by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy, Tech
Google releases another self-serving piracy report
On Friday Google announced an update to last year’s “How Google Fights Piracy” that included this claim:
In October 2014, we have improved and refined the DMCA demotion signal in search results, increasing the effectiveness of just one tool rightsholders have at their disposal.
Given that last year’s report was little more than a puff-piece designed to deflect growing criticism that Google is, in fact, a major enabler of online piracy--and profits from it in various ways–this new report seems to be more Silicon Valley search giant spin.
Google’s piracy report begins by crowing about how many billions artists have made thanks to its YouTube platform. No mention, of course, how many billions Google has pocketed thanks to said content and the billions more it continues to earn off the millions of infringing video and music clips posted annually to the site. Take a look at YouTube any day of the week and you’ll find infringing content laden with advertisements. Where does that profit go? It ends up in the pirate’s pockets and Google coffers.
Yes, the company has instituted a Content ID system but remember it did so only after enormous pressure (and lawsuits) from those whose work was being ripped off right and left. Even that system puts the burden on creators to sign up and constantly monitor YouTube for infringements. Not every creators has the wherewithal, or the time, to act as a security guard for their own work. Wouldn’t we prefer they be creating more music or films?
Google uses the report to pat itself on the back for testimony given last March by Google’s Senior Copyright Policy Counsel Katherine Oyama before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet:
In our testimony, we note our own experiences with the notice-and-takedown process, and highlight its importance in a developing media landscape where online platforms are creating more and more opportunities for creators every year.
Great, so you’re helping create an online landscape that offers more opportunities to creators….sure, if you’re a creator of cat videos.
She also gave a rosy assessment of how well the DMCA works for everyone:
The DMCA’s shared responsibility approach works. Copyright holders identify infringement and,if they choose, request its removal. Upon notification, online service providers remove or disable access to the infringing material. This approach makes sense, as only copyright holders know what material they own, what they have licensed, and where they want their works to appear online. Service providers cannot by themselves determine whether a given use is infringing.
Perhaps the last line should read, “Service providers have chosen not to make any attempt to determine whether a given use is infringing even after its reported as being such.” As the RIAA noted in a point by point rebuttal rebuttal of her testimony:
The DMCA did not intend for service providers like Google to get away with indexing rogue sites again and again after clear notice of rampant
infringement, creating an endless source of frustration for copyright owners.
There’s no doubt that the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA has given companies like Google the freedom to build a business model dependent, to a large extent, on copyright infringement to fuel its growth. It’s a landscape where content creators are at a distinct disadvantage from the get go. In the online world, filmmakers, musicians and other creators–and not the uploader–have to prove they are the rightful owners of uploaded content. In what other universe are property owners at such a disadvantage? If Google wants to use another company’s software in one of its products, do its engineers just take it when another company owns rights to it? Probably not. They seek a license (or buy the company outright).
But I digress…back to Google’s updated report. Google touts how efficient and streamlined its online content removal process is and notes that 80 companies have access to a “trusted submitter” program which streamlines the process of notice and takedown:
In addition to the public content removal web form for copyright owners who have a proven track record of submitting accurate notices and who have a consistent need to submit thousands of URLs each day, Google created the Trusted Copyright Removal Program for Web Search (TCRP). This program streamlines the submission process, allowing copyright owners or their enforcement agents to submit large volumes of URLs on a consistent basis. There are now more than 80 TCRP partners, who together submit the vast majority of notices every year.
What about those of us who don’t have access to this TCRP program? There are plenty of content creators who find their work pirated repeatedly on various Google platforms, from Blogger to search, who are forced to send in DMCA notices via a web form over and over again. (FYI this “efficient” form doesn’t even allow for auto-fill of submitters name and contact information). I’ve written about how inefficient Google’s takedown procedure is for those of us who aren’t “trusted submitters” and frankly, it sucks. I included this slide show in a post I wrote earlier this year explaining just how difficult it was to remove pirated content from Google’s Blogger platform. Efficient is not an adjective I would use.
[rev_slider Google_DMCA_circus]
In another demonstration of how Google is adept at transforming a sow’s ear into a silk purse, the report touts the rise in takedown requests as a great thing, not a sign of just how rampant online theft is on Google platforms:
Since launching new submission tools for copyright owners and their agents in 2011, we have seen remarkable growth in the number of pages that copyright owners have asked us to remove from search results. [emphasis added] In fact, today we receive removal requests for more URLs every week than we did in the twelve years from 1998 to 2010 combined. At the same time, Google is processing the notices we receive for Search faster than ever before—currently, on average, in less than six hours.
