertising. This, despite the fact that many of the rogue sites included in the earlier report had been shuttered.
Google’s DoubleClick leads the way serving ads to pirate websites
With mountains of evidence that ad sponsored piracy remains a hydra with many heads, why do supposedly legit companies like Google still find themselves intimately attached to this beast? According to the report Google’s DoubleClick “ad-revenue engine” leads the pack of illicit ad service providers ( AKA-piracy enablers and profiteers). Per the report, DoubleClick was found to serve ads for 109 of the rogue sites included in the report. Adcash.com came it at number two with 63 sites.
Not only does Google continue to be a prime player in ad-sponsored piracy, but the study finds that major American brands remain hopelessly entangled as well.
There were 132 premium brands observed by MediaLink researchers on the sites, up from 89 the previous year.
Promises, promises…
YouTube also profits off ads on pirated content
Over and over again we’ve heard promises from ad industry reps that advertisers were finally going to take serious action against ad-sponsored piracy. During the summer of 2013 the White House trumpeted that the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) and various companies (including Google) had “committed to a set of best practices to address online infringement by reducing the flow of ad revenue to operators of sites engaged in significant piracy and counterfeiting.”
Last summer Creative Future wrote a letter to ad industry representatives praising efforts to thwart ad-sponsored piracy and in February the same IAB made announced formation of TAG (Trustworthy Accountability Group). On its website the group cites 4 areas of work which include:
Prevent advertising revenue from flowing to criminals who steal copyrighted material and place it on “pirate” sites
Budget car rental ad on streaming copy of pirate movie
Catchy acronyms and new “initiatives” are nice y’all, but when do we actually get to see results?
Yet for all the praise and press release, has any progress really been made? I’ve been writing about ad-sponsored piracy for five years and, despite much lip-service to the contrary, the online advertising industry still seems to be in pretty much the same place.
Until advertisers, and ad service providers, transform words into action, online thieves will continue make money at the expense of creators. Remember, ad money is the fuel that feeds online pirates and thieves:
Ad revenue is the oxygen that allows content theft to breathe. We know from new research by the online rights protection firm Incopro that 88% of the most popular content theft sites in Europe rely on advertising for some, if not all, revenues. Incopro called advertising the “predominant revenue source” for the top 250 unauthorized sites.
It took me only a couple seconds today to find a major brand, Budget car rental, advertising on a pirate site streaming our film. It’s worth noting that the DCA report also finds video streaming sites are a increasing threat in this illicit ecosystem:
- Video Streaming a Growing Model: As consumer appetites have shifted from downloading to streaming, content theft sites have followed suit. The number of video streaming sites in 2014 was up 40% from the original report, and revenue grew significantly due to video CPMs (cost-per-impressions) that are far higher than those for display ads. Video Streaming was the only segment to generate more revenue than the year before, even with half as many large sites. Aggregate annual revenue was up more than 50 percent. It made up 12 percent of all advertising revenue in last year’s sample. This year, it made up 21 percent.
For now it seems the mantra remains-More money for the pirate, more customers for Budget and less money for the filmmaker.
*Full disclosure, I’m a member of the Digital Citizens Alliance advisory board.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy
Facebook doesn’t give a damn whose ad goes where, so long as it means more cash in its pocket
If ever you needed more evidence to show just how irresponsible problem online advertising has become–or how totally tone deaf and blind Silicon Valley is-look no further than Facebook. Yet again, a Silicon Valley king is caught red-handed–yet again–profiting from online movie piracy.
Take a look below at the Facebook page for a notorious pirate site, Solarmovie. Not only does Solarmovie–with its 15,000+ likes–get to openly share hundreds of links to pirated movies, but Facebook–in an absurdly ironic twist–plops a paid advertisement promoting the MPAA website The Credits right alongside.
The Credits was a website designed to “to highlight the creative work that goes into making film and television,” but I can’t imagine that promotional (or educational) partnerships with online pirates was part of the plan. I understand that keywords are part of product placement, but this situation takes the cake for absurdity.
Of course in an ideal world the would-be pirates would notice the MPAA ad, visit The Credits website, and be transformed by reading the stories of all those who work behind-the-scenes to create the movies we love….but we don’t live an ideal world and the people visiting this FB page are there for one purpose, to find links to stolen movies. How exactly will the advertising “team” at Facebook explain why Hollywood’s ad dollars seem to be supporting the very pirates laying waste to its worker bees?
Of course Facebook, like its Silicon Valley brethren, cares little for the livelihoods of those working outside its realm and so continue to blithely pile up profits, redefining theft as innovation.
Facebook page promoting pirate website provides direct links to full copies of pirated movies
The other unfortunate fact is that there’s no way for me to report this page and get it removed from Facebook for its blatant illegal activity. Sure, I can report the link it posted to an illegal stream of my own movie, but ultimately doesn’t give a damn about me, or any other creator just so long as that cash keeps on a coming…
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
When searching for this film’s official website Google search instead lists a notorious pirate site at #1. It links to a full, illegal stream of the movie.
Google’s promise to fight piracy on its search engine is pure baloney
Click the #1 result and immediately you’ll find a full stream of our film
I was updating my film’s website earlier this week and so randomly went to Google to see where it would show up in search results. I figured that, given it’s the official website for the film, it would be at or near the top of the results. Boy was I wrong…When I used in the search terms And Then Came Lola website the first result was a pirate site offering pirated streams of the film with a single click. In fact, the actual website for our film was nowhere to be found. Instead the first page of results included several sites that featured pirated streams of our film.
Yeah Google, you’re surely doing everything you can to fight online piracy aren’t you?
Google’s convoluted web takedown DMCA form requires 8 steps
Google moves pirate links to a safe haven on the Chilling Effects database
I guess it’s time to visit that handy dandy DMCA online takedown form that Google–so graciously–makes creators whose work is stolen use. Of course, in order to get to the DMCA page, one must click through 7 pages of crap, then login to Google, before–at last– filling out a tedious online form, It would, of course, be much more efficient to send an email (since I already have DMCA template set up) but let’s face it, Google has NO desire (nor incentive) to make the process an easy one.
In the meantime, maybe the good folks at Google responsible for fine-tuning search algorithms to downgrade pirate sites in search results need to go back to the drawing board. Remember this B.S?
We aim to provide a great experience for our users and have developed over 200 signals to ensure our search algorithms deliver the best possible results. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily
At the bottom of the first pages of search results Google offers users these suggestions for finding (pirated) copies of the film online
Google search results not only put a pirate result in first place, but at the bottom of the page offer these handy suggested search phrases that also offer ways find illegal streams or downloads of my film.
BTW the pirate site solarmovie (and its ever-changing cornucopia of domain suffixes) that pops up #1 IS a notorious pirate host, impervious to any direct DMCA requests. It’s been reported thousands of times to Google….Why does it still end up as a #1 result??? If this is punishing pirate sites one can only wonder what praising them would look like?
Google forces me to acknowledge that they will send my DMCA to Chilling Effects so that the pirate link will live in despite my efforts
Google’s search DMCA takedown process is a joke
Of course, even after I go to ALL the trouble of requesting that Google remove the links it won’t disappear. In a nifty sleight of hand the Google team will simply move it to Chilling Effects so that users can still easily find the pirated stream(s) online. This entire DMCA takedown scheme is a fraud makes a mockery of the DMCA and destroys creators’ ability to protect their work from online theft. Recently the USPTO organized a working group comprised creators and service providers to address inefficiencies in the DMCA takedown process. This past Tuesday the group released its findings in a document, “DMCA Notice-and-Takedown Processes”. While it could be considered progress that the various parties are talking, there’s still plenty of evidence that the DMCA is badly the broken and due for a major overhaul.
Here’s a sneak peek of Part II of this (never-ending) story illustrating how Google’s search suggestions, mentioned above, also point directly to stolen (pirated) copies of my movie.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Piracy, Tech
YouTube, its users, and shady certified “aggregators,” partner together to make money off pirated TV shows, movies & music
YouTube’s life-blood is advertising and by now it’s become pretty clear that Google doesn’t give a hoot about what videos it slaps ads onto. After all, why should vetting content BEFORE putting advertising on it get in the way of company profits right?
I wrote about Google’s tainted income scheme last December (Piracy for profit-YouTube’s dirty secret), but it’s a tale is worth revisiting at a time when Google faces more anti-trust allegations in Europe and embarrassing revelations that rather than take action, U.S. authorities at the FTC prefer to bury investigations that shine a light on Google’s sleazy, anti-competitive business practices.
Of course Google continues to publicly deflect criticism of its business practices by repeating the tired mantra that anything goes in the name of innovation. Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s CEO penned a panegyric for Google’s thinkwithGoogle newsletter, The Eight Pillars of Innovation, in which she waxed on about Google “striving for continual innovation, but not perfection.” She also makes this observation about Google’s mission:
Google’s mission is to ‘organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.’ We use this simple statement to guide all of our decisions.
Sounds nice, but a more honest (and accurate) observation about what really guides (all) their decisions would read:
Google’s mission is to ‘organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful and profitable for us.
Sure, Google is great at making stuff more universally accessible and useful, but its success comes with a heavy price tag….and Google isn’t the one paying. All these platitudes about innovation–and serving the common good–provide cover for what drives Google–the almighty dollar. The ongoing search for innovative income has given rise to a company all that too often operates in a shady, often illegal sphere, dancing delicately along the edge to create a dubious morality built amid prevarication and platitudes.
In Google’s world, tainted profits acquired through illegal acts are OK as long as one doesn’t get caught red handed. It’s all just innovation right?
A glaring example Google’s innovative profiteering was on display when news broke that YouTube slapped beer advertisements on ISIS recruiting videos uploaded onto the site. Outrageous yes–but it’s only one particularly jarring reminder that Google has a corporate habit of placing profits above all else. Remember too, that not only was Google placing ads on ISIS videos, but by doing so was putting money into the pockets of terrorist and its own coffers.
Dive deeper into the cesspool that is YouTube, moving past the beer advertisements on ISIS recruiting videos and you’ll witness an entrenched, well-oiled (and oily) business model that enables Google to rake in millions, perhaps billions, by creating partnerships with cash-seeking YouTube users and shady middlemen who routinely monetize content they don’t own.
- Who are these YouTube “certified” aggregators who are approved to work with Google who pave the way for users who knowingly make money off infringing content?
- Why is it OK for YouTube to earn money off stolen goods?
- Why don’t advertisers know (or care) where their ads are placed?
Let’s take a look at how this works. Let’s say I want to make some money by putting ads on YouTube videos. It doesn’t matter whether I own actually own them….what’s required is a way to get put my uploaded video onto YouTube, put ads on it and get paid based on the number of views it attracts.
How do I do this? I could try to get approved as an individual, but the easier way, if the pirate uploads I’ve checked our are any indication, is to partner with an aggregator. These entities are YouTube approved and give users an easy way to upload infringing content and get paid for it.
Sign up with them, upload a popular (pirated) TV show or movie via your aggregator account and ta-da!– you’re on your way to earning some easy money. Of course the aggregator will take a slice–as will YouTube–but hey, it’s free money right? Zero risk, and some reward–what could be better?
As is typical for YouTube, there don’t seem to be any safeguards to make sure these “certified” partners are on the up and up. After all YouTube isn’t so why would the company ask partners to behave better? As long as these partnerships bring in profits it’s best to look the other way right?
What it means to be YouTube Certified
YouTube Certified exists across several specific subject areas called “certification tracks.”
-
An individual may become YouTube Certified by successfully completing an in-depth training program and passing a final exam to demonstrate expertise.
-
A company may become YouTube Certified if a minimum of 3 employees have attended the training program and passed the exam. Company certification is valid for 12 months from date of issue. See below for a list of current YouTube Certified companies.
Note: YouTube does not make any promises or representations about the performance or quality of any YouTube Certified individual or company. YouTube does not guarantee you will get any specific results from working with YouTube Certified individuals or companies. It is always important to evaluate the companies you may work with and decide for yourself what makes the most sense for your business.
Hmmm, I wonder if that special “in-depth” YouTube training includes any mention of copyright law and/or ethical business practices? Doubt it… Ironic too that YouTube doesn’t do a better job “evaluating” these companies once they’ve been certified.
It seems that episodes of the Netflix hit starring Taylor Schilling, Orange is the New Black, is a popular show to upload and monetize. Below are four different episode uploads and FOUR different owners who claim worldwide rights.
Looks like Orange is the New Black has lots of different “owners” making money off episodes uploaded to YouTube.
Unfortunately this example is not the exception on YouTube, it’s the rule.
These YouTube approved aggregators pretend to have standards. Music Nations, a “certified” YouTube partner that has claimed one of Orange is the New Black episodes shown above, has an online application includes this disclaimer: Also please tick this box to confirm that you understand that uploading copyright material will cause your partnership to be cancelled. Of course they don’t vet the actual uploads…it’s only if you get caught. Meanwhile, uploaders get 70% of the revenue received from YouTube while Music Nations gets 30%. Of course in this case Netflix would receive ZERO.
Of course paying lip service to copyright doesn’t mean anything is actually done ahead of time to vet ownership or enforce compliance. In the graphic below is an example where a different Music Nations client, utmun dossa, has also uploaded and monetized multiple OITNB episodes (an ad for Secret adorns this playback, Pampers another). They’ve been online for more than a month. Google/YouTube makes money, Music Nations makes money and the user makes money but the rights holder gets nothing. For Google, this is innovation…
When I used the online customer “chat” at Music Nations to ask whether they required uploaders to prove ownership the agent I was chatting with didn’t know responding, “I don’t know if that is part of the process before a channel gets accepted but there is a team that reviews the application before they get accepted.” Seems like a pretty basic question, but there’s a reason customer support doesn’t have an answer.
Music Nations isn’t the only aggregator I’ve run across that seems to monetize stolen goods. Another “certified” YouTube partner is the Russia-based QuizGroup. I wrote extensively about their enterprise in my earlier blog post. They’ve also acted as the intermediary for monetized pirate uploads of Orange is the New Black, claiming worldwide rights. Note that all these uploaded episodes are altered (via letterbox or smaller frame size) in order to bypass any safeguards Netflix may have in place via Content ID.
If these were legit content claims, why would Netflix use multiple aggregators?
Another question worth asking is why do these aggregators stay on YouTube’s approved partner list?
QuizGroup remains on YouTube’s list of certified aggregators despite monetizing pirated content
One has to imagine, given the relative ease with which I discovered these examples, that both aggregators have had clients reported (repeatedly) for copyright violations. Why are they still allowed to do business YouTube? The answer is simple–because YouTube, and parent company Google, make millions. Go ahead FTC, look the other way and ignore Google’s bad business practices. Perhaps the Europeans will do the work you should be doing.
Part II-YouTube’s dirty money game continued, coming soon…
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Law, Politics, Tech
So-called “public-interest” groups really just “Google-interest” groups
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s efforts to hold Google accountable for its suspect business practices has come under fire recently by so-called web “watchdog” groups who’ve come to the defense of the internet behemoth. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy & Technology and Public Knowledge and others filed an amicus brief in support of Google’s efforts to ignore a subpoena from Hood requesting information related to its operations linked to illegal drugs, pornography and online piracy. Hood claims the company is in violation of the state’s consumer laws.
EFF, Center for Democracy & Technology and Public Knowledge fail to mention they receive money from Google
The pro-Google brief begins by providing summaries of its various signatories. It’s no surprise that each and every description fails to mention organizational ties to Google. Leading off the parade of disingenuous descriptors is the EFF:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) is a non
-profit, member-supported civil liberties organization that works to protect free speech, innovation, and privacy in the online world.
Funny that on its own website the EFF describes itself as a
“”a donor-funded US 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.” For the purposes of the brief, of course, characterizing itself as simply
“member-supported” provides a more innocent, public-interest veneer. In either case, if one attempts to discover exactly where the EFF gets its money, by reviewing the organization’s latest–though somewhat outdated–
financial data (from 2012-2013) it seems the
actual identities of donors are (conveniently) obscured.
via: https://www.eff.org/about/annual-reports-and-financials
In a 2012
article for Fortune Magazine, Matt Vella noted that money from Google (and other tech firms) does flow directly into EFF’s coffers.
If the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the nation’s preeminent digital rights nonprofit, had disclosed last year that it received a cool $1 million gift from Google — about 17% of its total revenue — some eyebrows might have been raised. The group typically describes itself as “member-supported” and, like most nonprofits, it treasures its above-the-commercial-fray, public-interest-group aura and reputation for independence.
Vella also pointed out, “The EFF, CDT, and Stanford’s CIS all reliably line up on the tech sector side in scrimmages with copyright holders.” Why bite the hand that feeds you?
Google actually makes no bones about the support it provides for both the EFF and
The Center for Democracy and Technology in a listing on its own
website:Our U.S. Public Policy and Government Affairs team provides support to a number of independent third-party organizations whose work intersects in some way with technology and Internet policy.
There’s also a little footnote in the amicus brief worth noting:
No one, except for undersigned counsel, has authored this brief in whole or in part or contributed money toward the preparation of this brief.
Yeah, right….One has to appreciate the legal jiu jitsu employed in this misleading caveat. Perhaps Google didn’t directly underwrite the brief, but it’s clear who pays (some of) the bills. As such, it’s no surprise that legal arguments cited in the brief include the well-worn don’t blame Google for the behavior of others gambit:
Simply put,requiring online service providers [like Google] either to respond to subpoenas directed primarily at third-party conduct—or to engage in protracted and expensive litigation to challenge their propriety—could result in extraordinary costs for those providers.
Last time I checked, it was Google that admitted culpability when it coughed up $500 million to pay a fine for knowingly earning profits from advertising for illegal drugs online.
The federal investigation,
which was first revealed in May, found that Google was aware that some Canadian pharmacies that advertised on its site failed to require a prescription for substances like the painkiller Oxycontin and the stimulant Ritalin. Google continued to accept their money and assisted the pharmacies in placing ads and improving their Web sites, according to the Justice Department. –
NY Times
This type of Google behavior is exactly what Attorney General Hood is investigating. It’s difficult to feel any sympathy for the fact Google may face
extraordinary costs to protect its equally extraordinary (and nefarious) profits. It’s no surprise that
those victimized by Google’s profit-machine support Hood’s efforts to pull back the curtain on its shady business practices. Why wouldn’t they?
Though it makes nice talking points, the crux of the amicus brief argument seems to be that Google shouldn’t bear any responsibility for bad (illegal) behavior within its online operations, even when it knowingly encourages and benefits from such behavior. Not only are the messengers suspect, but their mendacious argument is irretrievably tainted, bought and paid for by Google itself–no matter that a footnote disclaimer may claim.
Moving now back to the Google v. Hood amicus briefs, Google came up with two that we are aware of–one was filed in support of Google by the Consumer Electronics Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Engine Advocacy (where Julie P. Samuels–remember her from the Google Shill List–is Executive Director). Each organization is funded by Google. The CEA and CCIA alone lobby for companies whose combined market cap surely has to be somewhere around $2 TRILLION….
In other words, the two amicus briefs filed in support of Google’s attempt to stop a criminal investigation were filed solely by organizations that receives funding from Google both directly and indirectly and in some cases has received that funding for many years. Even in the world of Google influence buying where organizations seem to be created by binary fission straight out of the Benjamins, this is an odd result.
The Trichordist post also references a recently released
Public Citizen study,
Mission Creepy noting that it provides
“a great guide to Google’s labyrinthine influence buying.” I’ll leave you with these chilling words from that study:
…the amount of information and influence that Google has amassed is now threatening to gain such a stranglehold on experts, regulators and lawmakers that it could leave the public powerless to act if it should decide that the company has become too pervasive, too omniscient and too powerful.
This month marks the five-year anniversary of my first blog post about online piracy and its link to advertising profits. At the time I was pissed. The movie Megan Siler and I had spent three years creating had just been released, and within 24 hours, had found its way online as an illegal download. One illegal copy quickly morphed into many tens of thousands.
