by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
Is this really what lawmakers had in mind when they wrote the DMCA?
Seriously, it’s not that I just love spending my time bashing Google, but the fact is that this company deserves to be taken to task (every second of every day) for the lousy job it does dealing with the rampant piracy on its Blogger platform. The slide show below is simply more documentation as to just how absurd, convoluted and outright busted the DMCA takedown process is with the barnacle that is Blogger (Blogspot.com). While mothership Google pretends not to notice, web pirates grow and thrive in the waters of its safe harbor.
Not only does Blogger provide a sanctuary for movie pirates around the globe, but Google’s cloud-based storage Google Drive, often a host for the Blogger pirated movies streams, looks a lot more like Megaupload than a legit business. Figures, for a company trying to bust indie-musicians and rip-off professional photographers, developing slick and slimy ways to avoid the law seems about par for the crooked course.
Google makes billions leveraging content created by others. The least they could do is respect our right to remove it, but that would mean less content for them to leverage, and thus less money for them. For Google, though it regards itself as the emperor of tech, ever evolving to offer society the next big thing; it’s really just like many other multinational behemoths seeking to protect and its increase profits. Who cares where those profits come from? Given greed’s at the company’s core, I once again welcome you to another example of Google’s takedown labyrinth.
[rev_slider Google_DMCA_circus]
When Congress crafted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998 they explicitly carved out “safe harbor” from liability for copyright infringement so long as the service provider, “upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.”
Section 512(c) limits the liability of service providers for infringing material on websites (or other information repositories) hosted on their systems. It applies to storage at the direction of a user. In order to be eligible for the limitation, the following conditions must be met:
- The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge of the infringing activity, as described below.
- If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, it must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.
- Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.
The legislation also contains this language with regard to a service provider being eligible for limitations on liability, “: (1) it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers…
After you step through these slides and read my previous posts examining Google’s dysfunctional takedown procedures, can you really believe Google is “expeditiously” honoring the intent of the DMCA? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you…
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
How much more of Googlenocchio can filmmakers take?
Google publicly brags about its “commitment to make copyright work better online” but the in reality it’s just a big, fat LIE.
I must say it was pretty ironic when, in the midst of working on this post, Ironically, I received this email from an indie film director asking my advice about dealing with Google:
Ellen, I have a quick question. I am having problems submitting DMCA notices to Google on some of the links, where I have submitted them before and Google hasn’t taken them down. [emphasis added]
When I try and re-submit–this can be weeks months later–it won’t allow me to submit the form, saying, the link has been submitted before. Do you have this problem, not sure if I am doing something wrong, or is there nothing I can do !
Sound familiar? I’m sure it does to the many indie filmmakers who, like myself and my colleague above, are routinely at the mercy of Google’s not-so-transparent, lame DMCA takedown procedure when we find stolen copies of our work online.
To dramatize just how flagrant Google’s DMCA foot dragging is I created a clock to track the company’s (lack of) action when it comes to efficient removal of pirated content from Blogger-hosted pirate sites. The clock below began started clicking on April 24th when 2 links were reported for copyright infringement. As of today, June 17th, nearly 2 months later, both pirated movies remain online as does the pirate Blogger-hosted website (see graphic below)
UPDATE: The site was removed July 10th, 2014, nearly 3 months after the first DMCA takedown notices was sent to Google.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Remember, this is just ONE example of Google’s slow as molasses (or non-existent?) takedown work-flow. Remember this promise?
1.) Streamlined submission tools for rightsholders.
Working alongside industry representatives, we’ve built a better submission and handling system for our high-volume DMCA takedown submitters that simplifies the reporting process and reduces our average response time to less than 24 hours. [emphasis added]
When it comes to Google, broken promises are merely its modus operandi. When Google flacks claim the company cares about copyright infringement, it’s just a lie.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Google’s claim that it’s doing a great job streamlining its response to DMCA takedown notices on its Blogger-hosted websites doesn’t jibe with the truth. This year the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) has been holding a series of hearings with the goal of “improving the operation of the DMCA notice and takedown policy.”