Rather than celebrate how they’ve responded to a growth in the number of takedown notices received and processed (not something to brag about IMHO) why not work toward creating an online environment where it would not be necessary for rights holders to send DMCA notices time and time again, often for the same pirate website and duplicate infringing links? As the RIAA noted in its response to Oyama’s testimony:
… we’ve sent more than 2 million notices to Google regarding illegal site mp3skull.com, and yet Google still lists mp3skull at the top of search results when users search for an artist’s name + song title + ‘download.’ Google still has a lot of work to do in this area.
In its report Google repeats its tired claim that “search is not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites.” Maybe in Google’s world, but not in the real one. As the MPAA study, Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy points out:
Search is an important resource for consumers when they seek new content online, especially for the first time. 74% of consumers surveyed cited using a search engine as either a discovery or navigational tool in their initial viewing sessions on domains with infringing content.
No matter how Google frames it, the basic truth is that Google search remains a path to piracy, a fact even piracy websites acknowledge and as I noted in an earlier blog post.
In its sidebar, the website (primewire.ag) has posted a poll asking this question: How did you find us through our new name?
According to the results users turned, in large numbers, to that tried and true source for pirated content worldwide, Google search. Nearly 200,000 (29.88 %) users chose Google as their path to the site, second only to word of mouth which took top honors at 43%. While the poll is not scientific, it does provide more anecdotal evidence to what most believe to be true, Google is a major sign post on the path to online piracy. Even when pirate sites run into trouble with other pirates hacking and stealing their domains (ironic isn’t it), leave it to Google to come to the rescue.
Yes, Google still does have a lot of work to do in this area. Until then, reports like the “update” released last week mean nothing beyond fuel for the PR spin machine. The proof is in the pudding and right now the ingredients are still in the box, on the shelf, waiting for Google to get real in the fight against online piracy (for profit).
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Photography
The DMCA Protects Thieves at the Expense of Creators
Photographer Daniel Foster has written a great post on petapixel.com in which he documents (once again) how creators–in this instance photographers–are at a real disadvantage when it comes to protecting their work from online thieves. In his piece, “Is Etsy the New Silk Road for Copyright Infringement?” Foster explains how Etsy (an e-commerce site where users can sell hand-made and vintage merchandise) looks the other way when it comes to cracking down on copyright abuse.
Etsy is selling thousands of stolen photos and doesn’t seem to care. Their system lets sellers hide their contact information, and Etsy will not disclose the identities of sellers stealing work even after being presented with clear evidence.
Etsy is in essence the new Silk Road for copyright infringement
Foster arrives at this conclusion after discovering an Etsy entrepreneur was using one of his photographs on mouse pad she was selling. After wending his way through the legal maze that is the DMCA process, and successfully having the infringing item removed from Etsy, Foster wanted to go a step further. He wanted to contact the seller who was, apparently, offering numerous other products that include stolen photographs. Foster notes, “…she seems to be stealing thousands of photos from other photographers, and Etsy is letting her get away with it.” The seller, Kharma Lu, was selling her products as “Liilproducts” and offered no contact information. While Etsy removed the infringing mousepad, it refused to provide Foster with any additional information regarding the seller, saying it would do so only if a subpoena is issued.
This is the same problem that arises when a copyright holder receives a false counter-notice, say on YouTube. YouTube will repost the infringing content and the rights holders are forced to go to court to enforce their rights. We constantly hear about DMCA abuse, but no one mentions the fact that the DMCA process is tilted in favor of thieves as ultimately those without the deep pockets required to go to court cannot enforce (valid) claims.
Fosters summarized his frustrations this way:
In order to simply find out who is stealing my photo, I would have to a) hire an attorney, b) go to court and c) request a subpoena for Etsy. Assuming Etsy did not challenge the subpoena, it would cost at least $3,000- $5,000 just to get Kharma Lu’s address.
LiilProducts’ shop is still active, even after I reported the copyright infringement to Etsy. Kharma Lu appears to have gotten away scot-free thanks to Etsy’s protection. This just isn’t right.
