With the Election Over, Attention Turns Back to Congress and What Awaits Musicians
Chris Castle takes to the pages of Huffington Post to explain five reasons why musicians (and those who care about music) should not support the misleadingly titled “Internet Radio Fairness Act.” Here’s Reason #3:
3. Pandora Wants to Legislate Profits on the Backs of Artists: Now that Pandora has a $2 billion or so market cap, the simple truth is that Pandora is trying to legislate its profits on the backs of artists and so does Google and Sirius XM — a company that has $1.5 billion in cash on their balance sheet. This is just about money, it’s not about music.
China Daily Reports that Free Music Online is Coming to an End
I’ll believe that headline when I see it, but when it comes to cracking down on piracy in China I suppose any news is good news. The China Daily is reporting that online music distributors in China are in talks with Warner Music Group, Universal Music and Sony Music Entertainment to “charge” for music downloads. Not everyone is supportive, nor optimistic about the proposed effort. Read the entire story on China Daily here.
Debate Over Internet and Tech Issues Keep Low Profile During Campaign
Despite a long and cantankerous campaign, neither candidate seemed to pay much attention to issues surrounding the internet and technology. That’s bound to change once the dust settles. For a breakdown on the two campaigns and their take on technology issues, check out this report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Looks like Google is gradually coming to terms with the reality that monetization of content theft is not a viable path forward. They’ve apparently settled a trademark dispute with Rosetta Stone.
From a press release issued today:
Rosetta Stone Inc. (NYSE:RST) and Google have agreed to dismiss the three-year old trademark infringement lawsuit between them and to meaningfully collaborate to combat online ads for counterfeit goods and prevent the misuse and abuse of trademarks on the Internet. The companies will also work together to help law enforcement officials around the world go after counterfeiters at the source. By working together, Google and Rosetta Stone hope to improve detection methods, and better protect from abuse brands like Rosetta Stone, advertising platforms like Google AdWords, and ultimately consumers on the Internet At the end of the day, both companies would rather cooperate than litigate, and we believe this agreement is an important step toward eliminating piracy and trademark abuse on the Internet.
Rosetta Stone had claimed that individuals searching for its products using Google’s search engine were ending up at sites that featured counterfeit or competitor’s software.
It’s not clear exactly what’s meant by “working together” but the notion that they can “cooperate rather than litigate” bodes well for those who embrace innovation and content creation.
According to an Associated Press story published on NBCnews.com, the U.S. embassy in Vietnam is utilizing a social media account on Zing, a website notorious for online piracy, in an effort to reach out to the country’s young people. This, despite the fact that Coke and Samsung recently pulled advertising from the site due to concerns about rampant piracy. Embassy officials defend their presence on Zing saying that options for outreach are limited in a country where the government controls most media.
The embassy said it recognized the concerns for U.S. copyright interests posed by Zing but that it believed that “contact with users of this website” could reduce traffic or infringing activity on it. The mission sometimes uses its Zingme page to post about copyright infringement.
Its statement noted that the site had removed, at its request, the link to infringing material that appears on other Zingme pages as a matter of course. It also noted to its lack of options in a country where the Communist government controls the media, saying “there were few spaces for public discourse and intermittent access to Facebook”, referring to a block the government sometimes puts on the American social networking site.
Artists in Asia, like those in the U.S. who are feeling the negative impacts of rampant online piracy, are critical of the U.S. embassy’s stance on Zing.
“Zing is destroying the industry and they know it,” said record producer Quoc Trung, who is leading a campaign against online piracy. “We need people to pay for music, not just click on it. It is now or never.”
While awaiting for the outcome of criminal proceedings against him in New Zealand–and never one to be deterred by law or conscience–Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom has been busy hatching plans for a brand new online, cloud-based offering called “Mega.” According to a story in Wired, Dotcom’s new venture will “allow users to once again upload, store, and share large data files, albeit by different rules.”
In a “letter to Hollywood” published earlier this year, Dotcom warbled on about how much he “loved” Hollywood and claimed his vision was merely an innovative next step in a new online frontier.
Businesses and individuals will keep looking for faster connectivity, more robust online storage and more privacy. Transferring large pieces of content over the Internet will become common — not because global citizens are evil but because economic forces leading to “speed of light” data transfer and storage are so beneficial to societal growth…Providing “freemium” cloud storage to society is not a crime.
Of course providing “freemium” storage is not a crime, but paying people to uploaded stolen content and earning a profit from it is. In reviewing the features of Dotcom’s new “Mega” offering, it’s not entirely clear just how the site will make money and therein lies the rub. Will its business model resemble that of its defunct predecessor Megaupload or will it be a legitimate site like Dropbox or Yousendit?
The distinction between the two types of sites is significant. For criminal cyber-lockers, content theft is the engine that generates traffic, and thus income, for the site. When cash rewards are offered, users are incentivized to spread download links far and wide via online forums as though unleashing a virus. They engage in piracy not out of altruism, but to make money. Part of the indictment against Megaupload describes this aspect of the operation:
Third, for much of its operation, the Mega Conspiracy has offered an “Uploader Rewards” Program, which promised premium subscribers transfers of cash and other financial incentives to upload popular works, including copyrighted works, to computer servers under the Mega Conspiracy’s direct control and for the Conspiracy’s ultimate financial benefit. The more popular content that present on Mega Conspiracy servers would increase the number of visitors and premium users that the Conspiracy could monetize. In total, the Mega Conspiracy directly paid uploaders millions of dollars through online payments.
Legitimate sites, on the other hand, provide a number of valid (and legal) services that end-users are willing to pay for. While it’s certainly possible to share illegal content via these sites, if there’s no financial upside, most won’t bother.
As for Kim Dotcom, despite protestations to the contrary, there’s little evidence that he’s is in business to do public service. For him, monetizing stolen content has provided an efficient way to make millions and fund a lavish lifestyle featuring multiple mansions, yachts, and more. This new enterprise will also undoubtedly be designed to make many more millions. What remains to be seen is exactly howthat will happen.
Will this new site, like its predecessor, depend on content theft to drive its core business? Dotcom and his cohorts have reportedly developed a system whereby all uploaded files will be encrypted and only the uploader has access (or knowledge) of what that encryption key is. From their perspective, this absolves Mega from any responsibility as to what types of content users share (from pirated films to child porn). Another significant change will reportedly be the way files are stored on Mega servers. Like the new cloud-based Pirate Bay, this new Mega is being designed to operate beyond the reach of law enforcement. From Wired:
One of the more unique wrinkles of the new service may come from Mega’s decision not to deploy so-called de-duplication on its servers, meaning that if a user decides to upload the same copyright-infringing file 100 times, it would result in 100 different files and 100 distinct decryption keys. Removing them would require 100 takedown notices of the type typically sent by rights holders like movie studios and record companies.
Increased anonymity aside, why would someone want to upload 100 copies of a file unless there is some type of incentive to do so?
We’ll have to wait and see exactly how the new Mega will entice users to upload (and share) content in order to transform traffic into revenue. What’s past is prologue, and with cyber-lockers we’ve seen greed has a way of morphing into crime. Unfortunately, unless Mega utilizes a revolutionary new business model to match their revolutionary new cloud-based nexus, it’s likely content creators will be back to square one when it comes to fighting against the world’s preeminent online pirate.
Much attention has been paid to Google’s role in supporting and profiting via online piracy through online advertising, but there’s another Google enterprise that bears further scrutiny–its “Blogger” hosted websites.
Google’s Blogger platform, like WordPress, offers users around the world a convenient, easy-to-use and free hosting platform to create a website/blog. Most sites are anchored by the Blogger domain blogspot.com although users can also use a custom domain name.
These Blogger-hosted sites are ubiquitous throughout the web and feature blogs offering a wealth of original content, from recipe ideas to personal journals. However, amid the multitude of legitimate users, with a quick (Google) web search, one can easily find a more nefarious use of Blogger websites–virtual emporiums for pirated content.
