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, Google, Law, Tech
Google removes pirate links, Chilling Effects reposts them
In the wake of Google’s move to allegedly downgrade search results linking to notorious pirate websites, it’s worth looking at another de facto search engine, closely linked to Google, that so far seems impervious to calls for change. In many ways it renders Google’s removal of reported infringing links, moot. The “search engine” I’m referring to is none other than Chilling Effects, a Google supported DMCA database operated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) and a consortium of law clinics.
This database archiving DMCA takedown notices reported to Google (and a few other service providers) was supposedly created to provide “transparency” for the DMCA process, but unfortunately it’s also gained a reputation for being used as a de facto cudgel by service providers like Google to dissuade rights holders sending takedown notices. After all, before one sends a takedown notice to Google one must acknowledge this warning:
Please note that a copy of each legal notice we receive is sent to a third-party which may publish and annotate it (with your personal information removed). As such, the content submitted in this form will be forwarded to Chilling Effects (http://www.chillingeffects.org) for publication…For products like Google Web Search, a link to your published notice will be displayed in Google’s search results in place of the removed content.
Using Chilling Effects to find pirated music and movies is easier than using Google search
What’s even more troubling is the content of the database itself. Yes, Google might reluctantly remove a pirate link from search results, but the infringing link lives on–conveniently available via Chilling Effects. In effect, the database acts a shadow site for pirate links removed from Google search. Using Chilling Effects to search for pirated movies and music is actually easier that using Google. Using Google, one has to search through various results in order to actually find valid links. Meanwhile, search results on Chilling Effects provide results that offer infringing links in a convenient, clean lists. Great for would-be thieves–not so great for content creators.
This morning, using the Chilling Effects database search engine, I was able to quickly find active pirated streams for the recently released movie, Dracula Untold*. All I had to do was type in the title, click my mouse, and choose a link from the DMCA notices that popped up in the results. I chose to use a DMCA notice sent to Google by NBC Universal that reported 762 infringing links. See the graphic below to see how just how simple it was.
Chilling Effects’ refusal to redact the actual infringing links included in DMCA notices has long been a source of contention. Now, however, it seems that some clever piracy entrepreneurs have taken it to a new, efficient extreme by creating a search engine that can leverage links reported via DMCA notices stored by Chilling Effects to provide users with access to pirated movies and music.
According to TorrentFreak a site called FileSoup offers both a search engine for (removed) torrent links, but has also developed new technology dubbed Necromancer that according to claims, will crawl the Chilling Effects database and Google’s own transparency report for DMCA notices it has received:
The operators of FileSoup also addressed indirect search engine takedowns. Every week rightsholders force Google to remove torrent listings from its search results. For this problem FileSoup says it has a solution, and a controversial one it is too.
The team behind the site say they have developed a web crawler designed to pull the details of content subjected to DMCA notices from two sources – Google’s Transparency Report and the Chilling Effects Clearing House. From here the links are brought back to life.
“We created a technology that crawls DMCA notices and resurrects the torrent webpage under a different URL so it can appear in search results again. It was rather complicated to sharpen it, but eventually it works pretty well. We will use it on FileSoup.com for all the websites we proxy,” FileSoup explain.
Meanwhile, according to its website, Chilling Effects claims to be performing a public service:
Our goals are to educate the public, to facilitate research about the different kinds of complaints and requests for removal–both legitimate and questionable–that are being sent to Internet publishers and service providers, and to provide as much transparency as possible about the “ecology” of such notices, in terms of who is sending them and why, and to what effect.
While its purported goals may appear laudable, one has to ask, why is it that an organization (run by a consortium of law school “clinics” and the Google-funded Electronic Frontier Foundation) can’t achieve its objective without also serving as backup source to find pirated content?
With Chilling Effects acting as a repository for pirate links removed from Google, what options do rights holders have now? We dutifully send DMCA notices to Google to protect our work from thieves, only to find our efforts are really an exercise in futility thanks to Chilling Effects? Are we supposed to send takedown notices to Chilling Effects to take down the very links we asked Google to remove in the first place? If we send a DMCA notice to Chilling Effects is it archived in the database too? Ultimately, Chilling Effects is really just a fun-house hall of mirrors where online thieves have the last laugh.