Etsy, of course, is not alone in its response. YouTube, or any other site profiting off stolen content, will cite the DMCA and refuse to provide contact information for its users, even when they are clearly violating the law. These sites do nothing to ensure that its users comply with copyright law prior to uploading or sharing content. The DMCA does provide web hosts with this glaring loophole thanks to its “safe harbor” provision. As explained on the Google-funded Chilling Effects website:
The safe harbor provisions permit a copyright owner to subpoena the identity of the individual allegedly responsible for the infringing activities. [512(h)] Such a subpoena is granted on the condition that the information about the individual’s identity will only be used in relation to the protection of the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner. [512(h)(2)(C)]
Until the law is changed creators are stuck with this scenario. I suggest you read Foster’s full piece here to get the full picture as to how this can impact individual creators. His narrative provides just one more example of an online eco-system where the rights of creators are subsumed by the rights of thieves. I should note that Foster has also recently founded PIXSY, a much-needed service that promises to help photographers safeguard their work against copyright infringement. You can find out more about Pixy here.
Note: When I checked LiilProducts page on Etsy this morning it seems that Foster may have (indirectly) gotten his wish. According to the site, “Liilproducts is taking a short break.” 🙂
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Piracy
Google’s role in online piracy drew headlines recently when News Corps Chief Executive Robert Thomson wrote a letter to European Commissioner for Competition Joaquín Almunia asking that the agency reconsider Google’s February tentative settlement with European Commission to avoid anti-trust charges over its search practices. In it he criticized Google for its stranglehold over online search and its role as a “platform for piracy.”
The shining vision of Google’s founders has been replaced by a cynical management, which offers advertisers impressively precise data about users and content usage, but has been a platform for piracy and the spread of malicious networks, all while driving more traffic and online advertising dollars to Google. A company that boasts about its ability to track traffic chooses to ignore the unlawful and unsavoury content that surfaces after the simplest of searches. Google has been remarkably successful in its ability to monetize users, but has not shown the willingness, even though it clearly has the ability, to respect fundamental property rights.
In snide response, Google posted its own “Letter to Rupert” (a reference to News Corp’s own controversial and bombastic owner, Rupert Murdoch) on its European policy blog. Rachel Whetstone of SVP Global Communications penned the letter on behalf of Google to rebut Thomson’s charges point by point. Her first salvo is unintentionally ironic:
Access to information in any given country, particularly news content, used to be controlled by a relatively small number of media organizations. Today, people have far greater choice. That has had a profound impact on newspapers, who face much stiffer competition for people’s attention and for advertising Euros.
It seems that in Ms. Whetstone’s view, monopolies are a bad thing if we’re talking about the media, but OK if we’re talking about Google? As Jack Smith writes in a piece for betabeat.com, “Why Google’s Reaction to the News Corp Letter Should Terrify the News Industry:”
But when we think of the news ecosystem, we often forget the one organization to rule them all: Google.
Google is, after all, the master aggregator, curating a list of searchable content — relatively none of which is their own — and making money by putting ads against it.
Predictably Ms. Whetstone also dredges up tired Google talking points to defend the company against charges that it’s a “platform” for piracy:
News Corp:
Google is a “platform for piracy and the spread of malicious networks” and “a company that boasts about its ability to track traffic [but] chooses to ignore the unlawful and unsavoury content that surfaces after the simplest of searches”
Google:
Google has done more than almost any other company to help tackle online piracy.
- Search: In 2013 we removed 222 million web pages from Google Search due to copyright infringement. The average take-down time is now just six hours. And we downgrade websites that regularly violate copyright in our search rankings.
- Video: We’ve invested tens of millions of dollars in innovative technology — called ContentID — to tackle piracy on YouTube.
What’s conveniently missing from Ms. Whetstone’s response is the acknowledgement that the only reason Google does “more” to tackle piracy is actually due its own bad business practices.
She trumpets the fact Google removed 222 million pages from its search results. Shouldn’t she be asking why there are 222 million pages worthy of removal in the first place? Instead of crowing about how many DMCA notices Google responds to each month, why aren’t its engineers be tweaking algorithms to reduce the number of poison links that appear in the first place? Talk about trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
The fact is that Google does “more than almost any other company” to enable and encourage (and profit from) online piracy. For Google it all comes down to simple math. Removing millions links to infringing and illegal content is more profitable than blocking them in the first place.
The massive takedown numbers Google brags about are the result of its failures, not leadership.
As Thomson’s points out:
The company [Google] has evolved from a wonderfully feisty, creative Silicon Valley startup to a vast, powerful, often unaccountable bureaucracy, which is sometimes contemptuous of intellectual property and routinely configures its search results in a manner that is far from objective.
It would appear that News Corp’s letter, along with blowback from other European stake-holders has resulted in the collapse of the proposed settlement . This is a good thing. As Jack Smith notes in beatabeat.com:
Mr. Thomson’s complaint against Google is actually pretty typical of what critics and the tech media have been saying for years: as users begin to move toward social and search for their news, those platforms gain an enormous level of control over what we see, and we have no way of holding them accountable.
