by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Tech
Facebook is removing ads from offensive and illegal pages. Why not remove the illegal pages too?
Facebook gave in to pressure from advocacy groups and advertisers and announced it will no longer allow ads on sites that include controversial content. Although they’ve not said anything publicly, I’ve also noticed this change in policy also seems to be impacting Facebook pages promoting movie piracy. More on below, but first, from Facebook’s official statement released on June 28th:
Facebook is a place for people to connect and share. It’s also a place where businesses can connect and share content with the people who love their brands. Our goal is to both preserve the freedoms of sharing on Facebook but also protect people and brands from certain types of content.
We know that marketers work hard to promote their brands, and we take their objectives seriously. While we already have rigorous review and removal policies for content against our terms, we recognize we need to do more to prevent situations where ads are displayed alongside controversial Pages and Groups. So we are taking action…
…For example, we will now seek to restrict ads from appearing next to Pages and Groups that contain any violent, graphic or sexual content (content that does not violate our community standards).
Facebook was forced to take this action after women’s groups like WAM (Women, Action & the Media) protested the “representation of rape and domestic violence” on Facebook. Their campaign to publicize the issue included highlighting advertisers whose ads could be found on the controversial pages and group sites. From their campaign:
To this end, we are calling on Facebook users to contact advertisers whose ads on Facebook appear next to content that targets women for violence, to ask these companies to withdraw from advertising on Facebook until you take the above actions to ban gender-based hate speech on your site. (We will be raising awareness and contacting advertisers on Twitter using the hashtag #FBrape.)
Facebook’s decision to change its policies is clearly a step in the right direction, but as I alluded to earlier, it doesn’t seem to be the only ad-related move the social media giant has made. As I pointed out in blog posts earlier this spring “Facebook-A Link in the Piracy Food Chain” and “A ‘Fast and Furious’ Example of Online Piracy at Work” there are numerous Facebook pages, linking to pirated movies, that are deserving of scrutiny. While certainly not as disturbing as pages promoting violence against women, these pirate pages on Facebook openly engage in illegal behavior nonetheless.
After my blog posts, and possibly in conjunction with the negative publicity surrounding ads on misogynistic pages, it appears that Facebook has quietly removed advertising from the illegal movie pages I documented.
This page boasts more than 231k “likes.” When I wrote about last May the page featured ads, now there are none to be found.
It’s an excellent first step, but why not go a step further? Claiming these pages should be protected because they represent “free speech” is a tired false equivalency. Pirating movies isn’t about “free speech” it’s theft and is illegal. How can Facebook defend pirate pages that are in the business of profiting from theft? They can’t.
So, if Facebook screeners are set to review pages for suitability for advertising, why not review pages that are engaged in illegal activities like online piracy? If above pages promoted illegal prescription drugs instead of illegal movies it’s unlikely they’d be allowed to remain on Facebook.
Facebook needs to stop taking the disingenuous position that protecting free speech includes protecting criminal behavior. Now that Facebook has apparently seen fit to get rid of the ads on these pages, isn’t it time to get rid of the pages too?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Politics, TV
David Kaplan, head of Warner Brother’s anti-piracy unit made news this week in Los Angeles at the 4th Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Summit. According to a Q & A with Kaplan posted on the event’s website, he characterized the studio’s approach to IP enforcement this way:
Generally speaking, we view piracy as a proxy of consumer demand. Accordingly, enforcement related efforts are balanced with looking at ways to adjust or develop business models to take advantage of that demand by offering fans what they are looking for when they are looking for it.
Of course this makes sense. Piracy apologists often attempt to rationalize the dubious notion that consumers are entitled to have everything available–anytime, anywhere– by charging that obsolete distribution models are a sign that distributors are ignoring audience demand.
However, it’s not as simple as it may seem. The reality is that it takes time to build new business methods–and meanwhile, in the thriving universe of digital theft–as is true with most black markets–the pirate’s model has never been constrained by such “trivial” issues as contracts, licensing, budgets, or the law.
In an ideal world filmmakers would be able to release their films to worldwide audience simultaneously. With models like day and date release finding success, it’s likely such an approach will someday become the norm.
But…even when that day does arrive, the other elephant in the room remains-Will consumers be willing to pay instead of going to pirate sites that offer fast and free options with the click of a mouse? Finding efficient ways to meet audience immediate demand only solves one piece of the piracy puzzle. The other is how to thwart the black market entrepreneurs who compete directly with legit distributors? Remember–profit comes easy when a business has little, to no overhead costs associated with the content it offers.
Kaplan sees this issue as a “top priority.”
I think our top priority would be to remove the financial incentives from
those who would profit by building businesses based on the unauthorized exploitation
of our intellectual property. A close second would be educating consumer about the
importance of IP protection and the availability of legitimate alternatives to piracy.
