by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Piracy
It’s no surprise that anytime there’s discussion about finding effective ways to combat online piracy Google’s name seems to be in the mix. When the subject does come up, the constant refrain from Google officials is that they’re doing everything they can–but how much is just PR posturing versus real action?
Check out Google’s latest apparent stratagem. In a story by Katherine Rushton published on 2/16/13 in The Telegraph “Google looks to cut funds to illegal sites,” she reported that the company is pushing payment processors to cut off the flow of money sites linked to online piracy.
Google is in discussions with payment companies including Visa, Mastercard and PayPal to put illegal download websites out of existence by cutting off their funding. The web search giant, which is embroiled in a long-running row over the way it deals with pirated material, is considering the radical measure so that it can get rid of the root cause instead of having to change its own search results.
Executives want to stop websites more or less dedicated to offering links to pirated films, music and books from making money out of the illegal material. The plans, still in discussion, would also block funding to websites that do not respond to legal challenges, for example because they are offshore.
Ironically, the same day Ms. Rushton published her piece in The Telegraph, she also posted
this story “Google’s copyright war rages on-UK creative industries want the internet giant brought to heel.”
But the creative industries are not yet satisfied. They want those websites that are the subject of tens of thousands of “take down” requests to be blocked altogether – sites like fenopy.eu and filestube.com whose primary purpose appears to be offering downloads of pirated content. They also claim that the changes Google has made to its algorithm are not particularly effective.
I couldn’t agree more. Whether it’s Google’s search, YouTube, Blogger or AdSense, Google seems to have a finger in every slice of the piracy pie. Apparently the only buck that stops in Mountain View is the kind that goes into the bank.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Most know by now that advertising dollars are the fuel that feeds the fire of today’s online piracy. Today (February 16th) I discovered that some of Uncle Sam’s money makes up part of that fuel. I came across this ad, apparently sponsored, at least in part it seems, by the U.S. Forest Service. The ad popped up on an (illegal) download for a recently released indie film “A Perfect Ending” on the movreel.com cyberlocker.
I imagine the U.S. Forest Service has no idea that their advertising for the Smokey the Bear website emblazons an illegal download, but its presence does indicate the depth of the problem with online advertising’s lack of accountability when it comes to financing web-based piracy. As the recently released USC Annenberg Lab Ad Transparency Report documents, brand supported piracy is pervasive across the globe and involves a number of major corporations such as American Express, BMW, ATT, Walmart, etc. Well, now it appears you can add the U.S. government to that list.
What can be done? Perhaps we should add online piracy to the list of fires that Smokey the Bear puts out, or, at the very least, have him talk with colleagues in Washington D.C. about ways to “prevent” the problem.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
As the Annenberg Innovation Lab releases its February “Ad Transparency Report” on major brands link to advertising on pirates sites it’s also worth taking a look (again) at yet another recent example as to how Google–along with Netflix in this case–continues to incentivize, and monetize, online piracy.
Google-hosted site features ads for Netflix and active (free) download links for a popular movie.
This is a Google-hosted website (via their Blogger platform) that features (as of yesterday) active download links to the Hollywood hit “The Dark Knight Rises.” Note the (Google-served) advertising to the right. At the top of the list is an ad for Netflix. Now, I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again….Why go to Netflix and pay to watch the movie when you can click a download link and watch it for free?
Remember, Google is earning money, Netflix is gaining customers (earning money) and the Blogger pirate is earning money. The film’s distributor, Warner Brothers, earns nothing. Sure, the studio is part of “big” Hollywood, but please remember–big Hollywood employs hundreds of thousands of “little” people who toil behind the scenes. These grips, gaffers, caterers, drivers, makeup artists, script supervisors, carpenters, etc. depend on these Hollywood-generated jobs to put food on the table. This is not a victimless crime.
There is no reason on earth that Google (and Netflix) can’t do a better job vetting websites where their advertising appears. Profits for both are soaring. Rather than hire additional staff to deal with these issues, it appears both companies are happy with apparently profitable, yet shameful, status quo. 
- Profits for Google and Netflix are robust.
Despite lip-service to the contrary, neither company seems willing to take voluntary action for fear that it could impact their bottom line. So what’s left? As Dennis Kneale of Fox Business wrote in his piece today:
The report deploys a new weapon in the assault on online piracy: public shame. The USC Annenberg lab’s director, Jonathan Taplin, hopes that publicly identifying the offending ad-nets will persuade them to block pirate sites entirely.
Ad supported piracy is nothing new, but finally the public is starting to pay attention. Shame on Google and shame on Netflix and all the other established companies that continue to look the other way.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Some cyberlocker websites that offer file storage, do (eventually) respond to DMCA takedown notices, but in an ironic final twist, a fair number of them have found a way to use copyright violation notifications to their advantage–monetizing requests via pop-up ads.
Examples are easy to find. Today I went to a notorious download site that offers download/streaming links to any number of popular (recent) films. I chose to find links for the Oscar-nominated “Silver Linings Playbook.” If you look at the column on the left, you’ll see more than 2 dozen links to view and/or download the film. I did not check them all, and imagine some have already been removed by studio anti-piracy efforts.
For purposes of this piece, I chose a link hosted on a site called “Faststream.in” When I clicked the link I arrived at a splash page that offered a stream of the film. I could click the button “proceed to video” be bombarded with ads before watching the film. However, what happens when the rights holder wants to send a DMCA notice to the site? On this site there’s no DMCA option provided, only a “contact” link. Click that and (cha-ching) a pop-up ad appears. To access the actual contact page, you have to close the ad.
I’ve come across many sites that utilize the same setup. I suppose that if a site is going to lose its carrot to attract ad clicks, operators may as well make some money in the process. Aside from earning cash from clicks, this cumbersome procedure also makes sending a legit DMCA notice a time-consuming, and thus expensive, proposition. I checked the U.S. Copyright Office list of designated agents to determine if this site had registered one. No listing was found, so using this contact page–for each and every takedown request– appears to be the only way to contact the site to send a takedown notice. No wonder the movie is still online.
I checked the WHOIS information to see if their was any contact information and found that the domain was registered by a Jeremiah Haselberg of PiratePoint.Ltd. in Canada. At least he’s honest about the nature of his entrepreneurial activities eh? Or maybe he’s just named his company after a favored vacation spot, Pirates Point Resort in the Caymen Islands….a “safe harbor” in more ways than one.
Aside from making money off DMCA takedown requests, this site is follows the traditional cyberlocker pirate business model, incentivizing infringing uploads with cash rewards.
It’s bad enough that rights holders have to police these sites to safeguard their work, but adding to their coffers in the process only adds insult to injury. Such is the nature of online piracy today.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
YouTube account holders accounts are terminated for repeated violations of copyright policies
I have a question for the folks at YouTube. Usually, if a user receives multiple (3 or more) DMCA takedown notices, the associated account is suspended for repeated violations of their copyright policy.
Two weeks ago I wrote about a YouTube account holder, “MyTrailerIsRich,” who makes money piggy-backing off the work of others–uploading and monetizing movie trailers without permission from the rights holders. Since then, I know for a fact that at least four different distributors have submitted a total of at least 8 takedown notices for trailers uploaded (and monetized) by this user without permission.
Yet, as of this morning, the channel (with its 50 million plus views) is still online and earning income for YouTube and the user. Why? The user hasn’t filed a dispute (counter-notice) to protest the takedowns. Could it be because this particular channel has attracted so many views (and so much income)? Could it be that the intermediary that uploaded and claimed the content (Wizdeo) has a special relationship with YouTube? If you look at YouTube’s criteria for account termination you will note that it’s conveniently vague:
Accounts determined to be repeat infringers may be subject to termination. Users with suspended or terminated accounts are prohibited from creating new accounts or accessing YouTube’s community features.
It’s been my experience with YouTube that some users have had their account terminated for 3 violations. It’s also the figure bandied around in Google’s own product forums.
Yet, to date, MyTrailerIsRich’s has received at least 8 and remains online. I’d love to ask someone at YouTube about this, but unfortunately, they won’t respond to email queries. My guess, it’s all about the money. Perhaps YouTube should update its terms to clarify matters and say:
Accounts determined to be repeat infringers may be subject to termination (dependent on how much income they generate for us).
The YouTube channel for “MyTrailerIsRich” remains online despite multiple (at least 8) takedown notices.
It’s no surprise that anytime there’s discussion about finding effective ways to combat online piracy Google’s name seems to be in the mix. When the subject does come up, the constant refrain from Google officials is that they’re doing everything they can–but how much is just PR posturing versus real action?