The first public meeting was held this past March in Alexandria, Virginia and second took place May 8th in Berkeley, California. I was able to attend the Berkeley hearing in person and heard representatives from content creation industries and service providers give their perspectives on the current state of “notice and takedown” for infringing content and what could/should be done to “fix” it.
Each speaker presented a PowerPoint, links to which can be found here and a video archive here. As with the initial hearing in March, Google was represented by its Legal Director for Copyright, Fred von Lohmann who walked the audience through Google’s “DMCA notice and takedown tools” and highlighted what he called the company’s “trusted submitter program.” In his PowerPoint, Mr. von Lohmann referenced Google blog post from 2011 “New tools for handling copyright on Blogger” that supposedly highlighted the great progress that’s been made in streamlining the process.
Listening to Mr. von Lohmann it seemed clear that his words were designed for an audience made up of government officials and industry representatives and not indie artists. He (carefully) described a two-tiered system in which “trusted” submitters have access to a wealth of takedown mechanisms to remove infringing content from Google affiliates. However, aside from YouTube, access to these “trusted” programs seems limited to the big film and music entities.
Specifically, with regard to Blogger, the criteria as to how one becomes a part of this so-called “trusted submitter” program remains murky and ill-defined. Immediately following the event I searched Google to find out more (and how to apply) I only came across a link to Mr. von Lohmann’s USPTO PowerPoint. There was nothing on any Google site to answer the question as to how indie rights holders could utilize this so-called “tool.” Since there was no more information to be found, shortly after the event I took to Twitter to ask @flohmann directly for a clarification on his presentation. The response thus far, only crickets…
In addition to this lack of clarity as to who exactly can take advantage of certain tools, Mr. von Lohmann’s careful characterization of his company efficient takedown system did not match my user experience, particularly with regard to Blogger. Over these past few years I’ve documented time and time again the many ways Blogger--and therefore Google–fails to live up to its promises to remove infringing content from its platforms.
Yet, according to Google’s self-published, self-serving report, “How Google Fights Piracy,” (that I’ve criticized in a previous post) the company continues to insist that it’s proactive fighting piracy on its Blogger web-publishing platform:
We remain vigilant against the use of the Blogger platform by pirates looking to set up a free website…we will remove infringing blog posts when properly notified by a copyright owner, and will terminate the entire blog [emphasis added] where multiple complaints establish it as a repeat infringer.
Sorry, but the facts clearly don’t match up with this corporate hyperbolic PR spin. Truth be told, Blogger’s takedown system is, in reality, a hot mess. Add Google Drive to the mix and company claims of a “streamlined” takedown process seem even more absurd.
- Blogger content that is reported as infringing takes weeks, not days to remove.
- Blogger hosted blogs that are in the business of promoting pirated movies remain online despite multiple, repeated DMCA notices and despite clear evidence they exist to pirate films.
- The Google DMCA takedown procedure is not easy to navigate. Once users find it, they must repeatedly choose options in order to (eventually) get to the correct takedown form, even someone well versed in the procedure. Why not offer direct links to the correct forms for each platform?
- Blogger’s website templates offer no direct links to Google’s (streamlined) takedown form. Why can’t Blogger hosted sites automatically provide a button/link in their menu bar or footer, designed as part of any page template to enable easy and direct access to Google’s “streamlined” takedown form?
- Google Drive takedown procedures are convoluted and unclear. No easy way to determine file’s URL to report and no direct link to report.
- When a file is reported on Google drive it can take weeks, not days, to remove the infringing content.
Rather than fulfill its promise to expedite takedowns for copyright infringement, it seems that the “Google Team” does everything within its power to make the process convoluted, cumbersome and difficult–particularly for individual artists who don’t have the deep pockets to hire help and/or automate the takedown workflow. Please take some time to review the graphics that I’ve created that illustrate just how badly Google is doing when it comes to Blogger (and Google Drive) takedowns.
