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one attempts to discover exactly where the EFF gets its money, by reviewing the organization’s latest–though somewhat outdated–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.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
Photo via http://commons.wikimedia.org/
Piracy apologists love to pull out the Robin Hood card in order to justify their theft. After all who cares about all those rich people in Hollywood right? Wrong….a fact which the MPAA’s Chris Dodd pointed out in piece published in Variety this week:
Two million people get up every morning in all 50 states to go to work in good-paying jobs. Few will ever walk a red carpet, but their jobs are in jeopardy because of piracy.
When we talk about stolen property like pirated films or shows, I think the assumption is these are wealthy people, so what difference does it make if I steal from them? There’s not an understanding that 96% are hard-working, middle-income families paying mortgages and trying to educate their kids.
Like any other industry, the American film industry depends on its worker bees to make its products. In turn, those workers depend on a healthy film industry for their paychecks.
In fact, one of the reasons Hollywood became such a successful cog in the U.S. economy was because the studio system that emerged in the early part of the 20th century was really a factory system modeled after Henry Ford’s automobile assembly line. In Hollywood’s studio system, each worker played a specific role in the film production (or manufacturing) process.
At their peak, Hollywood studios were producing hundreds of movies each year. Last year, the six major studios produced only 120 movies. Contrast that with the 204 produced in 2006. Fewer films means fewer jobs on the production line for Hollywood’s 96%.
Looking back, it’s also worth noting that a thriving movie industry allowed some of the greatest American movies of all time to be made. As noted in Wikipedia:
Many film historians have remarked upon the many great works of cinema that emerged from this period of highly regimented film-making. One reason this was possible is that, with so many films being made, not every one had to be a big hit. A studio could gamble on a medium-budget feature with a good script and relatively unknown actors: Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles and often regarded as the greatest film of all time, fits that description.
The more income studio’s generate, the more chances they can take to finance less mainstream movies. When losses due to online piracy undermine the industry, it also undermines the diversity of choices that movie lovers appreciate. In lieu of funding less mainstream fare, studios stick with formulaic flicks that generate big bucks opening weekend (before piracy can dilute audiences). The sad thing is that we won’t know what we’re missing because it’s not made. In the future films like Citizen Kane may never see the light of day.
Of course, new ways of producing and distributing films online are taking hold, but even the new guard is suffering from the scourge of online piracy. As Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote in a recent letter to shareholders, “Piracy continues to be one of our biggest competitors.” He pointed to Popcorn Time, a platform that makes viewing pirated films as easy as watching one on Netflix as evidence of the damage being done.
Online piracy not only diminishes livelihoods, but consumer choices and unless we can limit the losses, the picture will only grow dimmer. In the end, we may well be left with only cute cat videos on YouTube to entertain us. Piracy hurts everyone.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy
For those of you who still depend on the Chilling Effects search to find your pirated content, don’t worry, the DMCA database is still alive and well, ready to offer you a streamlined way to find illegal content online. Earlier this month Torrent Freak headlines claimed that the archive had “censored itself” and warned that the move was “a telling example of how pressure from rightsholders causes a chilling effect on free speech.” Hyperbole much? Here’s the truth.
Chilling Effects has, for the time being, de-indexed “individual notice pages” from search engines results. In a blog post, the move was explained this way:
Given increased public attention on the project, the wide variety of notices and types of claims that we catalog, and the sheer number of notices included in Chilling Effects’ database, we decided to take the interim step of de-indexing the site’s individual notice pages from search engines’ search results. Now that we have taken this step, we are hard at work building new tools and workflows that will allow us to better achieve the balance we are constantly seeking to strike between our dual missions of transparency and educating the public (on the one hand) and the strongly-felt concerns of those who send takedown notices (on the other).
Sounds nice, but the real impact of this move on creators’ rights is minor. Neither Torrent Freak nor Chilling Effects mentioned that the “balance” the folks at Chilling Effects are trying to strike includes continuing to operate a search engine that provides a direct line to illegal content.