Of course it’s unreasonable to expect Google to police what could be millions of blogspot sites around the globe. But what happens when a copyright holder discovers a site that is offering illegal links and/or streams to their pirated work? According to Google, it’s a violation of their Blogger “Content Policy”:
Copyright: It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. More information about our copyright procedures can be found here. Also, please don’t provide links to sites where your readers can obtain unauthorized downloads of other people’s content.
If a rights holder finds a Blogger site that violates this policy, Google offers this this online DMCA form to report the site.
It’s a relatively efficient and reasonable process. But what happens to these pirate sites once they are reported? Google explains the consequences for violating the policy as follows:
Our team reviews these flags for policy violations. If the blog does not violate our policies, we will not take any action against the blog or blog owner. If we find that a blog does violate our content policies, we take one or more of the following actions based on the severityof the violation:
Put the blog behind a ‘mature content’ interstitial
Put the blog behind an interstitial where only the blog author can access the content
Delete the blog
Disable the author’s access to his/her Blogger account
Disable the author’s access to his/her Google account
Report the user to law enforcement
What’s not clear is what criteria Google uses to measure the “severity of the violation.” At the bottom of the online Blogger DMCA form Google explains account disabling:
Account Disabling
Many Google Services do not have account holders or subscribers. For Services that do, Google will, in appropriate circumstances, disable the accounts of repeat infringers. If you believe that an account holder or subscriber is a repeat infringer, please follow the instructions above to contact Google’s DMCA agent and provide information sufficient for us to verify that the account holder or subscriber is a repeat infringer.
Is it up to the entity who files the DMCA to prove that the Blogger user is a “repeat infringer?” Doesn’t Google have a way to measure how many times a Blogger site has been reported? Exactly how many violations does it take before an account is disabled? What is Google’s definition of “appropriate circumstances?”
In my experience, upon receiving a DMCA, Blogger does remove pages that include the (reported) illegal links, but generally the blog itself (with dozens, if not hundreds of other illegal download links to other films) remains online, even after receiving multiple DMCAs. Note that these sites aren’t offering any original editorial content. They are sites dedicated solely to disseminating illegal links and streams to popular films, willfully disregarding Google’s stated policies. Yet even after receiving complaints, the “Google Team” allows these sites to remain in operation.
As with most pirate sites, it’s not an altruistic endeavor, but one driven by the profit-motive. These sites feature ads, often requiring users to click-thru an advertisement before reaching the “free” download most often hosted on a cyber-locker site.
Yet, as is often the case with Google products and services, transparency is an anathema. Why not be specific about the criteria used to “disable” these pirate blogs. How many violations does it take? Why not institute a 3-strike policy? The site operator would receive a warning on the first strike, advertising would be disabled on a second strike (this is an option in the Blogger dashboard) and a third strike would result in the site being removed. As with any DMCA complaint, the site operator should be able to counter any notice sent in error. Simple as that.
Google’s Blogger platform makes website creation easy. Why not do more to make operating a pirate site hard?
Tom Konkle is a busy man. At the moment he’s directing and starring in a feature film, a noir love story “Trouble is My Business.” When not working on a set somewhere, he’s a partner with two production companies, Lumen Actus and Pith-e Productions.
He and Dave Beeler produced the award-winning and innovative 3D web series “Safety Geeks:SVI” a comedic spoof of the CSI procedurals has gained a worldwide following and acclaim. Unfortunately, along with popularity came massive piracy.
I first read about Tom’s battle with piracy on Facebook when a friend shared this post lamenting the impact piracy has had on their bottom line.
I reached out and was fortunate to be able to spend some time talking with him about finding a niche as a successful indie producer, producing content for the web and new media, “smart budget, low budget” moviemaking, and how indie artists might survive and flourish amid a brave new online media world where it’s open season on creative content. Here’s my interview with Tom:
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
With the Election Over, Attention Turns Back to Congress and What Awaits Musicians
China Daily Reports that Free Music Online is Coming to an End
Despite a long and cantankerous campaign, neither candidate seemed to pay much attention to issues surrounding the internet and technology. That’s bound to change once the dust settles. For a breakdown on the two campaigns and their take on technology issues, check out this report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
