by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy
Headlines say one thing, Google’s actions say another
Despite headlines, it’s still business as usual for Google — Piracy sites full of malware and deceptive ads remain at top in Google search results
Last fall Google introduced a series of steps to strengthen its Safe Browsing initiative announcing it would include protection against, “social engineering attacks – deceptive tactics that try to trick you into doing something dangerous, like installing unwanted software or revealing your personal information (for example, passwords, phone numbers, or credit cards).
In February Google went further and announced it would add protection against what it called “deceptive embedded content, like social engineering ads” to its “Safe Browsing” strategy. According to Google, such sites would:
- Pretend to act, or look and feel, like a trusted entity — like your own device or browser, or the website itself.
- Try to trick you into doing something you’d only do for a trusted entity — like sharing a password or calling tech support.
If a user attempted to visit such a site, Google said this warning screen would appear.
Of course to benefit from “safe search” one has to set Chrome preferences to “protect you and your devices from dangerous sites.”
Is re-posting 2 month old news Google’s technique for generating positive headlines?
Today, the very same post re-posted on Google’s Official Webmaster Central Blog. Why repost an old post? Could it be Google’s way of generating positive headlines and muddying the waters as to its real business practices? Despite the fact today’s post was identical to the February announcement, a new round of headlines splashed across multiple websites making it seem like the “news” was new news….Google’s PR folks must be patting themselves on the back.
Google explains Safe Browsing this way:
Google’s Safe Browsing technology examines billions of URLs per day looking for unsafe websites…
When we detect unsafe sites, we show warnings on Google Search and in web browsers.
These unsafe sites fall into two categories, both of which threaten users’ privacy and security:
- Malware sites contain code to install malicious software onto users’ computers. Hackers can use this software to capture and transmit users’ private or sensitive information.
- Phishing sites pretend to be legitimate while trying to trick users into typing in their username and password or sharing other private information. Common examples are web pages that impersonate legitimate bank websites or online stores.
Google’s “safe search” warnings are nowhere to be found on piracy websites I checked as part of a little test I conducted today using Google Chrome.
Using Google search I looked for the recently released film ‘Carol’ using the search terms, “watch carol online.”
What I found was the same old, same old. In typical Google fashion, three out of the top four results lead to pirate websites that offer up free, full pirated copies of the movie. In addition–contrary to Google’s new “safe browsing” policy–all two of the pirate sites featured embedded and pop-up featuring the very type of deceptive content Google claimed it would slap with warnings. Despite this, nary a Google “warning” to be found on any of these sites.
3 out of 4 top results are for piracy sites that feature malware or Google advertising
Google warns against visiting scam sites, but continues to send consumers there via its search engine?
What’s even more puzzling is that I Google’s “safe search” initiative is also more talk than action when sites (flagged warnings about “deceptive content”) that are found via its own search engine.
Below is an example from a SolarMovie site which offers up links to pirated movies galore. Amid the pirated movies were sporadic warnings from Google. If Google is serious about protecting users from malware and phishing scams, why not simply remove these flagged sites from Google search?
Of course Google hypocrisy is nothing new. Google flacks can generate all the fresh headlines they want by reposting old news, but in the end, the story remains the same. The team from Mountain View talk a good game, but in reality, nothing changes. Google search continues to point the way to pirated content, malware or scams be damned…maybe the safest way to browse is to avoid Google entirely?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Piracy
The Google team doesn’t seem to appreciate email as a form of communication
I’ve written about Google’s laborious and time-consuming DMCA takedown maze, a process that forces creators to find, then fill out cumbersome online forms. I’ve also written about the fact that Google makes it difficult, if not impossible, to find the email address for its DMCA Agent–in apparent violation of the law’s requirements.