Chilling Effects is a Where to Watch for pirated movies
In fact, it’s so easy to use that Chilling Effects’ search engine should be called a “Where to Watch” for pirate movies. I’ve written about this fact before, but given the recent hyperbolic hullabaloo I’d thought I’d take another look to see if anything has really changed? The answer is NO.
Search results removed from Google are replaced by direct link to DMCA notice containing original pirate link.
Not only does the Chilling Effects database search engine make it easy to find pirated movies, its benefactor Google, still includes referral links to when its search results are removed due to DMCA notices. For both sites it’s business as usual.
As I wrote in an earlier post, here’s how Google makes sure users are not inconvenienced by DMCA removals:
- Search for a free (pirated) movie
- Review results and find one removed due to a DMCA notice, the link replaced by this statement:
- Click the link “read the DMCA complaint.”
- Arrive at a list that includes the missing pirate link along with a bunch of others infringing links (courtesy of Chilling Effects)
- Click one of the listed pirate links and go directly to (free) movie
Chilling Effects own search provides users with an uncluttered path to piracy.
Finding pirated music and movies via Google search requires persistence since one has to comb through various types of results to find actual live links. In contrast, hop over to Chilling Effects and voilà , most every result is a stripped down list of URLs reported for piracy. It’s a simple and direct path to pirate URLs that, in fact, are vetted by rightholders (via their DMCA notices).
After the Torrent Freak headlines hit the web I went to Chilling Effects and did a search for the recently released “Boyhood.” Using Chilling Effects’ search results, it only took me a couple of minutes to find a streaming version of the film online. Google and Chilling Effects remain partners in piracy, having perfected a shell game that makes a mockery of creators’ rights and the DMCA.
For now, Chilling Effects remains what it has long been–a site where pirate links are eternal.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Law, Piracy
Notorious piracy emporium, Pirate Bay is down–for now–after a raid on its servers by Swedish authorities, but what does that mean for the future of piracy?
If you read Caitlin Dewey’s piece in today’s Washington Post “You can take down Pirate Bay, but you can’t kill the Internet it created,” the ship has already sailed and creators may as well give up. Per Dewey:
…even if TPB doesn’t return, the politics and the conventions it advanced — that content should be free, and if you torrent, they can be! — will be very difficult to eradicate.
You may be able to shut down Pirate Bay, but good luck raiding the Internet that Pirate Bay created.
If she’s talking torrents, then yes, we’ll never eradicate them. The laissez-faire attitude of lawmakers over the past decade has allowed online theft to flourish un-checked and spawned a well-entrenched piracy eco-system. However, despite the sentiment Ms. Dewey suggests–all is not lost. Whether The Pirate Bay continues to exist is beside the point.
Content consumers are willing to pay; they just aren’t willing to wait
Consumers of piracy seem driven by two, somewhat separate, catalysts. On the one hand, people download content out of a desire to see, hear, or read it. This is the part of piracy that most people can empathize with, particularly when it comes to a TV show that might not be available where they live. Individuals who want to “stick it to the man” populate the other segment. They download stuff–not because they are necessarily fans–but because they feel entitled to free stuff. “F#*! Hollywood…information should be free” is their battle cry. They have neither appreciation nor concern for those they are stealing from–people who make their living by creating the films, music, and books we enjoy.
Now, obviously there’s not much we can do about the latter group of piracy aficionados, but with regard to the first group–the more important audience–we are doing something. Over the past few years there’s been an effort to develop new outlets to satisfy consumer entertainment demands. Most people who want access are willing to pay a reasonable amount for it. Netflix only costs $8.99 a month, or in modern terms, the cost is approximately = to 4 and a half cups of Starbucks (grande) coffee. In other words, it’s not a budget buster.
