by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy, Tech
Google could learn a thing or two from VIMEO about how to run an efficient DMCA takedown system
Love it or hate it, for now the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is the law of the land when it comes to safeguarding creative content online. The law, passed nearly 20 years ago, is woefully outdated, but for now, it’s the only tool creators have to protect their work from online thieves. Unfortunately, not every company in the business of “user generated content” approaches DMCA compliance the same way.
Google, a company that makes billions each year in ad revenues generated via trafficking in dubious content, has set up a takedown system that ensures the sending of a DMCA takedown notice is an onerous and inefficient task. After all, the harder Google makes it, the more discouraged creators will become, and the more money continues to flow into its coffers…
Anyone who’s made music or a movie probably has had experience with sending a DMCA takedown request to Google in some form. Whether it’s removing pirated music on YouTube, or requesting the takedown of pirated movies off Blogger sites, creators must tackle a haphazard and convoluted patchwork of online forms in order to get their work removed from Google’s online products.
Not that Google will listen to me, but I’m going to offer some suggestions for simple ways the company could improve the takedown system. Part I will focus on Blogger, Google’s online website platform that’s become the favorite of many pirate entrepreneurs due to its ease of use.
As a creator, when you discover a pirate website hosted by Google’s Blogger (on blogspot.com) is offering pirated copies of your music or movie, to get it removed you usually have to send a DMCA notice to Google.
Here’s where Google turns what could be a relatively easy task into a huge time suck. First, in order to find the correct online form for Blogger you’re forced to click through a myriad of radio-buttons on Google’s Removing Content From Google page. When you finally do manage to click your way through to the proper form (it takes 7 clicks) you’ll waste more time carefully filling in each and every section. Note, your browser’s auto-fill function won’t work particularly well here. Finally, after you complete the form and click send, you can only wait (and hope) that the content will be removed. It can literally take weeks and sometimes it never gets removed.
Here’s where it gets particularly annoying. Many companies, take the video-hosting site Vimeo, for example, give rights holders several ways to send a takedown notice: email, a web form or snail mail. When sending a DMCA to Vimeo (and many other sites) I use a template I created (with an attorney’s help) that makes it easy to copy and paste infringing links into a DMCA takedown email. It’s not only quick, but I have a record of the notice in my sent email box. For indie content creators fighting online piracy, email is by far the most efficient way to send and record DMCA notices. As far as I’m concerned, Vimeo earns a gold start for DMCA takedown efficiency.
Vimeo provides a shining example of good DMCA takedown practices:
- Vimeo accepts email submissions. It’s quick and efficient–a godsend if you have to send notices routinely (as many musicians and filmmakers do).
- You have a copy of the DMCA notice you sent and proof of when it was sent.
- You receive an email confirmation from Vimeo that the material has been removed and their message includes a copy of your original DMCA notice.
- Vimeo provides a reference # so that if there are any issues with your notice, you can easily follow-up with the real person that signs the email receipt.
Meanwhile, over at Google, things aren’t so straightforward. Each time I send a DMCA takedown to Google via its web form, if I want to keep a copy, I’m forced to create a PDF copy of web form. Even then some of the entries don’t show up. For the rights holder it’s an imperfect and time-wasting process. Google has intentionally created a takedown process that impedes creators at every step.
Google’s Blogger takedown procedure is a joke:
- Google requires users navigate through a series of buttons (7 clicks) to get to the DMCA web takedown form.
- Google requires you fill in the entire form each time you need to sent a takedown notice.
- Google does not give you a copy of the form you sent, only a brief acknowledgement that you sent something signed by the mysterious “Google Team.”
- Sender never receives notification infringing material has been disabled.
Because of their business practices, Google does have to deal with tons of takedown notices every day. It’s a mess of its own making and they certainly have the financial resources to deal with it responsibly. Google reps insist a web form is the only way to make sure they receive the information required in a DMCA notice. However, their refusal to accept emails (that could be read by a bot) forces indie artists who routinely send takedown requests to its web maze.
Since users are forced to use a DMCA web form, there’s certainly NO justifiable reason Google can’t respond with an email confirmation that includes the original takedown notice. After all, that’s an automated process and would require ZERO resources on their part. Google chooses not to do so because they want to make the process as opaque and complicated as possible. While it complies with the letter of the law, Google has refined a system whereby creators are discouraged from exercising their legal rights at every turn.
Google’s DMCA practices are designed to impede rights holders every step of the way
Vimeo quickly sends an email confirming removal
Along with the email, Vimeo includes the original DMCA notice
Google makes users jump through hoops to send a DMCA notice, doesn’t provide a copy, and offers no confirmation that any action has been taken
Google includes a case number in the subject heading of the email, but don’t bother trying to contact Google using it. The “Google Team” won’t respond. So what’s the case number good for? Not much.
As for turnaround time-when I send VIMEO a notice within hours the content has been removed (and I receive an email confirmation along with a copy of my notice). With Google it can literally take weeks…and sometimes nothing happens…ever.
In order to improve the DMCA system on Blogger I would ask for the following:
- Offer a direct link to the Blogger DMCA takedown form
- Allow the form to be auto-filled and if one has a Google account information the form would be pre-filled with the appropriate information
- Send an email receipt that includes a copy of the DMCA notice
- Send confirmation when the infringing content has been disabled
- Remove content in a timely manner. This means days, NOT weeks.
For a company like Google that can take us to the top of Mt. Everest with the click of a mouse it’s beyond comprehension as to why they can’t offer content creators a better way to utilize the DMCA process. Google periodically publishes puff PR pieces extolling the myriad of ways it supposedly tackles piracy, but in reality helps maintain the status quo where the rights of online thieves are held in higher regard than those of creators. Of course for Google impeding the legal rights of creators is good for business. Profits ahead of people is the key to Google’s success.
Next week-Part II-YouTube’s DMCA CMS takedown, another inefficient mess for rights holders.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics
Blocking pirate sites is not censorship–it’s common sense
In a move being celebrated by creators worldwide, the Australian parliament has approved the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. The legislation will allow rights holders go to court to request that pirate websites be blocked in Australia. The explanatory memorandum, notes that the purpose of the bill is to “reduce online infringement.”
The bill’s opponents have employed the standard tech talking points, crying censorship and calling its justification “bogus.” They claim to be concerned about collateral damage but consistently show zero regard for the ongoing “collateral damage” suffered by filmmakers, musicians, and authors whose livelihoods are routinely leached by online thieves. For piracy apologists blocking pirate sites is an anathema. In their view the rights of piracy profiteers (who pocket profits from content theft) trumps the rights of creators at every turn.
Fortunately members of the Australian parliament were able to see through the over-wrought hyperbole and craft legislation that seeks to balance the rights of creators with concerns about online censorship. With the legislation’s passage, Australia joins the UK and a number of other nations in setting up a judicial review process to determine whether certain pirate websites should be blocked. The new Australian law establishes a “high threshold test” for the Court:
- The Court must take into account a number of factors before granting an injunction. These factors include:
- the flagrancy of the infringement or its facilitation
- whether disabling access to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances
- the impact on any person likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction, and
- whether it is in the public interest to disable access to the online location.
Further reading of the explanatory memorandum demonstrates the rationale for the legislation and, despite rhetoric thrown about by opponents, it seems quite reasonable.
8. Copyright protection provides an essential mechanism for ensuring the viability and success of creative industries by incentivising and rewarding creators. Online copyright infringement poses a significant threat to these incentives and rewards, due to the ease in which copyright material can be copied and shared through digital means without authorisation. [emphasis added]
9. Where online copyright infringement occurs on a large scale, copyright owners need an efficient mechanism to disrupt the business models of online locations operated outside Australia that distribute infringing copyright material to Australian consumers. [emphasis added] In addition, a consequence of fewer visitors at the particular online location may also impact the advertising revenue, which is often an integral element of the business models of these types of entities.
