by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Piracy, Tech
Study says SEO lapses by legit distributors are to blame for high ranking of pirate sites by search engines
What are we to make of the recently released study by the CCIA (a Washington D.C. tech industry lobbying group whose membership includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo) that claims that search is not a popular path to discover pirated content online? The study asserts, “that search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.” Apparently the real reason it’s easy to find links to illegal content online is not the fault of search engines, but simply poor SEO techniques by legit content distributors.
This so-called “research paper” titled “The Search Fixation: Infringement, Search Results, and Online Content” was written by Matt Schruers, an adjunct law professor and CCIA’s VP for Law and Policy. Freudian notions aside, headlines the paper generated were predictable. With the exception of Torrent Freak, every tech-oriented blog seems to have fallen in line echoing the idea that poor, maligned search engines play only a minor role in helping folks find free stuff online.
In this tit for tat spin war, this paper was designed as a direct response to a recent RIAA study that criticized Google for not being proactive in demoting pirate search results despite promises to the contrary. According to the study:
The contention that disappearing undesirable entries from search results would substantially prevent piracy is flawed however. The solutions to online infringement have little to do with search. Infringing sites receive limited traffic from search. In the context of music, the available evidence suggest that the frequency with which users input queries like “download,” “mp3,” or “torrent” is relatively low…
…Concerns about organic search results containing terms such as “mp3” or “download” are misplaced, however. Actual search data indicates that appending “mp3” or “download” as the RIAA paper suggests is statistically uncommon. Users far more frequently search for “[artist]” or “[artist]””[track]”…Google Trends data indicate that only a small fraction of searches for the artist’s name and track name also included the words “mp3” or “download.”
As evidence for his conclusions he makes the point (using a fancy Google trends chart) by using the (very wealthy) recording artist Rihanna to bolster his argument.
Sure looks convincing right? Well, the thing is, this chart doesn’t really say much of anything besides the fact that folks searched for “Rihanna” a lot when she had a new song released and searched for “Rihanna” a lot more than “Rihanna diamonds mp3.” So what? No one suggested that searching for information about an artist was equivalent to searching for free downloads. The RIAA’s research never made that point.
By combining the multiple search terms into one search on using Google trends, Schruers gives us a graph that looks to mirror his claim. The problem is–what is he actually comparing? Examining “search interest” (which is what Google trends allows you to do) and making the leap that piracy isn’t a problem because more people happened to search using the term “Rihanna” rather than for a (free) mp3 of her popular song? Come again?
It’s not hard to assume that lots of folks search for Rihanna because they want to find out more about her, not just because they’re seeking free downloads to her song. It’s no surprise that Rihanna searches outnumber those for mp3 downloads. It’s really a case of apples and oranges.
More useful might be putting in various search terms one by one as I did. Note searched for “rihanna diamonds download” the related terms (circled in red) included “mp3 rihanna diamonds” and “diamonds mp3 download.”
(Note: I actually included the search box in my screen grab example for clarity’s sake):
What about the terms “rihanna diamonds free.”
Looking at these results one can postulate upon the release of “Diamonds” interest in searching for illegal download options spiked. Below is the Google trends chart for the search term “Rihanna” and an inset for 2012 results. Clearly over that period searches for Rihanna fluctuate for various reasons–whether it is a new album release or altercation with Chris Brown.
What about trends in searching for watching free movies online now that Netflix and other streaming services are available? The chart below indicates the point at which Netflix launched its streaming service in early 2007. It’s worth noting that its launch coincides with an increased trend in search for “free” movies online. Does this mean Netflix streaming influenced piracy? No, what’s likely is that the upward trend partly reflects the emergence of technology that enables efficient streaming (and direct downloads) of high-quality movies online–pirated or otherwise.
While search is not the cause of this trend BUT there’s no denying it makes finding free content online (pirated content) easier. If one limits search to the United States, the trend line seems to have been more consistent, probably due to the fact users here have had better access to the internet than many other parts of the developing world.