Not a Netflix subscriber, well check out the handy new search portal Wheretowatch.com to find out where you can find favorite TV Show or movie. When I searched for the BBC series “Broadchurch” I found I could watch it via Netflix, XBox, Amazon or Target. If I want to watch the acclaimed indie film “Pariah” I can rent or buy via the same outlets in addition to Flixster and iTunes.
The key here is to make it easy to find, reasonably priced and available worldwide. There’s still work to be done in achieving the latter, as territorial broadcast rights and release windows can still be a roadblock, but that is improving and I can see a future, that’s not far off, where day and date releases become the norm and release windows are synchronized across the globe. As I noted in an earlier post on this blog:
…we are seeing an evolution as to how release dates are managed. The notion of “territories” is quickly becoming obsolete–audiences are no longer regional, but global.
As for those who get off on grabbing free stuff (kinda like looters), that’s a mentality that will be difficult to change. The good news is that most people have better things to do than download torrents or click through dozens of ads to watch a crappy stream– so, if creators and distributors can continue to make progress on streamlining access, progress against piracy will continue to be made.
Of course, it also helps when the legal system can gently divert people into taking the legit path. Takedowns of sites like Pirate Bay help this effort. Operators of pirate torrent sites like The Pirate Bay or cyberlockers like Megaupload are not in the piracy business out of altruism–they’re in it to make money. Running a piracy website is profitable and those who do so deserve to be taken out of action. Other cogs in piracy’s profit machine–advertisers and payment processors–should also remain under scrutiny.
It would also help if our lawmakers worked on crafting legislation to help creators protect their livelihoods. Revisiting the terms for DMCA “safe harbor” might be a good place to begin.
Piracy remains a “well-entrenched” threat to a wide-range of content creators, but unlike Ms. Dewey, I am not ready to throw my hands up and say, “I give up.” Neither are most creators I know. We are not blind to the reality of today’s online culture that espouses a “free for me” attitude, but our livelihoods depend speaking out, and fighting back, and we will continue to do so.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
YouTube and Russian “aggregator,” piracy partners in crime?
When a bad guy steals your car stereo, to turn it into easy money, he often turn it over to a “fence” in exchange for quick cash. Wikipedia explains this criminal workflow this way:
A fence is an individual who knowingly buys stolen property for later resale, sometimes in a legitimate market. The fence thus acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen. As a verb, the word describes the behaviour of the thief in the transaction: The burglar fenced the stolen radio. This sense of the term came from thieves’ slang, first attested c. 1700, from the notion of such transactions taking place under defence of secrecy.[1]
The fence is able to make a profit with stolen merchandise because he is able to pay thieves a very low price for stolen goods…
It’s no surprise that in this digital age, criminals have turned their attention to dealing in stolen digital goods. Instead of car stereos thieves steal movies, music, etc. and, using the web advertising, convert it into income. It’s low risk way of making money and there’s a myriad of ways it can be done.
Deposed cyberlocker king Kim Dotcom did it with his Megaupload piracy pyramid scheme, but there are plenty of others who have perfected variations of this illicit business model along the way. Many, seemingly legit companies like Google have perfected the infrastructure and revenue formula so as to make it routine, right under our noses.
Most consider Google’s YouTube to be a raging success. After all, where else can you find the best cat videos or latest PR packages from ISIS terrorists in one place? It’s also a great place to “fence” stolen movies and music.
YouTube’s ads are ubiquitous and generate billions in profits, estimated to be over 1.9 billion for Google in 2013 alone. YouTube users can also share in (some of) the revenue if they set up an AdSense account and choose to monetize their uploads. According to a report in Barron’s, YouTube users make out pretty well:
…YouTube will bring in $5.9 billion in revenue this year, rising to $8.9 billion by 2016, with 53% of that paid out to users who provide the clips.
In cases where users upload work they actually own rights to, it’s great. Problem is, a lot of those people collectively pocketing 3.1 billion–in many cases–don’t own what they upload. These leeches set up channels, upload pirated content, and make money. Of course, YouTube as enabler-in-chief still pockets the majority of the profits, rightful ownership be damned.