One more thing I’d like to point out about Ms. Whetstone’s letter. As evidence to bolster her claim the Google is a leader in the fight against online piracy she links to piece of propaganda the company published in the form of the report, “How Google Fights Piracy.”
I wrote a point by point rebuttal when this so-called “report” was issued last September and thought it worthwhile to repost here as a reminder that Google’s rhetoric about fighting piracy is based on platitudes, not performance.
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Reposted from 9/16/13:[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]
Claiming to be a “leader” in the fight against piracy is Google’s first mistake
This past week Google issued a report, “How Google Fights Piracy,” in which the tech giant attempts to explain what a great job it’s doing leading battle against online piracy. After reading it I think a more accurate title would be “Why Google Shouldn’t Have to Fight Piracy Because it Offers so Much Other Good Stuff.”
While the report does outline various positive steps Google’s taken (under duress) to mitigate its role in incentivizing and enabling piracy, most of the document reads more like an evangelical tome as to how their innovations have benefited content creators, blunting any collateral damage that may have occurred. In other words, let’s overlook the bad in favor of the good…
On a personal note, one line I found particularly galling was: “Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.” The claim that Google has been a “leader” in any way in the fight against online piracy is chutzpah at its best. A more accurate characterization would be that–after years of obfuscation and inaction–Google’s finally taking (some) action. Never mind that such efforts are long overdue and may never have happened had their nefarious business model (profiting off content theft) not been exposed to the light of day.
In an effort to burnish their tarnished image, the authors resort to repeating well-worn and disingenuous Google-spawned memes (which I’ve repeatedly deconstructed on this blog). These include:
- YouTube makes money for artists so there’s no need to provide a transparent accounting.
- DMCA abuse is a considerable problem.
- Search is “not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites.”
- Google is committed to “rooting out and ejecting rogue sites” from AdSense.
- Google quickly and efficiently terminates Blogger websites that feature pirated content.
I would counter that Google should be doing much more, including:
- Offer complete transparency with its YouTube content monetization accounting. It shouldn’t be opaque. Provide content owners with an accounting breakdown for each and every piece of claimed content. Reveal precisely how much Google makes monetizing the work of others? Employ more safeguards to prevent pirates from using YouTube as a stepping-stone to infringing content and do more to prevent bogus claims that allow criminal users to earn money by uploading content they do not own.
- Stop claiming that Google search isn’t an important link to pirated content and review and remove sites that are in the business of trafficking in pirated content. Allow others into the mysterious “Trusted Copyright Removal Program for Web Search (TCRP).” After al, it’s those with the fewest resources (like independent filmmakers and musicians) that have the least access to takedown resources and could benefit the most from access to a such a (supposedly) streamlined process.
- Offer more transparency as to where AdSense revenues come from and what sites have had accounts disabled.
- Quickly remove Blogger websites have been reported (and verified) for trafficking in pirated content.
YouTube
Google’s report begins with a warm and fuzzy anecdote about the previously unknown Korean K-pop “artist” Psy whose viral video “Gangnam Style” became an online sensation and generated more than 8 million dollars in ad “deals” in addition to having been purchased “digitally millions of times.” According to a footnote, the figures quoted come from an article in New York Magazine, “Gangnam-Buster Profits,” It’s worth noting that along with Psy’s profits, Google’s bank account did pretty well too:
Number of YouTube views of the “Gangnam Style” video (as of 1 p.m., November 30): 853,942,076
Standard rate YouTube pays to video owners for every 1,000 views: $2
Estimated total YouTube revenue received by Team Psy: $1,707,884.15
YouTube’s estimated cut: $1,366,307.32
(Based on rates provided by Jason Calacanis, CEO of Mahalo, a top YouTube partner.)
I’m not sure what the report authors meant when they wrote “8 million dollars in ad deals” as there’s no documentation to back that claim up…perhaps they were confused and mixed up deals with YouTube “views?” Even though the actual figures quoted are at best guesses, there’s no denying that the video was a YouTube sensation and made mega-bucks for both the artist and Google–but so what? What does that really have to do with explaining Google’s anti-piracy efforts? The answer is nothing.
The tale of this outlier merely seems designed to deflect attention (and disgust) away from Google’s long-standing role in promoting, and profiting from, content theft. No one’s saying that YouTube doesn’t offer opportunity to content creators–but with opportunity comes responsibility–and that’s where Google still has far to go.
