The Silicon Valley giant debates, deflects and downplays its role in facilitating and profiting from online piracy
Google’s ongoing role in facilitating (and profiting from ) online piracy was back in the spotlight this week thanks to a debate held this past Tuesday, May 28th, at the University of Westminster in London. The debate,“Follow The Money: Can The Business Of Ad-Funded Piracy Be Throttled?” was sponsored Music Tank, a university business network and included musician (and blogger) David Lowery; BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) boss Geoff Taylor; Theo Bertram, Google UK policy manager ; Alexandra Scott, public policy manager at the Internet Advertising Bureau in the UK; and James Barton, artist manager at The Blue Team.
The presence of a Google representative at a debate on this issue was itself newsworthy, and I might add, overdue. The evening’s discussion on the issue of ad supported piracy (summarized by Musically.com here) seemed to be focused on two main questions: who was responsible and what could be done about it.
David Lowery opened the evening’s discussion and framed a central problem with ad-sponsored piracy this way:
If the future of music really is access to songs rather than owning as many as we do nowadays, those services are all advertising-supported, and they’re competing with these illegitimate sites for these ads…Spotify and Pandora should have probably rightfully got that advertising money.
This is a key point. Online piracy harms content creators (across all disciplines) because it dilutes the market for legitimate consumption and siphons income away from creators and to the pirates (and their enablers). Online advertising revenue gives online pirates an advantage. The thieves can monetize stolen content at zero cost while the creators, who’ve expended capital to create the content, are forced to compete against free versions of their own product. Without income from online advertising, online piracy would not be viable on the scale that it is today.
When it was Google’s turn, per usual, Google was Google as Theo Bertram carefully paid lip-service to the notion that the search giant is proactive in the fight against piracy–citing how much it cost them to implement Content ID on YouTube (30 million) and assuring the audience that “If people have got content up there that is unlicensed and infringing, that would be a breach of our rules,”
Sure, it’s a “breach” of Google’s rules, but the point is, so what? As I have explained numerous times–when confronted with users who routinely and repeatedly break the rules–Google often looks the other way. I would have liked to ask Mr. Bertram how many times does it take for a Blogspot.com pirate site to be reported before Google will remove it? Just how many times does a YouTube user making money for themselves and Google off stolen content have to be reported before the account is terminated? Google refuses to say.
Google may have created a “transparency report” that lists takedown requests received for its web searches, but when it comes to the inner workings of how it polices Blogger, AdSense and YouTube there’s little transparency–just continued obfuscation.
While Google’s equivocation was not unexpected, equally frustrating was Alexandra Scott’s attempt to explain why online ad services are so inept when it comes to keeping content off illegal sites:
This is a huge industry. We’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of players here. It’s not always obvious to those players where that advertising is going. There’s a huge amount of work that we’re undertaking to address that.
Often those middlemen are helping to make advertising more efficient, more targeted and more relevant…I don’t think we want to do away with that, because that innovation is helping to drive the business… Obviously there are concerns about where that advertising is going to appear… It’s not something that’s easy to address: there’s no one-size fits all.
Yep, there it is again, that word “innovation” which–in today’s debate about piracy–is habitually employed as shield by those who wish to avoid taking action (or responsibility) for their role in it. In their world it seems that “responsibility” and “innovation” are considered to be mutually exclusive concepts.
Pop-up ads found on a Google-hosted Blogger website in March of 2013 including a number of name brands.
The oft-used ad industry excuse that “it’s not always obvious to those players where that advertising is going…” is also growing old. As I’ve pointed out many times, advertisers in the print and TV industry are keenly aware of where their ads appear and what editorial/entertainment content they partner with. How is that these same advertisers allow this editorial control to go missing on the internet? Is this “innovation” at work or are advertisers so desperate not to miss out on potential customers that blanketing the web with their promotions is seen as the only way to compete in this brave new world? Scott tried to address this conundrum, but ultimately fell back on the same, tired excuse:
Coca-Cola may say ‘we only want to work on a white-list basis, we only want to appear against certain publishers…They don’t want to be going on these sites. They’re just not always aware of the issue. They don’t necessarily know it’s happening until there’s a crisis… I don’t think that people actively seek out these sites to go and advertise on… Eyeballs isn’t the only thing for advertising: it’s all about context.
While Ms. Scott tried to explain why ad sponsored piracy is a difficult nut to crack, Mr. Bertram seemed more than willing to direct most of the responsibility for ad placement on the clients themselves:
…the only way you get that scale is if you get the big brands…Thus, the responsibility lies with brands to take responsibility, even though there is more work to do for Google in policing how and where ads are served on its network.
It’s not Google’s job to go around the web to declare whether sites are legal or illegal, but if Coca-Cola comes to us and says here’s a list of 500 dynamic sites, and we don’t want you to place ads on those… that’s a slightly different thing. It’s almost a marketing thing for the brand…Getting them to say ‘I’m going to be really clear with you: I don’t want you to put advertising on these sites, I do want you to put advertising on these sites’.
Mr. Bertram also returned to Google’s (not-so-effective) efforts to lower search results for sites known to offer illegal download links:
We’re trying to dampen that in the search results…so we are doing a bit of that. I am an optimist, in that search will get better, and be able to serve people with the results exactly that they want, and to do so utterly lawfully as well.
One nagging question that wasn’t addressed is was how much revenue Google generates from its connections to online piracy (and counterfeit product sites) via its various entities (AdSense, Blogger, YouTube, search, et al). It’s a significant question in this debate , but unfortunately wasn’t addressed.
Tap dancing aside, I suppose it’s a sign of progress that Google was willing to send a representative to the debate. There finally seems to be a growing recognition that ad money is a driving force behind online piracy. As I wrote three years ago when I began blogging about this topic:
Online piracy isn’t about altruism, it’s about income. Today’s technology allows web pirates to steal content and monetize that content with a click of a mouse. Meanwhile, “legit” companies encourage and facilitate this theft while also profiting from it (ad service providers, advertisers and payment processors). The time has come for reasonable measures to be taken to discourage this theft. Content creators and consumers will benefit. Only the pirates and those who profit from their theft will lose.
In the process of scouring the web for the thousands of illegal download links and online streams of our film (more than 55,000 documented to date) I quickly discovered that various, theoretically legit companies, seemed to be (indirectly) generating income through the placement advertising on websites featuring streams and download links to pirated films. In addition, and most troubling, is that fact these ads generate income for operators of these pirate websites and add to generous profit totals for ad providers.
At the end of the debate, Geoff Taylor noted that some progress was being made in efforts to tackle the problem, “to their credit Google and the IAB are working very closely with the music and film industries.”
Blue Team manager James Barton also struck a hopeful tone:
How refreshing that finally in 2013 we’re able to have a conversation with members of big tech and big music industry where we can find common ground, and look for a pragmatic solution to the piracy problem…
Perhaps it’s a matter of putting lipstick on a pig, but after watching this play out over these past three years, it appears we still have a long way to go. Recognizing there is a problem is step one, now let’s do something about it.