One other point worth noting is that searches for the word “torrent” have diminished, after a peak in 2010 the trend-line has moved steadily downward.
Here’s an animated look at this over time. While it’s good news that interest in torrents appears to be waning, I imagine it’s because there’s now a myriad of easier ways to watch pirated films online. Why bother with torrents when with one click you can watch or download a movie? Here’s an animated view of search trends for the term “torrent” since 2004.
So while search trends may change over time–whether working on a term paper or looking up cancer treatments, online search is usually the starting point–what’s wrong with pressuring Google et al to be more proactive in removing results linking to illegal music, movies or counterfeit goods? In his report Schruers argues for an alternative:
The inclusion of NARM-recommended text (“don’t torrent; buy [here] instead”) on the artist’s site would remedy this. Linking users to other lawful music services in addition to iTunes could be another way to contribute toward improving those services’ page rank. Similarly, Universal Music points to Rihanna’s official website, Twitter account, and Facebook page, but points to no commercial websites from which the artist’s music is available. Addressing this would also contribute toward improved page rank.
In a further effort to let search engines off the hook Schruers concludes his report with this:
While DMCA notices and DMCA compliance programs are one component promoting a robust digital marketplace, efforts to disappear search results are unlikely to mitigate online infringement, in large part due to the irrelevance of general-purpose search engines in the average infringer’s toolbox. A more robust strategy would entail licensors and their licensees focusing on strategic search engine optimization–including but not limited to ‘objectionable’ terms–so as to promote the page rank of lawful sites and increase the visibility of legitimate online content offerings.
So, if I’m to understand him, the real solution to this problem would be for all of use content creators–filmmakers, musicians, etc.–to employ better SEO keyword methodology, i.e. co-opt popular pirate search terms like “free mp3” or “watch movies online free” so that legit search results will trump those of the pirate sites. Well duh…we did just that long ago on the website for our film “And Then Came Lola.” Included among our SEO keywords are:
free, movie, lola movie, and then came lola, online, buy, watch, telecharger, portugués (brasileño) subtítulos,subtítulos en español,sottotitoli in italiano, lesbian, download, movie, film, romantic comedy, fast girl films, streaming,video on demand, vod, DVD, iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, subtitles, مشاهدة فيلم مثليه,劳拉现身 , lezbiyen filmi, watch online, watch, free, putlocker, السينما للجميع
Doing so is a no brainer and-Rihanna aside–most indie filmmakers and musicians I know do just that AND also provide multiple links to legit content for their work….but despite such efforts, pirate sites can still dominate searches for “free” (illegal) content. Maybe we should just hire better web masters and SEO experts? For the record our film website’s home page includes both a list of worldwide links for purchase/watch the film, an iTunes app and embedded links in the text that include links to subtitles versions.
I took a look at various “objectionable” search terms via the Alexa website (note that it’s a subsidiary of Amazon) that provides data on web traffic and here’s what I discovered. Search for “watch free movies online” and you find this page.
Out of the first 9 results, only 2 appear to be legit sites (highlighted in yellow) are Crackle. and Hulu. The first result is for a site called “TubePlus” (pirate sites highlighted in green) which according to this story on itproportal.com is a “YouTube for pirates.”
Controversial file-sharing service Pirate Bay is openly supporting TubePlus, a revolutionary new hybrid video-sharing site that brings together content from BitTorrent sites, along with cyberlockers such as Megaupload and Hotfile, as well as P2P service eMule.
The newly launched site marks a big step into the mainstream for the traditionally geeky business of file-sharing.
Rather than finding and downloading files, users of TubePlus simply search for their favourite movies and TV programmes – and stream them directly into their browser using an interface that’s more than a little reminiscent of popular video-sharing site YouTube. There are even links to IMDb reviews of films and shows.
Another site (ranked at 945) is 1channel.ch, another notorious pirate website. Go there and you’ll find they’ve changed their name (yet again). At any rate, bottom line is that finding pirate sites is made possible in large part via web search.