When placing a myriad of advertisements adjacent or on videos, YouTube makes ZERO effort to vet the content for ownership. It doesn’t require any proof that uploaders own rights; it just assumes they will honor copyright law. Yeah, just like a fence assumes that every car stereo he receives wasn’t stolen from someone else.
When posed with the question as to whether it can “determine copyright ownership” YouTube justifies this hands off approach with this carefully crafted response:
YouTube isn’t able to mediate rights ownership disputes. When we receive a complete takedown notice, we remove the content as the law requires. When we receive a valid counter notification we forward it to the person who requested the removal. After this, it’s up to the parties involved to resolve the issue in court.
Mediating a dispute once something is uploaded is NOT equivalent to vetting content ownership prior to upload, yet YouTube apologists continue to claim that to do so would “stifle innovation” and “limit free expression” online. I’m not entirely sure how cracking down on thievery stifles innovation, but it makes for a good soundbite doesn’t it? How would vetting certain content before users are allowed to profit from it limit anything, aside from criminal behavior? Oh right, it could lower profits. That’s what this is really about.
YouTube claims be the broadcaster for the 21st century, yet can you imagine NBC airing a movie and earning income from advertising in the process without having cleared the rights prior to doing so? When my documentary aired on various PBS stations I had to document ownership and submit detailed paperwork that verified I had permission to use various works of music used throughout the piece. When we produced our feature film we had to purchase errors and omissions insurance and license all the music used in order to protect the rights of other creators.
These practices are the cost of doing business in the creative world yet YouTube doesn’t have to do the same? Why are companies like YouTube, that generate income by screening created by others, considered exempt from standard broadcast practices? Why is their bad business behavior exempt? Why are such practices on internet considered sacrosanct?
For Google, protecting innovation means protecting profits
It’s no wonder the powers that be at Google/YouTube fight tooth and nail against any effort to rein in this copyright-evading cash cow. Since enforcing copyright would put a serious dent in YouTube’s profits, you can bet that Google will move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening. Their apologists (and lobbyists) have mastered the spin that warn enforcing copyright (in a meaningful way) is a threat to innovation. In Google parlance innovation is merely a code for growing profits.
Other companies profit too. The graphic below illustrates how the Russian aggregator, Quiz Group, either creates its own pirate puppet users, or works with them to game the YouTube monetization system by monetizing pirated movies. By joining Quiz Group YouTube users don’t need an AdSense account. In exchange for giving up 20% of any income earned, they can easily earn money when by uploading illegal content.
Ford, Microsoft, CVS, LinkedIn, Dodge, North Face, Geico and more put money in pirate pockets
On its website, Quiz Group lays claim to 5 BILLION monthly views and more than 15,000 channels. I can only imagine how many of those billions of views come from stolen goods. Advertisements, 30 seconds and longer, from LinkedIn, Ford, Dodge Ram trucks, North Face stream before the full-movie appears. Cha’-ching…money, money, money…
This pirated movie was uploaded by a user who’s part of Quiz Group, a Russian aggregator that makes monetizing YouTube videos easy.
Surely YouTube has received thousands of DMCA notices linked to videos monetized by Quiz Group, but since it only penalizes individual users (and not the masterminds) Quiz Group can continue to rake in the dough alongside Google.
Quiz Group sports its own YouTube page and claims to be “YouTube certified” and on its own website recruits with this claim, offering to cut through any copyright red tape:
…we are aware of all the problems you may face around YouTube and we know the best solutions as well. We understand how it hurts, having third party claims, facing conflicts and resolving strikes. We have been through all these stories many times and learned our lessons based on the most complicated scenarios. We have converted our experience into effective tools, you may move forward smoothly and with a high confidence, grow really fast within YouTube environment.
Clearly YouTube’s standards aren’t particularly high if they allow a shadowy this Russian piracy-for-profit model to thrive. Perhaps YouTube’s standards for “certification” mandate moneymaking over respecting copyrights owned by others ?