I’ve written previously about the positive aspects of YouTube Content ID and monetization, but there remains that nagging question Google fails to address–transparency. As demonstrated by our dependence on “guesstimates” to calculate the Gangnam Style video’s possible profits, why does Google still refuse to offer content owners specific information about how much money is being made from their work?
Sure, content owners can see how much they earn, but how much does Google take off the top? How much is earned per view, etc? Such basic information has never been made clear. Nor are breakdowns offered when there are multiple claimants on a video (i.e. movie mash-up with music from another artist). Why does Google refuse to offer a “transparent” accounting breakdown of just how much everyone makes off advertising on claimed content? What’s there to hide?
Uploads on YouTube that feature links to infringing downloads
Also, try as they might to focus on the positives, YouTube is also still a conduit for illegal activity. Not only does the site provide online pirates with a convenient means to advertise their illegal download links (on other sites) but it also allows thieves (content leeches) to earn income by monetizing bogus claims.
Why doesn’t Google do more on this front? Simple answer, monetized uploads make them money. Who cares what the uploaded file actually is and who owns it (never mind the advertisers being ripped off paying for adjacent ads). Google/YouTube pays these parasitic pirates and pockets more profit for themselves.
Google Search
When it comes to reporting on the role Google’s search engine plays in promoting piracy, the report report borrows heavily from the recent (Google-funded) study that alleges “search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.” Both that study and this report concluded that better SEO optimization on the part of content creators is all that’s required to fix the problem. Given Google’s report merely repeats talking points from the CCIA repeating part of my response seems appropriate:
Sorry, but I read the entire paper and found no evidence to support this. Sure, lots of downloaders bypass search because they are experienced downloaders and know how to go to Pirate Bay or Filestube to find what they’re looking for, but where did they get their start? Perhaps it’s better to think of search engines like Google as a “gateway” to finding pirated content online.
Google search leads to illegal downloads, counterfeit products, illegal pharmacies and more. Clearly the search giant can de-list sites engaged in unlawful behavior (like child pornography) but rather than do so in this case, its proxy (the CIAA) gins up headlines to muddy the waters, deflect and obfuscate the real issues at play.
If Google were a brick and mortar mall featuring stores selling bootleg DVDs authorities would step in a force them to shut down the illegal enterprises, but when it comes to the online world the “tech” industry’s constant refrain is that the need to “innovate” trumps the need to do what’s right. Yet this debate isn’t really about protecting innovation, that’s simply tech-speak for protecting the industry’s bottom line (at the expense of those other innovators, content creators).
Since Google deems search to “not be a major driver of traffic to pirate sites” one wonders why in the same breath, the company touts how efficiently it responds to the 4 million weekly requests it receives in a report on its efforts to fight piracy?
…today we receive removal requests for more URLs every week than we did in the twelve years from 1998 to 2010 combined. At the same time, Google is processing the notices we receive for Search faster than ever before—currently, on average, in less than six hours.
Google has a strong track record of developing solutions that scale efficiently. The trend line is striking—from more than three million pages for all of 2011 to more than 4 million pages per week today. As the numbers continue to swell, it becomes both more difficult and more important to detect and pick out the abusive [emphasis added] and erroneous removal notices.
This so-called DMCA “abuse” is another tired red herring. Google routinely employs to deflect attention from the 4 million pages per week of mostly legitimate ones. Given the huge volume of takedown requests Google receives it’s no surprise there are errors, but the collective “damage” done by mistaken DMCA notices does not begin to compare to the damage piracy has on content creators. However, Google would like us to believe otherwise. As I wrote in an earlier post:
Piracy apologists like to focus on erroneous takedowns and highlight stories whereby a 9 year-old in Finland had her computer confiscated, or a grandmother in Colorado had her ISP account wrongfully suspended. Certainly mistakes happen, and when they do it’s unfortunate, but they are few and far between when compared with the cumulative harm being done to those whose livelihoods are damaged by rampant online theft. For every search result removed in error there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, removed for valid reasons. Sensationalistic anecdotes make for splashy headlines and provide convenient red herrings for those who defend the piracy status quo–big bad Hollywood versus the grandmothers of the world–but meanwhile the genuine stories documenting piracy’s ruin are routinely minimized or ignored.
