by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics
The business of online piracy has always been dependent on advertising revenue. Without ad income, many pirate sites would cease to exist. Now it appears that law enforcement in the UK is taking action against this type of criminal activity through an effort called “Operation Creative,” an alliance that include law enforcement, advertisers, publishing and music interests. According to a story published today by the BBC:
In an operation run by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), 61 websites were identified as displaying unauthorised material.They were asked to “correct their behaviour” and “operate legitimately”. Details of those that did not were passed to brands with a request to stop advertising on the sites in an attempt to reduce their revenue. Forty websites have now been suspended.
This graduated approach provides a blueprint for others. The offending websites (and advertisers) were notified that their sites contained copyrighted material and were asked to remove the content. Only when they ignored warnings was action taken to close them down.
This past July, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel issued a statement, “Coming Together to Combat Online Piracy and Counterfeiting,” that outlined a voluntary “best practices” agreement to reduce ad-sponsored piracy in the United States:
Today, 24/7 Media, Adtegrity, AOL, Condé Nast, Google, Microsoft, SpotXchange, and Yahoo!, with the support of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, 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. The Administration strongly supports voluntary efforts by the private sector to reduce infringement and we welcome the initiative brought forward by the companies to establish industry-wide standards to combat online piracy and counterfeiting by reducing financial incentives associated with infringement. We believe that this is a positive step and that such efforts can have a significant impact on reducing online piracy and counterfeiting.
Voluntary agreements are all well and good, but at some point there’s a role for enforcement when such agreements are ignored. UK authorities seem to understand that. Perhaps it’s time that U.S. authorities take a similar, graduated approach. It may also help to garner more public support than seizing domains outright.
Internet-based commerce has matured to the point that it’s reasonable to expect online transactions to adhere to the law. Actions like this will help rein in the bad actors and hopefully make what has been the “wild” west a tad less so.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Politics, Tech
As Google’s lobbying clout grows, so do its ties to right-wing political groups
A while back, in a post titled “The Web Ain’t Sherwood Forest–Except Maybe for the Mercatus Center, Koch Industries, A.L.E.C. and Google.” I criticized a newly released study by piracydata.org, a libertarian-sponsored website that used “splashy, but false, new data” designed to suggest that piracy is Hollywood’s fault. Turns out the site and the study was garbage, but in my piece I noted that Google’s fingerprints (and agenda) were all over the clunky propaganda effort.
It’s too bad that piracydata.org isn’t more transparent about its sugar daddy. Like many of the astro-turf anti-copyright entities this one’s tentacles can be traced back to Google, the supposedly aggrieved party whose persecution by anti-piracy advocates that inspired the site’s creation in the first place.
I also included the fact Google acknowledges its cozy relationship with the libertarian mission on its public policy page:
Our U.S. Public Policy and Government Affairs team provides support to a number of independent third-party organizations whose federally-focused work intersects in some way with technology and Internet policy. While this list is continually evolving, some examples of these organizations are: … Mercatus Center…
Yesterday Truth-Out.org published a great expose by Nick Surgey that sheds even more light on Google’s ties to right-wing political interests–interests that extend far beyond controlling the debate around copyright and content theft. The article, “The Googlization of the Far Right: Why Is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC? sheds more light on the fact that the Silicon Valley tech giant is underwriting a political agenda that in many ways parallels that of the notorious Koch brothers.
Organizations that received “substantial” funding from Google for the first time over the past year include Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the Federalist Society, the American Conservative Union (best known for its CPAC conference), and the political arm of the Heritage Foundation that led the charge to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act: Heritage Action.
In 2013, Google also funded the corporate lobby group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, although that group is not listed as receiving “substantial” funding in the list published by Google.
Again, this information is not new, but it is important and deserving of ongoing scrutiny. Google’s lobbying budget in 2012 was 18.2 million dollars and the company now ranks number 8 in lobbyist spending among Washington’s influence peddlers. While Google (and Silicon Valley) have generally been associated with more “progressive” causes over the years, as Surgey points out , Google’s funding of ALEC is troubling:
There are many good reasons for brand conscious corporations to stay away from ALEC. For example, its legacy of Stand Your Ground gun laws and bills to make harder for Americans to vote, its work to repeal renewable energy laws and the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, and its efforts to privatize almost everything, are just a few of its extreme measures.
As each day passes and Google’s political influence grows, their corporate mantra “don’t be evil” seems increasingly mendacious and absurd. Perhaps the powers that be at Google should pick up some new bedtime reading. Grimm’s Fairy Tales might be a good choice. Why not begin by reading “Snow White” and note what happens to an evil queen who looks into the mirror and refuses to believe the truth?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Politics
These past few years as the tech industry as boomed so has a movement to condemn copyright as being obsolete and/or unnecessary. Some. in fact, view copyright protections a hinderance to their beloved (and biased) concept of “innovation.” Such anti-copyright activists are myopic when it comes defining “innovation” and repeatedly fail to recognize that those who depend on copyright to protect their livelihoods are, in fact, are in fact true “innovators.”