10. The Bill acknowledges the difficulties in taking direct enforcement action against entities operating outside Australia. The proposed amendments are intended to create a no-fault remedy against CSPs where they are in a position to address copyright infringement.
In the United States opponents of such legislation, often funded by tech interests, have successfully conflated sincere efforts to thwart online piracy with the specter of online censorship. However, no matter how they try to slice it, piracy does not = free speech. Websites that profit from piracy are criminal enterprises and are not worthy of protection.
Illegal activity in the brick and mortar world is not sheltered by the “free speech” excuse. Why should online piracy’s black markets be above the law? There are plenty of options for web users around the world to “share” files via any number of legitimate free sites. Sites like Pirate Bay and Kick Ass Torrents should not be thought of as sentinels to safeguard an open internet.
With passage of the law attention has turned to VPNs (virtual private networks) that would allow Australians to bypass blockages but its a red herring. VPNs are not the panacea many claim and, in fact, are often rife with malware and other security concerns. Of course, for the determined downloader there are other ways to get around a blockade, but the law’s intent isn’t really to prevent all access, but rather to deter easy access. The majority of folks who download illegal content online do so not only because it’s free, but it’s also easy. Any roadblock that can redirect these users to legitimate outlets is a welcome one.
Would similar legislation ever pass in the United States? After the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debacle it seems unlikely. Given the lobbying largess of Google and other tech interests in Washington, opponents seem to have constructed a formidable bunker against those who seek to fight online piracy profiteers. After all, some entities within the U.S. tech industry are also piracy profiteers and have a vested financial interest in keeping the Wild West status quo where an online eco-system of online theft for profit is allowed to flourish. Fortunately not every worldwide legislative body is under the thumb of big tech and so bit by bit, progress is being made.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Piracy, Tech
Google’s global reach has global implications when it comes to the law
In a case that could have broad implications moving forward, a Canadian appeals court handed Google a rare legal setback when it upheld a worldwide injunction ordering the search giant to remove results linked to counterfeit hardware. The ruling was an affirmation of a lower court ruling that mandated Google remove certain search results (linking to illegal products) on a worldwide basis.
Reading the court’s decision, the plaintiff’s arguments–and Google’s responses–are familiar to anyone who’s gone toe to toe with tech behemoth and its shills like the EFF. What’s new is that the appeals court not only upheld the lower court’s worldwide injunction, but it also shot down the tired, oft-used “free speech” canard employed by tech apologists to attack rights holders:
[105] The plaintiffs made considerable efforts attempting to track down the defendants, and find ways to eliminate their websites. The judge’s finding that the granting of the injunction was the only practical way to impede the defendants from flouting the court’s orders amounts to a finding that the involvement of Google in this matter was necessary.
[106] With respect to extraterritorial effects, Google has, in this Court, suggested that a more limited order ought to have been made, affecting only searches that take place on the google.ca site. I accept that an order with international scope should not be made lightly, and that where an order with only domestic consequences will accomplish all that is necessary, a more expansive order should not be made…
[107] The plaintiffs have established, in my view, that an order limited to the google.ca search site would not be effective. I am satisfied that there was a basis, here, for giving the injunction worldwide effect. [emphasis added] I have already noted that applications can be made to vary the order should unexpected issues arise concerning comity.
[108] Finally, I note concerns expressed by Google and by the intervenors Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation concerning the openness of the World Wide Web, and the need to avoid unnecessary impediments to free speech.
[109] The order made in this case is an ancillary order designed to give force to earlier orders prohibiting the defendants from marketing their product. Those orders were made after thorough consideration of the strength of the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ cases. Google does not suggest that the orders made against the defendants were inappropriate, nor do the intervenors suggest that those orders constituted an inappropriate intrusion on freedom of speech.
[110] There has, in the course of argument, been some reference to the possibility that the defendants (or others) might wish to use their websites for legitimate free speech, rather than for unlawfully marketing the GW1000. That possibility, it seems to me, is entirely speculative. There is no evidence that the websites in question have ever been used for lawful purposes, nor is there any reason to believe that the domain names are in any way uniquely suitable for any sort of expression other than the marketing of the illegal product. [emphasis added] Of course, if the character of the websites changes, it is always open to the defendants or others to seek a variation of the injunction.
It’s refreshing to see a court of a law look past EFF hyperbole and distinguish between legit websites and those engaged in criminal activity. Score one for common sense (and the law). It should be noted that in predictable fashion, the EFF characterized the decision as “dangerous precedent” and that allows an intermediate to “edit the internet” and warned that the ruling “lays the groundwork for nations with authoritarian restrictions on speech to also impose their own rules on the global Internet.”
I suppose we should consider it progress that instead of “breaking the internet” we are now only accused of wanting to “edit it?”
Over the years, Google has run roughshod over any effort to impede its take-no-prisoners business practices, but lately its veneer of invincibility seems to have cracked. As this latest ruling demonstrates, courts and regulators (outside the U.S.) are finally beginning to treat Google as the global beast that it is.
In May of 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union found that EU citizens had the “right to be forgotten” and that search engines like Google must remove search results upon request. Last November, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, the group charged with overseeing the ruling, issued guidelines on implementation that .com domains worldwide, not just those in the European Union should be included in requests for data removal.
7. Territorial effect of a de-listing decision In order to give full effect to the data subject’s rights as defined in the Court’s ruling, delisting decisions must be implemented in such a way that they guarantee the effective and complete protection of data subjects’ rights and that EU law cannot be circumvented. In that sense, limiting de-listing to EU domains on the grounds that users tend to access search engines via their national domains cannot be considered a sufficient mean to satisfactorily guarantee the rights of data subjects according to the ruling. In practice, this means that in any case de-listing should also be effective on all relevant domains, including .com. [emphasis added]
In April, the EU’s scrutiny of Google’s business practices became even bolder when it charged the company with anti-trust violations. From the Wall Street Journal:
The European Commission took direct aim at Google Inc. Wednesday, charging the Internet-search giant with skewing results to favor its comparison-shopping service. But the formal complaint may only be the opening salvo in a broader assault that prompts big changes at Google.
European antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said she continues to examine other domains, such as travel and local services, where Google is accused of favoring its own services over those of others. She also opened a second front, intensifying a separate probe of Google’s conduct with its Android mobile-operating system.
Given Google’s growing influence as a Washington lobbying force, don’t expect to see U.S. lawmakers following in the EU’s footsteps any time soon. However, any crack in Google’s armor is progress. While U.S. authorities won’t hold Google accountable, it seems like the rest of the world just might.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Photography, Piracy, Politics
Richard Prince is not an artist, he’s a con-artist.
Ripping off artists in the name of ART is not OK
How long are we going to continue to let small artists get screwed by those with deep pockets? Talk to any small creator–filmmakers, musicians, photographers, artists, authors–and ask whether they’ve had their work stolen (and monetized) by others and most will likely say “yes.” Then ask them what they did about it. The answer will likely be, “nothing.”
Right now a con-artist named Richard Prince is busy raking in the dough by selling Instagram photographs taken by others. Oh yeah, he adds some drivel and emojis to the bottom of each photo before he blows it up a 65 x 48 print. Yes art is often derivative, and yes these photographs are altered–but, in essence, at its core, the art remains a photograph taken (and owned) by someone else.
Prince, and the Gagosian Gallery where his work was shown, apparently have no qualms about blatantly appropriating and cashing by selling the work of other artists without their permission. As a Paddy Johnson noted so succinctly in a piece he wrote for Artnet News, “Richard Prince sucks.”
So, while there’s no doubt Prince is a phony, piggy-backing off the work of Instagram artists; the question is–returning to my original query–Can the photographers whose pictures were stolen do anything to stop Prince’s outrageous fraud? Well, not really. You see, quite simply, Mr. Prince is loaded and the people he steals from are not.
Prince’s scam, disguised as art, is nothing new. Over his career he’s developed a reputation as a serial thief and has ended up in court before. Two years ago he prevailed (partially) on appeal in a suit brought by photographer Patrick Cariou who claimed copyright infringement when Prince produced a series of photographs based on Cariou’s work. Ultimately a settlement was reached.
For his part Prince purports not to care much about copyright, telling Russhumazine.com:
…sometimes it’s better not to be successful and well known and you can get away with much more. I knew what I was stealing 30 years ago but it didn’t matter because no one cared, no one was paying any attention.
Why should he care? With millions in the bank Prince can afford not to. Does his past legal success mean he’d win this round? Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out since filing a lawsuit costs mega money–money that most everyday creators don’t have.
Doe Deere, one of the Instagram artists whose work was stolen, posted this response on the social media site aside the photo Prince filched:
Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it’s just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It’s already sold ($90K I’ve been told) during the VIP preview. No, I’m not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it! ? #lifeisstrange #modernart #wannabuyaninstagrampicture
Once again we’re left with a scenario where a rich charlatan can get away with stealing from the little guy.
It’s a scenario that’s played out many times. We’ve witnessed similar rip-offs by corporate interests that routinely steal the work of artists. Sam Levin wrote an expose for the East Bay Express last year documenting the ways in which artists are routinely victimized by such theft:
Visual artists and designers throughout the Bay Area and across the country are, at alarming rates, facing copyright infringements from large retail and wholesale companies stealing their intellectual property for their own products and profit. As artists increasingly promote their work and crafts online — through Etsy or their own websites and Facebook pages — corporations are stealing their designs and mass-producing them for sale.
Here too, an artist whose work is stolen has little recourse when it comes to fighting back. Even if they do, Levin points out that any settlement is likely to be paltry and include a non-disclosure agreement, thereby shielding the thief from any negative public shaming.
The time has come for Congress to establish a small claims court for copyright
Perhaps the time has come to get serious about establishing a copyright small claims court. It’s an idea the U.S. Copyright Office spent several years studying. A report summarizing its findings was sent to Congress in September of 2013. It outlined potential bureaucratic hurdles and ultimately recommended “the creation of a voluntary system of adjudication to be administered by the Copyright Office.” In any case, the report’s findings reinforce the need for some type of action on this issue. From the introduction:
While infringement is nothing new when it comes to the world of creative works, there is no question that it has proliferated with the ascendance of digital culture and the unprecedented desire for content. Today it is not only easy to make unauthorized copies, but to do so at virtually no cost, much to the detriment of authors and the market for their works. …Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, as the rate of infringement has increased, so too have the barriers to pursuing copyright claims in the federal courts. These barriers are largely practical: federal litigation is expensive and time-consuming, and therefore out of reach for many copyright owners…If exclusive rights are unenforceable, they are weakened as the pillars of the copyright law, and public respect for our nation’s creativity is eroded in turn.
Other documentation gathered for the report included this startling nugget:.
In fact, one recent survey found that, as of 2011, the median cost for litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at risk was $350,000.
More analysis of the report can be found by Jonathan Bailey’s post on Plagiarism Today.
Yet here we are. More than a year and a half has passed since the Copyright Office published its recommendations, Congress has yet to act. I realize the wheels of progress move at a glacial pass in Washington, and there are other copyright-related issues being bandied about, but let’s hope this idea will move to the front burner soon.
Bottom line, establishing a small claims court where copyright claims could be heard would at least level the playing field a bit. Small creators would not have to sit idly as skunks like Richard Prince co-opt their work and make money at their expense. Obviously damages are limited in small claims court, but at least those whose work is stolen could seek redress and perhaps, collectively, turn the tide against this type of chronic theft.
Prince can afford to go to court. The Instagram users he stole from cannot. There has got to be a better way don’t you think?
Update 5/29/15: I think this article by posted at fstoppers.com is a good overview of the copyright issues involved: The Latest Richard Prince Controversy, Clarified by Patent and Copyright Attorney John Arsenault
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
The Florida legislature recently passed the “True Origin of Digital Goods Act.” The bill now sits on the desk of Governor Scott, awaiting his signature or, if tech interests have their way-the veto pen.
The proposed law would require any website operator selling digital downloads provide contact information (name and address) in order to do business.
A person who owns or operates a website or online service dealing in substantial part in the electronic dissemination of commercial recordings or audiovisual works, directly or indirectly, and who electronically disseminates such works to consumers in this state shall clearly and conspicuously disclose his or her true and correct name, physical address, and a telephone number or e-mail address on his or her website or an online service in a location readily accessible to a consumer using or visiting the website or online service.
Doesn’t sound particularly onerous does it? After all, any other (brick and mortar) business operating in Florida must do so. Why should online commerce be immune?
In predictable fashion, the usual suspects, like the (tech-funded) EFF, lined up against the bill with the usual hyperbolic warnings that it would “have disastrous consequences for anonymous online speech both inside and outside the state.” Sound familiar?
The CDT also sounded the alarm in predictable fashion, quoting a Supreme Court case: Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Ok, let me get this straight. Transparency is great when sites like Chilling Effect post un-redacted DMCA notices, but when Florida asks business owners engaged in financial transactions to disclose contact information, it’s a tyrannical threat?
Ironically the CDT post arguing against the law points to the DMCA as the reason such a law is not necessary. Meanwhile, when someone uses the DMCA, his/her attempt to remove infringing content is undermined in the name of transparency? Ok…
Selling digital content is selling, not speech. To conflate this law with concerns over free speech is ludicrous. Isn’t the online ecosystem mature enough for us to differentiate between the two? Not all online activity is the same. Should a person seeking a business license in Florida not provide a name and address in the name of free speech? There is language written into this law to safeguard those using excerpts of material for commentary or other non-commercial purposes.
Commercial recording or audiovisual work” means a recording or audiovisual work whose owner, assignee, authorized agent, or licensee has disseminated or intends to disseminate such recording or audiovisual work for sale, for rental, or for performance or exhibition to the public, including under license, but does not include an excerpt consisting of less than substantially all of a recording or audiovisual work. A recording or audiovisual work may be commercial regardless of whether a person who electronically disseminates it seeks commercial advantage or private financial gain from the dissemination. The term does not include video games, depictions of video game play, or the streaming of video game activity. [emphasis added]
The internet is now the center of all things–commerce, social discourse, communication and more. Not everything that happens online is sacrosanct. The time has come for reasonable measures to ensure online businesses selling digital downloads operate in a lawful fashion. That is not an extreme notion.
Governor Scott should do the right thing and sign this bill into law. Consumers in Florida will benefit. As Latin musician Monte Rosa wrote for a piece in the Tallahassee Democrat in support of the bill:
Transparency can be a powerful tool, both to arm Florida consumers with more information to better navigate the Internet and to deter an illegal website from peddling stolen music in the first place. Wouldn’t that basic information help Florida music fans better distinguish the scam sites from the licensed music services that actually compensate artists?
The only ones who will lose are those nefarious website operators whose business operations have something to hide. Please sign the bill.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Piracy
Today the Digital Citizens Alliance* released a follow-up to last year’s report that examined the connection between online piracy and advertising profits. According to results documented in today’s release, Good Money Still Going Bad, not much has changed. Tainted revenue totals from 2014 aren’t very different from 2013. The 589 websites included in the report generated 209 million dollars from advertising. This, despite the fact that many of the rogue sites included in the earlier report had been shuttered.
Google’s DoubleClick leads the way serving ads to pirate websites
With mountains of evidence that ad sponsored piracy remains a hydra with many heads, why do supposedly legit companies like Google still find themselves intimately attached to this beast? According to the report Google’s DoubleClick “ad-revenue engine” leads the pack of illicit ad service providers ( AKA-piracy enablers and profiteers). Per the report, DoubleClick was found to serve ads for 109 of the rogue sites included in the report. Adcash.com came it at number two with 63 sites.
Not only does Google continue to be a prime player in ad-sponsored piracy, but the study finds that major American brands remain hopelessly entangled as well.
There were 132 premium brands observed by MediaLink researchers on the sites, up from 89 the previous year.
Promises, promises…
YouTube also profits off ads on pirated content
Over and over again we’ve heard promises from ad industry reps that advertisers were finally going to take serious action against ad-sponsored piracy. During the summer of 2013 the White House trumpeted that the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) and various companies (including Google) had “committed to a set of best practices to address online infringement by reducing the flow of ad revenue to operators of sites engaged in significant piracy and counterfeiting.”
Last summer Creative Future wrote a letter to ad industry representatives praising efforts to thwart ad-sponsored piracy and in February the same IAB made announced formation of TAG (Trustworthy Accountability Group). On its website the group cites 4 areas of work which include:
Prevent advertising revenue from flowing to criminals who steal copyrighted material and place it on “pirate” sites
Budget car rental ad on streaming copy of pirate movie
Catchy acronyms and new “initiatives” are nice y’all, but when do we actually get to see results?
Yet for all the praise and press release, has any progress really been made? I’ve been writing about ad-sponsored piracy for five years and, despite much lip-service to the contrary, the online advertising industry still seems to be in pretty much the same place.
Until advertisers, and ad service providers, transform words into action, online thieves will continue make money at the expense of creators. Remember, ad money is the fuel that feeds online pirates and thieves:
Ad revenue is the oxygen that allows content theft to breathe. We know from new research by the online rights protection firm Incopro that 88% of the most popular content theft sites in Europe rely on advertising for some, if not all, revenues. Incopro called advertising the “predominant revenue source” for the top 250 unauthorized sites.
It took me only a couple seconds today to find a major brand, Budget car rental, advertising on a pirate site streaming our film. It’s worth noting that the DCA report also finds video streaming sites are a increasing threat in this illicit ecosystem:
- Video Streaming a Growing Model: As consumer appetites have shifted from downloading to streaming, content theft sites have followed suit. The number of video streaming sites in 2014 was up 40% from the original report, and revenue grew significantly due to video CPMs (cost-per-impressions) that are far higher than those for display ads. Video Streaming was the only segment to generate more revenue than the year before, even with half as many large sites. Aggregate annual revenue was up more than 50 percent. It made up 12 percent of all advertising revenue in last year’s sample. This year, it made up 21 percent.
For now it seems the mantra remains-More money for the pirate, more customers for Budget and less money for the filmmaker.
*Full disclosure, I’m a member of the Digital Citizens Alliance advisory board.
As a creator, when you discover a pirate website hosted by Google’s Blogger (on blogspot.com) is offering pirated copies of your music or movie, to get it removed you usually have to send a DMCA notice to Google.
Here’s where it gets particularly annoying. Many companies, take the video-hosting site Vimeo, for example, give rights holders several ways to send a takedown notice: email, a web form or snail mail. When sending a DMCA to Vimeo (and many other sites) I use a template I created (with an attorney’s help) that makes it easy to copy and paste infringing links into a DMCA takedown email. It’s not only quick, but I have a record of the notice in my sent email box. For indie content creators fighting online piracy, email is by far the most efficient way to send and record DMCA notices. As far as I’m concerned, Vimeo earns a gold start for DMCA takedown efficiency.
