by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Piracy
MUSO’s Global Piracy Insights Report 2016 – Click for more
A report in today’s Torrent Freak noted that content protection firm (anti-piracy) firm Muso recently released its annual Global Piracy Insights Report for 2016 so I was prompted to take a look to see what what’s new on the piracy landscape. According to the report there’s been a, “massive shift towards direct downloads for music content – growing by 31% in 2015” In addition the report found that “28% of all visits to piracy sites in 2015 were through mobile devises, up 8% during the year.”
Viewing habits for pirated movie watchers also seems to have shifted over the past year as more and more users to viewing streamed content instead of downloading torrents. The study examined traffic from 14,000 pirate websites, encompassing 141 billion visits, and according to an analysis of the report on Advanced Television, discovered this trend:
Out of a total 78.49 billion film and television piracy site visits, 73.69 per cent (57.84 billion) were visits to streaming sites…the second most popular piracy delivery type was torrents, capturing 17.24 per cent of audience visits.
The report is available to subscribers only so I cannot delve deeper into the figures but I’m not surprised to see streaming gain a growing foothold as the favored viewing platform. Pirates, like the rest of us, have grown accustomed to watching shows streaming on Netflix, HULU and Amazon. It’s no wonder the same patterns persists when watching pirated fare.
For those who care about the impact of piracy on musicians, comes this unfortunate news:
2015 saw a 25% rise in the use of YouTube ripper sites, used primarily for downloading mp3’s from YouTube music videos. The ripper piracy from mobile devices overtook piracy from desktop devices, growing by 46% last year. The usage of these sites is far larger than many realise, in fact making up 17.7% of all visits to piracy sites for music content.
One piece of apparent good news from the report is that, according to MUSO researchers, “…piracy levels remained relatively throughout the year, with a 5% overall decline.”
Andy Chatterley, MUSO CEO ultimately focuses on what can be gained by studying these trends noting the report as helping creators develop a framework by which nudge consumers in better (legal) directions:
This report gives a complete picture of the piracy landscape and identifies key insights into piracy audience and behaviour. The Global Piracy Report is hugely valuable to right holders and for the first time looks at all forms of piracy traffic and not just p2p usage. In understanding the scale and mechanism of the audience we can be better informed to re-connect this audience to legal content.-MuSO press release
The report also found that streaming piracy in both the United States and UK was trending down, “likely to be due to legal music and video streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix.” But, before celebrate too much it also noted that in many countries, streaming piracy is actually increasing. What’s that old saying, two steps forward, one step back?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Piracy, Social Media, Tech
Facebook has been promising for some time to introduce tools that would allow rights holders to automatically detect and remove pirated content from its pages.
The company has endured a lot of bad publicity around the freebooting of viral YouTube videos on its pages, but Facebook’s also long been a place where pirated movies and music found a cozy habitat. That is–until now. I’ve recently begun to utilize this tool to manage Facebook DMCA takedowns and wanted to share my first impressions, but first a bit of background.
First of all, I’m thrilled that Facebook, with all its resources, has finally begun to take copyright infringement seriously. In introducing the new tool last month the Facebook development team explained why the company had finally stepped up:
Video has become an important part of the Facebook experience for people around the world, due in large part to the amazing creativity we’re seeing from all kinds of video publishers.
To provide the best experience for everyone who watches, creates and shares videos on Facebook, we work with our community to understand which tools they want us to build. Based on this feedback, on top of the measures we already have in place, we’ve been building new video matching technology to further help rights owners protect the content they own.
Signing up is easy and the interface straightforward and simple to use
I found signing up for the rights manager tool to be relatively straightforward. You must have a page to link the rights manager to and I initially applied for, and was accepted into the program, by using our film’s Facebook page. Once I received approval I was able to upload a reference copy of our film (and trailer) to the Facebook rights manager dashboard. A trailer I’d uploaded to our page previously was also listed. From there, Facebook’s automated digital matching tools went to work.
Facebook’s Rights Manager dashboard is pretty straightforward
According to Facebook the Rights Manager tools will allow publishers to:
- Easily upload and maintain a reference library of the video content they want to monitor and protect. Publishers can upload content libraries and publish live video as references for Rights Manager to check against, including videos they are not sharing publicly on Facebook. Rights Manager then monitors for potential infringement of that content across Facebook.
- Create rules about how individual videos may be used. Publishers can set specific match rules to either allow or report copies of their videos based on criteria of their choosing—for example, how much content has been reused, where the matching video is located or how many views the matching video has received.
- Identify new matches against protected content. Rights Manager’s dashboard surfaces any new matches against a publisher’s uploaded reference files and live video. On the dashboard, publishers can filter matches by time, date or view count, and then either report potential copyright infringement or allow the matching content to remain published.
- Whitelist specific Pages or profiles to allow them to use their copyrighted content. Publishers can specify Pages or profiles that have permission to publish their protected content without being monitored for potential infringement.
- Protect their reference library at scale with the new Rights Manager API. We’re rolling out an API for Rights Manager to improve bulk uploading for publishers and to allow media management companies to support partners in managing, monitoring and protecting their content across Facebook. You can find out more about the Rights Manager API here.
Facebook’s tech support is responsive and proactive in working to improve the system
Facebook asks for feedback in an effort to improve its rights manager tools
I do believe this type of fingerprinting technology will be an increasingly crucial tool as we move forward in the battle against online piracy on sites like Facebook, but as with any new offering, there are glitches.
The good news is that so far, Facebook’s technical support team is quite responsive and the company seems to be making a concerted effort to sort through issues and improve the tool’s operation. Any time you remove an item from the dashboard a window pops up soliciting feedback. I’ve also had a fair amount of helpful email correspondence with the support team and have found Facebook’s prompt and open response to my queries offers a welcome contrast the less-than-stellar support offered by a (popular) site that shall remain nameless.
As with any new tech, there are some glitches
I also set up a Rights Manager account for an independent film distributor I work for and in the process of uploading dozens of reference files have found the “matching” to be rather hit and miss. At this point Rights Manager seems to do a great job detecting the company’s opening logo (and music) but little else. What makes it even stranger is that the tool detects the distributors opening logo and music and then matches it to the wrong reference file. Obviously ALL the titles I’ve been uploading share the same opening sequence from the distributor but when it comes time to actually issue the takedown to remove the infringing (matched) content, it auto-populates the form with the film’s title, which in these instances is the wrong one.
Lots of early glitches with Facebook’s Rights Manager tools
I’ve also come across situations where a single film title is simultaneously listed has having matched multiple reference files to different titles, but NEVER the actual reference file for that particular film. Consequently, rather than send a DMCA notice with incorrect information, which would be illegal, I have chosen to wait for Facebook to sort out this particular glitch. This is where their responsive tech support will, hopefully, come in handy.
I’ve also found that there’s a lot of uploaded content that doesn’t really match anything. Perhaps a song is playing in the background that matches the film’s soundtrack, but it’s difficult to tell? At this point the system’s matching capabilities clearly need to be dialed in order to better weed out innocent content.
As it stands, I have been manually removing this erroneous matches from the dashboard, but that takes precious time, and efficiency is one reason this system was developed in the first place. For larger entities there are API tools, but for independent, smaller entities, it seems that utilizing the dashboard will be best route.
Users can create “match rules” to fine tune content matching
Some of the hiccups I’ve encountered thus far are likely simple bugs in the system, while others may well be user error. Fortunately, Facebook has created tools that allow publishers/creators to fine tune the matches based on length of time, territory and content type.
I plan to spend some time working through the reference files I’ve uploaded to create appropriate match rules in the hope that it will result in fewer false positives.
Will creators be able to make money from their videos and music?
There’s also the question of monetization. Will rights holders be able to earn money from copies of their work uploaded to Facebook? It’s likely at some point in the future, but first Facebook will need to fine-tune Rights Manager. They can’t afford to complicate a system that’s still for all practical purposes in beta mode.
Overall I’m pleased with Facebook’s effort. Yes, it’s overdue and yes, it’s not (yet) perfect but it is a huge step in the right direction and hopefully can serve as a model for other social media and video sites across the web looking to do a better job thwarting piracy.
As I’ve written previously, I firmly believe UGC sites of a certain size (like Facebook, Vimeo, YouTube, et al) should be required to offer this type of tech in order to qualify for safe harbor. Of course that assumes the creaky old DMCA will be revised and the odds of that actually happening any time soon….well, I’ll leave that discussion for another day. In the meantime, I’m going to get busy on Facebook and upload some more reference files. So far I’ll give the new system a thumbs up!
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Music, Piracy, Tech
EFF comes to new music piracy app’s defense
By now many have heard the news that a much-anticipated “Popcorn Time” for music launched this week. Dubbed “Aurous,” the new app goads users into downloading the app with the catchline, “Enjoy music how you want to for free.” Unfortunately, as we all know, music is not free to create, nor should it be free to consume.
Andrew Sampson, developer of Aurous, claims his app is legal and compares its functionality to that of Google’s search engine. Of course we all know what Google’s record has been when it comes to linking to pirated content. Sampson told Billboard:
We’re pulling content from sources that are licensed. From a legal standpoint, what we’re doing is okay. All files are streamed from legitimate sources — we don’t host anything. We only share cached results over peer-to-peer…
…There are a lot of sites saying we’re the Popcorn Time of music. That’s not accurate. We can play content from all around the web, and we use a BitTorrent-style technology to share links to content — but not that actual content itself.
The problem is that much of the content on those so-called legit sources is NOT actually licensed. There’s plenty of pirated content on YouTube (one of the sources Aurous uses). As noted in a piece by Rich McCormick in Verge.
In addition to potentially acceptable locations, such as official promotional streams and music videos, these services could also draw from sources that would upset record labels: tracks illegally uploaded to SoundCloud, for example, or leaked albums put on YouTube weeks before their street dates. Ads, too, could be stripped out by Aurous, denying labels extra cash per play.
Of course Aurous has its defenders. Predictably the Electronic Frontier Foundation got into the act with this unfortunate Tweet using the hashtag #SOPApower.
Per usual, folks at the EFF seem to believe there’s something noble in enabling online piracy. As it repeatedly demonstrates through its advocacy, the EFF’s view is that musicians don’t really have the right to earn money off their hard work.
I imagine, however, that those employed at the EFF to think up with these insightful Tweets appreciate the paychecks they earn. According to documents published on Pro Publica, in 2013 the EFF spent $3,402,997 on salaries for its 49 employees. (That averages out to nearly 70k per employee).
For the record the EFF’s total revenue in 2013 was a tidy $9,444,822. The organization’s net assets were listed over 15 million. I wonder what additional pro-artist advocacy the Content Creators Coalition could do with 15 million bucks?
Though I certainly don’t begrudge those at EFF the right to earn a decent living by Tweeting about SOPA (an act of Free Speech) plenty of musicians would undoubtedly be thrilled to earn a salary anywhere close to the EFF 70K average.
That the EFF continues to demonstrate such disdain for artists by defending a piracy app like Aurous right out of the gate isn’t surprising, but it’s also not a strategy based on public good. Rather, it’s a strategy that’s good for the tech industry–an industry built on the credo of take first, (maybe) ask permission later.
EFF’s SOPA perseveration
Because it does the bidding of the tech industry, it’s not entirely surprising to see that the EFF media team relies on raising the SOPA battle cry again and again. After all, SOPAs defeated is is generally considered the tech industry’s greatest lobbying win yet.
Let’s remember that SOPA was introduced in 2011. Last time I checked it’s 2015. Despite the fact SOPA is long dead and buried, EFF’s talking points continue to rely on SOPA as a worn out buzzword to rally the troops. I would caution the EFF powers that be to remember what happened to the boy who cried “wolf” too many times.
Ultimately there’s something unseemly in an organization that boasts net assets of over 15 million dollars working so hard to undermine artists’ (often meager) livelihoods. Taking down Aurous will NOT “break the internet.” What it will do is help protect the work of musicians so that they can earn a living wage through the legal distribution of the work.
The RIAA and three major labels, thankfully, have field suit to shut Aurous down. They’re employing legal means, Aurous will have its day in court. Despite the implication of EFF’s #SOPApower Tweet no one is asking Congress to pass new SOPA-like legislation. The suit charges:
“Aurous blatantly infringes the (Major Labels’) copyrights be enabling internet users to search for, stream and download pirated sound recordings.”
I say good luck. Aurous is an app designed to facilitate theft and, last time I checked, that’s illegal.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Tech
No, actually everything’s not hunky-dory in the creative universe
The creative community has been buzzing this past week in response to the NY Times Sunday Magazine piece by Steven Johnson, “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t.” Not surprisingly, feedback in the Times comments section was decidedly negative. As the week’s progressed we’ve also seen a number of thoughtful responses in commentaries published across the web. Some of the criticism, notably that found in a blog post, The Data Journalism That Wasn’t by the Future of Music Coalition’s Kevin Erickson, took Johnson to task for his questionable analysis:
Alas, what ended up running was rather disappointing. NYT Magazine chose to publish without substantive change most of the things that we told them were either: a) not accurate or b) not verifiable because there is no industry consensus and the “facts” could really go either way.
Steven Johnson’s article “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t” frames itself as a data-driven response to concerns about the plight of creative workers in the digital age. But Johnson’s grasp of the limitations of the data he cites seems tenuous, and he ends up relying on some very dubious and all-too-familiar assumptions. In its sweeping dismissal of artists’ various concerns, the article reads as an exercise in gaslighting.
Erickson’s criticism prompted Johnson to pen a follow up piece that was published in yesterday’s Times where he defended his reportage, and his examination of the “data.”
Amid the tit for tat, I suggest reading some other thoughtful responses to the original piece. Each questions the central premise of Johnson’s article–one that asserts that the business of creativity is thriving in the digital age.
Below are just a few snippets from pieces I suggest folks read in their entirety. First up is journalist is author Robert Levine, author of Free Ride: How Digital Parasites Are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. Writing for Billboard, Mr. Levine questioned Johnson’s thesis in his piece, Are Creators Really Thriving in the Digital Age? Doesn’t Look Like It:
The biggest problem with Johnson’s piece is that he’s asking the wrong question. He’s trying to figure out if creators as a group are making more money. There’s considerable evidence they’re not. What we should be looking at instead is whether creators can sell their work in a fair and functioning market that will reward them according to the demand for their work. That’s why we have copyright — because the best way to find out which artists ought to be creating what is to see who wants it and what they’re willing to pay.
Also taking issue with Johnson’s cover story was David Newhoff of The Illusion of More blog. In his post, Steven Johnson & A Thesis That Isn’t Newhoff dissects each of Johnson’s assertions point by point, and also views the issue of copyright as being central to having genuine debate as to whether creators can thrive in the digital age:
Ultimately, Johnson is supporting an anti-copyright — and even pro-piracy — argument; but he seems to want to have his Cake and eat John McCrea’s lunch, too. And I say this because so much of the evidence for prosperity he offers — both economic and anecdotal — is largely dependent upon the framework of copyright. So, after leading off with a thesis that fundamentally begs a question about the seeds of piracy (i.e. Did it hurt us?), he winds up painting some pretty pictures, but never quite answers the question because so much of the good news he alludes to is antithetical to a market that ignores, tolerates, or even extolls the permission-free use of creative works. Because, as we see with examples like MusicKey or with the Internet industry’s willingness to monetize infringement while lobbying hard against creators’ rights, many creators themselves continue to discover that the Web giveth shortly before the Web taketh away.
Chris Castle from the Music Tech Policy blog also chimed in with a critical response in a post Why is the New York Times Coverage on Artist Rights So Oddly Inconsistent? Castle notes that not only did Johnson co-opt the blog’s tagline “Your Survival Guide to the Creative Apocalypse”, but that suggests that many of the assertions made by Mr. Johnson are strikingly similar to well-worn tech industry talking points. Castle also takes the Times to task for not offering an opposing viewpoint:
The real question is what is the New York Times up to. On the one hand we have great reporting at NYT by journalists like Ben Sisario who has some of the best music business writing out there. He takes the time to actually talk to people, get both sides, and so some first rate analysis. Trying to get at the whatchamacallit..you know, that truthiness thing. This is what we expect from the New York Times, the newspaper of record.
But to have factcheckers cherry pick issues presented “how long have you been beating your wife” style and then to not even use the information in a side bar is really hard to understand as being anything other than agenda driven. How difficult would it have been to run a companion piece saying that people disagree?
If nothing else, Johnson’s assertions in his magazine piece stirred up the creative community. Apparently those working in “creative careers” are not “thriving” quite to the extent he would have Times readers believe.
If you would like to let editors at the Times know your thoughts, send off an email to the NY Times ([email protected]). Will Buckley Jr., founder of Fare Play sent a letter to Margaret Sullivan, the NY Times Public Editor. In his letter, titled “The Creative Meltdown That Is,” Buckley noted that Johnson’s piece was, essentially, a rehash of tired tech talking points:
First off the article is basically a rehash of Mike Masnick’s ‘The Sky is Rising‘, a much derided and criticized overview of the entertainment industry and how in January of 2012 things were actually looking up for artists. Many of the points made in Masnick’s Techdirt post and ‘The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t‘ are actually the same ones used by the proponents of online piracy attempting to make a case for the positive attributes of illegal free file sharing.
Well said Mr. Buckley. The more the creative community who join with him to push back and set the record straight, the better.
*Update: My original blog post originally misidentified the Future of Music Coalition as the Music First Coalition. I regret the error.
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 | Google, Music, Tech
Google’s anti-SOPA plea
Google and Amazon want to rule the top level domain web universe
(this piece originally posted on 9/12/12 but I’ve updated it to include new information on efforts by representatives of indie musicians to thwart this top level domain name power grab by Google and Amazon)
If you read the propaganda promoted by Google during last year’s SOPA debate, you would have come across pleas like this:
More than any time in history, more people in more places have the ability to make their voices heard. Just as we celebrate freedom, we need to celebrate the tools that support freedom. Add your voice in support of a free and open Internet.
According Google and other opponents in the tech industry, if the Stop Online Piracy Act were to pass, the internet would be “broken” and no longer “free.” A questionable concept, particularly when Google was against the legislation because it would impinge on their unfettered ability to make money (no matter the source).
At the time, Google’s anti-SOPA activism was seen by many as more opportunistic than altruistic, and today that view seems to be further vindicated. According to a report from Consumer Watchdog on ICANN’s proposed addition of “top-level” domain names that noted, “Google has ponied up $18.7 million to buy 101 domain strings like .eat, .buy, .book, .free, .web, and .family.” They also want to own the domain string for “tech.”
A post on Google’s official blog explains their pursuit of these top-level names and characterizes the effort by employing their favorite, well-worn noun- “innovation.” In this case, however, it appears merely to be a euphemism for “control.” From their blog:
In 2008, ICANN announced a program to expand the number of generic TLDs (think .com, .org, .edu), developed through its bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process, in which we participate. Given this expansion process, we decided to submit applications for new TLDs, which generally fall into four categories:
- Our trademarks, like .google
- Domains related to our core business, like .docs
- Domains that will improve user experience, such as .youtube, which can increase the ease with which YouTube channels and genres can be identified
- Domains we think have interesting and creative potential, such as .lol
We want to make the introduction of new generic TLDs a good experience for web users and site owners. So we will:
- Make security and abuse prevention a high priority
- Work with all ICANN-accredited registrars
- Work with brand owners to develop sensible rights protection mechanisms that build upon ICANN’s requirements
We’re just beginning to explore this potential source of innovation on the web, and we are curious to see how these proposed new TLDs will fare in the existing TLD environment. By opening up more choices for Internet domain names, we hope people will find options for more diverse—and perhaps shorter—signposts in cyberspace.
Ah, “signposts”….what a helpful sounding term. What Google really seeks to do looks more like a takeover– a move to control just about everything online, from search to domains. Consumer Watchdog expressed this concern in a letter sent to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
We believe the plans by Google and Amazon are extremely problematic and call on you to help prevent their implementation. It is one thing to use a Top Level Domain name that is associated with your brand name. In Google’s case that might be .Google or .YouTube or .Android. Similarly it makes make sense for Amazon to acquire .Amazon or .Kindle. But, that is not what is happening.
Google has ponied up $18.7 million to buy 101 domain strings like .eat, .buy, .book, .free, .web, and .family. Amazon is close behind the Internet giant applying for 76 domain strings including such names as .free, .like, .game, and .shop.
If these applications are granted, large parts of the Internet would be privatized. It is one thing to own a domain associated with your brand, but it is a huge problem to take control of generic strings. Both Google and Amazon are already dominant players on the Internet. Allowing them further control by buying generic domain strings would threaten the free and open Internet that consumers rely upon. Consumer Watchdog urges you to do all that you can to thwart these outrageous efforts and ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth while serving the interests of all of its users.
It would appear that the timing of the recent formation of a new tech Washington lobbying group “The Internet Association” is fortuitous. Member companies include : Amazon.com, AOL, eBay, Expedia, Facebook, Google, IAC, LinkedIn, Monster Worldwide, Rackspace, salesforce.com, TripAdvisor, Yahoo!, and Zynga with their stated mission:
The Internet Association, an umbrella public policy organization dedicated to strengthening and protecting a free and innovative Internet. The Internet Association will relentlessly represent this critical economic sector, in partnership with Main Street businesses and individual users, to ensure that the Internet will always have a voice in Washington and a seat at the table.
The most important question going forward would not seem to be will the internet have a voice, but whose internet will it be? Will it be the “free” one–or one owned by Google, Amazon and co?
Update 8/21/14
While Amazon has been denied the right to its own moniker .amazon–since it appears that there’s major South American waterway that “owned” the name long before–the fate of many other top level domains, including .music, remains up in the air. Fortunately it seems that creative artists are beginning to take notice and speak out against this land grab by Google and Amazon (and their ilk). From The Hill:
An independent music lobbying group is pushing to have the music community, not tech companies such as Google and Amazon, take control of the new Internet domain ending .music.
The American Association of Independent Music published a letter on Wednesday urging that ICANN not give the .music domain to companies like Google or Amazon, but instead hand it over to a non-profit entity:
We have followed the ICANN process and are very concerned of what might happen if ICANN does not select a music community supported organization, which understands the needs of our International music industry, to own and manage the .music gTLD. Our members’ livelihoods depend on the ability to license copyrights in a free market. This makes it essential to have regulatory partners that will help advance a worldwide enforceable regime for the protection of intellectual property online that enhances accountability at all levels of the online distribution chain and that deals effectively with unauthorized usages.
The benefits of the music community running the .music gTLD include maximizing the protection of intellectual property and incorporating appropriate enhanced safeguards to prevent copyright infringement, cybersquatting and any other type of malicious abuse. The community-based approach ensures that the string is managed under music-tailored registration policies. Such policies include registrant authentication, naming conditions which only allow registrants to register under their names or acronym and restricting content and usage to only legal music–related activities. This will ensure that any monies generated through .music will flow to the music creator community not pirates, unlicensed sites, or giant search engines.
We note two of the applicants are Amazon S.a.r.l (Amazon) and Charleston Road (Google). Both of these companies have exhibited a disregard for properly compensating music creators based upon music usage and for not protecting copyrights. Both have not valued Independent creator’s copyrights on the same equitable basis as larger copyright creators.
That last sentence pretty much says it all. If ever there was a time the creative community to speak up, it’s now, but musicians aren’t the only ones raising concern.
FairSearch.org is also fighting tooth and nail against Google’s efforts to control top level domains, including .search. A report published on its website exactly one year ago (August 22, 2013) summarized its opposition:
FairSearch hopes ICANN rejects Google’s applications to control new gTLDs to prevent the far reaching competitive implications of giving Google even more power over consumer and competitor data to increase its dominance online. The New York Times summed up this risk more generally in an article this week:
“There’s a larger issue at stake, however. Advocates of Internet freedom contend that such an expanded address system effectively places online control over powerful commercial and cultural interests in the hands of individual companies, challenging the very idea of an open Internet…”
We couldn’t have said it any better.
The ball is now in Google’s court, as industry news site TheDomains.com put it, “So Now What Will Google Do With Its New gTLD Application For .Search?” Regardless, the competition concerns remain around giving Google more ability to control Internet usage by allowing it to control access to key gTLDs soon to be put into use by ICANN.
FairSearch continues to oppose Google’s applications to control these top-level domains.
