by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
When searching for this film’s official website Google search instead lists a notorious pirate site at #1. It links to a full, illegal stream of the movie.
Google’s promise to fight piracy on its search engine is pure baloney
Click the #1 result and immediately you’ll find a full stream of our film
I was updating my film’s website earlier this week and so randomly went to Google to see where it would show up in search results. I figured that, given it’s the official website for the film, it would be at or near the top of the results. Boy was I wrong…When I used in the search terms And Then Came Lola website the first result was a pirate site offering pirated streams of the film with a single click. In fact, the actual website for our film was nowhere to be found. Instead the first page of results included several sites that featured pirated streams of our film.
Yeah Google, you’re surely doing everything you can to fight online piracy aren’t you?
Google’s convoluted web takedown DMCA form requires 8 steps
Google moves pirate links to a safe haven on the Chilling Effects database
I guess it’s time to visit that handy dandy DMCA online takedown form that Google–so graciously–makes creators whose work is stolen use. Of course, in order to get to the DMCA page, one must click through 7 pages of crap, then login to Google, before–at last– filling out a tedious online form, It would, of course, be much more efficient to send an email (since I already have DMCA template set up) but let’s face it, Google has NO desire (nor incentive) to make the process an easy one.
In the meantime, maybe the good folks at Google responsible for fine-tuning search algorithms to downgrade pirate sites in search results need to go back to the drawing board. Remember this B.S?
We aim to provide a great experience for our users and have developed over 200 signals to ensure our search algorithms deliver the best possible results. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily
At the bottom of the first pages of search results Google offers users these suggestions for finding (pirated) copies of the film online
Google search results not only put a pirate result in first place, but at the bottom of the page offer these handy suggested search phrases that also offer ways find illegal streams or downloads of my film.
BTW the pirate site solarmovie (and its ever-changing cornucopia of domain suffixes) that pops up #1 IS a notorious pirate host, impervious to any direct DMCA requests. It’s been reported thousands of times to Google….Why does it still end up as a #1 result??? If this is punishing pirate sites one can only wonder what praising them would look like?
Google forces me to acknowledge that they will send my DMCA to Chilling Effects so that the pirate link will live in despite my efforts
Google’s search DMCA takedown process is a joke
Of course, even after I go to ALL the trouble of requesting that Google remove the links it won’t disappear. In a nifty sleight of hand the Google team will simply move it to Chilling Effects so that users can still easily find the pirated stream(s) online. This entire DMCA takedown scheme is a fraud makes a mockery of the DMCA and destroys creators’ ability to protect their work from online theft. Recently the USPTO organized a working group comprised creators and service providers to address inefficiencies in the DMCA takedown process. This past Tuesday the group released its findings in a document, “DMCA Notice-and-Takedown Processes”. While it could be considered progress that the various parties are talking, there’s still plenty of evidence that the DMCA is badly the broken and due for a major overhaul.
Here’s a sneak peek of Part II of this (never-ending) story illustrating how Google’s search suggestions, mentioned above, also point directly to stolen (pirated) copies of my movie.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Piracy, Tech
While Torrent Freak laments the fact that Google has already processed more than 100 million DMCA takedown notices this year, don’t shed any tears for the company. The massive number of takedowns is simply a sign that the internet giant’s nefarious business model (dependent on content theft) continues to chug merrily along. Per Torrent Freak:
A few days ago Google received its 100 millionth takedown request of 2015. The counter is currently at 103,218,572, which means yet another record. Last year it took a month longer to reach the same milestone.
If the numbers go up at the same rate throughout the year, Google will process half a billion allegedly infringing links during 2015.
In looking at these figures it’s important to remember that the vast majority of these takedowns are automated so it’s not as if thousands of Google worker bees are laboriously checking and removing infringing content from Google hosted sites. Operating takedown services (via online DMCA templates, content ID, and “trusted submitter” programs) is simply the cost of running a business that routinely allows (and encourages) users to upload and monetize infringing movies and music.
One should also remember that Google doesn’t really remove pirate links from its search engine, it just re-links to its partner, the Chilling Effects database so that users can still easily find the pirated movies, music, books, etc.