Also lost in this debate is the fact that if one takes the time to read the DMCA, it’s easy to see that the law actually favors the reported party, not the other way around. If a site has been removed in error, the owner can use the Google website to file a counter-claim with a click of a mouse. That immediately puts the onus on the party that filed the original DMCA request to go to court and prove the legitimacy of their claim. If that next step isn’t taken, the takedown becomes moot. Filing a court case is a costly endeavor so it’s unlikely that those whose file false DMCA claims, whether in error or purposely, would bother to spend money to enforce a bogus DMCA. Conversely, those content creators who don’t have deep pockets have little recourse when it comes to enforcing a valid DMCA takedown if the other party, representing an infringing (pirate) website, chooses to file a counter-claim.
Chilling the rights of creators who attempt to protect their work from theft
Demonstrating a (selective) dedication to transparency and warning hat DMCA abuse can be a “pretext for censorship,” Google touts the fact that copies of all DMCA notices received are posted on ChillingEffects.org, an online “clearinghouse” operated by a various legal clinics that depend heavily on Google donations for financial support.
According to their website, “Chilling Effects aims to support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats,” but it appears they’re not too interested in the threat that illegal content theft has on the livelihoods of musicians, filmmakers, authors, etc. From the beginning, Google’s posting of DMCA notices on Chilling Effects seems designed to intimidate those whose rights are being trampled upon. In this scenario the only thing being “chilled” is the right of content creators to protect their work from theft in order to make a living.
Google also claims to lower the rankings of sites that are repeatedly reported for content theft (another questionable claim), but justifies the fact it refuses to remove such sites, like the notorious Pirate Bay, entirely.
While we use the number of valid copyright removal notices as a signal for ranking purposes, we do not remove pages from results unless we receive a specific removal request for the page. As shown on the Transparency Report, we generally receive removal notices for a very small portion of the pages on a site. Even for the websites that have received the highest numbers of notices, the number of noticed pages is typically only a tiny fraction of the total number of pages on the site. It would be inappropriate to remove entire sites under these circumstances.
I should add here that when I checked today and did a search for the movie ” a ‘Perfect Ending’ download” the second result (after a paid Netflix link) was none other than a torrent on the Pirate Bay. So much for re-ranking pirate sites eh?
Why is it inappropriate to remove a site that routinely engages in illegal activity? If a brick and mortar store’s merchandise routinely includes stolen goods it would be put out of business. Why does Google hold sites like Pirate Bay in such high regard? Does every single infringing torrent on Pirate Bay have to reported for Google to consider blocking it? Is there a tipping point, ever?
AdSense
I could only shake my head when I read that Google claims to be the industry leader when it comes to “following the money.” When I first began blogging about the link between online piracy and profit when my film was released in 2010, Google wouldn’t even admit there was a problem. Finally, after having a spotlight shined on their dubious sources of profit, Google has been forced to take action–but a leader they ain’t.
Despite the claim that “Google does not want to be in business with rogue sites specializing in piracy” they’ve yet to provide any documentation to support it. One nugget in the report noted, “…we find that AdSense ads appear on far fewer than 1% of the pages that copyright owners identify in copyright removal notices for Search.” Does this mean that Google is screening the reported pages for AdSense accounts before removing the link from its search engine? If so, in the name of “transparency” it would be great to see these results documented. Speaking of “transparency,” how about letting us “follow the money” to Google’s own bank account. Just how much money has Google made off advertising on rogue sites over the years?
In my experience with AdSense links were often removed while the site (and its AdSense ads) on other illegal downloads remained active, but looking around the web it does seem that fewer AdSense sponsored ads appear on pirate websites. I’m thankful some progress appears to have been made, but for Google to infer that it acted willingly to clean up its dirty laundry and has become leader in the battle against ad-sponsored piracy is just absurd.
Blogger
Last but not least we come to Google’s Blogger hosted websites, a go-to (free) platform favored by web pirates around the world. According to the report, Google’s efforts to keep the Blogger platform pirate-free should earn the company another feather in its cap.
Blogger is Google’s free blog publishing platform, which enables users to create and update blogs. We remain vigilant against use of the Blogger platform by pirates looking to set up a free website. Consistent with other Google products that host user-uploaded content, we will remove infringing blog posts when properly notified by a copyright owner, and will terminate the entire blog where multiple complaints establish it as a repeat infringer.
Blogger has also created an automated bulk submission tool for copyright owners who have a track record of reliable submissions and a regular need to submit large volumes of takedown notices. This tool allows qualified copyright owners to obtain rapid removals of infringing posts appearing on Blogger.