Given the complexity (and hilarity) of attempting to remove pirated stream of our film “And Then Came Lola” (seen in the example above) hosted on Google Drive I made the following video that will walk viewers through the process. Weirdly I was able to find the URL (that was not the case with some of the other examples I’ve provided) yet that didn’t help much since pirated copy is still, as of today, June 1st, available on line–more than two weeks after I sent a DMCA takedown notice to Google. As far as I’m concerned, when Google characterizes itself as doing a good job with this process I can only shake my head. No matter how many ways Google spins it, it’s not true.
https://vimeo.com/97077933
Coming soon, Part Two: How Google Could Fix its Broken DMCA Takedown System
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy, Publishing
The Future of the News Industry at Stake
Caroline Little, President & CEO of the Newspaper Association of America, wrote an thoughtful op-ed this week asking that Congress consider the economic needs of newspapers in any discussions about copyright reform. In sharing her editorial the Copyright Alliance website noted its significance:
The investment that the newspaper industry makes in journalism, made possible by copyright protection and licensing agreements, contributes significantly to having a vibrant democracy where the public can make informed decisions.
Copyright detractors constantly portray copyright and copyright owners as enemies of the public interest and as obstacles to the public’s access to information. Although news aggregators claim to enhance public access to information, their contribution to the production of top quality content is virtually null. Caroline Little’s words are a refreshing reminder that the interests of content creators and the public are intertwined rather than opposed.
Ms. Little’s editorial emphasizes that in the future, in order to maintain a robust news industry, we must be vigilant in protecting it.
…journalism plays a vital role in local communities and in our nation’s democracy. But it also costs money: Newspapers continue to invest more than $5 billion a year in journalism, far more than any other medium in the United States. Newspapers deliver news and information when and where readers want it, in print, digital and mobile platforms.
To do that, we must have fair copyright laws to enable newspapers to receive fair compensation in support of this journalism.
This year, the House Judiciary Committee, the Commerce Department, the Copyright Office and others are looking at potential changes to the Copyright Act. The newspaper industry applauds these efforts to ensure that copyright law is best suited for the digital age. We hope that any changes to the Copyright Act will continue to ensure that content creators — including those who invest in journalism — receive fair compensation.
Ms. Little’s editorial focuses on the threat posted by for-profit aggregator sites that, “exist solely to aggregate content from the websites of original publishers for the sole purpose of selling this content to business users at a considerable profit.” Clearly the news business is not exempt from the type of content theft/monetization schemes that have long afflicted music, and more recently movies. As with the music and film industry, this piracy undermines legitimate journalism’s ability to publish and thrive online. As Ms. Little notes:
Newspapers’ concern in this area is not the personal use of newspaper-generated content but rather its use by businesses that benefit financially through the unlicensed monetization of that content. By taking newspaper content without paying for it, these companies undercut the fundamental economic model that supports journalism that is so important to our communities.
Ironically, the same day I read Ms. Little’s editorial, I came across a clear example of the piracy publishing scourge that she’s writing about. I happened to be searching for news on the season 2 premiere of Netflix’s hit show, “Orange is the New Black,” scheduled for next month. I clicked on a link and was taken to a story posted on freenewspos.com , “Orange Is the New Black’ Season Two Is More Bingeworthy Than the First – The Daily Beast.”
At first glance, I thought it legit. After all, the news website The Daily Beast was mentioned in the headline. I read the story and clicked on the Facebook link to post it on my Vox Indie Facebook page. Only then did I realize it was a pirated site for print when the post promoted the freenewspos.com rather than the article. I did a double-take and discovered that the operators of freenewspos.com had copied the entire Daily Beast story and posted it, word for word, to their site. As is typical in piracy for profit schemes, advertising appears adjacent to the piece. The site operators earn income by stealing the work of journalist Kevin Fallon from the Daily Beast.
Adding insult to injury, it’s a Google-sponsored AdSense ad that adorns this pirate page so Google’s making money at the expense of The Daily Beast too. Of course Google has long been in the business of enabling and profiting off pirated content, and now I can add online journalism to the list of industries that suffer from Google’s ad network profiteering. These screen captures showing the original Daily Beast story and its pirated counterpart.