I attempted to “join” Quiz Group to determine how they vet affiliates. In order to be considered, I had to give them access to a Google account. It took only seconds, but not surprisingly I was rejected for not having enough subscribers (10) nor views (1,000) within the last month.
Of course I’d like to speak with a Google representatives to ask why the company develops, and sustains business relationships with self-described “YouTube” channel aggregators like Quiz Group but folks at company headquarters won’t pick up phones or respond to emails from people like me. Stonewalling is another corporate skill they’ve mastered with virtual moats encircling their shiny corporate offices in Mountain View.
After all, why shouldn’t Google look the other way when this criminal enterprise is mutually beneficial?
For the record, I easily found other YouTube users linked to Quiz Group engaged in the same scheme (see example below). Given it took me only a couple searches to find them, I don’t imagine it’s stretching the truth to assume that a good number, if not the majority of Quiz Groups affiliates are in the business of making money off pirated uploads.
I wonder how North Face, Dodge, Amazon, Microsoft, Airborne, Geico, LinkedIn, CVS and Ford feel about their advertising appearing on these stolen movies? Are they OK with YouTube, Quiz Group and this pirate making money off stolen movies (and them)?
Why don’t advertisers pressure Google to do better? YouTube could start by applying the 3 strikes policy to those, like aggregators like Quiz Group, that routinely monetize infringing content, not just penalize the (often fake) users that upload it. There are also numerous other technological safeguards that could be implemented to prevent this abuse so why don’t advertisers demand better?
We constantly hear from representatives their industry, how concerned they are about ad sponsored piracy abuse. But, as I’ve noted repeatedly on this blog, so far the advertiser’s words are a million times louder than their actions. Industry reps could exert pressure to ensure ad profits go to rights holders, but it would require some effort–obviously more than they seem willing to give.
There are also tons of YouTube pirates who bypass third party aggregators and pocket cash directly via their own AdSense accounts. This isn’t the first time I’ve written about this scenario on YouTube. Time passes, but nothing changes.
Here’s a pirated copy of Paramount’s “Sliver” starring Sharon Stone. The film has been viewed over a million times earning profits for YouTube and the user who uploaded it without permission.
YouTube finds a Safe Harbor to protect its piracy profits
Aside from the advertisers, the only other way to exert pressure to change can come from Washington. Is this dirty profit scenario was what lawmakers had in mind when they crafted the “Safe Harbor” provisions of the DMCA. It’s one thing to offer service providers (like YouTube) protection from legal liability from “consequences of their users actions”, but does that also mean it’s OK to (knowingly) profit from illegal activity?
The DMCA states services providers have to “terminate” accounts of repeat infringers, but in the meantime let the tainted profits flow? It’s OK to be a criminal as long as you don’t get caught? This seems to be Google/ YouTube’s modus operandi.
I wonder if Congressman Darrell Issa, in his new role as chair of the subcommittee on the Internet, Courts, and Intellectual Property,will hold hearings on these types of nefarious business practices? He’s repeatedly voiced concern over patent trolls, what about pirate trolls? It’s been reported that discussion regarding copyright will remain the purview of the full committee, so perhaps such discussions will be handled there.
Until something changes, YouTube’s eco-system will remain a cesspool rather than a legitimate and laudable business model. For all the great stuff streaming on its pages, there’s a lot of s*&^ too…and because it’s YouTube practices business are intentionally nubilous, those who do follow the rules–like filmmakers and musicians–continue to be victimized. YouTube is the Wild West, a swamp of online fraud, where profits soar, often for those who are least deserving–morality be damned…
East Bay Ray calls out Google’s effort to close the door on an investigation into its bad business practices
Google may have the support of those organizations it helps fund like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy & Technology, but Attorney General Hood has the support of artists like East Bay Ray–and many others–who have seen their livelihoods leached away as the Google profit-machine churns online content and advertisements of dubious–often illegal–origin to fill its coffers.