Here’s another example using the search term “mp3” which demonstrates that pirate sites abound.
Also, for the record, using Rihanna’s approach to web promotion is not necessarily the best example as most people are well aware of who she is and where to find her music should they want to purchase it. Those who are that are really hurt by piracy are not the big stars with big bank accounts.
That brings us back full circle to the claim that “CCIA’s research paper indicates that search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.”
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).
Last month I read another article by the same Matt Schruers titled “The Thing We Don’t Talk About in Piracy Estimates.” In it he noted, “some degree of infringement is not wealth destruction but rather wealth redistribution.” He went on to clarify:
Clearly, intellectual property is important to our economy — as is open competition, and the free exchange of ideas. These three forces are each valuable tools in the “innovation toolbox”, and allowing any one of them to be undermined – including intellectual property – may impair innovation, along with other important social goals. But as long as the empirical evidence around the policy conversation is so impoverished, we won’t be making well-informed decisions.
Schruer’s fondness for the term “toolbox” aside, I think he may want to take a look at his own use of “empirical evidence” to advance, or rather inhibit, meaningful conversations around web search and online piracy. This “free exchange of ideas” does not necessitate the “free” exchange of pirated content.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy
Pirate Bay Claims “Censorship” to deflect from its role as an anchor for illicit web economy built on piracy for profit.
Apparently Pirate Bay, the notorious torrent website, is adding web search to its repertoire of tools designed to aid those in search of illegal downloads. According an announcement on piratebrowser.com the new search engine is designed to “circumvent censorship.”
PirateBrowser is a bundle package of the Tor client (Vidalia), FireFox Portable browser (with foxyproxy addon) and some custom configs that allows you to circumvent censorship that certain countries such as Iran, North Korea, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy and Ireland impose onto their citizens.
The fact that the folks behind Pirate Bay cling to the notion that their’s is a fight against web censorship is nothing new, disingenuous though it may be. After all claiming to be a soldier against tyranny is much more appealing than say–“we are fighting to make it easier to steal movies, music, e-books and more.” Pirate Bay’s heroic veneer has been spotlighted recently thanks to its 10th birthday celebrations and today in The Guardian, Loz Kaye wrote a piece examining the site’s 10 years as a “milestone for internet freedom.”
The site itself can’t be divorced from its cultural context, the hacktivist digital dissidence scene. Pirate Bay represents the punk music of the 21st century: while popular music is reduced to sugary talent-show fodder, online counterculture is noisy, rebellious and disruptive. The cool kids aren’t writing lyrics, they are writing code. This is the heart of Pirate Bay’s tenacity. It’s no longer just about the service it provides, it’s because Pirate Bay has come to symbolise web liberty for many.
What Pirate Bay “symbolizes” and what it actually is are not necessarily analogous. I’ve said it many times, but it bears repeating once again–online piracy is not about sharing nor is it about “free speech” or “liberty”– it’s about theft for profit. Despite the spin, online piracy does not advance our dialogue over privacy, government surveillance, or political suppression–all increasingly worthy concerns. What it does do is enrich thieves and undermine the livelihoods of musicians, writers, filmmakers and others who create the content we enjoy.
Web censorship is undoubtedly an issue that needs to be vigorously debated, but thwarting the Pirate Bay’s ability to make money by facilitating theft is not. The fact is that Pirate Bay and other sites that share its torrents–pirate forums, cyber-lockers and streaming sites are in it to make money (off of advertising). Without the carrot of the torrent (movies, music, etc) they have nothing to drive traffic to their sites to entice users to click ads. Pirate Bay is in the BUSINESS of piracy.
It’s not surprising that the web is a vast, at times unruly place, but neither is it unreasonable to expect that criminal activity be discouraged. If users in Iran and North Korea can utilize the new web browser to bypass government firewalls that’s not a bad thing, but by lumping United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy and Ireland into the same category, their claimed mission subverted. Sorry, but blocking access to stolen content just isn’t the same thing as political repression.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics, TV
Leading the piracy parade is ‘better than an Emmy’? Please, speak for yourself Mr. Bewkes…
According a story yesterday in AdWeek, another well-paid executive linked to the HBO hit “Game of Thrones” is once again singing the praises of online piracy. Last time it was HBO’s programming president Michael Lombardo, now Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes has joined the chorus.
…in response to a question about whether the network kinda-sorta regards the extensive theft of HBO’s flagship show, Game of Thrones, as a compliment, Bewkes said, “I have to admit it, I think you’re right.” The much-discussed fantasy series is HBO’s most popular, and “if you go to people who are watching it without subs, it’s a tremendous word-of-mouth thing,” the exec told investors. “We’ve been dealing with this for 20, 30 years—people sharing subs, running wires down the backs of apartment buildings. Our experience is that it leads to more paying subs. I think you’re right that Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in the world,” he said. “That’s better than an Emmy.”
Yeah sure, easy to say if you’re CEO of Time Warner and have a huge hit like HBO’s “Game of Thrones” on your hands. But really, given that you work in the media industry Mr. Bewkes, didn’t you have a clue as to the impact your glib “soundbite” would have on an already hyperbolic debate over online piracy and copyright reform?
Fine Time Warner/HBO, feel free give your show away and boast that the record (pirate) downloading of Game of Thrones episodes is a hunky-dory thing for your bottom line. In your case, it may well be….more power to you.
The problem is that when Jeff Bewkes muses to a reporter that, for a hit show like Game of Thrones, piracy is “better than an Emmy” it can lead the general public to assume the same reality applies to all content creators. Certainly piracy apologists are likely to make hay–and headlines–out of it.
Perhaps creators whose works have been massively pirated can take some solace from Bewkes’ success, but the fact is his experience (and that of HBO programming) is not one matched by their own. The Time Warner CEO likely doesn’t have much difficulty paying bills (or financing his next production) like so many do. Many filmmakers don’t have the reach (or deep pockets) of HBO and, like it or not, for them online piracy (driven by black market profiteers) is a detriment to success–not a sign of it. Bewkes’ self-serving proclamation does little to advance or clarify the debate over how best to mitigate the corrosive impact that online piracy (for profit) has on artists.
Next time CEO Bewkes should choose his words more carefully and explain that for HBO, the popularity of Game of Thrones is a measure of success that helps generate buzz that’s good for business–but that it’s important to differentiate between their distribution landscape and the one faced by so many others.
If he feels his words were misconstrued (webcast available here) he should clarify his remarks sooner rather than later for the sake of those whose livelihoods do suffer because of unchecked online theft.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Testimony from copyright hearing highlights what’s at stake for content creators
On Thursday (July 25th) the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held another hearing on copyright reform, “Innovation in America: The Role of Copyrights,” with the following witness invited to testify:
- Sandra Aistars, Executive Director, Copyright Alliance
- Eugene Mopsik, Executive Director, American Society of Media Photographers
- Tor Hansen,Co-Founder, Yep Roc Records / Red Eye Distribution
- John Lapham, General Counsel, Getty Images
- William Sherak, President, Stereo D
Unfortunately, to some in the press–who the witnesses were seems to have overshadowed what they may have actually said. In The Washington Post Andrea Peterson bemoaned the lack of “innovators” on the witness list.
Innovators are almost entirely absent from the list. The witnesses include the executive directors of the Copyright Alliance and the American Society of Media Photographers, and the general counsel of Getty Images. These groups represent established copyright interests that are likely to resist any serious reforms to copyright law…Completely absent: representatives from the information technology industry, whose innovations have transformed the market for copyrighted works over the last two decades, and who have repeatedly argued that overly-broad copyright law has stifled innovation.
Since Ms. Peterson covers technology policy and “…also delves into the societal impacts of technology access and how innovation is intertwined with cultural development” for the Post, I find it curious that she never actually wrote about what took place at the hearing itself. Couldn’t she at least have read the transcript or watch the webcast and “delve” into what was actually said rather than simply complain about the witness list?
