Tim Wu, the legal scholar credited with coining the oft used term “net neutrality” was hired by Yelp to conduct research into Google’s search algorithm. Wu, along with Harvard Business School professor Michael Luca and researchers at Yelp, examined whether Google gives consumers the best results. The results don’t look good. Per Recode.net:
Google knowingly manipulates search results according to a research paper published Monday from several academics. The study presents evidence that the search giant sets out to hamper competitors and limit consumers’ options. The paper lands as Google prepares to release its response to the European Union investigation, which rests on similar claims about Google’s comparison-shopping product.
Meanwhile, in the EU a new website Focus on the User (http://www.focusontheuser.eu/) has been set up to publicize the issue, charging, “Google+ is hurting the Internet. Europeans have the power to stop it.” Along with a rundown of the various ways Google manipulates search results to favor its own product via Google+ the website offers a video explainer (below).
2. 40 State Attorneys Generals file amicus brief in support of subpoena process to investigate Google
Attorneys General from 40 states have filed in amicus brief in support of Mississippi’s AG Jim Hood’s efforts to subpoena Google. In the brief they ask a U.S. Appeals Court to overturn a preliminary injunction issued last March by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate that blocked Hood’s efforts to investigate Google’s anti-consumer business practices. From the brief:
As is evident from the letters of record signed by multiple Attorneys General, Mississippi is not the only state with concerns about Google’s consumer practices. (See ROA.1199-1200, ROA.1243-1244, ROA.1245-1246). Mississippi, like every state, is entitled to address these concerns through further investigation utilizing proper tools, including administrative subpoenas. Mississippi, like every state, also is entitled to review information gathered pursuant to its investigation and make decisions about actions to take—or not take—to enforce its consumer protection laws for its citizens. Google may challenge Mississippi’s Subpoena consistent with state law. But Google should not be allowed to bypass state subpoena review processes and derail a legitimate state consumer protection investigation by filing premature declaratory judgment lawsuits and obtaining sweeping preliminary injunctions in federal court. Both the law and public policy counsel against it.
3. Google accused of eavesdropping
According to an article published in The Guardian, Google is also under fire from privacy advocates for incorporating technology into its Chrome browser that allows eavesdropping.
“Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room,” said Rick Falkvinge, the Pirate party founder, in a blog post. “Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by … an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.”
Scott Cleland, a noted Google critic, points out that it’s business as usual in comments posted on his Precursor Blog:
This is not an isolated incident. It is a part of a broader Google pattern of behavior.
What should be big news and scandalous here is that the company that has gathered the most Internet users in the world based upon public representations of being pro-privacy and open — is secretly engaged in widespread wiretapping.
June Gloom for Googleiath
Earlier this month Google was slapped down by a Canadian appeals court, Its judges were not impressed by Google’s specious “free speech” arguments and affirmed a lower court ruling mandating Google remove certain search results (linking to illegal products) on a worldwide basis.
As regulators in Europe continue to tighten the vise, perhaps this summer will be a turning point in efforts to hold Google accountable for its bad business practices. Stay tuned…
Blocking pirate sites is not censorship–it’s common sense
In a move being celebrated by creators worldwide, the Australian parliament has approved the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. The legislation will allow rights holders go to court to request that pirate websites be blocked in Australia. The explanatory memorandum, notes that the purpose of the bill is to “reduce online infringement.”
The bill’s opponents have employed the standard tech talking points, crying censorship and calling its justification “bogus.” They claim to be concerned about collateral damagebut consistently show zero regard for the ongoing “collateral damage” suffered by filmmakers, musicians, and authors whose livelihoods are routinely leached by online thieves. For piracy apologists blocking pirate sites is an anathema. In their view the rights of piracy profiteers (who pocket profits from content theft) trumps the rights of creators at every turn.
Fortunately members of the Australian parliament were able to see through the over-wrought hyperbole and craft legislation that seeks to balance the rights of creators with concerns about online censorship. With the legislation’s passage, Australia joins the UK and a number of other nations in setting up a judicial review process to determine whether certain pirate websites should be blocked. The new Australian law establishes a “high threshold test” for the Court:
The Court must take into account a number of factors before granting an injunction. These factors include:
the flagrancy of the infringement or its facilitation
whether disabling access to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances
the impact on any person likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction, and
whether it is in the public interest to disable access to the online location.