Also note the disclaimer at the bottom of the pirated version, “Disclaimer statement: The point of this article or rights belongs to the authors and publishers. We take no responsibility for the content of this article and legitimacy.” The domain is hidden behind a company called Moniker Privacy Services.
When you click the “who we are link” a page pops up in Italian. Drilling down into a translation of the “Terms of Service” one finds this:
…you want to publish or print into your website, blog, forum, RSS feed or in any other publication, an article taken from our website, you must follow these rules: Respect the author’s copyright by publishing the entire article without making any changes. [emphasis added] Include all the information present in the author’s box at end of article.Do not change both the title and the content of the article. Leave all links in the article with their syntax. Insert at end of article republished claims on our website with active link: Article taken from: freenewspos.com not republish our article in sites that contain illegal or mp3 files, information for hackers, bad language, violent content glorifying racism or contain pornography, child abuse or exploitation of children, adults or animals, or any other activity deemed illegal or contrary to applicable Italian laws. Do not republish our article via unsolicited email, spamming, or pop up ads. Never sell any article taken from freenewspos.com fees not ask to read an article taken from our website.
Seems that it’s OK to pirate another’s content as long as you link to the original? Not exactly how copyright law is supposed to work, but hey, in our online environment it seems as though making up things as one goes along is fine and dandy. As Ms. Little points out, “The most convenient way to request permission to copy and distribute material is by contacting the publisher of the content. In addition, clearinghouses exist that provide an easy way for business users of content to obtain redistribution rights.” This site never mentions asking the author for permission.
There’s also a somewhat Freudian typo in the site’s FAQ section as well an ironic (English) acronym in use. I believe it should read, “How do I use POS?” but instead it reads:
How do I sue POS?
The application operates in a complete automatic fashion. A reader is able to obtain subscription and read information without the need to log in. If you provide your E-mail, you will be able to access the POS management application,
where all notifications from POS and news can be viewed in full (POS does not send you spam or advertisements). Other advanced functions will also be available.
POS will not place any restrictions on how you use the application.However, your use and development of the application must not infringe the reputation of POS,nor cause any damage to any of its facilities. You must ensure third party rights are protected.instead of POS, as POS does not hold any copyrights of services provided by the aforementioned third party.
POS does not place any restriction on the contents or the way your articles are published,whether you are a reader or a writer. But, POS will not be held liable for any third party claims against the accuracy or the legality of any contents published.
You are not allowed to publish or paste any material involving defamation, racism, pornography, violence and any contents forbidden by laws of your country or those that POS considers or has been reported to be inappropriate. POS has the right to delete the above mentioned material or contents without notification to its publisher.
I dare say POS is a POS, but I digress. The fact is that respecting copyright ultimately means respecting creators’ rights to determine how their works are used. Companies like Google, and this (POS) pirate publishing site, practice their own alternative view of copyright–take what’s not yours and monetize it (illegally) until someone finds out.
When I checked out the site’s Twitter feed is was full of Tweets advertising “free” movies online. Not surprisingly it’s more scam than substance, as each Tweet linked to a freenewspos.com post with a bunch of keywords or summary for a popular movie title–simply more SEO churn for ad dollars. One Tweet listed links to a post that, in turn, linked to a YouTube page which, in turn, linked to another off-site ad forwarded from a Google-hosted Blogger, Blogspot.com site. Google seems to seems to be entwined in this site’s nefarious activities every which way.
When I attempted to actually login and create a user account in order to see how the site worked, the page came up blank on multiple browsers. Maybe it works for users in Italy? Regardless, it seems pretty clear that freenewspos.com is a site built on a business model dependent on attracting traffic and ad revenue by promoting content that is stolen and, often times, make believe. Perhaps not much can be done to prevent this site from operating, but surely Google could do better in choosing business partners?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Politics
The goals of protecting free speech and stopping online piracy are not mutually exclusive
The concept of protecting “free speech” is fundamental to sustaining healthy political discourse in any society. Yet in debates over copyright and content theft, those who oppose bringing any sort of regulation to the internet twist the concept of protecting “free speech” into a disingenuous cudgel to obfuscate the issue and generate opposition to anti-piracy efforts.
With this in mind, perhaps it’s worth looking at a recent example which demonstrates that the issue of squelching “free speech” is not inextricably linked to other forms of online expression, ie. piracy.
Russian social media site (and Facebook wannabe) Vkontakte (vk.com) provides a good example. Pavel Durov, the site’s founder, was recently pushed aside in favor of ownership interests tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Per news reports yesterday, he’s apparently left the Russia saying “Unfortunately, the country is incompatible with Internet business at the moment.” A piece published in January on TheVerge.com explained the power play in a piece, “How Putin’s cronies seized control of Russia’s Facebook,”
Durov, 29, sold his remaining stake in VK this week, officially ending his tenure at the helm of Russia’s most popular social network and turning the page on more than two years of turmoil and political strife.
Durov’s departure effectively transfers majority control of VK to business magnate Alisher Usmanov — Russia’s richest man, with an estimated worth of $20.2 billion, and a close ally of President Vladimir Putin. Durov sold his 12 percent stake to Ivan Tavrin, chief executive of telecom provider MegaFon, which Usmanov controls. (The exact sum of the sale was not disclosed, though it is believed to be between $300 and $400 million.) That means that Usmanov and his Kremlin-friendly allies now control 52 percent of the company, raising concerns over the future of VK and the freedom of its users.
It’s a stratagem that appears tied to disputes over political expression and Vladimir Putin’s crackdown on dissent that has become increasingly aggressive of late.
Even though much of the Russian media is known to be under state control, the Internet has remained relatively free, with blogs and social media sites providing an important and creative platform for political discussion. But on March 4, the Kremlin once again took the media battle it has been waging against pro-Western protests online. Russia’s Internet monitoring agency Roskomnadzor blocked 13 profiles associated with the Ukrainian protest movement on the popular Russian Facebook equivalent VKontakte because they “contained calls to commit terrorist acts and take part in unsanctioned mass action.”
Vk.com has been in the Kremlin’s sites since 2011 when Durov refused the government’s request to close down pages that promoted demonstrations against its policies after the results of parliamentary elections were disputed. According to a report in RIA Novosti:
“We received a request from the FSB to stop the activity of Vkontakte groups calling for riots and a revolution,” Vladislav Tsyplukhin, spokesman for social network VKontakte, wrote on his corporate web page.
“We explained in response that we have been following those groups and cannot block them as a whole just because some individual users have called for violence,” Tsyplukhin wrote.
The accounts of specific users who have explicitly called for public disorder however are being blocked by the company, he said, adding that there had not been any excessive “pressure, threats or rudeness” from the Federal Security Service (FSB) in its requests.
While expressions of political dissent are being squelched, online piracy remains alive and well on the site vk.com. Earlier this month it was announced that Sony, Universal and Warner were filing suit in Russian courts, charging the site with violating copyright. Since 2011 the site has also been on the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s list of Notorious Markets that “identifies markets around the world that harm American businesses and undermine our workers, through the infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs).”
vKontakte.com (also operating as vK.com): The Russian site vKontakte.com, in the List since 2011, is styled primarily as a social networking site, and it is extremely popular in Russia and surrounding countries. While as a general matter, social networking sites can serve many salutary purposes, this site’s business model appears to include enabling the unauthorized reproduction and distribution, including streaming, of music and other content through the site and associated software applications.
In searching the site this week I easily found multiple users who utilized the site as a file host for thousands of websites offering streams of pirated movies.
According to a Russian blogger atkatyatrubilova.wordpress.com, Vk.com has an advantage over Facebook in attracting users due the fact piracy remains a perk not found on Facebook.
Nevertheless, Vkontakte offers a special feature which attracts more new members daily and makes them spend a lot of time online. Members are able to view thousands of pirated copies of domestic and foreign movies dubbed into Russian. In addition, it’s possible to upload and download video and audio files via the VK Tracker application.
Those who value free speech should be alarmed that Vk.com has fallen under the grip of Putin and his allies. The battle against piracy remains a separate issue here, and elsewhere. It’s time to disengage the two concepts. Fighting for one does not preclude fighting against the other.