At the end of her not very informative piece Ms. Peterson noted that there’s another hearing scheduled for next week that seems likely to be heavily tech-centric so I’m not sure why all the fuss (and headline) to begin with. According a press release issued by the committee on July 18th “The next two hearings, which will be held prior to the August district work period, will focus on the positive roles copyrights and technology play in innovation in the U.S.”
Given that the committee’s initial hearing in May featured academics and bureaucrats it seems that their grouping of witnesses has been purposefully crafted to represent distinct segments of the copyright interest group pie. While one can certainly take issue with this rigid approach, it’s not as though the technology “industry” will be left out.
As for Peterson’s assertion that yesterday’s panelists represented “established copyright interests” and thus didn’t genuinely represent “innovators,” I beg to differ. It’s the same old unenlightened spin (often amplified by tech interests) that somehow content creators are not innovators. For anyone who did actually watch or read the yesterday’s testimony, this myth that was repeatedly and effectively challenged.
The Copyright Alliance’s Sandra Aistars may not be a creative artist, but she represents our interests with clarity and conviction. In her testimony before the committee she carefully outlined just how important copyright protection is for individual creators and the insidious damage piracy (for profit) is having on our livelihoods:
Eric Hart, a maker of theatrical props and author from Burlington,North Carolina,recently shared his challenges with us. Earlier this year, after several years of researching,writing and assembling all the necessary technical information, including setting up and shooting more than 500 illustrative photographs, Eric’s first book The Prop Building Guidebook: For Theatre, Film, and TV was published by Focal Press. The book is a unique, comprehensive reference for prop makers that provides innovative approaches to solving problems. Special attention was paid to the details of its design and layout to ensure that it can easily be used in a workshop. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, it was pirated almost immediately upon its release, and many of the sites on which it appears are supported by advertising by major brands.
Mr. Hart himself published an op-ed in The Hill to coincide with yesterday’s hearing. In his piece, “The Need for Copyright Protection Hits Home” he described the time and effort he put into publishing his book:
While my book, titled The Prop Building Guidebook: For Theatre, Film, and TV, was published earlier this year, I first started planning and researching it in 2008. I began a blog a month later in January 2009, to practice my writing and build an audience. But nothing could have prepared me for the amount of work it would take to craft a full book. I worked nearly every day for a year to complete the manuscript but still felt like I could have used more time.
He then goes on to relay an experience (sadly) familiar to those of us who create content–how his work was immediately pirated (for profit) online and asks that Congress be mindful just how important copyright is in protecting our rights as creators:
While we do have laws intended to protect creators like me, we seem to live in a culture that pretends piracy has no real victims. It’s important to remind everyone the amount of work that goes into the creative works that are so useful and valuable to us. I only wrote a single book, but there are those who devote every day of their lives to writing and creating, and they will not be able to do that if their work is not protected from those who decide to give away those works for free without the creator’s permission. When we devalue the creative work, we are devaluing the act of creation and the act of working, both of which are vital to a free and prosperous culture.
Ms. Aistars went on to urge the committee to evaluate copyright from the creator’s perspective and to understand it as being 1) a matter of “empowerment,” 2) a matter of “choice,” and 3) a matter of “freedom.”
First, copyright is about empowerment. A copyright belongs to the author from the time a work is created and recorded in some tangible form, regardless of whether the author has registered it or taken any formal action. A copyright may be the only asset the author has in a negotiation with a distributor, label, or other corporation. It opens the door for an economic negotiation. If you weaken copyright or make it harder for the author to obtain or maintain its protections, you weaken the author’s negotiating position, as well as the value proposition for the distributor.
Second, copyright is about choice. Because copyright exists in a work and belongs to the author from the time the work is recorded, it enables the author to choose what he or she wishes to do with it. She can use a work in multiple ways simultaneously. She can license the use of the work commercially to support herself and continue investing in new projects, while also making the work available for free to other non-commercial users to support a cause she believes in. These choices allow for a broader variety of business models to develop,which increases healthy competition among innovators and benefits consumers.