Further reading of the explanatory memorandum demonstrates the rationale for the legislation and, despite rhetoric thrown about by opponents, it seems quite reasonable.
8. Copyright protection provides an essential mechanism for ensuring the viability and success of creative industries by incentivising and rewarding creators. Online copyright infringement poses a significant threat to these incentives and rewards, due to the ease in which copyright material can be copied and shared through digital means without authorisation. [emphasis added]
9. Where online copyright infringement occurs on a large scale, copyright owners need an efficient mechanism to disrupt the business models of online locations operated outside Australia that distribute infringing copyright material to Australian consumers. [emphasis added] In addition, a consequence of fewer visitors at the particular online location may also impact the advertising revenue, which is often an integral element of the business models of these types of entities.
10. The Bill acknowledges the difficulties in taking direct enforcement action against entities operating outside Australia. The proposed amendments are intended to create a no-fault remedy against CSPs where they are in a position to address copyright infringement.
In the United States opponents of such legislation, often funded by tech interests, have successfully conflated sincere efforts to thwart online piracy with the specter of online censorship. However, no matter how they try to slice it, piracy does not = free speech. Websites that profit from piracy are criminal enterprises and are not worthy of protection.
Illegal activity in the brick and mortar world is not sheltered by the “free speech” excuse. Why should online piracy’s black markets be above the law? There are plenty of options for web users around the world to “share” files via any number of legitimate free sites. Sites like Pirate Bay and Kick Ass Torrents should not be thought of as sentinels to safeguard an open internet.
With passage of the law attention has turned to VPNs (virtual private networks) that would allow Australians to bypass blockages but its a red herring. VPNs are not the panacea many claim and, in fact, are often rife with malware and other security concerns. Of course, for the determined downloader there are other ways to get around a blockade, but the law’s intent isn’t really to prevent all access, but rather to deter easy access. The majority of folks who download illegal content online do so not only because it’s free, but it’s also easy. Any roadblock that can redirect these users to legitimate outlets is a welcome one.
Would similar legislation ever pass in the United States? After the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debacle it seems unlikely. Given the lobbying largess of Google and other tech interests in Washington, opponents seem to have constructed a formidable bunker against those who seek to fight online piracy profiteers. After all, some entities within the U.S. tech industry are also piracy profiteers and have a vested financial interest in keeping the Wild West status quo where an online eco-system of online theft for profit is allowed to flourish. Fortunately not every worldwide legislative body is under the thumb of big tech and so bit by bit, progress is being made.
Richard Prince is not an artist, he’s a con-artist.
Ripping off artists in the name of ART is not OK
How long are we going to continue to let small artists get screwed by those with deep pockets? Talk to any small creator–filmmakers, musicians, photographers, artists, authors–and ask whether they’ve had their work stolen (and monetized) by others and most will likely say “yes.” Then ask them what they did about it. The answer will likely be, “nothing.”
Right now a con-artist named Richard Prince is busy raking in the dough by selling Instagram photographs taken by others. Oh yeah, he adds some drivel and emojis to the bottom of each photo before he blows it up a 65 x 48 print. Yes art is often derivative, and yes these photographs are altered–but, in essence, at its core, the art remains a photograph taken (and owned) by someone else.
Prince, and the Gagosian Gallery where his work was shown, apparently have no qualms about blatantly appropriating and cashing by selling the work of other artists without their permission. As a Paddy Johnson noted so succinctly in a piece he wrote for Artnet News, “Richard Prince sucks.”
So, while there’s no doubt Prince is a phony, piggy-backing off the work of Instagram artists; the question is–returning to my original query–Can the photographers whose pictures were stolen do anything to stop Prince’s outrageous fraud? Well, not really. You see, quite simply, Mr. Prince is loaded and the people he steals from are not.
Prince’s scam, disguised as art, is nothing new. Over his career he’s developed a reputation as a serial thief and has ended up in court before. Two years ago he prevailed (partially) on appeal in a suit brought by photographer Patrick Cariou who claimed copyright infringement when Prince produced a series of photographs based on Cariou’s work. Ultimately a settlement was reached.
For his part Prince purports not to care much about copyright, telling Russhumazine.com:
…sometimes it’s better not to be successful and well known and you can get away with much more. I knew what I was stealing 30 years ago but it didn’t matter because no one cared, no one was paying any attention.
Why should he care? With millions in the bank Prince can afford not to. Does his past legal success mean he’d win this round? Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out since filing a lawsuit costs mega money–money that most everyday creators don’t have.
Doe Deere, one of the Instagram artists whose work was stolen, posted this response on the social media site aside the photo Prince filched:
Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it’s just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It’s already sold ($90K I’ve been told) during the VIP preview. No, I’m not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it! ? #lifeisstrange #modernart #wannabuyaninstagrampicture
Once again we’re left with a scenario where a rich charlatan can get away with stealing from the little guy.
It’s a scenario that’s played out many times. We’ve witnessed similar rip-offs by corporate interests that routinely steal the work of artists. Sam Levin wrote an expose for the East Bay Express last year documenting the ways in which artists are routinely victimized by such theft:
Visual artists and designers throughout the Bay Area and across the country are, at alarming rates, facing copyright infringements from large retail and wholesale companies stealing their intellectual property for their own products and profit. As artists increasingly promote their work and crafts online — through Etsy or their own websites and Facebook pages — corporations are stealing their designs and mass-producing them for sale.
Here too, an artist whose work is stolen has little recourse when it comes to fighting back. Even if they do, Levin points out that any settlement is likely to be paltry and include a non-disclosure agreement, thereby shielding the thief from any negative public shaming.
The time has come for Congress to establish a small claims court for copyright
Perhaps the time has come to get serious about establishing a copyright small claims court. It’s an idea the U.S. Copyright Office spent several years studying. A report summarizing its findings was sent to Congress in September of 2013. It outlined potential bureaucratic hurdles and ultimately recommended “the creation of a voluntary system of adjudication to be administered by the Copyright Office.” In any case, the report’s findings reinforce the need for some type of action on this issue. From the introduction:
While infringement is nothing new when it comes to the world of creative works, there is no question that it has proliferated with the ascendance of digital culture and the unprecedented desire for content. Today it is not only easy to make unauthorized copies, but to do so at virtually no cost, much to the detriment of authors and the market for their works. …Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, as the rate of infringement has increased, so too have the barriers to pursuing copyright claims in the federal courts. These barriers are largely practical: federal litigation is expensive and time-consuming, and therefore out of reach for many copyright owners…If exclusive rights are unenforceable, they are weakened as the pillars of the copyright law, and public respect for our nation’s creativity is eroded in turn.
Other documentation gathered for the report included this startling nugget:.
In fact, one recent survey found that, as of 2011, the median cost for litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at risk was $350,000.
More analysis of the report can be found by Jonathan Bailey’s post on Plagiarism Today.
Yet here we are. More than a year and a half has passed since the Copyright Office published its recommendations, Congress has yet to act. I realize the wheels of progress move at a glacial pass in Washington, and there are other copyright-related issues being bandied about, but let’s hope this idea will move to the front burner soon.
Bottom line, establishing a small claims court where copyright claims could be heard would at least level the playing field a bit. Small creators would not have to sit idly as skunks like Richard Prince co-opt their work and make money at their expense. Obviously damages are limited in small claims court, but at least those whose work is stolen could seek redress and perhaps, collectively, turn the tide against this type of chronic theft.
Prince can afford to go to court. The Instagram users he stole from cannot. There has got to be a better way don’t you think?
The Florida legislature recently passed the “True Origin of Digital Goods Act.” The bill now sits on the desk of Governor Scott, awaiting his signature or, if tech interests have their way-the veto pen.
The proposed law would require any website operator selling digital downloads provide contact information (name and address) in order to do business.
A person who owns or operates a website or online service dealing in substantial part in the electronic dissemination of commercial recordings or audiovisual works, directly or indirectly, and who electronically disseminates such works to consumers in this state shall clearly and conspicuously disclose his or her true and correct name, physical address, and a telephone number or e-mail address on his or her website or an online service in a location readily accessible to a consumer using or visiting the website or online service.
Doesn’t sound particularly onerous does it? After all, any other (brick and mortar) business operating in Florida must do so. Why should online commerce be immune?
In predictable fashion, the usual suspects, like the (tech-funded) EFF, lined up against the bill with the usual hyperbolic warnings that it would “have disastrous consequences for anonymous online speech both inside and outside the state.” Sound familiar?
The CDT also sounded the alarm in predictable fashion, quoting a Supreme Court case: Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Ok, let me get this straight. Transparency is great when sites like Chilling Effect post un-redacted DMCA notices, but when Florida asks business owners engaged in financial transactions to disclose contact information, it’s a tyrannical threat?