Even when you do find the correct email address for Google’s DMCA agent (via the U.S. Copyright Office), the Google team’s correspondence makes it clear that you will be penalized for taking this legal, more efficient approach. Sending a DMCA takedown request via email is far less burdensome for a couple significant reasons:
- Sending a DMCA via email is fast and easy in contrast to Google’s online form
- You have a copy of the DMCA notice you send, making record-keeping and follow-up much easier
Of course, if you do send a DMCA takedown notice to Google via email it seems to really annoy the Google “team.” Take a look at the email responses to a DMCA notice I recently sent via email. Note that the DMCA template I used was crafted by my attorney.
In response to this perfectly legal and accurate DMCA notice, I received this email asking me to be sure that my original notice complied with the law. I was forced to send a second email confirming that yes, I do know what the heck I am doing when I send a DMCA takedown notice.
Google makes you send a second email
Ok, after all this, Google still isn’t happy. Yes, they eventually end up complying with the law and sending me confirmation that they are acting on my takedown request…but, but….next time, you’d better do it the Google-way using their online takedown maze.
No thank you. I prefer to send my DMCA notices in a way that benefits ME, not Google. It’s not my fault that Google’s business model is such that attracts a tsunami of takedowns every day.
The fact is that Google has the technology to process DMCA notices via email just as easily those sent via its web form(s). While submitting DMCA requests via an online form may be helpful for those individuals who aren’t familiar with the process–or creators who send them infrequently–Google’s convoluted online takedown process serves simply as a time- sucking deterrent.
Maybe if I sent the DMCA via a GMAIL account they’d be more receptive? 😉
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Instead of griping about growing flood of takedowns, why doesn’t Google change its approach?
Poor Google….bad, bad copyright holders….that’s essentially the subtext beneath headlines that scream, “Google received over 75 million copyright takedown requests in February-The company is processing over 100,000 links each and every hour.” My response–why not try a different approach?
The massive volume of takedowns that Google deals with every hour is a sign of its failure, not– as some would have us believe–overzealous rights holders. Dealing with the copyright notices is a byproduct of Google’s business model and its continued refusal to take meaningful action against the rampant piracy enabled by its products (search, blogger, drive, etc).
As Google’s empire has grown over the years, its teflon-resistant coating to all things copyright has thickened. Year after year, the company has spun the truth about its role in propagating online piracy by demonizing piracy’s victims. The 97% that send valid takedown notices are dissed, while the 3% receiving erroneous (or incomplete) notices are somehow portrayed as victims??? It’s a ridiculous posit, but one Google has repeatedly burnished so as to be accepted as truth.
Why not try to “do a better job” reducing piracy and protecting creators?
Just last week the folks at Google trumpeted their latest initiative to do a better job to minimize takedown and monetization mistakes on YouTube. If the company really wants to do a “better job” why not assemble a “team” to figure out better ways to deal with the rampant (and growing) problem of copyright abuse throughout its products? Google could employ a team approach to refine and improve its DMCA takedown system company-wide.
Market forces could work to encourage compliance with copyright law
If processing 100,000 takedowns every hour is a burden, why not do something concrete to reduce those numbers? I’d suggest starting with pirate websites that appear at the top of the reported domains list each month. Take a look at those domains and you’ll find that one reason Google receives so many takedown notices is due to the fact that many sites hosting pirated content ignore copyright takedown requests. To protect their work from thieves, creators have little recourse but to move down the food chain and turn to Google to remove the infringing links. If only Google applied some appropriate (temporary) pressure, perhaps it could influence a change in these site’s non-compliant behavior.
Why not temporarily block top offenders? Pirate sites could risk losing traffic for failure to deal with takedown requests
What type of pressure am I talking about? I’m suggesting Google create a team to focus on the domains at the top of the complaint list. Google purports to down-rank these domains already, but those claims don’t match up with reality. The company should go further to investigate, and temporarily block, the top offenders from Google’s search results.
If Google blocked the top domains reported for piracy for 30 days, site operators might be induced to better respond to copyright complaints, or risk losing crucial Google search traffic. In essence, it could be a self-regulating, temporary punishment leading ultimately to a correction…
- Domain blocked
- Domain cleans up its act
- Complaints to Google decrease
- Domain drops out of top offender list
- Domain’s links restored to Google search
If a site operator continued to ignore takedown requests and the domain remains atop of the complaint list, the block could be extended to 90 days, then 180, etc. The initial blockade could be reviewed by a human team, but once added a site is in the queue, Google’s much vaunted algorithms could likely handle such a process.
How many domains on the list should be considered? Taking a look at the monthly report it seems that domains with more than 100k reported months might be a place to start. That would mean the top 100 offenders would be blocked for (at least) 30 days. I’m sure a reasonable cut-off point could –I’ll leave that to the Google team to figure out specifics.
If a carrot and stick approach like this were implemented by Google, perhaps it would nudge (some) sites into respecting copyright law while simultaneously reducing the number of complaints it handles. Create a middle ground where the rights of creators are balanced against the dubious “free speech” mantra Google so often wields to justify (lack of ) response to online piracy. If, according to Google, “whole-site removal sends the wrong message to other countries by favoring over-inclusive private censorship over the rule of law,” then why not at least try a more moderate approach?
Of course Google’s modus operandi is to deflect, not seek compromise, and its flacks will undoubtedly argue the company dare not become copyright police. Meanwhile, in other spheres, Google manages to be pretty effective using technology to detect online child porn activity. Of course piracy is not child porn, but there’s really no excuse for Google not to employ its tech largess to find a path forward to dampen online piracy (and takedown requests).
If Google were to initiate such a reasonable approach, one that could encourage voluntary compliance with copyright law, both the company and rights holders could benefit.
Websites hosting pirated content might begin responding to copyright takedown requests, rights holders would not be forced to turn to Google for takedowns, and the company wouldn’t be processing 100K takedowns per hour. It would be a win for creators, Google and consumers.
Isn’t it worth trying something different? Would Google be willing to consider a new approach to a growing problem? Given its stubborn obstinacy, probably not–but it never hurts to ask. I’d happy to team up with Google to help find that middle ground.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Why doesn’t YouTube make it easier for people to work things out when there’s a dispute over content?
Every week it seems there’s a new headline bemoaning content that has been mistakenly removed from YouTube due to bogus copyright claims. This so-called “takedown abuse” makes for good headlines, but per usual, there’s much more to the story of what happens behind-the-scenes on YouTube with various types of claims on copyrighted content.
Perhaps in reaction to some of these inflammatory headlines, YouTube recently announced it was creating a team dedicated to “minimize mistakes” when videos are removed from the site. The announcement came via a post on Google’s own blog:
…Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about the enforcement of our policies, from video takedowns to channel demonetization. We want you to know that we monitor video takedowns very closely, and while we haven’t seen a big change in the overall rate of removals, it’s true that we do make mistakes. For this, we’re sorry and we strive to do better by you, our community.
The good news is that the feedback you’ve raised in comments and videos on YouTube and beyond is having an impact. It’s caused us to look closely at our policies and helped us identify areas where we can get better. It’s led us to create a team dedicated to minimizing mistakes and improving the quality of our actions. And it’s encouraged us to roll out some initiatives in the coming months that will help strengthen communications between creators and YouTube support. We’ll also make improvements to increase transparency into the status of monetization claims. And of course, as we work to implement these improvements as quickly as we can, we’ll continue to take your feedback seriously.
— Spencer from YouTube’s Policy Team
Improving “transparency” on YouTube’s Content ID System would across the board is needed
Unfortunately, YouTube’s new initiative seems only to address “transparency” having to do with monetization claims, not Content ID in general. Content ID is the fingerprinting system that YouTube established to help rights holders protect their creative work from online piracy. Though imperfect, it’s certainly better than nothing but there are many ways to improve it.
If the YouTube team is serious about improving the way Content ID works it could help fix what’s broken is by increasing transparency throughout the system, particularly when it comes to disputes over how content is claimed.
In particular, I’d suggest a simple fix that would benefit both copyright holders and YouTube uploaders–allow people to communicate directly when Content ID claims are disputed. If this happened, many misunderstandings could be worked out to the satisfaction of everyone involved.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s say you have a film and someone uploads some scenes from it that are matched via Content ID. It’s a clip that lasts, only several minutes in length and you’ve set up Content ID to match and monetize clips of this length. The matched content is not commentary or a review, only a mashup of scenes taken from your film. You receive notification via your Content ID dashboard that the uploader has “disputed” your monetization claim. (Never mind that this doesn’t involve a takedown, only monetization of the clip).
You take a look at the claim and the justification for filing the dispute. It says:
Reason: All non-original content is in the public domain
Note: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use”; for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Ok, clearly there’s some confusion here. First of all, the uploaded clip is NOT in the “public domain” –it’s surprising how often I see this justification and how many people don’t have a clue as to what it actually means–and secondly, there’s no real criticism, comment, news reporting, etc. going on with the excerpt.
Even so, you have no wish to actually remove the clip from YouTube, only claim it and monetize it. Seems reasonable right? Well, in this case, the sender does not allow messages to be sent (via her channel) and no email is provided so there’s no way to contact her to explain the situation. You only want ads to appear with the video (to help you pay down that production debt)–not remove or block it. In this case the only recourse is to “reinstate” the claim and hope the uploader doesn’t file–what would be–a bogus counter-notice.
YouTube user disputed monetization claim with erroneous justification
Why doesn’t YouTube provide a way for parties to contact each other?
All this confusion could be avoided IF there was simply a way for both parties to discuss things. Why doesn’t YouTube, as part of this dispute form, allow the recipient to send a message to the uploader who disputed the claim. Personal information could be protected, BUT a conversation (via email or message) could be had and most likely clear up any confusion over the claim.
As shown in example below, this uploader who filed a dispute doesn’t have a contact sender option on her YouTube channel. In this scenario the rights holder’s only recourse would be to do nothing OR reinstate the claim and risk further misunderstanding.
Not every dispute needs to escalate
Because there’s no way to have a dialogue these situations often escalate into an actual counter-notice being filed. It’s ironic that at that point the party that files a counter-notice has to provide accurate contact info. Of course, many do not but that’s a post for another day. When a dispute reaches this level, the only way for the rights holder to keep their work off YouTube is to spend money and file in federal court.
For most indie creators, this is where the story ends. Their content goes back up on YouTube and nothing more can be done. For all the talk of abusive takedowns, there’s not much press coverage for the ongoing problem of abusive (and false) counter-notices.
Bottom line, in many cases, folks could simply work things out if YouTube made it easier to communicate. Seems like a simple move. Can’t we just all try to get along?
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Google sets up roadblocks at every step of the DMCA process, doesn’t provide DMCA agent’s email address, and requires senders to login to a Google account
As the U.S. Copyright Office solicits public comments for its study to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions contained in section 512 of the (DMCA) Digital Millennium Copyright Act it’s worth examining how Google–the Sugar Daddy of pirate purveyors– openly skirts the law to obstruct the process at every turn.
Of course Google would have you believe it’s the victim when it comes to enforcing the DMCA. Its flacks regularly bleat about the millions of DMCA notices the company processes each week–a small price for profiting (indirectly) off the lucrative myriad of online exchanges it provides for pirated content. As I’ve written before, Google’s millions of takedowns is a “mess of its own making.”
What about those on the other end of the pipeline–the victims whose only recourse is to send a DMCA notice in order to have their (stolen) movies, music, books, etc. removed from Google websites? For these creators, Google’s DMCA process becomes a maze of twists and turns that, more often than not, leads back to the beginning.
Pity creators who have to send Google a DMCA takedown notice.
-
Google doesn’t provide the email address of its designated DMCA agent (as required by law)
-
Google requires users to send takedown requests via online forms
-
Google makes finding the correct form a laborious 9 step process
-
Once the correct form is found, Google requires DMCA senders to login to a Google account
-
Google doesn’t provide clear URL on pirated files forcing rights holders to drill down further into the abyss to find the correct URL to report the pirated file
Most websites–say for example Vimeo--post copyright or DMCA links at the bottom of each page.
Vimeo makes it easy to find DMCA contact information and online form
Does Google, king of the internet, follow Vimeo’s example? Don’t be silly.
In sharp contrast to Vimeo’s example, Google’s apparent goal is to make the DMCA takedown process as onerous as possible. (Note the irony since, with its profitable products, Google has mastered the art of making user experience as seamless as possible).
Unlike Vimeo, on Google sites there’s no handy copyright link at the bottom of every page and unlike Vimeo, there’s a myriad of online DMCA forms rather than one. I realize Google offers a number of products, but for simplicity’s sake, why not use ONE form and direct users to check a box for the specific product involved? Of course that would be make the DMCA process too easy, an achievement Google has no interest in pursuing.
Instead, Google has a set up DMCA process that forces users to embark upon a time-consuming quest–a journey that only the determined will complete.
If you start you takedown efforts on Google by looking for an actual DMCA contact you’ll come up empty. The Google contacts page merely drops you have at the first stop on its never-ending DMCA merry-go-round.
Unlike Vimeo’s clean and direct approach, Google does everything possible to muddy the waters and make sending a DMCA takedown notice a difficult thing to do
At first glance, the cornucopia of options seems overwhelming. Never mind the fact most links essentially lead to the same starting point. Ironic that Google reps love to bandy the the word “transparency” about except when it comes to its own takedown process. Again, those this seems an appropriate location for it, contact info for Google’s designated DMCA Agent, required by law, is not posted. (*See more on that later in post).
An example of what it takes to send takedown notice to report pirated movie hosted on Google Drive
To gain a better understanding of just how unnecessarily convoluted Google makes its DMCA procedure, follow along as I describe the the steps a filmmaker must take in to remove a pirated movie from a Google site.
As an example I’ll use a stash of pirated films hosted on Google Drive I recently discovered. More than 200 lesbian films have been uploaded to a private Google Group that boasts 1275 members. Included among the pirated titles is a copy of the recent release ‘Carol,’ a film still in theaters by the way. The pirated films organized alphabetically and can be streamed, downloaded or shared to another Google Drive.
To begin the process of removing one of these pirated films one has to find the correct online form to send. As I noted above, to do that you must first find (using Google search) this “legal troubleshooter page for Google. Again I ask–why not an easy-to-find link at the bottom of the web page?
From that page one must select “submit legal request.” Next, respond to a series of 7 questions before ending up at the proper form—But wait, Google requires that you have a Google account and login in order to access the form. Can that really legal?
Google makes you login in to access online DMCA form. Is this even legal?
Let’s say eventually (once you create a Google account and login) you end up at the right DMCA form, guess what? You’re still not finished. You’ll need to have the correct URL to report. That seems simple enough…you already copied the URL from the address bar of the pirated stream so that’s the link to report, right? WRONG! That would be too easy.
If you did report that URL nothing will happen. You must READ THE FINE PRINT on the DMCA form silly. Apparently the URL that appears in the address bar that appears–when you click a film to watch it in a new window– is NOT really the link to the pirated movie. It’s actually the URL for the Drive folder and, as the fine print notes, this type of URL is “unacceptable.”
The URL on this pirated copy of Carol is not the URL to use in a DMCA notice
So how to you find the right URL to report? Google doesn’t offer up any tips on that front. To find an actual link specific to the pirated movie requires some further detective work. Return to the page with the pirated stream and poke around. There’s nothing that says “here’s the video link” but after clicking various clickable things you may, if you’re lucky, eventually discover that by navigating to menu bar and sliding your cursor over the three dots–an option for more actions appears.
Don’t follow your instincts and click “report copyright infringement” or you’ll end up back at the beginning of the DMCA maze
From there if you click report abuse you’ll arrive at yet another page with a new URL. You’re asked to click the type of abuse….Warning, if you select report “copyright abuse” then ruh roh, you end up back at the beginning the DMCA maze that Google has so conveniently created to impede and confuse you once again.
Don’t listen to your instincts or think logically…In this case you’d better just copy the URL on the page and head back to the online form you already found….Confused much? Yeah, me too and that’s exactly how Google likes it. Another way to find the real link is to click another not-so-intuitive menu icon that let’s you “pop-out” the video. Basically nothing changes except a new window opens with a new URL (see below).
Another way to find a hidden URL to a pirated movie it to click on this icon…who knew right? It’s beyond ridiculous.
It’s an absurd maze, but for Google, it’s clearly no accident. The more confused and frustrated rights holders become, the less likely they’ll actually complete the DMCA process. Even if you do finally send a takedown notice, it’s often a crapshoot as to whether the content gets removed in a timely fashion.
Google has designed cutting edge online tech, but its DMCA procedures are something out of the Dark Ages. That’s no accident.
To say Google’s takedown procedures is an obstacle course is an understatement. Circling back to the beginning, why can’t I just send an email to Google to report the illegal link(s) like I do with Vimeo? Google’s response would most likely (again) be to pull out the whine machine and prattle on about the massive number of DMCA notices it receives. So what? There’s technology that can cope with pirate links report via email. Kim Dotcom’s site Megaupload was able to, so does Vimeo, so did Hotfile and Rapidshare and….well you get the picture. It ain’t that hard.
Does Google skirt requirements to qualify for “safe harbor” protection under the DMCA?
Since I began this piece with a mention of the Copyright Office’s ongoing review of 512c, it’s worth focusing in on a particular provision of it. *The DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision exempts service providers from liability for infringements if certain requirements of the law are met, including publication (on its website) of the name, address, phone number and electronic mail (email) address of its designated DMCA agent:
(2) Designated agent.—The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.
I’m sure Google has a massive team of lawyers at its disposal, but from my lay reading of the law it seems that something is amiss. If Google has to provide this contact information in order to qualify for “safe harbor” from liability, shouldn’t it follow the law and provide an “electronic mail address” for its designated agent its website right? Perhaps I’m not reading the law correctly?
Finding pirated movies via Google search is easy. Finding contact information for Google’s designated DMCA agent isn’t.
Even though, from my lay perspective, the DMCA seems to be pretty explicit in requiring that contact information for a service provider’s designated agent contact to be readily available on “its website” Google fails to comply. Try searching for Google’s designated DMCA agent and you’ll come up empty despite using several variations. Google algorithms seem primed to offer up stolen goods….but for information pertaining to the DMCA, not so much….
Use Google search to find the email address for its designated agent and you’ll come up empty
If you search for Google and DMCA you’ll end up back at the beginning of the DMCA maze, Google’s “Legal Removal Requests” page.
The law states an email address is required…does that mean its required for anyone BUT Google? Perhaps its there somewhere, but hidden in a thicket of clicks or maybe Google’s lobbying largess has caused mass blindness. Maybe folks at the U.S. Copyright Office should look more carefully at Google’s compliance with the letter of the law and not depend on the word of Google’s PR team.
For the record I did manage to find the email for Google’s copyright agent by using the U.S. Copyright Office’s index for designated agents. Here’s a link to Google’s information and for the record, the official email is [email protected]. Note the caveat that says it’s faster to use the URL above which, by the way, takes you back to the beginning of the takedown maze. Sorry, but I’ll take my chances with email from now on…..
The easiest way to find Google’s designated agent is via the U.S. Copyright office…not via the pages of Google
If we want to talk about updating the law for the 21st century, why not start with enforcing it and demand that Google develop a DMCA takedown system that is efficient, transparent, and follows the requirements of the law.
