While researching the issue of sexism in advertising for a piece I posted earlier today I came across this series of ads sponsored by the United Nations and produced by Memac Ogilvy & Mather Dubai in which they employed a simple Google search and the subsequent “auto-complete” results to illustrate just how pervasive sexism remains in our world.
Click to enlarge
According to a post on the UN Women website, “the searches confirm the urgent need to continue making the case for women’s rights, empowerment and equality, a cause the organization is pursuing around the world.” The site provides more background on the ad series:
…uses genuine Google searches to reveal the widespread prevalence of sexism and discrimination against women. Based on searches dated 9 March, 2013 the ads expose negative sentiments ranging from stereotyping as well as outright denial of women’s rights.
“When we came across these searches, we were shocked by how negative they were and decided we had to do something with them,” says Christopher Hunt, Art Director of the creative team. The idea developed places the text of the Google searches over the mouths of women portraits, as if to silence their voices.
“The ads are shocking because they show just how far we still have to go to achieve gender equality. They are a wake up call, and we hope that the message will travel far,” adds Kareem Shuhaibar, copy writer.
Memac Ogilvy & Mather Dubai created a video to highlight their findings, “The Autocomplete Truth.” It’s worth watching (below):
According to Google, its auto-complete search predictions are “a reflection of the search activity of users and the content of web pages.” Since the UN campaign was created in 2013 I thought I’d check Google for a local update of such “activity.” I can’t attest to what search results might appear in Dubai, but according to Google search results I got today (from a U.S. IP), the search term “women should” ismagically transformed into “women shouldn’t” thenauto-completed with the phrases “should not vote” and “should stay at home.”
When I searched using “women are” the auto-completes transformed it into the phrases “women aren’t funny, women are shallow, and women are like bacon.” The final phrase provided would could be considered a case of reverse sexism, “women are better than men.”
Frankly,I’d much prefer seeing an auto-complete that read “women are equal to men.” 🙂 Clearly Google’s algorithms and our society still need work.
Google Trying to Force Indie Record Labels into Submission
(Updated June 17, 2014)
This post was originally published in late May, but with news breaking that Google is pushing ahead on its plan to block indie labels from its new music service I’m reposting. Here’s the latest from The Guardian:
Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Jack White could disappear from YouTube “in a matter of days” after the Google video service confirmed it was dropping content from independent labels that have not signed up for its upcoming subscription music service…
…The company’s head of content and business operations, Robert Kyncl,told the Financial Times that the service – previously rumoured to be called YouTube Music Pass – will launch more widely later in the year.
His confirmation that YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier will be hugely controversial among indie labels, with trade body WIN already filing a complaint to the European Commission about its negotiating strategy.
Here’s my original post from May 24th, 2014:
Excuse me while I choke back the bile rising in my gut. Our pal Google, the worldwide protector of free speech on the web, is showing its true colors as it reportedly goes toe to toe with indie record labels in negotiations over its new streaming music service. According to the New York Times, representatives from Google/YouTube are trying to strong arm the labels into crying “uncle” by blackmailing them into submission over contract terms:
Negotiations between independents and YouTube, which is owned by Google, have dragged on for months. But according to several people with direct knowledge of the talks, the indies’ decision to speak out was driven by a recent warning that if labels failed to agree to YouTube’s licensing terms, music on the indies’ official YouTube channels would be blocked. In addition, those labels would be unable to collect advertising revenue from user-uploaded videos that included their music.
The Worldwide Independent Network published a statement on their website taking Google to task:
YouTube is expected to launch a new music streaming service. The service has apparently negotiated separate agreements with the three major labels – Sony, Warner and Universal – but according to WIN’s trade association colleagues has yet to reach any substantive agreement with their members.
At a time when independent music companies are increasing their global market share WIN has raised major concerns about YouTube’s recent policy of approaching independent labels directly with a template contract and an explicit threat that their content will be blocked on the platform if it is not signed.
According to WIN members, the contracts currently on offer to independent labels from YouTube are on highly unfavourable, and non-negotiable terms, and undervalue existing rates in the marketplace from existing music streaming partners such as Spotify, Rdio, Deezerand others.
WIN has held extensive talks with YouTube at their instigation over the last 24 hours to try and resolve this issue but no progress has been made. WIN’s request for YouTube to rescind the termination letters sent to its members has not as yet been agreed to.
Google representatives have repeatedly pulled out the “free speech” card as rationale for allowing Google to run rough shod over artist’s rights (human rights) online and its lobbyists often employ the “protect free speech” argument as a sacred sword to move politicians and the public to its side during policy debates regarding its online business practices. That dearly held corporate concept seems to have gone out the window during these discussions demonstrating that ultimately, it’s not a matter of principle for Google, but profits.
Every time an artist sends a DMCA takedown request for any Google-hosted content (YouTube, Blogger, Search, Drive, etc) they are warned that a copy of the notice will be sent to the “Chilling Effects” website which, according to its “about” page, exists in order to, “support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats.”
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. You can see an example of such a publication athttp://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=861. 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.
I wonder if the folks at Chilling Effects would consider whether YouTube’s negotiating tactics are having a “chilling effects” on indie musicians?
More irony can be found on Google’s own policy blog the company touts how it “promotes free speech on the internet.”
Google’s commitment to freedom of expression is at the core of everything we do — whether it’s independent media organizations using YouTube to express themselves in Venezuela, or citizen journalists using Blogger to chronicle Myanmar’s crackdown last year on Buddhist monk protests. Unfortunately, many governments around the world impose limits on their citizens’ freedom of speech, and that often leads them to block or limit access to our tools and services.
Hypocrisy seems too gentle a term in characterizing Google’s current stance with indie labels on YouTube. Agree to our terms or we’ll block your work? Seems their “commitment to freedom of expression” doesn’t count if you refuse to add profits to their piggy bank.
The fledgling news site vox.com’s (no relation to this site) purported “simple” mission, according to its founder Ezra Klein, is to “explain the news,” as he noted on his Facebook page:
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Our mission is simple: Explain the news. Politics, public policy, world affairs, pop culture, science, business, food, sports, and everything else that matters are part of our editorial ambit.
Our goal is to move people from curiosity to understanding:
Given its stated mission, one has to wonder then, if giving voice to right-wing anti-copyright talking points, under the guise of journalism, fulfills this goal?
In writing about Mr. Lee last October, I took issue with a Washington Post column that trumpeted piracydata.org’s* dubious findings that blamed distributors, not online thieves, for the growth of online piracy. I noted at the time that Mr. Lee’s piece should be taken with a huge grain of salt given his (undisclosed) ties to an anti-copyright think tank.
Too bad their original graphic (and data) contained errors–a fact belatedly pointed out by the Washington Post’s Timothy B. Lee in his story which featured the provocative headline, “Here’s why Hollywood should blame itself for its piracy problems.”Lee updated his piece (and changed his headline):
Correction: The original data supplied to us by PiracyData.org was inaccurate. It showed 1 movie available for rental and 4 available for purchase. In fact, 3 are available for rental and 6 are available for purchase. We regret the error…
At the time, I wasn’t the only one to cast doubt on Mr. Lee’s journalism. In a piece published in the Columbia Journalism Review, “A piracy defense walks the plank at the Post,” Ryan Chittum questioned Mr. Lee’s reporting:
There are many problems with Timothy B. Lee’s Washington Post blog post on Hollywood’s supposed culpability for the theft of its own movies, beginning with the morally unserious jujitsu deployed in arguing that Hollywood is culpable for the theft of its own movies. The Mercatus- and Cato-connected editor of the Washington Post tech blog that aims “to be indispensable to telecom lobbyists and IT professionals alike, while also being compelling and provocative to the average iPhone-toting commuter” also had a major correction that undermines the entire premise of the piece and reveals its one-sided reporting.
Fast forward to today’s story. Mr. Lee, now writing for Vox, has given us a piece that once again manages to deftly advance anti-copyright memes. At first blush the title is disarming in that seems to take Google to task for its growing lobbying clout, yet if one actually reads the work it’s actually a clear effort to amplify the talking points recently spouted by notorious anti-copyright shill Derek Khanna in a recent Business Insider piece, “It’s Time To Confront the Anti-Copyright Lobby.” Khanna argued that, “We know the costs of continuing extremist copyright policies completely removed from the Constitution’s original public meaning; the American people deserve better then politicians selling out to Hollywood.”
According to Mr. Lee, this right-wing “shift” against copyright “seems overdue.”
Conservatives have long loathed Hollywood for the liberal values promoted in its movies and for the tendency of Hollywood celebrities to make campaign contributions to Democrats. That might be why Republicans broke ranks more quickly than Democrats in opposing the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act in 2012.
There are also genuinely conservative arguments for reining in the excesses of the copyright system. A recurring theme in both Khanna and Bell’s writing is that today’s laws are far more generous to copyright holders than those that existed in the early years of the republic. Bell and Khanna emphasize that the Founding Fathers viewed copyright as more a government-granted monopoly than a form of property rights.
Mr. Lee is certainly free to write about the debate over copyright legislation, and he appears to have learned the lesson that it’s important to disclose his affiliations with anti-copyright organizations (or risk be outed by the CJR) as he included this caveat in paragraph 3 of his piece.
And, to be clear, I’m not an impartial observer to this debate, having written about copyright issues for both Cato and Mercatus.
However, given his close ties political interests with a stake in the very topic he examines, readers should digest his piece with the skepticism is deserves and appreciate why he insists on characterizing Hollywood’s ongoing efforts to protect its creative products as a “copyright agenda.”
Lee reveals his hand when he concludes with a summation that, while not as biting, clearly mirrors the sentiments expressed by Mr. Khanna:
And internet companies like Google will only become more important to the American economy in the coming years, so Hollywood’s copyright agenda is going to increasingly face bipartisan skepticism on Capitol Hill.
In taking a not-so-veiled swipe at movie industry concerns, Mr. Lee also conveniently fails to mention that independent artists, musicians, filmmakers, authors etc. share Hollywood’s “copyright agenda.” This omission reveals another reason his superficial analysis remains suspect. When he writes about copyright, whether in the Washington Post or Vox, Lee’s predictable, myopic and simplistic condemnations of big Hollywood seem knee-jerk in nature.
Why is it that when writing about copyright reform writers/bloggers like Mr. Lee never seem to acknowledge, nor explore, the fact that “big” Hollywood employs thousands of little people and what the vitality of movie manufacturing means to them? They also routinely fail to include the perspectives of a vast number of small creators in the United States whose livelihoods depend on copyright. Why not admit that there are interests besides Hollywood that have skin in the game?
Surely there is room for discussion over revisiting copyright terms, etc. but given that the mindset of insiders like Khanna and Lee–who continue to author pieces that paint discussions regarding copyright reform in broad brushstrokes of black versus white–there’s little chance of that happening. By ignoring the very existence of (most) creators who depend on copyright, such posts become nothing more than a megaphone for memes generated by the very “think” tanks under scrutiny. If Vox editors are serious about “explaining the news” why not publish a piece that covers both sides of the debate–deconstructing the shades of gray that exist–and that all too often, are forgotten in today’s so-called journalism? Help the public “understand” that copyright is a complex issue that deserves to be clarified–not clouded by oblique reportage.
*BTW, it’s interesting to note that piracydata.org’s website hasn’t been updated since late November (2103). I guess now that it’s served it’s PR purpose the site’s “dataset” has gone into hibernation.
Sunday’s Washington Post featured a story, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” that examined the company’s rise to become a top dog among Washington influence peddlers. For Google watchers revelations in the piece, authored by Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold, come as no surprise. However, for those who continue to regard Google as the web’s guardian angel of “free speech,” the story should add a bit of tarnish to its halo, illuminating the company’s extensive back-door maneuverings — the new normal in DC’s world of political puppeteering.
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.
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.
It wasn’t too long ago that Google was leading the charge against Washington insiders, those who deigned to file legislation that would target online content theft, the notorious Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Of course its ginning up hysteria among web users with the rallying cry “don’t break the internet” is simply just another strategic slice of the same (lobbying) pie the company is currently feasting on in Washington. While the contrivances employed differ, the ultimate goal of protecting the company’s interests (and bottom line) lies at the core both of both.
Of course it’s not particularly surprising to find that one of the nation’s most successful and influential company has invested heavily (more than 15 million in 2013) to influence policy by any means necessary. What is important is to see that Google’s anti-SOPA efforts for what they were–skillful lobbying that engaged web users as foils in a much larger game of chess. After the SOPA web blackout, a headline in Tech Crunch gleefully declared, “SOPA Scorecard: Internet 1, Lobbyists 0.” In his story David Binetti gave this appraisal of the (so-called) grassroots efforts that led to SOPA’s defeat.
Think about that for just a second: A well-organized, well-funded, well-connected, well-experienced lobbying effort on Capitol Hill was outflanked by an ad-hoc group of rank amateurs, most of whom were operating independent of one another and on their spare time. Regardless where you stand on the issue — and effective copyright protection is an important issue — this is very good news for the future of civic engagement.
Looking back, such assessments seem almost quaint in their naivety. Following the web blackout, in a post-mortem published on 3digital.com David Rodnitzky got it right:
The SOPA blackout was about as organic as the masses of North Koreans crying in the streets upon hearing of Kim Jong Il’s death. Behind the scenes, the SOPA protest was a well-organized campaign, fueled by the lobbying arms of major Internet corporations.
Moving forward, let’s hope that more people take note. Google is out to protect Google’s interests, not ours.
1998’s DMCA is well past its sell-by date. Time for a makeover.
The past 20 years have seen a virtual technology revolution. We have the world at our fingertips, literally. Yet, despite the massive technological transformation of our society and culture, our laws have yet to catch up. The haggard Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a shining example of this fact. Signed into law in 1998, the legislation was designed to manage copyright issues in the dawning digital age.
Unfortunately, rather than manage copyright, it’s provided a huge loophole through which a number of online pirate entrepreneurs sail blissfully through. Known as the “safe harbor” provision, this oft-abused language has served to shelter digital thieves at the expense of rights holders. “Safe Harbor” has enabled the growth of a criminal cancer and it’s a cancer–that as of now–cannot be beaten, only kept (marginally) at bay. As Wikipedia notes, “The DMCA’s principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries.” As I’ve suggested previously, any update to the law should include a requirement that in order to qualify for the limitations to liability that safe-harbor offers, certain user-generated content sites must implement reasonable technology to mitigate content theft. More on that later.
The actual “takedown” process has also drawn fire (from both sides of the debate). Copyright holders often find sending out DMCA notices to be an exercise in futility as it’s nearly impossible to keep up with the volume of pirated content found online (usually via for-profit piracy websites). Those who operate legitimate user generated content sites like YouTube argue that false DMCA notices stifle “free speech.” Never mind that the vast majority of notices sent are valid if Google’s stats are any indication. They report that more than 97% of the notices they receive are valid (data listed from 2011).
At any rate, this past week in Washington the wheels of government moved ever-so-slightly as the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing on the DMCA. The witness list included Katherine Oyama, Sr. Copyright Policy Counsel for Google; Paul Sieminski General Counsel for WordPress parent Automattic; Grammy winning composer and conductor Maria Schneider; Paul Doda, Global Litigation Counsel for Elsevier; Annemarie Bridy, professor University of Idaho College of Law; and Sean M. O’Connor, a law professor from the University of Washington.
Overall the testimony was predictable. Those representing copyright holders spoke on the burden of sending repeated takedowns while those with a tech perspective argued that the DMCA actually hurt those receiving notices more than it helped artists in safeguarding their work. Tech representatives also extolled the virtues of “safe harbor” and declared that it was the reason that the internet has flourished in the nearly 20 years since the law was enacted. Of course they failed to mention that abuse of “safe harbor” is rampant and that the intent of the law’s languages has been twisted beyond repair and in desperate need of a 21st century makeover.
Google’s Katherine Oyama appears be well-liked in Washington DC, but even the RIAA found fault with her testimony and published a “fact check” of her statement. Oyama noted that Google has spent more than “60 million dollars on the development of content ID on YouTube,” but the RIAA fact check puts that figure into context:
Google created Content ID in 2008. Google’s revenues since then have surpassed $200 billion – so Google only spends less than 0.03% of its revenues on preventing copyright theft on YouTube?
Ms. Oyama’s assessment that the DMCA was working well for rights holder was also a dubious assertion.
The increasing volume of takedown notices demonstrates the continued relevance and effectiveness of the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown regime. Copyright owners are using the process ever more intensively, suggesting that they continue to find it valuable.
“Valuable” relative to what? I suppose something is better than nothing but certainly the DMCA as an effective method to remove infringing content online is somewhat like using an umbrella to keep dry in a hurricane. Though not her intent, Ms. Oyama’s testimony does offer a glimpse at what should be included in any update of safe harbor:
As copyright owners and enforcement vendors continue to deploy new technologies to identify uses of their works online, we expect the cost per notice to continue to drop, and takedown volumes to concomitantly increase.
The key here is new technologies. As I alluded to above, my suggestion to “fix” safe harbor would be to mandate that websites offering affiliate rewards (the business model used by the now defunct Megaupload) be required to institute some form of content ID system in order to vet content uploaded by these affiliates. Note that I said sites offering affiliate (cash) rewards. The cyberlocker business model, which has become the central means of disseminating and monetizing stolen content online, would no longer be viable. Sites like drop-box that allow users to store and share files but don’t incentivize piracy would remain untouched.
Paul Sieminski who testified on behalf of Automattic, the parent company of the popular online blogging platform WordPress made perhaps the most ironic statement of the afternoon.
Another deterrent is that the counter notice form itself` – many users need to consult a lawyer before completing and submitting the form, and most don’t have the time or resources to do that.
Mr. Sieminski should try replacing the term “counter notice” with the term “DMCA notice.” Just imagine what it’s like for indie filmmakers, musicians, photographers, etc. who find their work appropriated (usually for profit) online. As Ms. Schneider pointed out in her testimony, the system is actually weighted against the content creator:
The takedown procedure should be more balanced. I am certain that most of my fans who upload my music have no intention of harming me – and probably no
knowledge that they are doing so. But to upload my music on most sites, one simply has to click a box saying they acknowledge the rules. On the other end of the transaction, I, the harmed party, must jump through a series of hoops, preparing a notice for each site, certifying documents under penalty of perjury, and spending hours learning the sites’ unique rules for serving the notice. Owners should have a more streamlined and consistent process to take content down.
Need more proof? Well, if you haven’t done so already, take a look at the video I posted at the top of this piece documenting the more than 56,000 download links and streams we sent out to remove pirated copies over several months in 2010 after our film’s release. Our DMCA story is not atypical. Every day musicians, filmmakers and other creators around the world are spending time they could be using more productively, sending out DMCA takedown requests. What about the “time and resources” of the content creators whose work is stolen and monetized by thieves? Takedowns will be a part of any fix, but we must figure out a better way to create a balanced approach that doesn’t necessitate the need for an sending a seemingly endless cycle of notices to cyberlockers and search engines.
The time has come to fix the broken DMCA and create a system where creators can flourish– and the wealth of content they create can be enjoyed, and sustained, by consumers throughout the world.
Marvin Ammori pens a (laughingly) disingenuous anti-copyright screed
This week Google-backed attorney (and fellow at the New America Foundation) Marvin Ammori wrote a piece for Slate, “Hollywood’s Copyright Lobbyists Are Like Exes Who Won’t Give Up” bashing efforts by the rights holders and their representatives to build voluntary consensus to fight online piracy. Ammori argues that such efforts are actually a veiled effort to reintroduce SOPA, the anti-piracy legislation that went down in flames two years ago.
Apparently Mr. Ammori believes (or those paying him do) that we shouldn’t address this issue at all. Legislation is bad and voluntary agreements are bad too. It seems that even talking about the subject is bad.
In his Slate piece Ammori condemned “copyright lobbyists” for discussing such agreements “in hearings and little information-gathering events—the equivalent of an ex just trying to catch up over drinks.” His lame “ex” analogy aside, I must say it’s beyond ironic to see a known confederate of the #1 lobbyist in DC actually condemn lobbying. Just pull back the curtain and you’ll see that Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt is actually the Chairman of the Board for the New America Foundation. The foundation also lists Google as one of its funders.
According to the website Open Secrets, Google spent 15 million dollars lobbying in 2013. 14.6 million of that was for lobbying on issues related to “computers and the internet.” It’s likely that some of those expenditures included sending representatives to “hearings and little information-gathering events” in DC don’t cha think?
Initially Slate failed to disclose Mr. Ammori’s ties to Google, but was forced to “update” the piece with this disclaimer:
Update, March 11, 2014: Disclosure: The author represented Google and other companies fighting SOPA/PIPA in 2011 and 2012. He currently represents Google and other companies on several issues, including copyright reform. These views are his own.
The fact that Mr. Ammori neglected to initially mention his many ties to Google undermines the very gist of his arguments. Sons of Anarchy writer Kurt Sutter wrote a great rebuttal in Slate to Ammori’s piece which begins:
Let’s consider the March 11 anti-copyright rant in Slate by Marvin Ammori, a lawyer working for Google (which somehow he forgot to mention in the article). He compares Hollywood to that insidious “ex who won’t give up” pursuing you and making your life miserable. As a guy with more than a few exes, I have to tell you, Marv, the most insidious ex is the one who hides the truth, steals your money, and lies to all your friends. That’s what Ammori and Google are doing.
I recommend reading Sutter’s entire piece in which he lays bare the true motivations behind Ammori’s post (and Google’s lobbying efforts).
…when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it’s presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It’s so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who’s the friend of the young everyman. Don’t kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a shit about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope.
To blame Hollywood copyright lobbyists for trying to influence law when google does the exact same thing is either ignorant or hypocritical. And to ignore the fact it isn’t just “Hollywood Copyright Lobbyists” but entire countries that are reacting to what they see is Big Tech run rampant, suggests once again the narrative is being controlled in Big Tech’s favor.
Ammori whines about SOPA and he whines about new efforts to create “voluntary” agreements as a possible path forward in the ongoing battle against content theft. Apparently we are essentially damned if we do and damned if we don’t? What are content creators supposed to do? Are we supposed to sit on our hands and watch as tech behemoths like Google continue to enable (and profit from) an illicit online economy that is bleeding creators dry?
Ammori points to the fact that payment processors like PayPal have pulled their services from various websites and warns,
…copyright holders can starve websites of their funding, strip them of their domain names, and remove them from search. The sites at risk include those that enable users to store and share content—if even a fraction of those users might violate copyright. So these agreements can threaten free expression and innovation online for all of us, just to target a few infringers.
Oh please…he really doesn’t have a freakin’ clue does he? Has he ever actually researched online piracy and examined these websites and to see how they operate? Does he really that only a “fraction” of Megaupload or Filesonic’s users were violating copyright? At this point the poor guy is clearly trying to gin up the same tired, hyperbolic, deceitful anti-SOPA rhetoric the tech-industry employed to work web users into a lather. Problem is, it ain’t gonna work any more. As Sutter’s rebuttal makes clear, creators from all walks of life are fed up with piracy profiteers being propped up by companies like Google–tired of the b.s. We’re mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
We’re sick of companies like Google spending millions to defend their business model, acting like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We’re tired of Google pretending this is about “free speech” when, in fact, it’s about their bottom line. We’re tired of the hypocrisy of a company that spends millions to undermine artist’s rights while being the first in line at the courthouse when it comes to protecting its own IP. We’re tired of watching our livelihoods whittled away while others steal our work to make millions. We’re tired of folks like Mr. Ammori pretending to defend the web’s users when they’re really defending the web’s oligarchy.
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
While researching the issue of sexism in advertising for a piece I posted earlier today I came across this series of ads sponsored by the United Nations and produced by Memac Ogilvy & Mather Dubai in which they employed a simple Google search and the subsequent “auto-complete” results to illustrate just how pervasive sexism remains in our world. 
