by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Piracy, Tech
YouTube, its users, and shady certified “aggregators,” partner together to make money off pirated TV shows, movies & music
YouTube’s life-blood is advertising and by now it’s become pretty clear that Google doesn’t give a hoot about what videos it slaps ads onto. After all, why should vetting content BEFORE putting advertising on it get in the way of company profits right?
I wrote about Google’s tainted income scheme last December (Piracy for profit-YouTube’s dirty secret), but it’s a tale is worth revisiting at a time when Google faces more anti-trust allegations in Europe and embarrassing revelations that rather than take action, U.S. authorities at the FTC prefer to bury investigations that shine a light on Google’s sleazy, anti-competitive business practices.
Of course Google continues to publicly deflect criticism of its business practices by repeating the tired mantra that anything goes in the name of innovation. Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s CEO penned a panegyric for Google’s thinkwithGoogle newsletter, The Eight Pillars of Innovation, in which she waxed on about Google “striving for continual innovation, but not perfection.” She also makes this observation about Google’s mission:
Google’s mission is to ‘organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.’ We use this simple statement to guide all of our decisions.
Sounds nice, but a more honest (and accurate) observation about what really guides (all) their decisions would read:
Google’s mission is to ‘organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful and profitable for us.
Sure, Google is great at making stuff more universally accessible and useful, but its success comes with a heavy price tag….and Google isn’t the one paying. All these platitudes about innovation–and serving the common good–provide cover for what drives Google–the almighty dollar. The ongoing search for innovative income has given rise to a company all that too often operates in a shady, often illegal sphere, dancing delicately along the edge to create a dubious morality built amid prevarication and platitudes.
In Google’s world, tainted profits acquired through illegal acts are OK as long as one doesn’t get caught red handed. It’s all just innovation right?
A glaring example Google’s innovative profiteering was on display when news broke that YouTube slapped beer advertisements on ISIS recruiting videos uploaded onto the site. Outrageous yes–but it’s only one particularly jarring reminder that Google has a corporate habit of placing profits above all else. Remember too, that not only was Google placing ads on ISIS videos, but by doing so was putting money into the pockets of terrorist and its own coffers.
Dive deeper into the cesspool that is YouTube, moving past the beer advertisements on ISIS recruiting videos and you’ll witness an entrenched, well-oiled (and oily) business model that enables Google to rake in millions, perhaps billions, by creating partnerships with cash-seeking YouTube users and shady middlemen who routinely monetize content they don’t own.
- Who are these YouTube “certified” aggregators who are approved to work with Google who pave the way for users who knowingly make money off infringing content?
- Why is it OK for YouTube to earn money off stolen goods?
- Why don’t advertisers know (or care) where their ads are placed?
Let’s take a look at how this works. Let’s say I want to make some money by putting ads on YouTube videos. It doesn’t matter whether I own actually own them….what’s required is a way to get put my uploaded video onto YouTube, put ads on it and get paid based on the number of views it attracts.
How do I do this? I could try to get approved as an individual, but the easier way, if the pirate uploads I’ve checked our are any indication, is to partner with an aggregator. These entities are YouTube approved and give users an easy way to upload infringing content and get paid for it.
Sign up with them, upload a popular (pirated) TV show or movie via your aggregator account and ta-da!– you’re on your way to earning some easy money. Of course the aggregator will take a slice–as will YouTube–but hey, it’s free money right? Zero risk, and some reward–what could be better?
As is typical for YouTube, there don’t seem to be any safeguards to make sure these “certified” partners are on the up and up. After all YouTube isn’t so why would the company ask partners to behave better? As long as these partnerships bring in profits it’s best to look the other way right?
What it means to be YouTube Certified
YouTube Certified exists across several specific subject areas called “certification tracks.”
-
An individual may become YouTube Certified by successfully completing an in-depth training program and passing a final exam to demonstrate expertise.
-
A company may become YouTube Certified if a minimum of 3 employees have attended the training program and passed the exam. Company certification is valid for 12 months from date of issue. See below for a list of current YouTube Certified companies.