YouTube turns to licensing content to bolster its business model against increasing competition
Takedowns aside, it’s worth noting that Google’s YouTube nefarious business model is showing signs of decay. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that YouTube failed (again) to actually make a profit for Google despite revenues that grew by more than a billion dollars from 2103 to 2014 (3 billion to 4).
Google/YouTube is under increasing threat from other social media companies that promise content creators more favorable revenue deals for licensed content. According to a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal by by Shalini Ramachandran and Mike Shields:
Technology companies including Facebook Inc., Snapchat and streaming-startup Vessel are promising large TV-channel owners better terms for their video programming than Google Inc.’s YouTube, hoping to capitalize on mounting frustration with the Web giant in the entertainment industry.
The challengers to YouTube have been in talks with programming suppliers such asViacom Inc.,Time Warner Inc.,Comcast Corp.’s NBCUniversal and 21st Century Fox.They are all promising more generous revenue-sharing deals than YouTube, which lets content creators keep 55% of ad revenue, people familiar with the discussions say.
It’s a sweet irony that in order for Google/YouTube to remain at the top of its game its innovators have to turn to the very thing the company has spent the past ten years ignoring–licensing creative content. According to Variety, feeling the heat from competitors, Google has been forced to pony up to produce original programs in order to compete:
YouTube, too, is plowing bucks back into its most popular talent — a bid to keep its top creators from jumping to Vessel, Vimeo or others. With the YouTube Originals initiative, the Google subsidiary is paying its biggest stars to produce family and comedy programming, whether scripted or unscripted. That content is slated to debut in exclusive windows by the end of 2015.
Note the emphasis on “exclusive.” Of course, in order for (licensed) content to remain exclusive the sharing of unauthorized copies, i.e. piracy, will have to be squelched, otherwise the content quickly becomes non-exclusive, right?
How many DMCA notices Google will be sending to others when its own “original” content gets pirated?
One has to wonder how many new employees will Google have to hire to protect its “exclusive” content from online thieves? Will the anti-copyright apologists at Google ever eat crow and acknowledge that protecting creators’ work from online theft is important to sustaining one’s bottom line? If Google wants to succeed as a producer of content it’s likely that it will be sending a few DMCA notices of its own.
Meanwhile the DMCA safe harbor provision is out of date and due for a major overhaul
No matter how Google/YouTube’s business evolves moving forward, news of 100 million takedowns should serve as a (further) wakeup call for lawmakers to revisit the worn out “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA. Safe harbor was intended to protect online innovation, but instead has become a legal loophole routinely exploited by companies like Google to game the system at the expense of creators.
As I noted in my blog post, “Everyone Hates the DMCA,” safe harbor’s sell-by date is long past:
…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.
Where else, aside from the internet, is it OK to build a business around theft? If anything Google’s 100 million takedowns is a stark sign that its failed to effectively safeguard the rights of content creators.
While most creators have better things to do (like making more music or films), unless they act, Google and its partners in crime are free to monetize the stolen content. Basically it’s fill up the piggy bank until someone complains.
So, don’t feel sorry for Google’s 100 million takedowns–feel sorry for all those who continue to be ripped off by its innovative business model. As Google begins to view its business from the other side of the creative fence perhaps it will develop some innovations to better protect rightsholders. That would be a true, and welcome, innovation.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy
For those of you who still depend on the Chilling Effects search to find your pirated content, don’t worry, the DMCA database is still alive and well, ready to offer you a streamlined way to find illegal content online. Earlier this month Torrent Freak headlines claimed that the archive had “censored itself” and warned that the move was “a telling example of how pressure from rightsholders causes a chilling effect on free speech.” Hyperbole much? Here’s the truth.
Chilling Effects has, for the time being, de-indexed “individual notice pages” from search engines results. In a blog post, the move was explained this way:
Given increased public attention on the project, the wide variety of notices and types of claims that we catalog, and the sheer number of notices included in Chilling Effects’ database, we decided to take the interim step of de-indexing the site’s individual notice pages from search engines’ search results. Now that we have taken this step, we are hard at work building new tools and workflows that will allow us to better achieve the balance we are constantly seeking to strike between our dual missions of transparency and educating the public (on the one hand) and the strongly-felt concerns of those who send takedown notices (on the other).
