by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Google, Piracy
Today’s Variety features an article by Todd Spangler with the headline, “House of Cards’ Searches on Google Turn Up Pirate Links as Top Results.” Color me not surprised in the least. Perhaps folks are noticing because House of Cards is a popular Netflix original series that just launched its second season but the fact that pirate top the list in Google search results is nothing new–just ask musicians and filmmakers. According to Spangler:
In a Google search for “Watch House of Cards” on Wednesday, the top two results were links to apparent pirate sites, couchtuner.eu and stream-tv.me; Netflix showed up third. WebProNews reported on the Google search results for “HoC” earlier, and found similar results for searches on other Netflix content including “Orange Is the New Black,” “Arrested Development,” “Lilyhammer” and “Derek.”
In December of 2012 I wrote a blog post “Google Search #FAIL Means More $$$ for Them” in which examined this same phenomenon with a search of a newly released indie film.
Not to beat a dead horse, but surprise, surprise….I did a Google search this morning to see how easy it would be to find download links for “Kyss Mig,” a recently released Swedish indie film. I used Google to search for “download kyss mig” from this past month, and….oops, so much for Google’s new search algorithm that’s supposed to penalize (reported) pirate sites. Why am I not surprised that The Pirate Bay result tops the list?
Here’s a screen shot of my results. It’s not surprising that the Netflix series is suffering the same fate that other content creators have long endured.
I went on to point out the interconnections between these illicit search results and the money trail. After all, as the Digital Citizens Alliance’s newly released report on piracy profit proves, it’s all about the money.
Not only did I find the full film streaming (for free) online (I checked and actually viewed the first ten minutes) but right beside was a Netflix advertisement. When I checked the source of the ad I found it led me back to “doubleclick.net” a Google-owned company. Perhaps this is how Google expects users to find legit copies of the film? After all, Kyss Mig does stream on Netflix….kind of a roundabout way to find the film when I can watch it right here, right now for free! Of course Google makes money from the ad either way (as does the pirate website) so what do they care? Hmmm, perhaps the Google ad placement has something to do with why this pirate site is comes up first in search results? Not to don my tin foil hat but….
- A full (free) stream of the indie film “Kyss Mig” was easy to find thanks to Google search results–result that generated ad revenue for Google and website operators. BTW, movie is now offline since I reported it to the distributor. I guess I’m going to have to be a good girl and use the search terms “buy Kiss Mig.” Only then am I given results that lead me to legit options.
BTW, I notified the distributor that the film was available via this pirate site so as of Monday, December 10th, this illegal stream is history. Too bad I can’t say the same for the website itself.
So, while today’s story about “House of Cards” search results leading to pirate websites may be a surprise to some, unfortunately for most of us, it’s old news. After all, if you’re looking for a sign post to find pirated content online, Google makes it easy.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Creativity ‘Continues to Thrive,’ in spite of SOPA’s defeat, not because of it
In a post marking the anniversary of SOPA’s defeat (Stop Online Piracy Act) Google asks users share a graphic to celebrate. “Since we combined our voices to stop SOPA, creativity has continued to thrive — both on and off the web.” Their celebratory note also includes this caveat:
Of course, piracy remains a major concern and Google does its part to fight it, but, two years after SOPA, it’s clear that the Internet has been really good for creativity and entertainment.
Frankly, I’ve never heard artists or entertainers make the argument that the internet isn’t “good” for creativity or entertainment. Yet, during the SOPA debate, as red herrings flew, content creators became the enemy in and us vs. them debate as hyperbolic and often mendacious rhetoric echoed across the web.
SOPA anniversary aside, this week marked another milestone– 100 Million takedown requests to remove search links to pirated music have been sent to Google. Note this total only includes takedown notices sent by the music industry. Don’t forget to add those millions sent to Google for pirated movies, photographs, books, and more.
If piracy is really a “major concern” for Google why do illegal sites still dominate in searches for music and movies? Here’s a graphic that is a tad more “balanced” than the one Google wants you to share.
Below is another graphic that worth considering when reading about Google’s rather disingenuous statements about their concerns re: online piracy. Yes, creativity continues to thrive online, but just image what could happen if Google actually took serious steps to stop supporting online piracy? It would be nice to see the trend lines in the chart below going down rather than steadily climb.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law, Piracy, Tech
Claiming to be a “leader” in the fight against piracy is Google’s first mistake
This past week Google issued a report, “How Google Fights Piracy,” in which the tech giant attempts to explain what a great job it’s doing leading battle against online piracy. After reading it I think a more accurate title would be “Why Google Shouldn’t Have to Fight Piracy Because it Offers so Much Other Good Stuff.”
While the report does outline various positive steps Google’s taken (under duress) to mitigate its role in incentivizing and enabling piracy, most of the document reads more like an evangelical tome as to how their innovations have benefited content creators, blunting any collateral damage that may have occurred. In other words, let’s overlook the bad in favor of the good…
On a personal note, one line I found particularly galling was: “Google is a leader in rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising and payment services, and is raising standards across the industry.” The claim that Google has been a “leader” in any way in the fight against online piracy is chutzpah at its best. A more accurate characterization would be that–after years of obfuscation and inaction–Google’s finally taking (some) action. Never mind that such efforts are long overdue and may never have happened had their nefarious business model (profiting off content theft) not been exposed to the light of day.
In an effort to burnish their tarnished image, the authors resort to repeating well-worn and disingenuous Google-spawned memes (which I’ve repeatedly deconstructed on this blog). These include:
- YouTube makes money for artists so there’s no need to provide a transparent accounting.
- DMCA abuse is a considerable problem.
- Search is “not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites.”
- Google is committed to “rooting out and ejecting rogue sites” from AdSense.
- Google quickly and efficiently terminates Blogger websites that feature pirated content.
I would counter that Google should be doing much more, including:
- Offer complete transparency with its YouTube content monetization accounting. It shouldn’t be opaque. Provide content owners with an accounting breakdown for each and every piece of claimed content. Reveal precisely how much Google makes monetizing the work of others? Employ more safeguards to prevent pirates from using YouTube as a stepping-stone to infringing content and do more to prevent bogus claims that allow criminal users to earn money by uploading content they do not own.
- Stop claiming that Google search isn’t an important link to pirated content and review and remove sites that are in the business of trafficking in pirated content. Allow others into the mysterious “Trusted Copyright Removal Program for Web Search (TCRP).” After al, it’s those with the fewest resources (like independent filmmakers and musicians) that have the least access to takedown resources and could benefit the most from access to a such a (supposedly) streamlined process.
- Offer more transparency as to where AdSense revenues come from and what sites have had accounts disabled.
- Quickly remove Blogger websites have been reported (and verified) for trafficking in pirated content.
YouTube
Google’s report begins with a warm and fuzzy anecdote about the previously unknown Korean K-pop “artist” Psy whose viral video “Gangnam Style” became an online sensation and generated more than 8 million dollars in ad “deals” in addition to having been purchased “digitally millions of times.” According to a footnote, the figures quoted come from an article in New York Magazine, “Gangnam-Buster Profits,” It’s worth noting that along with Psy’s profits, Google’s bank account did pretty well too:
Number of YouTube views of the “Gangnam Style” video (as of 1 p.m., November 30): 853,942,076
Standard rate YouTube pays to video owners for every 1,000 views: $2
Estimated total YouTube revenue received by Team Psy: $1,707,884.15
YouTube’s estimated cut: $1,366,307.32
(Based on rates provided by Jason Calacanis, CEO of Mahalo, a top YouTube partner.)
I’m not sure what the report authors meant when they wrote “8 million dollars in ad deals” as there’s no documentation to back that claim up…perhaps they were confused and mixed up deals with YouTube “views?” Even though the actual figures quoted are at best guesses, there’s no denying that the video was a YouTube sensation and made mega-bucks for both the artist and Google–but so what? What does that really have to do with explaining Google’s anti-piracy efforts? The answer is nothing.
The tale of this outlier merely seems designed to deflect attention (and disgust) away from Google’s long-standing role in promoting, and profiting from, content theft. No one’s saying that YouTube doesn’t offer opportunity to content creators–but with opportunity comes responsibility–and that’s where Google still has far to go.
I’ve written previously about the positive aspects of YouTube Content ID and monetization, but there remains that nagging question Google fails to address–transparency. As demonstrated by our dependence on “guesstimates” to calculate the Gangnam Style video’s possible profits, why does Google still refuse to offer content owners specific information about how much money is being made from their work?
Sure, content owners can see how much they earn, but how much does Google take off the top? How much is earned per view, etc? Such basic information has never been made clear. Nor are breakdowns offered when there are multiple claimants on a video (i.e. movie mash-up with music from another artist). Why does Google refuse to offer a “transparent” accounting breakdown of just how much everyone makes off advertising on claimed content? What’s there to hide?
Uploads on YouTube that feature links to infringing downloads
Also, try as they might to focus on the positives, YouTube is also still a conduit for illegal activity. Not only does the site provide online pirates with a convenient means to advertise their illegal download links (on other sites) but it also allows thieves (content leeches) to earn income by monetizing bogus claims.
Why doesn’t Google do more on this front? Simple answer, monetized uploads make them money. Who cares what the uploaded file actually is and who owns it (never mind the advertisers being ripped off paying for adjacent ads). Google/YouTube pays these parasitic pirates and pockets more profit for themselves.
Google Search
When it comes to reporting on the role Google’s search engine plays in promoting piracy, the report report borrows heavily from the recent (Google-funded) study that alleges “search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.” Both that study and this report concluded that better SEO optimization on the part of content creators is all that’s required to fix the problem. Given Google’s report merely repeats talking points from the CCIA repeating part of my response seems appropriate:
Sorry, but I read the entire paper and found no evidence to support this. Sure, lots of downloaders bypass search because they are experienced downloaders and know how to go to Pirate Bay or Filestube to find what they’re looking for, but where did they get their start? Perhaps it’s better to think of search engines like Google as a “gateway” to finding pirated content online.
Google search leads to illegal downloads, counterfeit products, illegal pharmacies and more. Clearly the search giant can de-list sites engaged in unlawful behavior (like child pornography) but rather than do so in this case, its proxy (the CIAA) gins up headlines to muddy the waters, deflect and obfuscate the real issues at play.
If Google were a brick and mortar mall featuring stores selling bootleg DVDs authorities would step in a force them to shut down the illegal enterprises, but when it comes to the online world the “tech” industry’s constant refrain is that the need to “innovate” trumps the need to do what’s right. Yet this debate isn’t really about protecting innovation, that’s simply tech-speak for protecting the industry’s bottom line (at the expense of those other innovators, content creators).
Since Google deems search to “not be a major driver of traffic to pirate sites” one wonders why in the same breath, the company touts how efficiently it responds to the 4 million weekly requests it receives in a report on its efforts to fight piracy?
…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.
Google has a strong track record of developing solutions that scale efficiently. The trend line is striking—from more than three million pages for all of 2011 to more than 4 million pages per week today. As the numbers continue to swell, it becomes both more difficult and more important to detect and pick out the abusive [emphasis added] and erroneous removal notices.
This so-called DMCA “abuse” is another tired red herring. Google routinely employs to deflect attention from the 4 million pages per week of mostly legitimate ones. Given the huge volume of takedown requests Google receives it’s no surprise there are errors, but the collective “damage” done by mistaken DMCA notices does not begin to compare to the damage piracy has on content creators. However, Google would like us to believe otherwise. As I wrote in an earlier post:
Piracy apologists like to focus on erroneous takedowns and highlight stories whereby a 9 year-old in Finland had her computer confiscated, or a grandmother in Colorado had her ISP account wrongfully suspended. Certainly mistakes happen, and when they do it’s unfortunate, but they are few and far between when compared with the cumulative harm being done to those whose livelihoods are damaged by rampant online theft. For every search result removed in error there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, removed for valid reasons. Sensationalistic anecdotes make for splashy headlines and provide convenient red herrings for those who defend the piracy status quo–big bad Hollywood versus the grandmothers of the world–but meanwhile the genuine stories documenting piracy’s ruin are routinely minimized or ignored.
Also lost in this debate is the fact that if one takes the time to read the DMCA, it’s easy to see that the law actually favors the reported party, not the other way around. If a site has been removed in error, the owner can use the Google website to file a counter-claim with a click of a mouse. That immediately puts the onus on the party that filed the original DMCA request to go to court and prove the legitimacy of their claim. If that next step isn’t taken, the takedown becomes moot. Filing a court case is a costly endeavor so it’s unlikely that those whose file false DMCA claims, whether in error or purposely, would bother to spend money to enforce a bogus DMCA. Conversely, those content creators who don’t have deep pockets have little recourse when it comes to enforcing a valid DMCA takedown if the other party, representing an infringing (pirate) website, chooses to file a counter-claim.
Chilling the rights of creators who attempt to protect their work from theft
Demonstrating a (selective) dedication to transparency and warning hat DMCA abuse can be a “pretext for censorship,” Google touts the fact that copies of all DMCA notices received are posted on ChillingEffects.org, an online “clearinghouse” operated by a various legal clinics that depend heavily on Google donations for financial support.
According to their website, “Chilling Effects aims to support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats,” but it appears they’re not too interested in the threat that illegal content theft has on the livelihoods of musicians, filmmakers, authors, etc. From the beginning, Google’s posting of DMCA notices on Chilling Effects seems designed to intimidate those whose rights are being trampled upon. In this scenario the only thing being “chilled” is the right of content creators to protect their work from theft in order to make a living.
Google also claims to lower the rankings of sites that are repeatedly reported for content theft (another questionable claim), but justifies the fact it refuses to remove such sites, like the notorious Pirate Bay, entirely.
While we use the number of valid copyright removal notices as a signal for ranking purposes, we do not remove pages from results unless we receive a specific removal request for the page. As shown on the Transparency Report, we generally receive removal notices for a very small portion of the pages on a site. Even for the websites that have received the highest numbers of notices, the number of noticed pages is typically only a tiny fraction of the total number of pages on the site. It would be inappropriate to remove entire sites under these circumstances.
I should add here that when I checked today and did a search for the movie ” a ‘Perfect Ending’ download” the second result (after a paid Netflix link) was none other than a torrent on the Pirate Bay. So much for re-ranking pirate sites eh?
Why is it inappropriate to remove a site that routinely engages in illegal activity? If a brick and mortar store’s merchandise routinely includes stolen goods it would be put out of business. Why does Google hold sites like Pirate Bay in such high regard? Does every single infringing torrent on Pirate Bay have to reported for Google to consider blocking it? Is there a tipping point, ever?
AdSense
I could only shake my head when I read that Google claims to be the industry leader when it comes to “following the money.” When I first began blogging about the link between online piracy and profit when my film was released in 2010, Google wouldn’t even admit there was a problem. Finally, after having a spotlight shined on their dubious sources of profit, Google has been forced to take action–but a leader they ain’t.
Despite the claim that “Google does not want to be in business with rogue sites specializing in piracy” they’ve yet to provide any documentation to support it. One nugget in the report noted, “…we find that AdSense ads appear on far fewer than 1% of the pages that copyright owners identify in copyright removal notices for Search.” Does this mean that Google is screening the reported pages for AdSense accounts before removing the link from its search engine? If so, in the name of “transparency” it would be great to see these results documented. Speaking of “transparency,” how about letting us “follow the money” to Google’s own bank account. Just how much money has Google made off advertising on rogue sites over the years?
In my experience with AdSense links were often removed while the site (and its AdSense ads) on other illegal downloads remained active, but looking around the web it does seem that fewer AdSense sponsored ads appear on pirate websites. I’m thankful some progress appears to have been made, but for Google to infer that it acted willingly to clean up its dirty laundry and has become leader in the battle against ad-sponsored piracy is just absurd.
Blogger
Last but not least we come to Google’s Blogger hosted websites, a go-to (free) platform favored by web pirates around the world. According to the report, Google’s efforts to keep the Blogger platform pirate-free should earn the company another feather in its cap.
Blogger is Google’s free blog publishing platform, which enables users to create and update blogs. We remain vigilant against use of the Blogger platform by pirates looking to set up a free website. Consistent with other Google products that host user-uploaded content, we will remove infringing blog posts when properly notified by a copyright owner, and will terminate the entire blog where multiple complaints establish it as a repeat infringer.
Blogger has also created an automated bulk submission tool for copyright owners who have a track record of reliable submissions and a regular need to submit large volumes of takedown notices. This tool allows qualified copyright owners to obtain rapid removals of infringing posts appearing on Blogger.
Sounds good, but as I’ve written many times previously on this blog, the truth with regard to Blogger-hosted websites is not so rosy. Also, to be honest, Google’s “automated” bulk submission tool is a time-consuming pain. Why not give content creators a Copyright Management Account that allows for bulk reporting of Blogger sites and search links? Why should continually have to fill out my name, company, email, etc. each and every time I have more blogger sites and pirate search links to report? Actually sending an email to Google would be much faster but that’s not allowed. Ironic that the now defunct Megaupload made it easier to send DMCA notices than Google does…
Google’s online removal process is time consuming. Sending an email would be much more efficient.
More significant is the fact that, in my experience, the word “rapid” should not be part of Google’s lexicon when it comes to targeting piracy on Blogger sites. Despite repeated reports of piracy and obvious and repeated copyright infringement, many Blogger pirate sites remain online. I will be posting a follow-up on this subject soon.
Google-hosted Blogger (blogspot.com) websites are a pirate favorite
There’s no doubt that Google has revolutionized the online world in a variety of positive ways but when it comes to its role fertilizing online piracy, the company has been spinning and deflecting its way through the a minefield for the better part of a decade. Thanks to outside pressure the situation has finally begun to improve, but there’s still much to be done before Google can rightfully claim to be a leader in the fight against online piracy.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Piracy, Tech
Study says SEO lapses by legit distributors are to blame for high ranking of pirate sites by search engines
What are we to make of the recently released study by the CCIA (a Washington D.C. tech industry lobbying group whose membership includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo) that claims that search is not a popular path to discover pirated content online? The study asserts, “that search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.” Apparently the real reason it’s easy to find links to illegal content online is not the fault of search engines, but simply poor SEO techniques by legit content distributors.
This so-called “research paper” titled “The Search Fixation: Infringement, Search Results, and Online Content” was written by Matt Schruers, an adjunct law professor and CCIA’s VP for Law and Policy. Freudian notions aside, headlines the paper generated were predictable. With the exception of Torrent Freak, every tech-oriented blog seems to have fallen in line echoing the idea that poor, maligned search engines play only a minor role in helping folks find free stuff online.
In this tit for tat spin war, this paper was designed as a direct response to a recent RIAA study that criticized Google for not being proactive in demoting pirate search results despite promises to the contrary. According to the study:
The contention that disappearing undesirable entries from search results would substantially prevent piracy is flawed however. The solutions to online infringement have little to do with search. Infringing sites receive limited traffic from search. In the context of music, the available evidence suggest that the frequency with which users input queries like “download,” “mp3,” or “torrent” is relatively low…
…Concerns about organic search results containing terms such as “mp3” or “download” are misplaced, however. Actual search data indicates that appending “mp3” or “download” as the RIAA paper suggests is statistically uncommon. Users far more frequently search for “[artist]” or “[artist]””[track]”…Google Trends data indicate that only a small fraction of searches for the artist’s name and track name also included the words “mp3” or “download.”
As evidence for his conclusions he makes the point (using a fancy Google trends chart) by using the (very wealthy) recording artist Rihanna to bolster his argument.
Sure looks convincing right? Well, the thing is, this chart doesn’t really say much of anything besides the fact that folks searched for “Rihanna” a lot when she had a new song released and searched for “Rihanna” a lot more than “Rihanna diamonds mp3.” So what? No one suggested that searching for information about an artist was equivalent to searching for free downloads. The RIAA’s research never made that point.
By combining the multiple search terms into one search on using Google trends, Schruers gives us a graph that looks to mirror his claim. The problem is–what is he actually comparing? Examining “search interest” (which is what Google trends allows you to do) and making the leap that piracy isn’t a problem because more people happened to search using the term “Rihanna” rather than for a (free) mp3 of her popular song? Come again?
It’s not hard to assume that lots of folks search for Rihanna because they want to find out more about her, not just because they’re seeking free downloads to her song. It’s no surprise that Rihanna searches outnumber those for mp3 downloads. It’s really a case of apples and oranges.
More useful might be putting in various search terms one by one as I did. Note searched for “rihanna diamonds download” the related terms (circled in red) included “mp3 rihanna diamonds” and “diamonds mp3 download.”
(Note: I actually included the search box in my screen grab example for clarity’s sake):
What about the terms “rihanna diamonds free.”
Looking at these results one can postulate upon the release of “Diamonds” interest in searching for illegal download options spiked. Below is the Google trends chart for the search term “Rihanna” and an inset for 2012 results. Clearly over that period searches for Rihanna fluctuate for various reasons–whether it is a new album release or altercation with Chris Brown.
What about trends in searching for watching free movies online now that Netflix and other streaming services are available? The chart below indicates the point at which Netflix launched its streaming service in early 2007. It’s worth noting that its launch coincides with an increased trend in search for “free” movies online. Does this mean Netflix streaming influenced piracy? No, what’s likely is that the upward trend partly reflects the emergence of technology that enables efficient streaming (and direct downloads) of high-quality movies online–pirated or otherwise.
While search is not the cause of this trend BUT there’s no denying it makes finding free content online (pirated content) easier. If one limits search to the United States, the trend line seems to have been more consistent, probably due to the fact users here have had better access to the internet than many other parts of the developing world.
One other point worth noting is that searches for the word “torrent” have diminished, after a peak in 2010 the trend-line has moved steadily downward.
Here’s an animated look at this over time. While it’s good news that interest in torrents appears to be waning, I imagine it’s because there’s now a myriad of easier ways to watch pirated films online. Why bother with torrents when with one click you can watch or download a movie? Here’s an animated view of search trends for the term “torrent” since 2004.
So while search trends may change over time–whether working on a term paper or looking up cancer treatments, online search is usually the starting point–what’s wrong with pressuring Google et al to be more proactive in removing results linking to illegal music, movies or counterfeit goods? In his report Schruers argues for an alternative:
The inclusion of NARM-recommended text (“don’t torrent; buy [here] instead”) on the artist’s site would remedy this. Linking users to other lawful music services in addition to iTunes could be another way to contribute toward improving those services’ page rank. Similarly, Universal Music points to Rihanna’s official website, Twitter account, and Facebook page, but points to no commercial websites from which the artist’s music is available. Addressing this would also contribute toward improved page rank.
In a further effort to let search engines off the hook Schruers concludes his report with this:
While DMCA notices and DMCA compliance programs are one component promoting a robust digital marketplace, efforts to disappear search results are unlikely to mitigate online infringement, in large part due to the irrelevance of general-purpose search engines in the average infringer’s toolbox. A more robust strategy would entail licensors and their licensees focusing on strategic search engine optimization–including but not limited to ‘objectionable’ terms–so as to promote the page rank of lawful sites and increase the visibility of legitimate online content offerings.
So, if I’m to understand him, the real solution to this problem would be for all of use content creators–filmmakers, musicians, etc.–to employ better SEO keyword methodology, i.e. co-opt popular pirate search terms like “free mp3” or “watch movies online free” so that legit search results will trump those of the pirate sites. Well duh…we did just that long ago on the website for our film “And Then Came Lola.” Included among our SEO keywords are:
free, movie, lola movie, and then came lola, online, buy, watch, telecharger, portugués (brasileño) subtítulos,subtítulos en español,sottotitoli in italiano, lesbian, download, movie, film, romantic comedy, fast girl films, streaming,video on demand, vod, DVD, iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, subtitles, مشاهدة فيلم مثليه,劳拉现身 , lezbiyen filmi, watch online, watch, free, putlocker, السينما للجميع
Doing so is a no brainer and-Rihanna aside–most indie filmmakers and musicians I know do just that AND also provide multiple links to legit content for their work….but despite such efforts, pirate sites can still dominate searches for “free” (illegal) content. Maybe we should just hire better web masters and SEO experts? For the record our film website’s home page includes both a list of worldwide links for purchase/watch the film, an iTunes app and embedded links in the text that include links to subtitles versions.
I took a look at various “objectionable” search terms via the Alexa website (note that it’s a subsidiary of Amazon) that provides data on web traffic and here’s what I discovered. Search for “watch free movies online” and you find this page.
Out of the first 9 results, only 2 appear to be legit sites (highlighted in yellow) are Crackle. and Hulu. The first result is for a site called “TubePlus” (pirate sites highlighted in green) which according to this story on itproportal.com is a “YouTube for pirates.”
Controversial file-sharing service Pirate Bay is openly supporting TubePlus, a revolutionary new hybrid video-sharing site that brings together content from BitTorrent sites, along with cyberlockers such as Megaupload and Hotfile, as well as P2P service eMule.
The newly launched site marks a big step into the mainstream for the traditionally geeky business of file-sharing.
Rather than finding and downloading files, users of TubePlus simply search for their favourite movies and TV programmes – and stream them directly into their browser using an interface that’s more than a little reminiscent of popular video-sharing site YouTube. There are even links to IMDb reviews of films and shows.
Another site (ranked at 945) is 1channel.ch, another notorious pirate website. Go there and you’ll find they’ve changed their name (yet again). At any rate, bottom line is that finding pirate sites is made possible in large part via web search.
Here’s another example using the search term “mp3” which demonstrates that pirate sites abound.
Also, for the record, using Rihanna’s approach to web promotion is not necessarily the best example as most people are well aware of who she is and where to find her music should they want to purchase it. Those who are that are really hurt by piracy are not the big stars with big bank accounts.
That brings us back full circle to the claim that “CCIA’s research paper indicates that search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.”
Sorry, but I read the entire paper and found no evidence to support this. Sure, lots of downloaders bypass search because they are experienced downloaders and know how to go to Pirate Bay or Filestube to find what they’re looking for, but where did they get their start? Perhaps it’s better to think of search engines like Google as a “gateway” to finding pirated content online.
Google search leads to illegal downloads, counterfeit products, illegal pharmacies and more. Clearly the search giant can de-list sites engaged in unlawful behavior (like child pornography) but rather than do so in this case, its proxy (the CIAA) gins up headlines to muddy the waters, deflect and obfuscate the real issues at play.
If Google were a brick and mortar mall featuring stores selling bootleg DVDs authorities would step in a force them to shut down the illegal enterprises, but when it comes to the online world the “tech” industry’s constant refrain is that the need to “innovate” trumps the need to do what’s right. Yet this debate isn’t really about protecting innovation, that’s simply tech-speak for protecting the industry’s bottom line (at the expense of those other innovators, content creators).
Last month I read another article by the same Matt Schruers titled “The Thing We Don’t Talk About in Piracy Estimates.” In it he noted, “some degree of infringement is not wealth destruction but rather wealth redistribution.” He went on to clarify:
Clearly, intellectual property is important to our economy — as is open competition, and the free exchange of ideas. These three forces are each valuable tools in the “innovation toolbox”, and allowing any one of them to be undermined – including intellectual property – may impair innovation, along with other important social goals. But as long as the empirical evidence around the policy conversation is so impoverished, we won’t be making well-informed decisions.
Schruer’s fondness for the term “toolbox” aside, I think he may want to take a look at his own use of “empirical evidence” to advance, or rather inhibit, meaningful conversations around web search and online piracy. This “free exchange of ideas” does not necessitate the “free” exchange of pirated content.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
The RIAA is not pleased with results of Google’s efforts to downgrade pirate websites in search results. According to a story by Stuart Dredge published today on Musically.com, the RIAA says Google’s not doing all it can to demote infringing sites:
The RIAA says it’s been monitoring the results, and it’s not happy. “Six months later, we have found no evidence that Google’s policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy. These sites consistently appear at the top of Google’s search results for popular songs or artists,” it says in a statement.
Specifically, the RIAA claims that the “serial infringers” sites that it analysed “still managed to appear on page 1 of the search results over 98% of the time in the searches conducted – in fact, these sites consistently showed up in 3 to 5 of the top 10 search results.”
I’ve found the same scenario with searches I’ve done. Earlier this month (2-11-13) did a search for an indie film “A Perfect Ending” that was released on DVD in early February. I searched the “past 24 hours” and used the search term: “a perfect ending” download. The results were not surprising. At the top of the list, after a paid Netflix placement, was a link to a Pirate Bay torrent.
Today I did a search for the Academy Award nominated “Silver Linings Playbook.” This time a I used a more general search term: silver linings playbook download and didn’t limit it by date. In this instance the first non-commercial result was the site www.movie2k.to. When I checked the link, I found more than 30 links to illegal downloads/streams. The first link was an active/embedded stream of the movie.* I checked the second link on the list and found it to be an active download.
When I checked Google’s Transparency Report for reported takedown request Google received over the past month for links to www.movie2k.to I found 37,764 URLS had been reported.
Now the top domain reported was Filestube.com with more than 400,000 takedown requests, but 37,764 is not an insignificant amount. BTW, this site itself is impervious to takedown requests. If you are a rights holder who wants the infringing links removed, you have to click each link and click often through a myriad of pop-up ads to report the file. Even then, some of the sites don’t respond. Lip-service to the contrary, Google remains a top dog in facilitating piracy. From Musically.com:
“There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows,” wrote the MPAA’s SVP Content Protection, Internet, Marc Miller.
Earlier this week I wrote about Google’s disingenuous move to pressure payment providers to cease doing business with pirate websites. Once again I have to ask, why doesn’t Google clean its own house before shifting the focus to others? Seems like they still have plenty of their own work to do.
*In my experience the streams offered via this site (stream2k) are impervious to DMCA takedown requests.
Today’s Variety features an article by Todd Spangler with the headline, “House of Cards’ Searches on Google Turn Up Pirate Links as Top Results.” Color me not surprised in the least. Perhaps folks are noticing because House of Cards is a popular Netflix original series that just launched its second season but the fact that pirate top the list in Google search results is nothing new–just ask musicians and filmmakers. According to Spangler:
