by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Tech
Google removes pirate links, Chilling Effects reposts them
In the wake of Google’s move to allegedly downgrade search results linking to notorious pirate websites, it’s worth looking at another de facto search engine, closely linked to Google, that so far seems impervious to calls for change. In many ways it renders Google’s removal of reported infringing links, moot. The “search engine” I’m referring to is none other than Chilling Effects, a Google supported DMCA database operated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) and a consortium of law clinics.
This database archiving DMCA takedown notices reported to Google (and a few other service providers) was supposedly created to provide “transparency” for the DMCA process, but unfortunately it’s also gained a reputation for being used as a de facto cudgel by service providers like Google to dissuade rights holders sending takedown notices. After all, before one sends a takedown notice to Google one must acknowledge this warning:
Please note that a copy of each legal notice we receive is sent to a third-party which may publish and annotate it (with your personal information removed). As such, the content submitted in this form will be forwarded to Chilling Effects (http://www.chillingeffects.org) for publication…For products like Google Web Search, a link to your published notice will be displayed in Google’s search results in place of the removed content.
Using Chilling Effects to find pirated music and movies is easier than using Google search
What’s even more troubling is the content of the database itself. Yes, Google might reluctantly remove a pirate link from search results, but the infringing link lives on–conveniently available via Chilling Effects. In effect, the database acts a shadow site for pirate links removed from Google search. Using Chilling Effects to search for pirated movies and music is actually easier that using Google. Using Google, one has to search through various results in order to actually find valid links. Meanwhile, search results on Chilling Effects provide results that offer infringing links in a convenient, clean lists. Great for would-be thieves–not so great for content creators.
This morning, using the Chilling Effects database search engine, I was able to quickly find active pirated streams for the recently released movie, Dracula Untold*. All I had to do was type in the title, click my mouse, and choose a link from the DMCA notices that popped up in the results. I chose to use a DMCA notice sent to Google by NBC Universal that reported 762 infringing links. See the graphic below to see how just how simple it was.
Chilling Effects’ refusal to redact the actual infringing links included in DMCA notices has long been a source of contention. Now, however, it seems that some clever piracy entrepreneurs have taken it to a new, efficient extreme by creating a search engine that can leverage links reported via DMCA notices stored by Chilling Effects to provide users with access to pirated movies and music.
According to TorrentFreak a site called FileSoup offers both a search engine for (removed) torrent links, but has also developed new technology dubbed Necromancer that according to claims, will crawl the Chilling Effects database and Google’s own transparency report for DMCA notices it has received:
The operators of FileSoup also addressed indirect search engine takedowns. Every week rightsholders force Google to remove torrent listings from its search results. For this problem FileSoup says it has a solution, and a controversial one it is too.
The team behind the site say they have developed a web crawler designed to pull the details of content subjected to DMCA notices from two sources – Google’s Transparency Report and the Chilling Effects Clearing House. From here the links are brought back to life.
“We created a technology that crawls DMCA notices and resurrects the torrent webpage under a different URL so it can appear in search results again. It was rather complicated to sharpen it, but eventually it works pretty well. We will use it on FileSoup.com for all the websites we proxy,” FileSoup explain.
Meanwhile, according to its website, Chilling Effects claims to be performing a public service:
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.
While its purported goals may appear laudable, one has to ask, why is it that an organization (run by a consortium of law school “clinics” and the Google-funded Electronic Frontier Foundation) can’t achieve its objective without also serving as backup source to find pirated content?
With Chilling Effects acting as a repository for pirate links removed from Google, what options do rights holders have now? We dutifully send DMCA notices to Google to protect our work from thieves, only to find our efforts are really an exercise in futility thanks to Chilling Effects? Are we supposed to send takedown notices to Chilling Effects to take down the very links we asked Google to remove in the first place? If we send a DMCA notice to Chilling Effects is it archived in the database too? Ultimately, Chilling Effects is really just a fun-house hall of mirrors where online thieves have the last laugh.
In crafting the DMCA, is this what lawmakers had in mind when they carved out a “safe harbor” provision? Does the Chilling Effects database really protect innovation online? At the moment, the site’s chief role seems to be as a resource for those who want to rip off creators. Chilling Effects is not working in the public’s interest, it’s working in the pirate’s.
*For the record, this is how I conducted my search using Chilling Effects database:
- Reviewed Rotten Tomatoes to find a current/popular film title.
- Went to Chilling Effects and entered film’s title (Dracula Untold) into search.
- Clicked randomly one of the first results in those infringing links listed.
- The DMCA notice I clicked on happened to be from NBCUniversal (to Google) and included 700+ links. I selected one near the top and it took me to a full stream of the film online.
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, Google, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
It’s a tired old tale, but one that bears repeating over and over again. Google’s search engine is the go-to resource for those seeking pirated content online. There’s a long line of Google critics, myself included, who decry the search giant’s defiant and arrogant attitude in response to requests that it modify its search engine to mitigate damage done to content creators by online pirates.
James Murdoch, co-COO of 21st Century Fox has added his voice to calls for change, speaking out at a TV conference in Cannes. According to a report in The Guardian, Murdoch took issue with Google’s response to News Corp CEO Robert Thomson’s recent characterization of Google search as “a platform for piracy” in a letter sent to an EU commissioner.
“There’s no question that they can do more. A lot more. Certainly Google’s not right in saying they’re doing more than anyone. That just isn’t true,” he said.
“The problem with Google … Actually, let’s not personalize this. The problem with search-driven discovery, if the content is there and it’s illegal and you’re just selling clicks as a big ad network, you have every incentive for that illegal programming to be there. That’s fundamentally not really good enough.”
No, it isn’t good enough. As I wrote last week, Google’s claim that it’s a leader in the fight against piracy is gobbledygook. Of course Google, being Google, can say pretty much anything its wants since content creators are powerless in the face of its corporate largess and lobbying. A recent story in the Washington Post, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” shined a spotlight on the search giant’s growing domination (and control).
The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google — once a lobbying weakling — has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence.
(Read the e-mails between Google and GMU officials)
That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects.
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.
When even big corporate entities like News Corp and 21st Century Fox appear powerless in the face of Googleiath’s growing dominance, you know we’re in trouble. Perhaps the European Union will punish Google for anti-trust violations, but even threats of a 6 billion dollar fine are unlikely to change Google’s scorched earth business practices and tainted profits. As its influence expands and evolves, so too does the moral code by which it operates. Problem is, it’s a code of Google’s own making.
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, Law, Photography
The DMCA Protects Thieves at the Expense of Creators
Photographer Daniel Foster has written a great post on petapixel.com in which he documents (once again) how creators–in this instance photographers–are at a real disadvantage when it comes to protecting their work from online thieves. In his piece, “Is Etsy the New Silk Road for Copyright Infringement?” Foster explains how Etsy (an e-commerce site where users can sell hand-made and vintage merchandise) looks the other way when it comes to cracking down on copyright abuse.
Etsy is selling thousands of stolen photos and doesn’t seem to care. Their system lets sellers hide their contact information, and Etsy will not disclose the identities of sellers stealing work even after being presented with clear evidence.
Etsy is in essence the new Silk Road for copyright infringement
Foster arrives at this conclusion after discovering an Etsy entrepreneur was using one of his photographs on mouse pad she was selling. After wending his way through the legal maze that is the DMCA process, and successfully having the infringing item removed from Etsy, Foster wanted to go a step further. He wanted to contact the seller who was, apparently, offering numerous other products that include stolen photographs. Foster notes, “…she seems to be stealing thousands of photos from other photographers, and Etsy is letting her get away with it.” The seller, Kharma Lu, was selling her products as “Liilproducts” and offered no contact information. While Etsy removed the infringing mousepad, it refused to provide Foster with any additional information regarding the seller, saying it would do so only if a subpoena is issued.
This is the same problem that arises when a copyright holder receives a false counter-notice, say on YouTube. YouTube will repost the infringing content and the rights holders are forced to go to court to enforce their rights. We constantly hear about DMCA abuse, but no one mentions the fact that the DMCA process is tilted in favor of thieves as ultimately those without the deep pockets required to go to court cannot enforce (valid) claims.
Fosters summarized his frustrations this way:
In order to simply find out who is stealing my photo, I would have to a) hire an attorney, b) go to court and c) request a subpoena for Etsy. Assuming Etsy did not challenge the subpoena, it would cost at least $3,000- $5,000 just to get Kharma Lu’s address.
LiilProducts’ shop is still active, even after I reported the copyright infringement to Etsy. Kharma Lu appears to have gotten away scot-free thanks to Etsy’s protection. This just isn’t right.
Etsy, of course, is not alone in its response. YouTube, or any other site profiting off stolen content, will cite the DMCA and refuse to provide contact information for its users, even when they are clearly violating the law. These sites do nothing to ensure that its users comply with copyright law prior to uploading or sharing content. The DMCA does provide web hosts with this glaring loophole thanks to its “safe harbor” provision. As explained on the Google-funded Chilling Effects website:
The safe harbor provisions permit a copyright owner to subpoena the identity of the individual allegedly responsible for the infringing activities. [512(h)] Such a subpoena is granted on the condition that the information about the individual’s identity will only be used in relation to the protection of the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner. [512(h)(2)(C)]
Until the law is changed creators are stuck with this scenario. I suggest you read Foster’s full piece here to get the full picture as to how this can impact individual creators. His narrative provides just one more example of an online eco-system where the rights of creators are subsumed by the rights of thieves. I should note that Foster has also recently founded PIXSY, a much-needed service that promises to help photographers safeguard their work against copyright infringement. You can find out more about Pixy here.
Note: When I checked LiilProducts page on Etsy this morning it seems that Foster may have (indirectly) gotten his wish. According to the site, “Liilproducts is taking a short break.” 🙂
With Chilling Effects acting as a repository for pirate links removed from Google, what options do rights holders have now? We dutifully send DMCA notices to Google to protect our work from thieves, only to find our efforts are really an exercise in futility thanks to Chilling Effects? Are we supposed to send takedown notices to Chilling Effects to take down the very links we asked Google to remove in the first place? If we send a DMCA notice to Chilling Effects is it archived in the database too? Ultimately, Chilling Effects is really just a fun-house hall of mirrors where online thieves have the last laugh.