In crafting the DMCA, is this what lawmakers had in mind when they carved out a “safe harbor” provision? Does the Chilling Effects database really protect innovation online? At the moment, the site’s chief role seems to be as a resource for those who want to rip off creators. Chilling Effects is not working in the public’s interest, it’s working in the pirate’s.
*For the record, this is how I conducted my search using Chilling Effects database:
- Reviewed Rotten Tomatoes to find a current/popular film title.
- Went to Chilling Effects and entered film’s title (Dracula Untold) into search.
- Clicked randomly one of the first results in those infringing links listed.
- The DMCA notice I clicked on happened to be from NBCUniversal (to Google) and included 700+ links. I selected one near the top and it took me to a full stream of the film online.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy, Tech
Google releases another self-serving piracy report
On Friday Google announced an update to last year’s “How Google Fights Piracy” that included this claim:
In October 2014, we have improved and refined the DMCA demotion signal in search results, increasing the effectiveness of just one tool rightsholders have at their disposal.
Given that last year’s report was little more than a puff-piece designed to deflect growing criticism that Google is, in fact, a major enabler of online piracy--and profits from it in various ways–this new report seems to be more Silicon Valley search giant spin.
Google’s piracy report begins by crowing about how many billions artists have made thanks to its YouTube platform. No mention, of course, how many billions Google has pocketed thanks to said content and the billions more it continues to earn off the millions of infringing video and music clips posted annually to the site. Take a look at YouTube any day of the week and you’ll find infringing content laden with advertisements. Where does that profit go? It ends up in the pirate’s pockets and Google coffers.
Yes, the company has instituted a Content ID system but remember it did so only after enormous pressure (and lawsuits) from those whose work was being ripped off right and left. Even that system puts the burden on creators to sign up and constantly monitor YouTube for infringements. Not every creators has the wherewithal, or the time, to act as a security guard for their own work. Wouldn’t we prefer they be creating more music or films?
Google uses the report to pat itself on the back for testimony given last March by Google’s Senior Copyright Policy Counsel Katherine Oyama before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet:
In our testimony, we note our own experiences with the notice-and-takedown process, and highlight its importance in a developing media landscape where online platforms are creating more and more opportunities for creators every year.
Great, so you’re helping create an online landscape that offers more opportunities to creators….sure, if you’re a creator of cat videos.
She also gave a rosy assessment of how well the DMCA works for everyone:
The DMCA’s shared responsibility approach works. Copyright holders identify infringement and,if they choose, request its removal. Upon notification, online service providers remove or disable access to the infringing material. This approach makes sense, as only copyright holders know what material they own, what they have licensed, and where they want their works to appear online. Service providers cannot by themselves determine whether a given use is infringing.
Perhaps the last line should read, “Service providers have chosen not to make any attempt to determine whether a given use is infringing even after its reported as being such.” As the RIAA noted in a point by point rebuttal rebuttal of her testimony:
The DMCA did not intend for service providers like Google to get away with indexing rogue sites again and again after clear notice of rampant
infringement, creating an endless source of frustration for copyright owners.
There’s no doubt that the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA has given companies like Google the freedom to build a business model dependent, to a large extent, on copyright infringement to fuel its growth. It’s a landscape where content creators are at a distinct disadvantage from the get go. In the online world, filmmakers, musicians and other creators–and not the uploader–have to prove they are the rightful owners of uploaded content. In what other universe are property owners at such a disadvantage? If Google wants to use another company’s software in one of its products, do its engineers just take it when another company owns rights to it? Probably not. They seek a license (or buy the company outright).
But I digress…back to Google’s updated report. Google touts how efficient and streamlined its online content removal process is and notes that 80 companies have access to a “trusted submitter” program which streamlines the process of notice and takedown:
In addition to the public content removal web form for copyright owners who have a proven track record of submitting accurate notices and who have a consistent need to submit thousands of URLs each day, Google created the Trusted Copyright Removal Program for Web Search (TCRP). This program streamlines the submission process, allowing copyright owners or their enforcement agents to submit large volumes of URLs on a consistent basis. There are now more than 80 TCRP partners, who together submit the vast majority of notices every year.
What about those of us who don’t have access to this TCRP program? There are plenty of content creators who find their work pirated repeatedly on various Google platforms, from Blogger to search, who are forced to send in DMCA notices via a web form over and over again. (FYI this “efficient” form doesn’t even allow for auto-fill of submitters name and contact information). I’ve written about how inefficient Google’s takedown procedure is for those of us who aren’t “trusted submitters” and frankly, it sucks. I included this slide show in a post I wrote earlier this year explaining just how difficult it was to remove pirated content from Google’s Blogger platform. Efficient is not an adjective I would use.
[rev_slider Google_DMCA_circus]
In another demonstration of how Google is adept at transforming a sow’s ear into a silk purse, the report touts the rise in takedown requests as a great thing, not a sign of just how rampant online theft is on Google platforms:
Since launching new submission tools for copyright owners and their agents in 2011, we have seen remarkable growth in the number of pages that copyright owners have asked us to remove from search results. [emphasis added] In fact, today we receive removal requests for more URLs every week than we did in the twelve years from 1998 to 2010 combined. At the same time, Google is processing the notices we receive for Search faster than ever before—currently, on average, in less than six hours.
Rather than celebrate how they’ve responded to a growth in the number of takedown notices received and processed (not something to brag about IMHO) why not work toward creating an online environment where it would not be necessary for rights holders to send DMCA notices time and time again, often for the same pirate website and duplicate infringing links? As the RIAA noted in its response to Oyama’s testimony:
… we’ve sent more than 2 million notices to Google regarding illegal site mp3skull.com, and yet Google still lists mp3skull at the top of search results when users search for an artist’s name + song title + ‘download.’ Google still has a lot of work to do in this area.
In its report Google repeats its tired claim that “search is not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites.” Maybe in Google’s world, but not in the real one. As the MPAA study, Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy points out:
Search is an important resource for consumers when they seek new content online, especially for the first time. 74% of consumers surveyed cited using a search engine as either a discovery or navigational tool in their initial viewing sessions on domains with infringing content.
No matter how Google frames it, the basic truth is that Google search remains a path to piracy, a fact even piracy websites acknowledge and as I noted in an earlier blog post.
In its sidebar, the website (primewire.ag) has posted a poll asking this question: How did you find us through our new name?
According to the results users turned, in large numbers, to that tried and true source for pirated content worldwide, Google search. Nearly 200,000 (29.88 %) users chose Google as their path to the site, second only to word of mouth which took top honors at 43%. While the poll is not scientific, it does provide more anecdotal evidence to what most believe to be true, Google is a major sign post on the path to online piracy. Even when pirate sites run into trouble with other pirates hacking and stealing their domains (ironic isn’t it), leave it to Google to come to the rescue.
Yes, Google still does have a lot of work to do in this area. Until then, reports like the “update” released last week mean nothing beyond fuel for the PR spin machine. The proof is in the pudding and right now the ingredients are still in the box, on the shelf, waiting for Google to get real in the fight against online piracy (for profit).
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
It’s a tired old tale, but one that bears repeating over and over again. Google’s search engine is the go-to resource for those seeking pirated content online. There’s a long line of Google critics, myself included, who decry the search giant’s defiant and arrogant attitude in response to requests that it modify its search engine to mitigate damage done to content creators by online pirates.
James Murdoch, co-COO of 21st Century Fox has added his voice to calls for change, speaking out at a TV conference in Cannes. According to a report in The Guardian, Murdoch took issue with Google’s response to News Corp CEO Robert Thomson’s recent characterization of Google search as “a platform for piracy” in a letter sent to an EU commissioner.
“There’s no question that they can do more. A lot more. Certainly Google’s not right in saying they’re doing more than anyone. That just isn’t true,” he said.
“The problem with Google … Actually, let’s not personalize this. The problem with search-driven discovery, if the content is there and it’s illegal and you’re just selling clicks as a big ad network, you have every incentive for that illegal programming to be there. That’s fundamentally not really good enough.”
No, it isn’t good enough. As I wrote last week, Google’s claim that it’s a leader in the fight against piracy is gobbledygook. Of course Google, being Google, can say pretty much anything its wants since content creators are powerless in the face of its corporate largess and lobbying. A recent story in the Washington Post, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” shined a spotlight on the search giant’s growing domination (and control).
The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google — once a lobbying weakling — has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence.
(Read the e-mails between Google and GMU officials)
That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects.
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.
When even big corporate entities like News Corp and 21st Century Fox appear powerless in the face of Googleiath’s growing dominance, you know we’re in trouble. Perhaps the European Union will punish Google for anti-trust violations, but even threats of a 6 billion dollar fine are unlikely to change Google’s scorched earth business practices and tainted profits. As its influence expands and evolves, so too does the moral code by which it operates. Problem is, it’s a code of Google’s own making.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Photography, Politics, Tech
Reddit and Vanity Fair are both owned by Condé Nast
The Internet’s dark side, how much is enough?
The recent theft and online release of a number of female celebrities’ private photographs is only the most recent link in a chain of online abuse that stretches across the globe. In this instance, the only reason it grabbed headlines and gained its own juvenile hashtag (#Fappening2014) was because the victim list was a who’s who of high-profile Hollywood actresses. Some characterized the release of the stolen photos as being an isolated incident, a product of the dark recesses of the Internet, of a lone sick-o hacker. If only that were true. The sad fact is that women (and men) are subjected to online attacks like this everyday.
This type of digital damage, a form of virtual sexual assault, a type of revenge porn, needs to be seen for what it is–a crime. Unfortunately it’s one that, more often than not, goes unpunished. Most women (and men) who are victimized by these networks of anonymous cowards don’t have the resources to fight back. Even when they do–as in the case of Jennifer Lawrence, this episode’s most prominent victim–mechanisms to combat this type of digital abuse are limited. The FBI claims to be investigating, but what are its agents doing about the not-so-famous women whose photos end up shared and used as click-bait on seamy forums (and sub-forums) hosted by sites like Reddit? Do victims of these crimes have any options to fight back?
In the short term Lawrence and the hacker’s other victims are employing the only tool available to them, the tired old DMCA notice. The DMCA allows copyright holders to demand that content removed from a hosting website by claiming copyright infringement. Of course, only sites beholden to U.S. law are obligated to remove “infringing” content and most of the sites that traffic in stolen content are hosted offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law.
In the past Reddit, owned by publishing giant Condé Nast, often deflected DMCA notices, instead advising senders to contact the actual host of the link to request takedowns. Yet in the wake of this latest onslaught, site administrators have changed their tune. Why now? Why are stolen nude selfies of famous actresses more worthy than similar images stolen (and posted) from private citizens? I also wonder how receptive these actresses will be next time Vanity Fair comes a calling for them to do their annual Hollywood issue? Could that have influenced Reddit’s decision-making?
Reddit administrators of course made no mention of Condé Nast’s corporate interests in explaining their decision to disable the /r/TheFappening (hacked image thread) and related subreddits:
These subreddits were of course the focal point for the sharing of these stolen photos. The images which were DMCAd were continually being reposted constantly on the subreddit. We would takedown images (thumbnails) in response to those DMCAs, but it quickly devolved into a game of whack-a-mole. We’d execute a takedown, someone would adjust, reupload, and then repeat. This same practice was occurring with the underage photos, requiring our constant intervention. The mods were doing their best to keep things under control and in line with the site rules, but problems were still constantly overflowing back to us. Additionally, many nefarious parties recognized the popularity of these images, and started spamming them in various ways and attempting to infect or scam users viewing them. It became obvious that we were either going to have to watch these subreddits constantly, or shut them down. We chose the latter. It’s obviously not going to solve the problem entirely, but it will at least mitigate the constant issues we were facing. This was an extreme circumstance, and we used the best judgement we could in response.
As of now, this explanatory post on Reddit has more than 9,o00 responses, pro and con. In another blog post on the issue that featured a lofty headline, “Every Man Is Responsible For His Own Soul” a Reddit administrator named Yishan explained their reasoning this way.
While current US law does not prohibit linking to stolen materials, we deplore the theft of these images and we do not condone their widespread distribution. Nevertheless, reddit’s platform is structurally based on the ability for people to distribute, promote, and highlight textual materials as well as links to images and other media. We understand the harm that misusing our site does to the victims of this theft, and we deeply sympathize. Having said that, we are unlikely to make changes to our existing site content policies in response to this specific event.
The reason is because we consider ourselves not just a company running a website where one can post links and discuss them, but the government of a new type of community. The role and responsibility of a government differs from that of a private corporation, in that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers.