Today we have a new study published by the International Intellectual Property Alliance, that documents just how significant “copyright” is to our national economy. The report, “Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy,” The report examines the impact the copyright “industry” has had on the U.S. economy from 2009 to 2012, a period in which the U.S. economy was still recovering from 2008 free-fall. Unlike many other sectors of the economy, jobs in the copyright sector as a percentage of U.S. employment grew:
The core copyright industries employed 5,178,100 workers in 2009, representing 3.96% of the total U.S. workforce. By 2012, the number of core copyright employees in the United States had increased by 221,00 workers to 5,399, 100. These workers represented 4.04% of the total U.S. workforce in 2012.
The report was released as Congress begins a series of hearings on copyright law and what, if any, revisions should be considered. Clearly, as lawmakers debate the issue, these statistics would seem to support the concept that copyright is, and should remain, a fundamental “incentive” for those who create, and disseminate creative content that consumers enjoy: films, music, books, software, games, etc. As Sandra Aistars, Executive Director of the Copyright Alliance notes in a statement issued today in response to the report:
…copyright owners of all backgrounds work actively and creatively to ensure their work is easily accessible and can be enjoyed as widely as possible. Copyright is not an impediment to innovation and distribution — it is rather the erosion of these rights that would harm consumers the most, by diminishing the abilities of creators to create and creative industries to invest in funding and disseminating their work.
While these figures are positive news in terms of U.S. “copyright industries” ongoing contribution to our overall economy, we must remain vigilant to make sure that the independent creators among us–those whose work may be difficult to measure statistically–are included in future discussions around copyright reform. These independents, who often reflect creative voices on the margins are in many respects the most vulnerable, and theirs is work that should be treasured and protected.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics
For filmmakers, musicians, authors, and artists, etc. whose work is pirated (and monetized) by online thieves, the only way to (possibly) get one’s stolen content removed is to send a DMCA notice. It’s a procedure outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law passed by Congress in October of 1998.
The legislation was intended to provide a means to protect copyright in the digital age, but also provides “safe harbor” for websites (like YouTube) that unknowingly host infringing files. The law specifies the “notice and takedown” procedure for copyright owners to use in order to request removal of their content, commonly referred to as a DMCA takedown notice. If a website owner complies with a legitimate takedown demand, “the provider is exempt from monetary liability.” Anyway, that’s how it’s supposed to work. In reality, the process is not quite so simple, nor successful.
Not only does sending out DMCA notices required a great deal of time–time that most indie content creators do not have–but often times it’s ignored entirely by pirate sites that feign compliance.
Here’s a case in point. Using Google, a rights holder was able to find numerous illegal download links to their film “The Guest House.” Next step, get them removed–but that’s easier said than done. Take a look at how many steps it took–and how many advertising obstacles (i.e. revenue for the pirate) stood in the way of sending a single DMCA notice for a single link…and–despite all that effort–days later the link (and the pirated movie) remains online and available. 
Despite the fact the distributor followed all these steps and clicked past all these ads and submitted a DMCA takedown request days ago the pirated film is still streaming online. Meanwhile, this web pirate keeps making money–earning revenue thanks to brand name advertisers (like the U.S. Army?) and sex sites. The filmmaker makes ZERO. So much for the goal of protecting copyright holders in the digital age eh?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics
Google’s had a great week. On the heels of robust 3rd quarter revenue of 14.9 billion (net income of 2.97 billion), shares of its stock soared over the $1,000 mark for the first time in history making lots of folks in Mountain View (and investors everywhere) very happy. Yet while Google’s stock may have surged to new highs, it seems not much has changed when it comes to its anti-piracy priorities.
The tech titan has long been the target of anti-piracy activists like myself for its role in enabling and profiting from online piracy. The company’s culpabilities are many, but Google’s search engine has drawn much heat lately so it’s not surprising to see its flacks on the warpath fighting back spinning studies to counter that claim. In a recently published report “How Google Fights Piracy,” authors went so far as to claim that,“Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.”
I dissected that report’s disingenuous findings in an earlier blog post, but after yesterday’s financial news, I decided to conduct a little piracy “reality check” and discovered not much has changed at Google other than its stock price.
I came to this not-unexpected conclusion this morning after doing three quick searches using the search term “watch ________ online” (filling in the blank with a movie title). As my first “test” search I chose a Hollywood blockbuster, The Hunger Games. I put “watch Hunger Games online” into search and up popped the results shown below.
