Google’s had a great week. On the heels of robust 3rd quarter revenue of 14.9 billion (net income of 2.97 billion), shares of its stock soared over the $1,000 mark for the first time in history making lots of folks in Mountain View (and investors everywhere) very happy. Yet while Google’s stock may have surged to new highs, it seems not much has changed when it comes to its anti-piracy priorities.
The tech titan has long been the target of anti-piracy activists like myself for its role in enabling and profiting from online piracy. The company’s culpabilities are many, but Google’s search engine has drawn much heat lately so it’s not surprising to see its flacks on the warpath fighting back spinning studies to counter that claim. In a recently published report “How Google Fights Piracy,” authors went so far as to claim that,“Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.”
I dissected that report’s disingenuous findings in an earlier blog post, but after yesterday’s financial news, I decided to conduct a little piracy “reality check” and discovered not much has changed at Google other than its stock price.
I came to this not-unexpected conclusion this morning after doing three quick searches using the search term “watch ________ online” (filling in the blank with a movie title). As my first “test” search I chose a Hollywood blockbuster, The Hunger Games. I put “watch Hunger Games online” into search and up popped the results shown below.
The first result was a paid Netflix ad and the second listing is a largely a spam site. However, when I clicked on the third result I found the entire film streaming online (for free). FYI this pirate website, VIOOZ seems impervious to DMCA requests…at least I couldn’t find were to send a request and WHOIS database results were a dead-end. It should also be noted that VIOOZ.co seems to have supplanted VIOOZ.eu, the domain name change being yet another example online pirate entrepreneurs’ never-ending game of hide-and-go-seek.
My second search was for another hit movie, “Ted.” While not on the same the scale as “The Hunger Games,” the Seth MacFarlane directed film was a box office smash bringing in a record 54.1 million its first weekend, a record for an R-rated comedy. As for the Google search results, what’s interesting is that it brought be to a site, http://www.primewire.ag/ which appears to be yet another reincarnation of 1Channel.ch which became letmewatchthis.ch–a chameleon-like black market online piracy operation that makes money from ads on its site.
Like most pirate websites–the more clicks, the more money they make. The site boasts links to 53,695 items, and that’s a lot of carrots to drive traffic and dollars their way.
Note in the screen capture shown below, in the left margin there’s a “support this site” plea–below it, an advertisement promoting a CBS sports broadcast for NCAA college football. Sadly this is yet another example of a major American brand indirectly sending cash the pirate’s way.
Other ads pop up any time you click anything. At any rate when I clicked through the results for “Ted” I immediately came to a link for a pirated download on the pirate cyberlocker Sockshare.com.
Checking the Google transparency report for primewire.ag I found that Google has received requests to remove more than 4,000 results (links) the site became active this past June. Like the VIOOZ site, this pirate portal ignores DMCA requests. Particularly cheeky is the verbiage contained in the website’s “intellectual property” statement:
Intellectual Property – General
1Channel.ch respects the rights of others, and prohibits the use of referenced material for any purpose other than that for which it is intended (where such use is lawful and free of civil liability or other constraint) and in such circumstances where possession of such material may have any adverse financial, prejudicial or any other effect on any other third party.
1Channel.ch is copyrighted, and all rights are reserved, as those are of the proprietors and those of the partners websites material referenced within. Anyone found imitating the site or stealing content from the site will be liable to prosecution. [emphasis added]
My morning’s third search was for the recent indie film, “A Perfect Ending.” Using the same search criteria, the top result led me straight to a pirated stream of the full movie online at VIOOZ.
My results are, of course, anecdotal. However, given the fact that Google’s top results (using obvious search terms) led me straight to pirated copies of these movies, it would seem my findings undercut repeated claims by Google, and their paid surrogates, that search isn’t a significant factor in leading consumers to pirated content online.
The tech-funded Computer and Communication Industry Association’s (CCIA) Vice President of Law & Policy Matt Schruers recently authored a study that claimed, “Search Engines Aren’t A Major Tool For Finding Copyright-Infringing Content.” Oddly the actual link to the study has been taken offline, but its author made his thesis clear when he said:
The available evidence suggests that search engines are not a particularly relevant tool for finding copyright infringing sites, or for infringing sites to find users.
I would suggest that Mr. Shruers clarify what he meant by “available evidence?” The evidence I found via quick searches was readily “available,” and pretty damning.
As its stock continues to climb, there’s no denying that Google is a giant among giants–but with success comes responsibility. There is no magic bullet, but admitting one has a problem is the first step in finding a solution. For real progress to be made, Google needs to stop employing evasive maneuvers to deflect blame and begin to devote more of its vast resources and innovative technology to implement real solutions to the piracy problem that its search engine helps sustain. To do so would be in everyone’s best interests, consumers and creators alike.