Note: YouTube does not make any promises or representations about the performance or quality of any YouTube Certified individual or company. YouTube does not guarantee you will get any specific results from working with YouTube Certified individuals or companies. It is always important to evaluate the companies you may work with and decide for yourself what makes the most sense for your business.
Hmmm, I wonder if that special “in-depth” YouTube training includes any mention of copyright law and/or ethical business practices? Doubt it… Ironic too that YouTube doesn’t do a better job “evaluating” these companies once they’ve been certified.
It seems that episodes of the Netflix hit starring Taylor Schilling, Orange is the New Black, is a popular show to upload and monetize. Below are four different episode uploads and FOUR different owners who claim worldwide rights.
Looks like Orange is the New Black has lots of different “owners” making money off episodes uploaded to YouTube.
Unfortunately this example is not the exception on YouTube, it’s the rule.
These YouTube approved aggregators pretend to have standards. Music Nations, a “certified” YouTube partner that has claimed one of Orange is the New Black episodes shown above, has an online application includes this disclaimer: Also please tick this box to confirm that you understand that uploading copyright material will cause your partnership to be cancelled. Of course they don’t vet the actual uploads…it’s only if you get caught. Meanwhile, uploaders get 70% of the revenue received from YouTube while Music Nations gets 30%. Of course in this case Netflix would receive ZERO.
Of course paying lip service to copyright doesn’t mean anything is actually done ahead of time to vet ownership or enforce compliance. In the graphic below is an example where a different Music Nations client, utmun dossa, has also uploaded and monetized multiple OITNB episodes (an ad for Secret adorns this playback, Pampers another). They’ve been online for more than a month. Google/YouTube makes money, Music Nations makes money and the user makes money but the rights holder gets nothing. For Google, this is innovation…
When I used the online customer “chat” at Music Nations to ask whether they required uploaders to prove ownership the agent I was chatting with didn’t know responding, “I don’t know if that is part of the process before a channel gets accepted but there is a team that reviews the application before they get accepted.” Seems like a pretty basic question, but there’s a reason customer support doesn’t have an answer.
Music Nations isn’t the only aggregator I’ve run across that seems to monetize stolen goods. Another “certified” YouTube partner is the Russia-based QuizGroup. I wrote extensively about their enterprise in my earlier blog post. They’ve also acted as the intermediary for monetized pirate uploads of Orange is the New Black, claiming worldwide rights. Note that all these uploaded episodes are altered (via letterbox or smaller frame size) in order to bypass any safeguards Netflix may have in place via Content ID.
If these were legit content claims, why would Netflix use multiple aggregators?
Another question worth asking is why do these aggregators stay on YouTube’s approved partner list?
QuizGroup remains on YouTube’s list of certified aggregators despite monetizing pirated content
One has to imagine, given the relative ease with which I discovered these examples, that both aggregators have had clients reported (repeatedly) for copyright violations. Why are they still allowed to do business YouTube? The answer is simple–because YouTube, and parent company Google, make millions. Go ahead FTC, look the other way and ignore Google’s bad business practices. Perhaps the Europeans will do the work you should be doing.
Part II-YouTube’s dirty money game continued, coming soon…
by Ellen Seidler | Law, Music, Tech
Google Trying to Force Indie Record Labels into Submission
(Updated June 17, 2014)
This post was originally published in late May, but with news breaking that Google is pushing ahead on its plan to block indie labels from its new music service I’m reposting. Here’s the latest from The Guardian:
Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Jack White could disappear from YouTube “in a matter of days” after the Google video service confirmed it was dropping content from independent labels that have not signed up for its upcoming subscription music service…
…The company’s head of content and business operations, Robert Kyncl,told the Financial Times that the service – previously rumoured to be called YouTube Music Pass – will launch more widely later in the year.
His confirmation that YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier will be hugely controversial among indie labels, with trade body WIN already filing a complaint to the European Commission about its negotiating strategy.
