by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
When Google removes a pirate link from search it redirects users to very same link on Chilling Effects
Search for Gravity on Google, look for a result that’s been removed, click link provided and you’re taken to a list of infringing links for the same movie, making it easy to find and watch pirated copy of the film
Google received a lot of positive press recently with its announcement that notorious pirate sites would be demoted in its search results, but just take a look for a second at how disingenuous that claim is, and how truly duplicitous its business practices actually are. Bear with me as I explain…
Google brags that it’s a leader in fighting online piracy, making this pronouncement in its latest PR missive, its updated “How Google Fights Piracy” report:
Be Efficient, Effective, and Scalable. Google strives to implement anti-piracy solutions that work. For example, beginning in 2010, Google has made substantial investments
in streamlining the copyright removal process for search results.
The report goes on:
Nevertheless, online piracy still remains a challenge, and Google takes that challenge seriously. We develop and deploy anti-piracy solutions with the support of hundreds of Google employees.
This braggadocio makes for good soundbites but is really just more corporate baloney. In truth, here’s what really happens when Google removes pirate links from search results in response to a DMCA takedown notice:
- Search for a free (pirated) movie
- Review results and find one removed due to a DMCA notice, the link replaced by this statement:
- Click the link “read the DMCA complaint.”
- Arrive at a list that includes the missing pirate link along with a bunch of others infringing links (courtesy of Chilling Effects)
- Click one of the listed pirate links and go directly to (free) movie
So, let’s get this straight…Google waxes on how “seriously” it tackles online piracy, about how hard hundreds of employees work to “deploy anti-piracy solutions” yet–with a wink, wink and a nudge, nudge–it redirects users to the very same links it boasts about removing. Google could just as well call this its “link-finder” tool.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at the examples above and below. I chose a couple recent, popular films (Dracula Untold and Gravity), searched on Google, ended up at Chilling Effects and–voilà—quickly found what I was looking for. In fact, I didn’t find just one infringing link, but dozens.
How convenient! This makes it much easier to find a pirated copy of the film. Thanks Google. 🙂 Thanks Chilling Effects. 🙂 Thanks for protecting online pirates and ensuring that free (stolen) movies remain easy-to-find online no matter how many DMCA takedown notices filmmakers and musicians send in an effort to safeguard their work.
Searched for Dracula Untold on Google, found result that’s been removed, clicked the link provided and ended up at list that included a bunch of working pirate links for same movie
I’m sure attorneys for Google and Chilling Effects have made sure that this setup conforms to the law while they publicly defend the operation as providing “transparency.” Google admits as much on its own web pages:
We link in our search results to the requests published by Chilling Effects in place of removed content when we are able to do so legally.
And, while both entities may follow the letter of the DMCA, clearly neither Google nor Chilling Effects care much about respecting its intent. It’s also worth noting that Google’s report on piracy fails mention its “legal” reposting of pirate links or its connection to Chilling Effects.
If folks at Google were seriously interested in doing something about online piracy, do you really believe they would provide direct links to the very same infringing content its employees had worked so hard to remove?
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
Google’s anti-piracy pledge fails to pass muster
Yesterday I wrote a blog post expressing skepticism about the promises made in Google’s latest update to its self-serving “How Google Fights Piracy” report. The report made headlines thanks to word that Google finally appears ready to move against the plethora of pirate links found via its search engine. In its report Google made this claim:
In October 2014, we have improved and refined the DMCA demotion signal in search results, increasing the effectiveness of just one tool rights holders have at their disposal…
In addition to removing pages from search results when notified by copyright owners,Google also factors in the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site as one signal among the hundreds that we take into account when ranking search results. Consequently, sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in search results. This ranking change helps users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily.
Well, it’s October of 2014–October 21st to be exact–and this morning I used Google search to check out how things are going with its new “demotion” algorithm for search. I chose to look for Gone Girl, a movie that was released earlier this month and is still screening in theaters. Using the search terms: “gone girl” watch free online it literally took me a couple seconds to find a a link to an active copy of the film streaming online listed on page one of Google search’s results.
What’s the threshold for Google’s “new” algorithm to work its magic and demote results for this pirate website? It’s worth noting that Google is careful to insert the equivocation “may” into its promise that “Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in search results.” [emphasis added]
Given the number of complaints, one has to ask the question why is this site even allowed to remain listed Google search results at all? In its report Google provides this dubious explanation as to why only links are removed rather than ban entire site:
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. 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. [emphasis added]
I challenge anyone to find a single page on watch32.com that offers up anything besides infringing links? This website’s ONLY function is to make money by offering up pirate links to popular movies. There’s nothing legitimate about it and there would be nothing “inappropriate” about removing the ENTIRE SITE.
Google’s report also tries to rebut charges that it’s a popular and convenient way for people to find free (pirated) content making the claim that more people search for “Katy Perry” than search for “Katy Perry free.” So what? No one is saying that the majority of searches on Google aren’t legit. What we are complaining about is the fact that sites like watch32.com are still show up in Google’s search results. It’s like a store selling merchandise and pointing out that only one aisle offers stolen goods. There’s no excuse. The fact is that by including criminal sites like these in its results Google is aiding and abetting the pirate economy.
As I noted yesterday, there is good reason to be skeptical of Google’s shiny new piracy report. The company’s record speaks for itself. Actions speak louder than words, and so far Google’s bark against pirates is much bigger than its bite.
Update 10-30-14: Traffic to some major pirate/torrent sites has reportedly been diminished post-algorithm change. I’ve written about that development here, but fact is there are still pirate sites to be found in first page of search results on Google.
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 | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy, TV
Online piracy is not a victimless crime
A couple weeks ago the New York Times published a profile of Hana Beshara, founder of the notorious pirate web emporium known as NinjaVideo. The site was shuttered in 2010 and Ms. Beshara, who pocketed around $200,000 from her enterprise was sentenced to 22 months in prison for conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement. She was released last year after serving 16 months and, according to the Times piece:
She acknowledges that some of her colleagues were upset when they learned she received much of the profit from NinjaVideo, but says it wasn’t out of line with her role as the voice of the site. “People took issue with the fact that I got paid,” she said. At any rate, in her opinion, the money was insignificant. To this day, she argues that the movie business is so big that skimming a little off the top doesn’t hurt anybody. She likes to say that NinjaVideo was operating in a “gray area.”
Characterizing the business of online piracy for profit as a “gray area” may be how thieves like Ms. Beshara rationalize their criminality, but in reality it’s theft–and because it’s theft–that means there ARE victims.
These actual victims of online piracy were pretty much ignored in the NY Times piece, but thankfully Dawn Prestwich, a writer for AMC’s and Netflix’s “The Killing” provided some perspective in a guest column published this week in Variety. Ms. Prestwich pointed out that piracy’s damage extends far beyond the front offices in Hollywood.
When Hana made a TV episode available for free on her website, that was worth the equivalent of thousands of downloads that weren’t watched on a legal site. And when that happened, the entire production team that collectively created the content was adversely impacted – from the most junior production assistant on up. All positions within the hierarchy became devalued.
Ms. Prestwich takes her analysis one step further television fans may inadvertently threaten the very survival of their favorite shows when they download episodes from illegal sources rather than legit streaming sites like Netflix:
…when the audience pays for creative content, they are voicing their support with their dollars. They are saying: “this show/film/whatever has personal value. I enjoy it. It’s worth paying for.” That not only helps me as a writer, it leads to further investment in the shows audiences like.
Creating quality content costs money and doesn’t it make sense that if we want to be able to consume something we should be willing to pay something to support its creation. A newly released study by the research firm KPMG,
“Film and TV title availability in the Digital Age” confirms what most of us already know to be true–consumers these days have a
myriad of legit ways to find great films and television shows online.
As of December 2013, 94 percent of the most popular and critically acclaimed films were legally available in the U.S. through online video-on-demand (VOD) services. The same study also finds that that 85 percent of the most popular and critically acclaimed television titles were available in the U.S. through online video services. This study is the latest reminder that today it’s easier than ever to watch the shows and movies you love legally online. –MPAA
For the cost of a couple lattes at Starbucks you can have a monthly subscription to a streaming service like
Netflix or Amazon Prime. Seems like a small price to pay to support those who create the works we enjoy.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy
Content creators know how time consuming it is to send DMCA takedown notices to sites that pirate your movies, music, photographs, etc. Equally tedious is trying to find the correct DMCA email address to send the actual takedown notice to. Usually it’s a matter of clicking through a maze of irritating pop-up ads and captcha-codes. With new cyber-locker pirate sites appearing every day, it’s sometimes hard to keep ones email address book up to date.
So, for those of you who are stuck in DMCA hell, here’s a little something to brighten your date….a list of email address I discovered for the most popular pirate cyber-locker sites. Of course–given the broken system we have in place to protect copyright holders from theft–there’s no guarantee that even if you do send a takedown notice that the file will be removed, but in for most, it’s worth a try.
List of email addresses to send DMCA takedowns notices to for most popular pirate websites
http://voxindie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/master-dmca-email-addresses-list.pdf
Here’s a link to the PDF: DMCA email addresses list
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Law, Piracy
Did the pre-release piracy of Expendables 3 play a role in an abysmal opening weekend box office?
When a high-quality copy of Expendables 3 starring Sylvester Stallone was stolen and released on pirate (torrent) websites last month and downloaded millions of times, the were fears that the theft would hurt the film’s return at the box office. Looking at this weekend’s results for the 3rd installment of the popular franchise, it would seem those fears have become a reality as the film earned an anemic 16.2 million, 10 million less than expected. From Brent Lang in Variety:
“This is really a clear situation where this had an impact,” said Phil Contrino, vice president and chief analyst of BoxOffice.com. “It’s hard to measure, but the ripple effect, not only of the downloads, but of the word-of-mouth that spread as a result, can be seen in the soft opening.”
The film’s initial numbers are the worst in series history. The original “Expendables” launched to $34.8 million in 2010 while the second installment debuted to $28.6 in 2012.
Variety cites other possible factors beyond piracy, like “franchise fatigue”, that may have played a role in the disappointing returns, but given the fact that the film missed expectations by a whopping 10 million dollars the pre-release piracy was most certainly a factor in the equation. As Lang writes:
However, some research suggests that piracy can take a big chunk out of ticket sales. A 2011 study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers found that when a film is pirated prior to release, it loses nearly 20 percent of its potential revenue.
Why pay to see a film at the theater when you can see a high-quality version online, for free? It’s the lament of filmmakers worldwide who regularly see their works stolen and distributed by online thieves. Let’s remember, of course, that these online web pirates DO make money and it comes at the expense the filmmakers (and their investors).
The fact that the piracy of Expendables 3 took place three weeks before it’s planned release made it particularly damaging. Piracy apologists probably cheer the damage done to Hollywood and care little about those who make their livings working to produce films like this. Others do care. The California legislature is poised to pass AB 1839 a bill increase the state’s film production tax credits four-fold in order to keep the film production industry (and the people who work for it) in California. As one of the bill’s co-sponsor told the Washington Post:
“I’ve heard from so many people over the past year who have told me about their family being torn apart because production left the state,” Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D), a bill co-sponsor, said in a statement. “This proactive effort ensures well-paying jobs stay in California and families remain together.”
Tax credits aside, another way to keep the film industry healthy is to do more to combat the scourge of online piracy. Lionsgate, the studio distributing Expendables 3, has already gone to court in an effort to blunt further damage, but nothing can undo what’s been done. Hollywood has taken a hit and so too have those who earn their living working there.