Sounds good, but as I’ve written many times previously on this blog, the truth with regard to Blogger-hosted websites is not so rosy. Also, to be honest, Google’s “automated” bulk submission tool is a time-consuming pain. Why not give content creators a Copyright Management Account that allows for bulk reporting of Blogger sites and search links? Why should continually have to fill out my name, company, email, etc. each and every time I have more blogger sites and pirate search links to report? Actually sending an email to Google would be much faster but that’s not allowed. Ironic that the now defunct Megaupload made it easier to send DMCA notices than Google does…
Google’s online removal process is time consuming. Sending an email would be much more efficient.
More significant is the fact that, in my experience, the word “rapid” should not be part of Google’s lexicon when it comes to targeting piracy on Blogger sites. Despite repeated reports of piracy and obvious and repeated copyright infringement, many Blogger pirate sites remain online. I will be posting a follow-up on this subject soon.
Google-hosted Blogger (blogspot.com) websites are a pirate favorite
There’s no doubt that Google has revolutionized the online world in a variety of positive ways but when it comes to its role fertilizing online piracy, the company has been spinning and deflecting its way through the a minefield for the better part of a decade. Thanks to outside pressure the situation has finally begun to improve, but there’s still much to be done before Google can rightfully claim to be a leader in the fight against online piracy.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Photography, Politics, Tech
Reddit and Vanity Fair are both owned by Condé Nast
The Internet’s dark side, how much is enough?
The recent theft and online release of a number of female celebrities’ private photographs is only the most recent link in a chain of online abuse that stretches across the globe. In this instance, the only reason it grabbed headlines and gained its own juvenile hashtag (#Fappening2014) was because the victim list was a who’s who of high-profile Hollywood actresses. Some characterized the release of the stolen photos as being an isolated incident, a product of the dark recesses of the Internet, of a lone sick-o hacker. If only that were true. The sad fact is that women (and men) are subjected to online attacks like this everyday.
This type of digital damage, a form of virtual sexual assault, a type of revenge porn, needs to be seen for what it is–a crime. Unfortunately it’s one that, more often than not, goes unpunished. Most women (and men) who are victimized by these networks of anonymous cowards don’t have the resources to fight back. Even when they do–as in the case of Jennifer Lawrence, this episode’s most prominent victim–mechanisms to combat this type of digital abuse are limited. The FBI claims to be investigating, but what are its agents doing about the not-so-famous women whose photos end up shared and used as click-bait on seamy forums (and sub-forums) hosted by sites like Reddit? Do victims of these crimes have any options to fight back?
In the short term Lawrence and the hacker’s other victims are employing the only tool available to them, the tired old DMCA notice. The DMCA allows copyright holders to demand that content removed from a hosting website by claiming copyright infringement. Of course, only sites beholden to U.S. law are obligated to remove “infringing” content and most of the sites that traffic in stolen content are hosted offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law.
In the past Reddit, owned by publishing giant Condé Nast, often deflected DMCA notices, instead advising senders to contact the actual host of the link to request takedowns. Yet in the wake of this latest onslaught, site administrators have changed their tune. Why now? Why are stolen nude selfies of famous actresses more worthy than similar images stolen (and posted) from private citizens? I also wonder how receptive these actresses will be next time Vanity Fair comes a calling for them to do their annual Hollywood issue? Could that have influenced Reddit’s decision-making?
Reddit administrators of course made no mention of Condé Nast’s corporate interests in explaining their decision to disable the /r/TheFappening (hacked image thread) and related subreddits:
These subreddits were of course the focal point for the sharing of these stolen photos. The images which were DMCAd were continually being reposted constantly on the subreddit. We would takedown images (thumbnails) in response to those DMCAs, but it quickly devolved into a game of whack-a-mole. We’d execute a takedown, someone would adjust, reupload, and then repeat. This same practice was occurring with the underage photos, requiring our constant intervention. The mods were doing their best to keep things under control and in line with the site rules, but problems were still constantly overflowing back to us. Additionally, many nefarious parties recognized the popularity of these images, and started spamming them in various ways and attempting to infect or scam users viewing them. It became obvious that we were either going to have to watch these subreddits constantly, or shut them down. We chose the latter. It’s obviously not going to solve the problem entirely, but it will at least mitigate the constant issues we were facing. This was an extreme circumstance, and we used the best judgement we could in response.
As of now, this explanatory post on Reddit has more than 9,o00 responses, pro and con. In another blog post on the issue that featured a lofty headline, “Every Man Is Responsible For His Own Soul” a Reddit administrator named Yishan explained their reasoning this way.