The first result was a paid Netflix ad and the second listing is a largely a spam site. However, when I clicked on the third result I found the entire film streaming online (for free). FYI this pirate website, VIOOZ seems impervious to DMCA requests…at least I couldn’t find were to send a request and WHOIS database results were a dead-end. It should also be noted that VIOOZ.co seems to have supplanted VIOOZ.eu, the domain name change being yet another example online pirate entrepreneurs’ never-ending game of hide-and-go-seek.
My second search was for another hit movie, “Ted.” While not on the same the scale as “The Hunger Games,” the Seth MacFarlane directed film was a box office smash bringing in a record 54.1 million its first weekend, a record for an R-rated comedy. As for the Google search results, what’s interesting is that it brought be to a site, http://www.primewire.ag/ which appears to be yet another reincarnation of 1Channel.ch which became letmewatchthis.ch–a chameleon-like black market online piracy operation that makes money from ads on its site.
Like most pirate websites–the more clicks, the more money they make. The site boasts links to 53,695 items, and that’s a lot of carrots to drive traffic and dollars their way.
Note in the screen capture shown below, in the left margin there’s a “support this site” plea–below it, an advertisement promoting a CBS sports broadcast for NCAA college football. Sadly this is yet another example of a major American brand indirectly sending cash the pirate’s way.
Other ads pop up any time you click anything. At any rate when I clicked through the results for “Ted” I immediately came to a link for a pirated download on the pirate cyberlocker Sockshare.com.
Checking the Google transparency report for primewire.ag I found that Google has received requests to remove more than 4,000 results (links) the site became active this past June. Like the VIOOZ site, this pirate portal ignores DMCA requests. Particularly cheeky is the verbiage contained in the website’s “intellectual property” statement:
Intellectual Property – General
1Channel.ch respects the rights of others, and prohibits the use of referenced material for any purpose other than that for which it is intended (where such use is lawful and free of civil liability or other constraint) and in such circumstances where possession of such material may have any adverse financial, prejudicial or any other effect on any other third party.
1Channel.ch is copyrighted, and all rights are reserved, as those are of the proprietors and those of the partners websites material referenced within. Anyone found imitating the site or stealing content from the site will be liable to prosecution. [emphasis added]
My morning’s third search was for the recent indie film, “A Perfect Ending.” Using the same search criteria, the top result led me straight to a pirated stream of the full movie online at VIOOZ.
My results are, of course, anecdotal. However, given the fact that Google’s top results (using obvious search terms) led me straight to pirated copies of these movies, it would seem my findings undercut repeated claims by Google, and their paid surrogates, that search isn’t a significant factor in leading consumers to pirated content online.
The tech-funded Computer and Communication Industry Association’s (CCIA) Vice President of Law & Policy Matt Schruers recently authored a study that claimed, “Search Engines Aren’t A Major Tool For Finding Copyright-Infringing Content.” Oddly the actual link to the study has been taken offline, but its author made his thesis clear when he said:
The available evidence suggests that search engines are not a particularly relevant tool for finding copyright infringing sites, or for infringing sites to find users.
I would suggest that Mr. Shruers clarify what he meant by “available evidence?” The evidence I found via quick searches was readily “available,” and pretty damning.
As its stock continues to climb, there’s no denying that Google is a giant among giants–but with success comes responsibility. There is no magic bullet, but admitting one has a problem is the first step in finding a solution. For real progress to be made, Google needs to stop employing evasive maneuvers to deflect blame and begin to devote more of its vast resources and innovative technology to implement real solutions to the piracy problem that its search engine helps sustain. To do so would be in everyone’s best interests, consumers and creators alike.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Politics, Tech
Piracy apologists would have us believe that it’s actually the content creators who are to blame when their movies, music and books are pirated. The rhetoric is always the same old, same old–a stale mantra of “outdated business models” and blame the victim verbiage.
This predictable tripe reemerged today on a new website called PiracyData.org that published (splashy but false) new data that supposedly supports the idea that piracy is Hollywood’s fault. According to a story in today’s Washington Post, the site was created by members of a libertarian “think tank” called the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a software engineer:
Piracydata.org was created by two tech policy researchers at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank, and by Matt Sherman, a software engineer based in New York. The team’s leader, Jerry Brito, says he got the idea for the site after a hearing in which major content holders criticized Google for failing to do enough to combat piracy. That criticism came despite the fact that Google has taken a number of steps to prevent illegal sharing of copyrighted works.