So, hands off until really, really famous people are involved? Only “change our content policies” when people can afford to hire legal representation with teeth? Reddit operators claim that above all else, they are in the business of protecting “free speech.” That is, apparently, until said “free speech” gets them in hot water and attracts unwanted scrutiny. Timothy B. Lee explored this contradiction in a post on Vox, “Why Reddit just banned a community devoted to sharing celebrity nudes”:
Reddit critics also accuse the site of being unduly influenced by media attention. For example, Reddit used to have a subreddit called /r/jailbait that — unsurprisingly — attracted pornographic images of underage women. It was popular enough to win a “subreddit of the year” vote in 2008. It was shut down only after it was the subject of unflattering coverage on CNN. Reddit also banned a subreddit called /r/creepshots, dedicated to “upskirt” photographs, after a Gawker expose on its founder. But other subreddits with equally disturbing content but less media attention remain open for business.
It’s important to note that Reddit’s “business” is ad-based. And, like so many enterprises on the web, attracting users by offering access to tainted goods. T.C. Sottek writing for The Verge pulls no punches, characterizes Reddit as a “failed state:”
…Reddit feels really bad that your stolen nude photos are being shared all over its website, but won’t do anything about it unless you’re privileged enough to understand the copyright system or able to afford a lawyer who does. And unlike (many) governments, Reddit has profit motives — it makes money when people share nude photos because men are pervs and there’s a huge audience out there for naked women, perhaps especially for naked women who haven’t given us consent to share their bodies.
…If Reddit wants to be thought of as a government, we’ll call it what it is: a failed state, unable to control what happens within its borders. At minimum, Reddit is a kleptocracy that speaks to lofty virtues while profiting from vice. It might be forgivable if we were talking about taxing cigarettes and booze, but we’re not talking about that. What we’re talking about is more like sexual assault, condoned by a state that earns revenue from it. “Reddit doesn’t have much of an interest in banning questionable content,” Wong wrote last year. “‘Family-friendly’ is out, ‘edgy’ is in.” Are those the words of a president, or a pimp?
Yishan‘s pompous post offers the notion that Reddit should be thought of as “the government of a new type of community…that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers,” Of course those lofty, utopian guiding principles are quickly abandoned when bad publicity threatens to undermine the site’s net-worth. Funny how quickly the illusion of (ill-conceived) idealism can be shattered by cold, hard cash. The truth is that Reddit’s days as a freewheeling cesspool may be numbered if hopes to succeed with efforts to transform itself into a larger (legitimate) moneymaking enterprise. As Mike Issac explains in a piece for today’s New York Times:
…The site has lately redoubled its efforts to become a thriving, profitable business, stepping up its advertising efforts and going on a hiring spree.
“The Achilles’ heel for a lot of these sites is that their plans to monetize themselves often directly affect how they structure their platforms,” said Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy advocacy group.
Reddit is also reportedly in the process of raising more than $50 million in venture capital, according to the technology site Re/code, which could value the company at upward of half a billion dollars.
Reddit, then, may have to rethink its classic laissez-faire approach to content, especially if it wants to be courted by big-budget advertisers.
While market influences may be one factor in influencing a limited clean up of websites like Reddit, isn’t it time to ask whether our laws need to be updated to better manage this type of online crime? Free speech is often touted as the reason we must allow these sites to exist (and thrive) often at the expense of victims not as well known as Jennifer Lawrence. Yet theft and dissemination of stolen photographs is not speech, it’s abuse, and it’s time to acknowledge as much. Free speech absolutists, like Reddit’s operators, argue that any push back would stifle “innovation,” but what’s really innovative about sharing stolen selfies?
While it’s impossible to scrub the web of seedy threads like those on Reddit, can’t we at least try to make progress in limiting the damage? If sites like Reddit take pride in being user-driven, why not put more legal liability on those users? Also, why not put more pressure on parent companies like Condé Nast to stem this illegal and abusive behavior on its properties?
Supporting and sustaining a healthy Internet and ridding it of abusive and illegal content need not be mutually exclusive. At the very least lawmakers at the federal level should confront this issue as some of their state counterparts have done in enacting laws against “revenge porn.”
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.
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.
