by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Censorship is a dirty word, laden with negative connotations and so it’s not surprising to see the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) dust if off (again) for use in its ongoing PR efforts to undermine rights of creators who use legal means to protect their works from online theft. The “censoring speech online” hyperbole was an effective battle cry during the SOPA debate, so why not use the same rhetoric to gin up opposition to artists’ rights and copyright law?
This time EFF’s sites are set on the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the law (passed in 1998) that set up a system whereby copyright holders could facilitate the removal of their pirated content from websites that publish it without authorization. Yesterday Maira Sutton launched a salvo on the EFF blog ominously titled, Copyright Law as a Tool for State Censorship of the Internet. Sutton warns:
The DMCA has become a global tool for censorship, precisely because it was designed to facilitate the removal of online media…
Per usual, her post is written as though online piracy is a benign, practically non-existent problem. In fact, not once does she address the ways in which copyright infringement damages damages filmmakers, authors, musicians, photographers and other creators. Don’t people working in these fields deserve protection too? Apparently not, at least as far as the EFF is concerned.
In EFF’s world, copyright itself is a a form of censorship
Conveniently ignoring the scourge of online piracy, Sutton expresses alarm that various nations around the world are using the DMCA as a template managing copyright infringement on the web. She calls it “state-mandated internet censorship” and warns of “harsher” copyright enforcement. Harsher relative to what? At the moment, many countries do very little to enforce copyright law online so use of the term seems a tad hyperbolic. Perhaps a worldwide standardization of copyright infringement protection law might be good practice for an online eco-system that has essentially become border-free.
Sutton lists 9 instances in which content was removed for allegedly political reasons via a DMCA notice. Not to minimize any wrongdoing in these particular instances, but has Ms. Sutton bothered to examine the millions of legitimate removals that occur each week worldwide? In any enforcement system there exist errors and potential for abuse, but the the truth is that the volume of legit DMCA notices far outweighs illegitimate ones.
No system is perfect. I’ve long been critical of the DMCA, though not for the reasons Ms. Sutton cites. In my experience, the intent of the “safe harbor” provision of the law is routinely sidestepped as tech companies (like EFF funder Google) continue to reap billions from unauthorized online content theft.
From a creator’s perspective the DMCA is clumsy and ultimately weighted against rights holders. Go ahead and upload a movie to YouTube. Yeah, there’s fine print under “suggestions” that politely asks, “Please be sure not to violate others’ copyright or privacy rights,” but users don’t actually have to submit any proof of ownership. It’s the job of rights holders to search for, and submit a DMCA notice to request the removal of their content day after day after day.
If an uploader responds with a counter-notice, it’s the rights holder who has to go to court to enforce a takedown. Most indie creators don’t have the money to initiate a lawsuit so in many cases it’s the uploader that–in this game–gets the last word as the content ends up back online. The default mode for YouTube and the rest of the web is “go for it.” In the end, the DMCA is all we have to fight back.
EFF’s own Chilling Effects provides an efficient search engine to find pirated links online
Ms. Sutton also asks for more transparency in the process. Fine by me as long as it doesn’t include operating a “database” that serves as a de facto search engine for pirated content like the EFF’s own Chilling Effects. Using their database of DMCA takedown notices (sent to Google and a few others) it’s easy to find direct links to pirated content around the globe. This sort of transparency is really just playing a shell game with pirate links. Remove pirate links from Google and they receive new life, and traffic, via Chilling Effects.
Of course Ms. Sutton doesn’t mention this fact, nor does she address how Chilling Effects’ republishing of reported links in their entirety is essentially an F-You to all the creators–like me–who are working within the confines of established law to protect our creative work from profiteers. The Chilling Effects database could easily provide transparency while redacting a portion of the pirate links, but its apologists choose not to. That’s not transparency, that’s facilitating theft. Apparently that’s A-OK in their book.
Speaking of “transparency,” it’s worth pointing out that Ms. Sutton also conveniently fails to acknowledge her organization’s own ties to the tech industry, entities that would have a vested interest in seeing the DMCA gutted. Her omission undermines any credibility she may have in terms of her overall arguments. Until she, and those she represents are willing to be transparent about their funding sources, and how this money influences their mission, how can we take her complaints seriously?
Censorship is a word that goes both ways. Clearly, when it comes to political speech it’s not a good thing, but neither is a system, seemingly supported by the EFF, where online piracy is allowed to run rampant. When the livelihoods of creative artists are undermined, their rights are, in fact, being suppressed.
The world exists in shades of gray, but in the EFF’s, it’s black and white–a world where censorship and copyright are considered synonyms.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, TV
WheretoWatch.com offers convenient way to find movies and TV shows
Some good news for those trying for figure out where to find their favorite movies or television shows online. Today the MPAA announced the launch of wheretowatch.com, a new site that makes searching for movies and TV shows easy.
Even better, the site isn’t limited to Hollywood fare. Its search engine offers links to streaming sites featuring a variety of independent films. In fact, when I searched for a movie I co-produced/directed, the niche lesbian comedy And Then Came Lola, I happily found 7 different options for renting and/or purchasing it. Wheretowatch.com is great news for indie filmmakers hoping to publicize their offerings.
Of course it also helps in the ongoing battle against online piracy. For $1.99 you can watch a movie. After all, it’s cheaper–and lasts longer–than a cup of coffee from Starbucks.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
When Google removes a pirate link from search it redirects users to very same link on Chilling Effects
Search for Gravity on Google, look for a result that’s been removed, click link provided and you’re taken to a list of infringing links for the same movie, making it easy to find and watch pirated copy of the film
Google received a lot of positive press recently with its announcement that notorious pirate sites would be demoted in its search results, but just take a look for a second at how disingenuous that claim is, and how truly duplicitous its business practices actually are. Bear with me as I explain…
Google brags that it’s a leader in fighting online piracy, making this pronouncement in its latest PR missive, its updated “How Google Fights Piracy” report:
Be Efficient, Effective, and Scalable. Google strives to implement anti-piracy solutions that work. For example, beginning in 2010, Google has made substantial investments
in streamlining the copyright removal process for search results.
The report goes on:
Nevertheless, online piracy still remains a challenge, and Google takes that challenge seriously. We develop and deploy anti-piracy solutions with the support of hundreds of Google employees.
This braggadocio makes for good soundbites but is really just more corporate baloney. In truth, here’s what really happens when Google removes pirate links from search results in response to a DMCA takedown notice:
- Search for a free (pirated) movie
- Review results and find one removed due to a DMCA notice, the link replaced by this statement:
- Click the link “read the DMCA complaint.”
- Arrive at a list that includes the missing pirate link along with a bunch of others infringing links (courtesy of Chilling Effects)
- Click one of the listed pirate links and go directly to (free) movie
So, let’s get this straight…Google waxes on how “seriously” it tackles online piracy, about how hard hundreds of employees work to “deploy anti-piracy solutions” yet–with a wink, wink and a nudge, nudge–it redirects users to the very same links it boasts about removing. Google could just as well call this its “link-finder” tool.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at the examples above and below. I chose a couple recent, popular films (Dracula Untold and Gravity), searched on Google, ended up at Chilling Effects and–voilà—quickly found what I was looking for. In fact, I didn’t find just one infringing link, but dozens.
How convenient! This makes it much easier to find a pirated copy of the film. Thanks Google. 🙂 Thanks Chilling Effects. 🙂 Thanks for protecting online pirates and ensuring that free (stolen) movies remain easy-to-find online no matter how many DMCA takedown notices filmmakers and musicians send in an effort to safeguard their work.
Searched for Dracula Untold on Google, found result that’s been removed, clicked the link provided and ended up at list that included a bunch of working pirate links for same movie
I’m sure attorneys for Google and Chilling Effects have made sure that this setup conforms to the law while they publicly defend the operation as providing “transparency.” Google admits as much on its own web pages:
We link in our search results to the requests published by Chilling Effects in place of removed content when we are able to do so legally.
And, while both entities may follow the letter of the DMCA, clearly neither Google nor Chilling Effects care much about respecting its intent. It’s also worth noting that Google’s report on piracy fails mention its “legal” reposting of pirate links or its connection to Chilling Effects.
If folks at Google were seriously interested in doing something about online piracy, do you really believe they would provide direct links to the very same infringing content its employees had worked so hard to remove?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Piracy
Are Google claims that search isn’t a path to piracy about to bite the dust?
Headlines scream, “Google’s Search Changes Are Reportedly Destroying Top Pirate Sites!” and “Google’s New Search Downranking Hits Torrent Sites Hard.” Oh my gosh, can it be true? Does removing pirate links in search results really make a difference? Has traffic to pirate sites plummeted now that their infringing content is harder to find?
What about Google’s oft-repeated claim that its search engine does not drive traffic to pirate websites? Will Google apologists admit it–was Google wrong all this time? Just last week in an update to its report How Google Fights Piracy this assertion was repeated:
1. Search is not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites. [emphasis added] Google Search is not how music, movie, and TV fans intent on pirating media find pirate sites. All traffic from major search engines (Yahoo, Bing, and Google combined) accounts for less than 16% of traffic to sites like The Pirate Bay.17 In fact, several notorious sites have said publicly that they don’t need search engines, as their users find them through social networks, word of mouth, and other mechanisms.18 Research that Google co-sponsored with PRS for Music in the UK further confirmed that traffic from search engines is not what keeps these sites in business.19 These findings were confirmed in a recent research paper published by the Computer & Communications Industry Association.20
The “research paper” cited in the above quote, “The Search Fixation: Infringement, Search Results, and Online Content” also highlights the same claim:
The contention that disappearing undesirable entries from search results would substantially prevent piracy is flawed, however. The solutions to online infringement have little to do with search.
The study supposedly had stats to back this up:
Traffic statistics in 2011 indicated that a mere 15% of traffic to alleged “rogue sites” was referred by search…Evidence suggests that sites associated infringement receive relatively little traffic from search.
So what’s the truth? Has precipitous drop in traffic to pirates sites following Google’s downgrade shown, once and for all, that Google flacks were full of hot air? The answer to that question seems clear.
While this drop in traffic to sites like Kickass.to is welcome, unfortunately it doesn’t mean that pirate links have disappeared from Google search, not at all.
Well-known Pirate sites have been replaced in Google search by lesser known ones
The most notorious pirate sites may have disappeared from top results, but unfortunately they’ve been replaced by lesser known sites peddling the same stolen content. I wrote about this last week and TorrentFreak noticed the same trend:
A search for “Breaking Bad torrent” previously featured Kickass.to, Torrentz.eu and Isohunt.com on top, but these have all disappeared. Interestingly, in some cases their place has been taken by other less popular torrent sites.
Bottom line, it’s progress against the scourge of online piracy, but more work needs to be done by Google and other search engines.
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).
Censorship is a dirty word, laden with negative connotations and so it’s not surprising to see the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) dust if off (again) for use in its ongoing PR efforts to undermine rights of creators who use legal means to protect their works from online theft. The “censoring speech online” hyperbole was an effective battle cry during the SOPA debate, so why not use the same rhetoric to gin up opposition to artists’ rights and copyright law?
Ms. Sutton also asks for more transparency in the process. Fine by me as long as it doesn’t include operating a “database” that serves as a de facto search engine for pirated content like the EFF’s own Chilling Effects. Using their database of DMCA takedown notices (sent to Google and a few others) it’s easy to find direct links to pirated content around the globe. This sort of transparency is really just playing a shell game with pirate links. Remove pirate links from Google and they receive new life, and traffic, via Chilling Effects.