It should be noted that Brito’s Twitter account links to page on the Mercatus Center’s website featuring a book he co-authored, “Copyright Unbalanced, From Incentive to Excess.” Hmmm, not exactly a neutral party. On piracydata.org he and his co-authors posed this question:
Do people turn to piracy when the movies they want to watch are not available legally? We’re building a dataset to help answer that question.
The single web page includes a large graphic listing the week’s top ten torrented downloads and highlights the fact the finding the movies via legit sources online is difficult, if not impossible. Their takeaway? Piracy is the fault of the distributors, not online thieves. Too bad their original graphic (and data) contained errors–a fact belatedly pointed out by the Washington Post’s Timothy B. Lee in his story which featured the provocative headline, “Here’s why Hollywood should blame itself for its piracy problems.” Lee updated his piece (and changed his headline):
Correction: The original data supplied to us by PiracyData.org was inaccurate. It showed 1 movie available for rental and 4 available for purchase. In fact, 3 are available for rental and 6 are available for purchase. We regret the error…
It’s a shame Lee didn’t also disclose his former ties to the libertarian Cato Institute and Google.
In a statement, the MPPA added , “More than half of the films they cite are in fact available to stream or download, including films they claim are not,” Their spokesman also pointed out that the popular series “The Walking Dead” was pirated 500,000 times within 16 hours even though it was available for free steaming via AMC’s website.
One would think researchers working at an institution like George Mason University would be a tad more careful to verify their findings before posting them on the web…or maybe not. Perhaps accuracy was left on the cutting room floor in favor of a more pernicious agenda. To understand what I mean it’s worth taking a harder look at the Mercatus Center and its mission.
…Our mission is to generate knowledge and understanding of the institutions that affect the freedom to prosper and to find sustainable solutions that overcome the barriers preventing individuals from living free, prosperous, and peaceful lives.
Ironic that their mission includes the phrase “freedom to prosper.” I guess that applies to prosperous thieves like Kim Dotcom, and not those who make their livings creating content (films, music, books, and more). Piracydata.org’s founders seem to take umbrage at the the ongoing criticism directed toward Google for it’s lack of accountability and transparency regarding its role in profiting from and enabling online theft. Apparently the site’s founders aren’t offended by the fact that Google has made millions off stolen and counterfeit products over the years.
It’s too bad that piracydata.org isn’t more transparent about its sugar daddy. Like many of the astro-turf anti-copyright entities this one’s tentacles can be traced back to Google, the supposedly aggrieved party whose persecution by anti-piracy advocates that inspired the site’s creation in the first place. Brito makes no bones of his allegiance to Google’s position and was quoted in Politico story saying:
“When movies are unavailable, illegal sources may be the most relevant search results…Despite what the content industry might like to see, search engines are just telling it like it is.”
The Mercatus Center was founded in 1978 by the Richard Fink, who currently serves as an executive vice president and a member of the board of directors for Koch Industries, Inc. He also happens to lead the firm’s lobbying operations in Washington. The center receives 54% of its funding from foundations and according to sourcewatch.org donors include the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council, aka ALEC. What Silicon Valley tech giant is active in promoting ALEC’s agenda? Google is, at least according to this story published on the Daily Beast this past August:
The American Legislative Exchange Council once faced a backlash for its support of Stand Your Ground and voter ID laws, losing Coca-Cola and Kraft as members. Now the advocacy group is working with companies such as Google, Facebook, and Yelp, and taking more civil libertarian stances on technology issues than it has in the past…
…ALEC’s communications and technology task force, which includes representatives from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo. (The first two companies have not previously been reported to be involved with ALEC and have not responded to requests for comment.)
Google does mention its cozy relationship with the libertarian mission on its public policy page:
Our U.S. Public Policy and Government Affairs team provides support to a number of independent third-party organizations whose federally-focused work intersects in some way with technology and Internet policy. While this list is continually evolving, some examples of these organizations are: … Mercatus Center…
Given Google’s link to the Mercatus Center’s funding (and its libertarian philosophy) is it any wonder their new astro-turf site blames big, bad Hollywood for piracy instead of the thieves who steal and monetize its movies. Piracy is flourishing not because of Hollywood’s failure, but because criminals can make money monetizing stolen content.
Piracydata.org’s data dump is clearly yet another attempt by Google, and its stealth lobbyists (dressed as academics) to muddy the debate and undermine the rights of content creators. Dueling “studies” created using lobbyist’s cash is nothing new—but please, at least be honest about who’s funding the research OK? That would really be “telling it like it is.”
The business of online piracy has always been dependent on advertising revenue. Without ad income, many pirate sites would cease to exist. Now it appears that law enforcement in the UK is taking action against this type of criminal activity through an effort called “Operation Creative,” an alliance that include law enforcement, advertisers, publishing and music interests. According to a story published today by the BBC:
