GOOGLE AND BING REACH AGREEMENT IN UK TO DEMOTE PIRATE WEBSITES IN SEARCH RESULTS
Leave it to our friends across the ocean to make some (apparent) progress in the ongoing war against online piracy. According to The Guardian Google and Microsoft have agreed to make changes as to where links to pirated content appear in search results on Google and Bing.
Search engine companies Google and Bing have signed up to a voluntary code of practice aimed at preventing users from visiting disreputable content providers. The code, the first of its kind in the UK, will accelerate the demotion of illegal sites following notices from rights holders. It means those who search for content such as music videos, digital books and football coverage will more likely to be taken to bona fide providers rather than pirate sites, where a user’s security may be at risk.
Reportedly, the changes are supposed to be in place by this summer but put me into the category of “I’ll believe it when i see it.” There’s no mention of how extensive this new approach to results will be. Will it extend beyond the borders of the UK and cover the EU and/or the entire world? There’s also no information as to how exactly the “deprecation” will be triggered? Will it be based on total DMCA takedown requests or other legal efforts like court action? I look forward to seeing what comes of this effort and hope it extends beyond the borders of the UK.
I’ve written in the past about ways in which Google search could cut the number of takedown notices it receives (and the number of pirate links that populate its results) in a piece “How Google could reduce its massive DMCA takedown numbers.” Here’s an excerpt from that post:
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.
It seems as though this latest “agreement” may end up serving the same end. At this point it’s too early to tell, but any progress on this front is still progress. As they say in cliche-world, only time will tell.
Time for YouTube to get serious about cleaning up all the junk, spam and malware files on its site
YouTube is great for finding videos about pretty much everything. Need to learn how to fix a furnace or use the latest camera equipment? There’s bound to be a video shows you how. Unfortunately, amid the useful stuff, YouTube is also chock full of garbage. The question is, with its massive technical resources, why doesn’t the site do a better job keeping house?
I’ve written before about the epidemic of fake “full-movie” uploads that fill YouTube. That was in 2012. Now, six years later, the problem still exists. Apparently, YouTube isn’t concerned that its pages are full of spam files, many of them fake pirate movie uploads that lead users to sites rife with malware and money-making scams.
These fake uploads, promising full copies of hundreds of films, both indie and mainstream, are easy to find. Go to YouTube, search for a specific film title using the term “full movie,” and voilà, most results will lead to garbage. These bogus uploads fall into two categories. Some offer links to other dubious websites while others are merely dummy files uploaded to generate advertising income(for the user and YouTube). Some do both.
As for these offsite scam movie/gaming portals, it’s difficult to figure out who is actually behind them. The site URLs vary and include tzarmedia.com, gnomicfun.com, cnidaplay.com, jabirufun.com,flogame.com, among dozens of others. Curiously, a WHOIS search for these various domains indicates they are all registered via the same domain registrar, enom.com. One can’t help but suspect that this particular business model is being orchestrated by a few, linked operators. When I called their customer service number to ask questions I was given the proverbial run-around. Other contact information was essentially non-existent.
These scam movies sites share domain registrar and likely more
Why are such dummy files an issue? Not only do they pollute legit searches for content on YouTube, but they make the process of reviewing pirated content more difficult for rights holders. When I search for copies of my film using my Content ID account, I have to wade through dozens of these fake uploads.
Removing them is an incredibly time-consuming task as it seems YouTube has purposely chosen to make the Content ID dashboard as inconvenient as possible for users.
When I get page of results that is nothing but dummy uploads why can’t doesn’t YouTube offer a select all option so that I can remove them en masse? Instead–if I want to remove them–I’m forced to click and open each one and go through a 5 step process: select takedown, select title, acknowledge, fill in my signature and then click takedown. Instead, why not offer a select all option?
Another interesting twist is that many of these fake movie uploads also share links to legit social media sites like MTV’s Facebook or The Wrap’s Twitter account. I checked to see whether the operators of these sites knew about this and was assured they didn’t. It would appear these dummy uploads include such links drive more traffic to the bogus uploads and make them seem legit.
What can YouTube do to prevent this scheme? Why not utilize their own fingerprinting tech (Content ID) to detect and block these dummy files? If necessary, why not employ a team of actual humans to help with the task. I imagine if their engineers put their minds to it the task would be a relatively simple one. Certainly YouTube can afford to invest in keeping its house tidy?
Why is do advertisers allow themselves to be part of this junkyard?
Perhaps YouTube doesn’t take action against such uploads because it makes money off them? Here are just a few examples I found recently–bogus uploads with advertisements for New York Life, Walmart, Tide and Walgreens. These fake pirate full-movie uploads emblazoned with ads are a dime a dozen on YouTube. Do these advertisers know what they’re paying for? Do they care? Perhaps TAG, the Trustworthy Accountability Group, should take a look at this situation and pressure YouTube to take action.
Can you think of any other business that could get away charging money this for type of thing? Isn’t Internet commerce–and YouTube–mature enough at this point to operate a business where what you see is what you get? Apparently not… Imagine walking down the aisles of Target and finding half the merchandise to be knock-offs or empty boxes?
It’s not only the spam fake movie uploads and advertising scams that are problematic. As a study by the Digital Citizens Alliance found, YouTube is also rife with uploads that link to various types of malware including RATS (Remote Access Trojans), used by hackers to install malware that hijacks computers of unsuspecting internet users. Why is it OK for YouTube to continue to allow activity that scams–and possibly endangers–users?
As I mentioned, YouTube has the technical expertise and financial means to develop better algorithms and Content ID matching to weed out these garbage uploads if it chose to do so. Until then, the site will increasingly resemble a hoarders home with junk stuffed into every conceivable corner. Is that any way to run a business?
U.S. firms enable scammers to bait consumers and steal personal info
Spam and scams have become a way of life. Every day my in-box is full of emails warning that my Apple, PayPal or Wells Fargo credentials have been compromised and instructing me to click a link to restore my good standing. Of course, I’m well aware these are scams but clearly there are many who aren’t.
The same thing holds true with websites. It’s a well-known fact that for many–if not most– piracy peddlers, online malware supplies their lifeblood, their income. The Digital Citizens Alliance* just release a new study highlighting the role U.S. companies are playing in support of this scourge.
In the case of content theft, the pirated movies, TV shows and music is the draw. Bad actors dangle free content, consumers take the bait, and the end result is millions of identities at risk and billions of dollars stolen. Then these computers are taken over to wreak more havoc, causing a nightmare for everyone from Internet users to advertisers who get defrauded, to corporations blackmailed into paying off hackers who threaten to use those rogue computers to launch attacks.
While these rogue sites are run by overseas operators, the DCA found that many are hosted by companies headquartered here in the United States. The study singles out two U.S.-based firms, CloudFlare and Hawk Host as routinely offering up services to malware infested sites.
CloudFlare helps these criminals mask their locations by shrouding their network hosting and domain info:
In order to utilize CloudFlare’s CDN, DNS, and other protection services customers have to run all of their website traffic through the CloudFlare network. The end result of doing so is masked hosting information. Instead of the actual hosting provider, IP address, domain name server, etc., a Whois search provides the information for CloudFlare’s network.
When researchers at the DCA contacted CloudFlare for comment, they received the typical boiler-plate, we aren’t responsible for our customers response:
CloudFlare’s service protects and accelerates websites and applications. Because CloudFlare is not a host, we cannot control or remove customer content from the Internet. CloudFlare leaves the removal of online content to law enforcement agencies and complies with any legal requests made by the authorities. If we believe that one of our customers’ websites is distributing malware, CloudFlare will post an interstitial page that warns site visitors and asks them if they would like to proceed despite the warning. This practice follows established industry norms
-DCA
The DCA’s investigation into Hawk Host highlighted the same scenario. Use pirated films and music to attract visitors and entice them to download malware (before they can download the pirated content). The response from Hawk Host was somewhat different in that their tech support staff agreed that the malware sites reported by the DCA were indeed violating the companies terms of service and should be closed. According to the report:
After an exchange of information, Hawk Host agreed the sites did violate their policies and told Digital Citizens the sites would come down. Cody Robertson (Chief Technical Officer) said the sites “clearly violate our TOS / AUP.” He did add that it would be impossible for Hawk Host to audit all of the 100,000-plus sites they host and that they would continue to rely on abuse reports. Hawk Host’s swift action is an encouraging sign and Digital Citizens is hopeful that the company will continue to take steps to protect Internet users from malicious content.
This is a step in the right direction. For many websites, piracy is a means to and end and in order for win the fight against it, the problem must be tackled on many fronts from search, to infrastructure, to income. The threat of the public being victimized by malicious malware only adds to the damage done by online pirates. You can read the entire DCA report here.
139 DMCA NOTICES LATER, NOTHING CHANGES FOR THE GOOGLE DRIVE ACCOUNT
As I wrote previously, Google seems to ignore its own pledge to disable accounts of repeat (piracy) infringers. Today I sent another 31 DMCA takedown requests this week (170 over several months) reporting this same account for copyright infringement on behalf of indie film distributors I represent. So far, Google has removed 139 pirate links since last Aprilyet the account remains online sharing links to several hundred pirated films. I ask again, why is this account still active? After all, isn’t eligibility for protection under “safe harbor” dependent upon implementing a reasonable repeat infringer policy?
(i)Conditions for Eligibility.—
(1)Accommodation of technology.—The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—(A)has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and(B)accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
All these DMCA notices were reporting links from one Google Drive account
Respect copyright laws. Do not share copyrighted content without authorization or provide links to sites where your readers can obtain unauthorized downloads of copyrighted content. It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. Repeated infringement of intellectual property rights, including copyright, will result in account termination. [emphasis added] If you see a violation of Google’s copyright policies, report copyright infringement.
Of course Google no one at Google will respond to queries, so I guess creators are left, once again, to ask “How much is enough?”
Facebook has been promising for some time to introduce tools that would allow rights holders to automatically detect and remove pirated content from its pages.
The company has endured a lot of bad publicity around the freebooting of viral YouTube videos on its pages, but Facebook’s also long been a place where pirated movies and music found a cozy habitat. That is–until now. I’ve recently begun to utilize this tool to manage Facebook DMCA takedowns and wanted to share my first impressions, but first a bit of background.
First of all, I’m thrilled that Facebook, with all its resources, has finally begun to take copyright infringement seriously. In introducing the new tool last month the Facebook development team explained why the company had finally stepped up:
Video has become an important part of the Facebook experience for people around the world, due in large part to the amazing creativity we’re seeing from all kinds of video publishers.
To provide the best experience for everyone who watches, creates and shares videos on Facebook, we work with our community to understand which tools they want us to build. Based on this feedback, on top of the measures we already have in place, we’ve been building new video matching technology to further help rights owners protect the content they own.
Signing up is easy and the interface straightforward and simple to use
I found signing up for the rights manager tool to be relatively straightforward. You must have a page to link the rights manager to and I initially applied for, and was accepted into the program, by using our film’s Facebook page. Once I received approval I was able to upload a reference copy of our film (and trailer) to the Facebook rights manager dashboard. A trailer I’d uploaded to our page previously was also listed. From there, Facebook’s automated digital matching tools went to work.
Facebook’s Rights Manager dashboard is pretty straightforward
Easily upload and maintain a reference library of the video content they want to monitor and protect. Publishers can upload content libraries and publish live video as references for Rights Manager to check against, including videos they are not sharing publicly on Facebook. Rights Manager then monitors for potential infringement of that content across Facebook.
Create rules about how individual videos may be used. Publishers can set specific match rules to either allow or report copies of their videos based on criteria of their choosing—for example, how much content has been reused, where the matching video is located or how many views the matching video has received.
Identify new matches against protected content. Rights Manager’s dashboard surfaces any new matches against a publisher’s uploaded reference files and live video. On the dashboard, publishers can filter matches by time, date or view count, and then either report potential copyright infringement or allow the matching content to remain published.
Whitelist specific Pages or profiles to allow them to use their copyrighted content. Publishers can specify Pages or profiles that have permission to publish their protected content without being monitored for potential infringement.
Protect their reference library at scale with the new Rights Manager API. We’re rolling out an API for Rights Manager to improve bulk uploading for publishers and to allow media management companies to support partners in managing, monitoring and protecting their content across Facebook. You can find out more about the Rights Manager API here.
Facebook’s tech support is responsive and proactive in working to improve the system
Facebook asks for feedback in an effort to improve its rights manager tools
I do believe this type of fingerprinting technology will be an increasingly crucial tool as we move forward in the battle against online piracy on sites like Facebook, but as with any new offering, there are glitches.
The good news is that so far, Facebook’s technical support team is quite responsive and the company seems to be making a concerted effort to sort through issues and improve the tool’s operation. Any time you remove an item from the dashboard a window pops up soliciting feedback. I’ve also had a fair amount of helpful email correspondence with the support team and have found Facebook’s prompt and open response to my queries offers a welcome contrast the less-than-stellar support offered by a (popular) site that shall remain nameless.
As with any new tech, there are some glitches
I also set up a Rights Manager account for an independent film distributor I work for and in the process of uploading dozens of reference files have found the “matching” to be rather hit and miss. At this point Rights Manager seems to do a great job detecting the company’s opening logo (and music) but little else. What makes it even stranger is that the tool detects the distributors opening logo and music and then matches it to the wrong reference file. Obviously ALL the titles I’ve been uploading share the same opening sequence from the distributor but when it comes time to actually issue the takedown to remove the infringing (matched) content, it auto-populates the form with the film’s title, which in these instances is the wrong one.
Lots of early glitches with Facebook’s Rights Manager tools
I’ve also come across situations where a single film title is simultaneously listed has having matched multiple reference files to different titles, but NEVER the actual reference file for that particular film. Consequently, rather than send a DMCA notice with incorrect information, which would be illegal, I have chosen to wait for Facebook to sort out this particular glitch. This is where their responsive tech support will, hopefully, come in handy.
I’ve also found that there’s a lot of uploaded content that doesn’t really match anything. Perhaps a song is playing in the background that matches the film’s soundtrack, but it’s difficult to tell? At this point the system’s matching capabilities clearly need to be dialed in order to better weed out innocent content.
As it stands, I have been manually removing this erroneous matches from the dashboard, but that takes precious time, and efficiency is one reason this system was developed in the first place. For larger entities there are API tools, but for independent, smaller entities, it seems that utilizing the dashboard will be best route.
Users can create “match rules” to fine tune content matching
Some of the hiccups I’ve encountered thus far are likely simple bugs in the system, while others may well be user error. Fortunately, Facebook has created tools that allow publishers/creators to fine tune the matches based on length of time, territory and content type.
I plan to spend some time working through the reference files I’ve uploaded to create appropriate match rules in the hope that it will result in fewer false positives.
Will creators be able to make money from their videos and music?
There’s also the question of monetization. Will rights holders be able to earn money from copies of their work uploaded to Facebook? It’s likely at some point in the future, but first Facebook will need to fine-tune Rights Manager. They can’t afford to complicate a system that’s still for all practical purposes in beta mode.
Overall I’m pleased with Facebook’s effort. Yes, it’s overdue and yes, it’s not (yet) perfect but it is a huge step in the right direction and hopefully can serve as a model for other social media and video sites across the web looking to do a better job thwarting piracy.
As I’ve written previously, I firmly believe UGC sites of a certain size (like Facebook, Vimeo, YouTube, et al) should be required to offer this type of tech in order to qualify for safe harbor. Of course that assumes the creaky old DMCA will be revised and the odds of that actually happening any time soon….well, I’ll leave that discussion for another day. In the meantime, I’m going to get busy on Facebook and upload some more reference files. So far I’ll give the new system a thumbs up!
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