Ironically the CDT post arguing against the law points to the DMCA as the reason such a law is not necessary. Meanwhile, when someone uses the DMCA, his/her attempt to remove infringing content is undermined in the name of transparency? Ok…
Selling digital content is selling, not speech. To conflate this law with concerns over free speech is ludicrous. Isn’t the online ecosystem mature enough for us to differentiate between the two? Not all online activity is the same. Should a person seeking a business license in Florida not provide a name and address in the name of free speech? There is language written into this law to safeguard those using excerpts of material for commentary or other non-commercial purposes.
Commercial recording or audiovisual work” means a recording or audiovisual work whose owner, assignee, authorized agent, or licensee has disseminated or intends to disseminate such recording or audiovisual work for sale, for rental, or for performance or exhibition to the public, including under license, but does not include an excerpt consisting of less than substantially all of a recording or audiovisual work. A recording or audiovisual work may be commercial regardless of whether a person who electronically disseminates it seeks commercial advantage or private financial gain from the dissemination. The term does not include video games, depictions of video game play, or the streaming of video game activity. [emphasis added]
The internet is now the center of all things–commerce, social discourse, communication and more. Not everything that happens online is sacrosanct. The time has come for reasonable measures to ensure online businesses selling digital downloads operate in a lawful fashion. That is not an extreme notion.
Governor Scott should do the right thing and sign this bill into law. Consumers in Florida will benefit. As Latin musician Monte Rosa wrote for a piece in the Tallahassee Democrat in support of the bill:
Transparency can be a powerful tool, both to arm Florida consumers with more information to better navigate the Internet and to deter an illegal website from peddling stolen music in the first place. Wouldn’t that basic information help Florida music fans better distinguish the scam sites from the licensed music services that actually compensate artists?
The only ones who will lose are those nefarious website operators whose business operations have something to hide. Please sign the bill.
Last week I sent a DMCA notice to Chilling Effects to request that the site remove a copy of a DMCA notice (sent to Google search) containing a direct link to infringing (pirated) online streams of our film. I explained my actions in an earlier blog post. This morning I published a blog post noting that I’d not received any response from Chilling Effects’ DMCA agent ([email protected]) but that the content had been removed….
Chilling Effects has the deep pockets so they’ll win this round and keeping links to pirate copies of our film (and thousands of others) online
Turns out, mere minutesafter I posted by blog post, Tracy Walden,Harvard’s DMCA agent, forwarded me a counter-notice from Chilling Effects’ Adam Holland. Now, if I hope to enforce the takedown I must file suit in district court. Apparently my DMCA notice falls into the category of “mistaken removal.”
While the safe harbor provisions provide a way for individuals to object to the removal of their materials once taken down, they do not require service providers to notify those individuals before their allegedly infringing materials are removed. If the material on your site does not infringe the intellectual property rights of a copyright owner and it has been improperly removed from the Web, you can file a counter-notice with the service provider, who must transmit it to the person who made the complaint. If the copyright owner does not notify the service provider within 14 business days that it has filed a claim against you in court, your materials can be restored to the Internet.
I don’t have the deep pockets required to go to court so it’s likely that after a couple weeks the pirate links will go back online. As I’m not an attorney it’s not entirely clear to me why Chilling Effects–a site that in its current form operates as a de facto search engine for pirate links–is allowed to operate above the law. I’m sure, however, there will be plenty of folks who will fill me in.
Just to be clear, here’s a video documenting how the page in question at Chilling Effects links directly to an infringing stream of our film. I guess my eyes deceive me eh?
For the record, I’m not opposed to Chilling Effects operating a database to document DMCA takedowns. Transparency is a good thing. However, I do believe the site could, and should, redact a portion of the infringing links posted on its public, searchable database. That would be the responsible (and ethical) thing to do.
Chilling Effects reposts infringing links removed from Google. Why no consequences?
Earlier this week I sent Chilling Effects a DMCA takedown notice*, requesting that the site remove links that lead directly to a pirated stream of our film, And Then Came Lola. How did the pirate link make its way to Chilling Effects? Well, it’s not a new tale. In fact, I’ve repeatedly written about the fact that pirate links reported (and removed) by Google search are routinely reposted on Chilling Effects. Google even goes so far as to provide a direct link to the notice (and the infringing links) so as not to inconvenience its users.