Sounds nice, but the real impact of this move on creators’ rights is minor. Neither Torrent Freak nor Chilling Effects mentioned that the “balance” the folks at Chilling Effects are trying to strike includes continuing to operate a search engine that provides a direct line to illegal content.
Chilling Effects is a Where to Watch for pirated movies
In fact, it’s so easy to use that Chilling Effects’ search engine should be called a “Where to Watch” for pirate movies. I’ve written about this fact before, but given the recent hyperbolic hullabaloo I’d thought I’d take another look to see if anything has really changed? The answer is NO.
Search results removed from Google are replaced by direct link to DMCA notice containing original pirate link.
Not only does the Chilling Effects database search engine make it easy to find pirated movies, its benefactor Google, still includes referral links to when its search results are removed due to DMCA notices. For both sites it’s business as usual.
As I wrote in an earlier post, here’s how Google makes sure users are not inconvenienced by DMCA removals:
- Search for a free (pirated) movie
- Review results and find one removed due to a DMCA notice, the link replaced by this statement:
- Click the link “read the DMCA complaint.”
- Arrive at a list that includes the missing pirate link along with a bunch of others infringing links (courtesy of Chilling Effects)
- Click one of the listed pirate links and go directly to (free) movie
Chilling Effects own search provides users with an uncluttered path to piracy.
Finding pirated music and movies via Google search requires persistence since one has to comb through various types of results to find actual live links. In contrast, hop over to Chilling Effects and voilà , most every result is a stripped down list of URLs reported for piracy. It’s a simple and direct path to pirate URLs that, in fact, are vetted by rightholders (via their DMCA notices).
After the Torrent Freak headlines hit the web I went to Chilling Effects and did a search for the recently released “Boyhood.” Using Chilling Effects’ search results, it only took me a couple of minutes to find a streaming version of the film online. Google and Chilling Effects remain partners in piracy, having perfected a shell game that makes a mockery of creators’ rights and the DMCA.
For now, Chilling Effects remains what it has long been–a site where pirate links are eternal.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Law, Piracy
YouTube and Russian “aggregator,” piracy partners in crime?
When a bad guy steals your car stereo, to turn it into easy money, he often turn it over to a “fence” in exchange for quick cash. Wikipedia explains this criminal workflow this way:
A fence is an individual who knowingly buys stolen property for later resale, sometimes in a legitimate market. The fence thus acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen. As a verb, the word describes the behaviour of the thief in the transaction: The burglar fenced the stolen radio. This sense of the term came from thieves’ slang, first attested c. 1700, from the notion of such transactions taking place under defence of secrecy.[1]
The fence is able to make a profit with stolen merchandise because he is able to pay thieves a very low price for stolen goods…
It’s no surprise that in this digital age, criminals have turned their attention to dealing in stolen digital goods. Instead of car stereos thieves steal movies, music, etc. and, using the web advertising, convert it into income. It’s low risk way of making money and there’s a myriad of ways it can be done.
Deposed cyberlocker king Kim Dotcom did it with his Megaupload piracy pyramid scheme, but there are plenty of others who have perfected variations of this illicit business model along the way. Many, seemingly legit companies like Google have perfected the infrastructure and revenue formula so as to make it routine, right under our noses.
Most consider Google’s YouTube to be a raging success. After all, where else can you find the best cat videos or latest PR packages from ISIS terrorists in one place? It’s also a great place to “fence” stolen movies and music.
YouTube’s ads are ubiquitous and generate billions in profits, estimated to be over 1.9 billion for Google in 2013 alone. YouTube users can also share in (some of) the revenue if they set up an AdSense account and choose to monetize their uploads. According to a report in Barron’s, YouTube users make out pretty well:
…YouTube will bring in $5.9 billion in revenue this year, rising to $8.9 billion by 2016, with 53% of that paid out to users who provide the clips.