I’ve said it before –if the financial incentives to run pirate websites disappear, and popular content made readily available through legit channels, piracy’s impact will diminish. The problem remains–how do we get there? At a time where content creators are adapting to online distribution, ad providers, search engines, web hosts, and payment processors continue to drag their feet when it comes to making real inroads against infrastructure and incentives that underpin digital piracy.
n the White House’s just released “2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement” the word “voluntary” appears 36 times including this statement:
The U.S. Government is pursuing an innovative and multi-pronged strategy to combat infringing foreign based and foreign-controlled websites by encouraging cooperation by law enforcement, development
of voluntary best practices, and international leadership…
The White House document also offers this carefully worded prescription as one path forward combatting IP theft online:
22. Facilitate Voluntary Initiatives to Reduce Online Intellectual Property Infringement and Illegal Internet Pharmacies
As an Administration, we have adopted the approach of encouraging the private sector to develop and implement cooperative voluntary initiatives to reduce infringement that are practical and effective. It is critical that such efforts be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws and with the Administration’s broader Internet policy principles emphasizing privacy, free speech, competition, and due process. Together with law enforcement efforts, private sector voluntary actions can dramatically reduce online infringement and change the enforcement paradigm. We encourage all participants to continue to work with all interested stakeholders, including consumer advocacy groups, to ensure that voluntary initiatives are as effective and transparent as possible.
It’s great to think that we can all reach a consensus to combat the scourge of piracy through “cooperation.” However, the fact is there’s still a very long way to go. Until ad providers, advertisers and companies like Facebook and Google, whose tentacles reach far and wide throughout piracy’s infrastructure, get serious about cleaning up the act all this talk about “voluntary” initiatives is just talk.
The fact is, when it comes to profiting from online piracy, money speaks louder than words. It may just take a bit more “law enforcement” to make those responsible pay attention and take meaningful action to clean up their acts.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, TV
By now it’s old news that HBO’s hit series “Game of Thrones” is currently the most pirated show on TV (followed by the CBS comedy “The Big Bang Theory”). In today’s LA Times, Alexandra Le Tellier published a piece “If you want to watch ‘Game of Thrones,’ pay for it.” explaining how online piracy is not something to be celebrated, but rather an activity that ultimately undermines our art and those who toil to make it (not just the well-paid executives).
She calls out director David Petrarca, who’s directed 2 episodes of Game of Thrones, for his ill-conceived comments that the rampant piracy of the HBO series did “more good than harm” because it helped generate “buzz.” It’s a sentiment that has been echoed by others attached to the show. As I wrote in an earlier post, HBO’s programming president Michael Lombardo made similar tone-deaf comments recently in Entertainment Weekly:
I probably shouldn’t be saying this, but it is a compliment of sorts…The demand is there. And it certainly didn’t negatively impact the DVD sales. [Piracy is] something that comes along with having a wildly successful show on a subscription network.
Ms. Le Tellier argues that studios have marketing departments whose job it is to create such buzz and zeros in on the heart of the issue when she writes:
It should be up to the creators and stakeholders to decide how to distribute their programs for consumption and nurture “cultural buzz.”
Exactly! From my earlier post on Michael Lombardo’s comments regarding Game of Thrones piracy:
…a man with the stature and success of Mr. Lombardo should know better than to blabber on in such a thoughtless way about an issue, that for many filmmakers, cannot afford to be taken so lightly. Sure, it would be great if everyone had the reach and resources of HBO, but the fact is we don’t, and for us–no matter how you spin it–piracy is not a positive. The arrogance Lombardo showed in blithely dismissing piracy’s impact on HBO’s bottom line did a huge disservice to the many content creators for whom piracy negatively impacts both their bottom line and their livelihoods.
Ms. Le Tellier asks the question that so many of us do. If piracy is allowed to flourish unchecked, and even be celebrated by some, “What happens to art when artists can no longer afford to make it?” Her piece is spot on and I urge you to read it in its entirety here.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Tech
Content Creators MIA from discussions on Entertainment in the Internet Age
Heavyweights from Hollywood and Silicon Valley gathered at Stanford this week for a 2-day event called Entertainment Technology in the Internet Age (ETIA). Co-sponsored by SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and Stanford’s SCIEN (Stanford Center for Image Engineering) the was billed as an opportunity to “…explore the tech, creative, and biz requirements for delivering a compelling, high quality, monetizable entertainment experience over the web.” From the event schedule comes this summary:
Entertainment technology development and content deployment has historically been the purview of Hollywood and traditional broadcast media. However, rapid convergence of technology improvements in connectivity, bandwidth, and media-processing coupled with consumer interest has caused a surge in media distribution over the web.
Day one program sessions included Making Content for the Internet, Distributing Content via the Internet, and an evening event “Legal and Illegal Distribution over the Internet: Can We Find Common Solution(s)? Panelists for this event included:
Mitch Singer/CTO, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Steve Weinstein/CTO, Deluxe Entertainment Service Group
Chris Odgers/VP Technology, Warner Bros.
Stephen Balogh/Technology Policy Specialist, Intel
Fred von Lohmann/Legal Director, Copyright, Google
Eric Klinker/CEO, BitTorrent
David Cardinal covered the event for extremetech.com and summarized the event this way:
Instead of threats from both sides, opening statements from Sony and Warner Brothers sounded a conciliatory note, agreeing in principal with the message from fellow panelists representing Google and BitTorrent that market-based solutions were the best way to solve the piracy problem. As the evening wore on, though, gloves started to come off, with the studios falling back on pleas for greater legal tools and the tech companies urging more of a free market approach for content distribution.