While current US law does not prohibit linking to stolen materials, we deplore the theft of these images and we do not condone their widespread distribution. Nevertheless, reddit’s platform is structurally based on the ability for people to distribute, promote, and highlight textual materials as well as links to images and other media. We understand the harm that misusing our site does to the victims of this theft, and we deeply sympathize. Having said that, we are unlikely to make changes to our existing site content policies in response to this specific event.
The reason is because we consider ourselves not just a company running a website where one can post links and discuss them, but the government of a new type of community. The role and responsibility of a government differs from that of a private corporation, in that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers.
So, hands off until really, really famous people are involved? Only “change our content policies” when people can afford to hire legal representation with teeth? Reddit operators claim that above all else, they are in the business of protecting “free speech.” That is, apparently, until said “free speech” gets them in hot water and attracts unwanted scrutiny. Timothy B. Lee explored this contradiction in a post on Vox, “Why Reddit just banned a community devoted to sharing celebrity nudes”:
Reddit critics also accuse the site of being unduly influenced by media attention. For example, Reddit used to have a subreddit called /r/jailbait that — unsurprisingly — attracted pornographic images of underage women. It was popular enough to win a “subreddit of the year” vote in 2008. It was shut down only after it was the subject of unflattering coverage on CNN. Reddit also banned a subreddit called /r/creepshots, dedicated to “upskirt” photographs, after a Gawker expose on its founder. But other subreddits with equally disturbing content but less media attention remain open for business.
It’s important to note that Reddit’s “business” is ad-based. And, like so many enterprises on the web, attracting users by offering access to tainted goods. T.C. Sottek writing for The Verge pulls no punches, characterizes Reddit as a “failed state:”
…Reddit feels really bad that your stolen nude photos are being shared all over its website, but won’t do anything about it unless you’re privileged enough to understand the copyright system or able to afford a lawyer who does. And unlike (many) governments, Reddit has profit motives — it makes money when people share nude photos because men are pervs and there’s a huge audience out there for naked women, perhaps especially for naked women who haven’t given us consent to share their bodies.
…If Reddit wants to be thought of as a government, we’ll call it what it is: a failed state, unable to control what happens within its borders. At minimum, Reddit is a kleptocracy that speaks to lofty virtues while profiting from vice. It might be forgivable if we were talking about taxing cigarettes and booze, but we’re not talking about that. What we’re talking about is more like sexual assault, condoned by a state that earns revenue from it. “Reddit doesn’t have much of an interest in banning questionable content,” Wong wrote last year. “‘Family-friendly’ is out, ‘edgy’ is in.” Are those the words of a president, or a pimp?
Yishan‘s pompous post offers the notion that Reddit should be thought of as “the government of a new type of community…that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers,” Of course those lofty, utopian guiding principles are quickly abandoned when bad publicity threatens to undermine the site’s net-worth. Funny how quickly the illusion of (ill-conceived) idealism can be shattered by cold, hard cash. The truth is that Reddit’s days as a freewheeling cesspool may be numbered if hopes to succeed with efforts to transform itself into a larger (legitimate) moneymaking enterprise. As Mike Issac explains in a piece for today’s New York Times:
…The site has lately redoubled its efforts to become a thriving, profitable business, stepping up its advertising efforts and going on a hiring spree.
“The Achilles’ heel for a lot of these sites is that their plans to monetize themselves often directly affect how they structure their platforms,” said Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy advocacy group.
Reddit is also reportedly in the process of raising more than $50 million in venture capital, according to the technology site Re/code, which could value the company at upward of half a billion dollars.
Reddit, then, may have to rethink its classic laissez-faire approach to content, especially if it wants to be courted by big-budget advertisers.
While market influences may be one factor in influencing a limited clean up of websites like Reddit, isn’t it time to ask whether our laws need to be updated to better manage this type of online crime? Free speech is often touted as the reason we must allow these sites to exist (and thrive) often at the expense of victims not as well known as Jennifer Lawrence. Yet theft and dissemination of stolen photographs is not speech, it’s abuse, and it’s time to acknowledge as much. Free speech absolutists, like Reddit’s operators, argue that any push back would stifle “innovation,” but what’s really innovative about sharing stolen selfies?
While it’s impossible to scrub the web of seedy threads like those on Reddit, can’t we at least try to make progress in limiting the damage? If sites like Reddit take pride in being user-driven, why not put more legal liability on those users? Also, why not put more pressure on parent companies like Condé Nast to stem this illegal and abusive behavior on its properties?
Supporting and sustaining a healthy Internet and ridding it of abusive and illegal content need not be mutually exclusive. At the very least lawmakers at the federal level should confront this issue as some of their state counterparts have done in enacting laws against “revenge porn.”