In cases where users upload work they actually own rights to, it’s great. Problem is, a lot of those people collectively pocketing 3.1 billion–in many cases–don’t own what they upload. These leeches set up channels, upload pirated content, and make money. Of course, YouTube as enabler-in-chief still pockets the majority of the profits, rightful ownership be damned.
When placing a myriad of advertisements adjacent or on videos, YouTube makes ZERO effort to vet the content for ownership. It doesn’t require any proof that uploaders own rights; it just assumes they will honor copyright law. Yeah, just like a fence assumes that every car stereo he receives wasn’t stolen from someone else.
When posed with the question as to whether it can “determine copyright ownership” YouTube justifies this hands off approach with this carefully crafted response:
YouTube isn’t able to mediate rights ownership disputes. When we receive a complete takedown notice, we remove the content as the law requires. When we receive a valid counter notification we forward it to the person who requested the removal. After this, it’s up to the parties involved to resolve the issue in court.
Mediating a dispute once something is uploaded is NOT equivalent to vetting content ownership prior to upload, yet YouTube apologists continue to claim that to do so would “stifle innovation” and “limit free expression” online. I’m not entirely sure how cracking down on thievery stifles innovation, but it makes for a good soundbite doesn’t it? How would vetting certain content before users are allowed to profit from it limit anything, aside from criminal behavior? Oh right, it could lower profits. That’s what this is really about.
YouTube claims be the broadcaster for the 21st century, yet can you imagine NBC airing a movie and earning income from advertising in the process without having cleared the rights prior to doing so? When my documentary aired on various PBS stations I had to document ownership and submit detailed paperwork that verified I had permission to use various works of music used throughout the piece. When we produced our feature film we had to purchase errors and omissions insurance and license all the music used in order to protect the rights of other creators.
These practices are the cost of doing business in the creative world yet YouTube doesn’t have to do the same? Why are companies like YouTube, that generate income by screening created by others, considered exempt from standard broadcast practices? Why is their bad business behavior exempt? Why are such practices on internet considered sacrosanct?
For Google, protecting innovation means protecting profits
It’s no wonder the powers that be at Google/YouTube fight tooth and nail against any effort to rein in this copyright-evading cash cow. Since enforcing copyright would put a serious dent in YouTube’s profits, you can bet that Google will move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening. Their apologists (and lobbyists) have mastered the spin that warn enforcing copyright (in a meaningful way) is a threat to innovation. In Google parlance innovation is merely a code for growing profits.
Other companies profit too. The graphic below illustrates how the Russian aggregator, Quiz Group, either creates its own pirate puppet users, or works with them to game the YouTube monetization system by monetizing pirated movies. By joining Quiz Group YouTube users don’t need an AdSense account. In exchange for giving up 20% of any income earned, they can easily earn money when by uploading illegal content.
Ford, Microsoft, CVS, LinkedIn, Dodge, North Face, Geico and more put money in pirate pockets
On its website, Quiz Group lays claim to 5 BILLION monthly views and more than 15,000 channels. I can only imagine how many of those billions of views come from stolen goods. Advertisements, 30 seconds and longer, from LinkedIn, Ford, Dodge Ram trucks, North Face stream before the full-movie appears. Cha’-ching…money, money, money…
This pirated movie was uploaded by a user who’s part of Quiz Group, a Russian aggregator that makes monetizing YouTube videos easy.
Surely YouTube has received thousands of DMCA notices linked to videos monetized by Quiz Group, but since it only penalizes individual users (and not the masterminds) Quiz Group can continue to rake in the dough alongside Google.
Quiz Group sports its own YouTube page and claims to be “YouTube certified” and on its own website recruits with this claim, offering to cut through any copyright red tape:
…we are aware of all the problems you may face around YouTube and we know the best solutions as well. We understand how it hurts, having third party claims, facing conflicts and resolving strikes. We have been through all these stories many times and learned our lessons based on the most complicated scenarios. We have converted our experience into effective tools, you may move forward smoothly and with a high confidence, grow really fast within YouTube environment.
Clearly YouTube’s standards aren’t particularly high if they allow a shadowy this Russian piracy-for-profit model to thrive. Perhaps YouTube’s standards for “certification” mandate moneymaking over respecting copyrights owned by others ?
I attempted to “join” Quiz Group to determine how they vet affiliates. In order to be considered, I had to give them access to a Google account. It took only seconds, but not surprisingly I was rejected for not having enough subscribers (10) nor views (1,000) within the last month.
Of course I’d like to speak with a Google representatives to ask why the company develops, and sustains business relationships with self-described “YouTube” channel aggregators like Quiz Group but folks at company headquarters won’t pick up phones or respond to emails from people like me. Stonewalling is another corporate skill they’ve mastered with virtual moats encircling their shiny corporate offices in Mountain View.
After all, why shouldn’t Google look the other way when this criminal enterprise is mutually beneficial?
For the record, I easily found other YouTube users linked to Quiz Group engaged in the same scheme (see example below). Given it took me only a couple searches to find them, I don’t imagine it’s stretching the truth to assume that a good number, if not the majority of Quiz Groups affiliates are in the business of making money off pirated uploads.
I wonder how North Face, Dodge, Amazon, Microsoft, Airborne, Geico, LinkedIn, CVS and Ford feel about their advertising appearing on these stolen movies? Are they OK with YouTube, Quiz Group and this pirate making money off stolen movies (and them)?
Why don’t advertisers pressure Google to do better? YouTube could start by applying the 3 strikes policy to those, like aggregators like Quiz Group, that routinely monetize infringing content, not just penalize the (often fake) users that upload it. There are also numerous other technological safeguards that could be implemented to prevent this abuse so why don’t advertisers demand better?
We constantly hear from representatives their industry, how concerned they are about ad sponsored piracy abuse. But, as I’ve noted repeatedly on this blog, so far the advertiser’s words are a million times louder than their actions. Industry reps could exert pressure to ensure ad profits go to rights holders, but it would require some effort–obviously more than they seem willing to give.
There are also tons of YouTube pirates who bypass third party aggregators and pocket cash directly via their own AdSense accounts. This isn’t the first time I’ve written about this scenario on YouTube. Time passes, but nothing changes.
Here’s a pirated copy of Paramount’s “Sliver” starring Sharon Stone. The film has been viewed over a million times earning profits for YouTube and the user who uploaded it without permission.
YouTube finds a Safe Harbor to protect its piracy profits
Aside from the advertisers, the only other way to exert pressure to change can come from Washington. Is this dirty profit scenario was what lawmakers had in mind when they crafted the “Safe Harbor” provisions of the DMCA. It’s one thing to offer service providers (like YouTube) protection from legal liability from “consequences of their users actions”, but does that also mean it’s OK to (knowingly) profit from illegal activity?
The DMCA states services providers have to “terminate” accounts of repeat infringers, but in the meantime let the tainted profits flow? It’s OK to be a criminal as long as you don’t get caught? This seems to be Google/ YouTube’s modus operandi.
I wonder if Congressman Darrell Issa, in his new role as chair of the subcommittee on the Internet, Courts, and Intellectual Property,will hold hearings on these types of nefarious business practices? He’s repeatedly voiced concern over patent trolls, what about pirate trolls? It’s been reported that discussion regarding copyright will remain the purview of the full committee, so perhaps such discussions will be handled there.
Until something changes, YouTube’s eco-system will remain a cesspool rather than a legitimate and laudable business model. For all the great stuff streaming on its pages, there’s a lot of s*&^ too…and because it’s YouTube practices business are intentionally nubilous, those who do follow the rules–like filmmakers and musicians–continue to be victimized. YouTube is the Wild West, a swamp of online fraud, where profits soar, often for those who are least deserving–morality be damned…
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.
BTW the pirate site solarmovie (and its ever-changing cornucopia of domain suffixes) that pops up #1 IS a notorious pirate host, impervious to any direct DMCA requests. It’s been reported thousands of times to Google….Why does it still end up as a #1 result??? If this is punishing pirate sites one can only wonder what praising them would look like?