In the short video clip below I document just how quickly–and easily–it was to navigate from Google to Chilling Effects to the illegal, embedded stream of our film. It took me a mere 10 seconds to complete the journey from Google-to Chilling Effects-to the illegal stream of our film.
I sent the original DMCA notice to Google on April 23, 2015 and two weeks later, the pirate links were reborn via a posted copy of DMCA notice sent to Google, courtesy of Chilling Effects. How Chilling Effects can get away with this behavior is beyond me, but I imagine the legal staff at the Berkman Center at Harvard, my alma mater, are careful to operate within the confines—if not the intent–of the DMCA’s “safe harbor”provision.
These safe harbor provisions could provide valuable protection to you as a web site operator. In order to take advantage of them, however, you must comply with three administrative requirements:
You must designate an agent, usually yourself though it may be someone else who agrees to do so, to receive notices of claimed copyright infringement. Your agent must provide up-to-date contact information so that copyright owners who believe their work is being infringed on your site can send complaints or take-down notices to him or her. To designate an agent, a procedural requirement for protection under the DMCA safe harbor provisions, you must file an interim designation with the U.S. Copyright Office and submit a $105 filing fee.
You must publish on your site your policy for addressing repeated infringing activity, specifically a statement that you terminate users or account holders who are repeat infringers. If you have no subscribers or account holders, your policy may state, “If we become aware that one of our users is a repeat copyright infringer, it is our policy to take reasonable steps within our power to terminate that user.” Including the policy statement in the web site’s terms of service or privacy agreements makes logical sense, though it may be published elsewhere on the site.
You must properly comply with a notice of claimed infringement when received, including
the expeditious removal of the material that is claimed to be infringing;
notification to the user or subscriber that the material has been removed;
notification to the copyright holder if proper counter-notice is provided by the user or subscriber; and
restoration of the removed material if proper counter-notice is provided, and the copyright holder does not file suit within 10 days.
Why doesn’t Chilling Effects make it easy to find email address to send takedown notices to?
Prior to sending my DMCA notice to the good people at Chilling Effects, I attempted to search the site for an email address to send the notice to. When I couldn’t find one even after searching Google using the terms–chilling effects “DMCA agent”— I resorted to sending my notice to the only email listed on the site’s about page, [email protected].*
Update 5-8-15:Today, after receiving no response to my original notice, I forwarded a copy to the Berkman Center For Internet & Society. Shortly thereafter I received an email with a link to Chilling Effects legal policies page (https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/legal). Of course, that was not the end of my journey. In order to get the actual email for CE’s acting DMCA agent I had to click another link (http://www.harvard.edu/reporting-copyright-infringements) and visit yet another website–this one a copyright infringement page hosted by Harvard University at Harvard.edu. Note that the Harvard page includes this verbiage:
In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), Pub. L. 105-304, Harvard has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring in the harvard.edu domain. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed, notify our designated agent specified below.
Hmmm, so I guess, technically, ChillingEffects.org is actually a Harvard.edu domain? Color me confused. Not exactly an efficient– nor transparent–way for Chilling Effects to inform people about its own DMCA takedown process.
Chilling Effects obfuscation of its own DMCA agent information is ironic given its mission is to make the takedown process transparent. Why, when it comes to its own site, do they hinder user’s ability to lawfully protect their copyrighted work from online pirates?
Chilling Effects is an independent 3rd party research project studying cease and desist letters concerning online content. We collect and analyze complaints about online activity, especially requests to remove content from online. Our goals are to educate the public, to facilitate research about the different kinds of complaints and requests for removal–both legitimate and questionable–that are being sent to Internet publishers and service providers, and to provide as much transparency as possible about the “ecology” of such notices, in terms of who is sending them and why, and to what effect.
Perhaps those who work at Chilling Effects (and the lawyers who advise them) believe that the database’s work falls outside that of the “service providers” as defined by the DMCA.
Until someone with deep pockets can take them to task, Chilling Effects is apparently quite willing to create its own ecology, above the law, where pirate links are reborn and disseminated. The Chilling Effects database may be used for legitimate research, but in its current form, it also gives users one of the most efficient piracy search engines around.
*Update: Today, Friday, May 8th I forwarded my DMCA notice to [email protected] which apparently serves as the DMCA agent for Chilling Effects.
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
look.