Day 2 of the event feature more on panels including the Distributing Content via the Internet (continued), Paying for Content via the Web, and Enjoying the Content (Users Experience). If you review the panelists they include, not surprisingly a who’s who of software engineers, executives from the tech and entertainment industries, and attorneys.
Given the event’s sponsors this isn’t particularly surprising. However, if we are to make any substantive progress on finding a path forward in this debate, wouldn’t it make sense to include at least some of those who actually create the content? Just a thought…
For Cardinal’s full account of the evening’s piracy discussions it’s worth reading his full story here.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics
The White House has released its 2013 strategic plan for intellectual property enforcement. The document is 35 pages long and outlines progress that’s been made since 2010 and goals moving forward. Included in the report is a letter to the President and Congress from Victoria A. Espinel, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, who summaries the findings and outlines progress made since the last report in 2010 which includes:
• U.S. law enforcement has significantly increased its enforcement against infringement that threatens the vitality of the U.S. economy and the health and safety of the American people. Since FY 2009
- − U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) new cases are up 71 percent, arrests are up 159 percent, convictions are up 103 percent, and indictments are up 264 percent.
- − Pending Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) health and safety-focused investigations are up 308 percent, FBI health and safety arrests are up 286 percent, and new trade secret theft cases are up 39 percent.
- − Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE seizures of infringing imports have increased
- by 53 percent.
• Private sector companies have voluntarily agreed to adopt best practices aimed at curbing the
sale of counterfeit goods and reducing online piracy. For example:
- − American Express, Discover, eNom, Facebook, Go Daddy, Google, MasterCard, Microsoft, Neustar, PayPal, Visa, and Yahoo! established the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies—a new non-profit to combat fake online “pharmacies” selling dangerous illegal drugs over the Internet.
- − AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and major and independent music labels and movie studios entered into a voluntary agreement to reduce online piracy. Under the agreement, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will notify subscribers, through a series of alerts,when their Internet service accounts appear to be misused for infringement on peer-to-peer networks.− American Express, Discover, MasterCard, PayPal, and Visa agreed to a set of best practices to withdraw payment services for online sales of counterfeit and pirated goods.
- − The Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies issued a leadership pledge to not support online piracy and counterfeiting with advertising revenue.
I’m particularly interested in reviewing what said about the efficacy of the private sector’s “voluntary…best practices” approach to see what progress has been made, and whether it jibes with what’s really happening online with regard to piracy, counterfeiting, etc. I’ll more on my thoughts once I’ve had the opportunity to review the entire report.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Politics
Terry Hart takes the EFF to task for their misleading take on copyright history
Copyhype blogger Terry Hart wrote a thoughtful response yesterday to an post on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s blog by Mitch Stoltz that purported to be analysis (and rebuttal) of what he called the MPPA’s “copyright agenda”. The piece published Monday was in response to MPAA CEO Chris Dodd’s recent remarks at a L.A. Copyright Society event earlier this month. Dodd said:
What would Jefferson think about the current state of copyright law?
First, the men who met in Philadelphia during that summer of 1787 and drafted the Constitution, considered copyright so important to unlocking the creative potential of the citizens of this new country, that they explicitly empowered Congress to incentivize creativity through patent and copyright legislation.
According to Stoltz’s EFF’s piece, the MPAA chief got it wrong.
Dodd claims that copyright as we know it is what “the founders of this republic intended.” Hardly. The first copyright act in the U.S, passed in 1790 by some of the same people who helped write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was very limited. It covered only books, maps, and charts – not music, theater, pamphlets, newspapers, sculpture, or any other 18th-century creative medium. The Founders’ copyrights lasted 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14. Today, of course, copyright covers nearly all written, visual, sculptural, architectural, and performing art, not to mention computer software and games, and it lasts for the author’s life plus 70 years. We suspect that if anyone had described today’s copyright system to, say, Thomas Jefferson, he would have been shocked. By all means, let’s look at how the Founders thought copyright should work, as one guidepost for fixing today’s law.
But according to Terry Hart, in this case, it’s really the EFF that got it wrong by conveniently ignoring the complete copyright picture as it’s evolved over time:
What’s curious is that the EFF would focus so much on the provisions rather than the principles of early U.S. copyright law (never mind how incorrectly they stated the former) yet leave out so many provisions in current copyright law that the early acts lacked. For example, the 1790 Copyright Act included no statutory recognition of fair use, the first sale doctrine, or the idea/expression dichotomy; no prohibition on protecting government works by copyright;13 no exceptions for libraries, educational institutions, or non-profit groups; no centralized registration system or deposit requirement.
The grave inaccuracies contained in just a few short sentences should leave little surprise that the EFF is on shaky ground concluding that their views on copyright would be compatible with the Founders…
You can read Hart’s full piece here. It’s well worth it if you’re looking for a more balanced perspective on what the true intent of our founding fathers may have been when it comes to copyright.