The author can also choose not to license his or her work in certain circumstances. Sometimes the non-economic choices an author makes by enforcing a copyright are the most important ones. Matt Herron, a civil rights era photographer who we work with explained to me once that the reason copyright matters to him so much is that it enables him to keep his collection of photographs of the Selma to Montgomery march together, and it ensures that the history of that period will be passed down to future generations as a coherent whole — without images missing because they are controlled by someone else, and without images having been devalued because they were licensed for commercial purposes.
Finally, copyright is about freedom. It is core to protecting our First Amendment rights of freedom of expression. It also gives authors the freedom to create and to thrive, and the freedom to create free from outside influence. “Asthe founders of this country were wise enough to see, the most important elements of any civilization include its independent creators – its authors, composers, and artists –who create as a matter of personal initiative and spontaneous expression rather than as a result of patronage or subsidy.”7
Eugene Mopsick, who himself worked as a professional photographer for 32 years before becoming Executive Director of ASMP, also emphasized the importance of copyright for individual creators in his testimony:
ASMP is the oldest and largest trade association of its kind in the world. ASMP’s members are primarily freelance imaging professionals, creating images — both still and moving — for publication in advertising, editorial, fine art and other commercial markets.
Simply put, ASMP’s members and professional photographers like them create many and probably most of the images that the American public sees every day: they create this country’s visual heritage. These images communicate the horrors of war and genocide, “the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat”, the events of every day life and the joy of discovery and travel. They create emotion, document history, and expand our knowledge. Much of the incentive to create, innovate and the ability to control the sale and license of these works would be lost without copyright.
Imagine National Geographic, The Sunday New York Times and its Magazine, Rolling Stone, Travel and Leisure, Food and Wine, Saveur, Sports Illustrated all without photographs! And not just any photographs, but photographs created by professionals to fulfill the needs of their clients, created under various conditions, on schedule, processed and prepared for reproduction. Stunning images that consistently stretch the bounds of creativity and innovation. Each assignment is a challenge to create something new, never seen before. Communicate light, emotion, the facets of a commercial product, the history and location of an event. Professional photography enriches and opens our eyes to new worlds making us better informed and more sensitive to the issues and conflicts occurring around us…
…Again, in order for professionals to be able to sustain a livelihood, they need to be able to control the sale and license of their works so that they may receive fair compensation for their use. Copyright is the cornerstone of this equation.
Although it’s not helpful to the copyleft’s arguments justifying their views on “free culture”, the truth is that whether we’re talking about a Los Angeles production company employing hundreds of workers, or an independent author who toils on his own to write a book–copyright law is fundamental to the well-being of both. Like it or not, culture is not “free” to create. I thought Sandra Aistars and the rest of those who testified made that fact abundantly clear. It’s well worth taking the time to read through their testimony.
In contrast, and apparently based solely on the witness list, Ms. Peterson likened yesterday’s hearing to one held for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) though remarked that hearing “at least it included a representative from Google opposing the measure.”
While I’m not privy to who will be invited to next week’s hearing, I have no doubt that Google’s interests will be well represented. After all, the company isn’t expanding its presence Washington D.C. and moving closer to the U.S. Capitol for nothing. Just last week the Washington Post reported:
Google is expanding its Washington offices and relocating them to within a couple blocks of the U.S. Capitol.
The tech giant signed a lease for 55,000 square feet at 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, according to the building’s owner, Republic Properties. The building is about a block away from Union Station. The lease is for about 25,000 more square feet than Google currently has at 1101 New York Ave. NW.
The technology sector is one of the few industries in the Washington area in which companies are currently growing and adding space.
How does that old story go?
Little Red Riding Hood: “Oh granny, what big eyes you have!”…
Big Bad Wolf: “All the better to see you with my dear….”
We all know how that one ended up….
What about the terms “rihanna diamonds free.”