Here’s my original post from May 24th, 2014:
Excuse me while I choke back the bile rising in my gut. Our pal Google, the worldwide protector of free speech on the web, is showing its true colors as it reportedly goes toe to toe with indie record labels in negotiations over its new streaming music service. According to the New York Times, representatives from Google/YouTube are trying to strong arm the labels into crying “uncle” by blackmailing them into submission over contract terms:
Negotiations between independents and YouTube, which is owned by Google, have dragged on for months. But according to several people with direct knowledge of the talks, the indies’ decision to speak out was driven by a recent warning that if labels failed to agree to YouTube’s licensing terms, music on the indies’ official YouTube channels would be blocked. In addition, those labels would be unable to collect advertising revenue from user-uploaded videos that included their music.
The Worldwide Independent Network published a statement on their website taking Google to task:
YouTube is expected to launch a new music streaming service. The service has apparently negotiated separate agreements with the three major labels – Sony, Warner and Universal – but according to WIN’s trade association colleagues has yet to reach any substantive agreement with their members.
At a time when independent music companies are increasing their global market share WIN has raised major concerns about YouTube’s recent policy of approaching independent labels directly with a template contract and an explicit threat that their content will be blocked on the platform if it is not signed.
According to WIN members, the contracts currently on offer to independent labels from YouTube are on highly unfavourable, and non-negotiable terms, and undervalue existing rates in the marketplace from existing music streaming partners such as Spotify, Rdio, Deezerand others.
WIN has held extensive talks with YouTube at their instigation over the last 24 hours to try and resolve this issue but no progress has been made. WIN’s request for YouTube to rescind the termination letters sent to its members has not as yet been agreed to.
Google representatives have repeatedly pulled out the “free speech” card as rationale for allowing Google to run rough shod over artist’s rights (human rights) online and its lobbyists often employ the “protect free speech” argument as a sacred sword to move politicians and the public to its side during policy debates regarding its online business practices. That dearly held corporate concept seems to have gone out the window during these discussions demonstrating that ultimately, it’s not a matter of principle for Google, but profits.
Every time an artist sends a DMCA takedown request for any Google-hosted content (YouTube, Blogger, Search, Drive, etc) they are warned that a copy of the notice will be sent to the “Chilling Effects” website which, according to its “about” page, exists in order to, “support lawful online activity against the chill of unwarranted legal threats.”
Please note that a copy of each legal notice we receive is sent to a third-party which may publish and annotate it (with your personal information removed). As such, the content submitted in this form will be forwarded to Chilling Effects (http://www.chillingeffects.org) for publication. You can see an example of such a publication athttp://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=861. For products like Google Web Search, a link to your published notice will be displayed in Google’s search results in place of the removed content.
I wonder if the folks at Chilling Effects would consider whether YouTube’s negotiating tactics are having a “chilling effects” on indie musicians?
More irony can be found on Google’s own policy blog the company touts how it “promotes free speech on the internet.”
Google’s commitment to freedom of expression is at the core of everything we do — whether it’s independent media organizations using YouTube to express themselves in Venezuela, or citizen journalists using Blogger to chronicle Myanmar’s crackdown last year on Buddhist monk protests. Unfortunately, many governments around the world impose limits on their citizens’ freedom of speech, and that often leads them to block or limit access to our tools and services.
Hypocrisy seems too gentle a term in characterizing Google’s current stance with indie labels on YouTube. Agree to our terms or we’ll block your work? Seems their “commitment to freedom of expression” doesn’t count if you refuse to add profits to their piggy bank.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics
Kim Dotcom, megalomaniac mastermind of Megaupload
Kim Dotcom sued by Hollywood studios
The legal woes for Megaupload’s founder Kim Dotcom continue with today’s news that six movie studios including Fox, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Universal and Warner have filed a lawsuit in federal court charging Dotcom and his site with “massive” copyright infringement. From the complaint filed in federal district court in Virginia:
1. Until January 2012, when defendants were indicted on federal charges, defendants operated the notorious website and service located at www.Megaupload.com (“Megaupload” or ”Megaupload website”) as a commercial online hub for publicly providing popular copyrighted content, including thousands of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, over the Internet to millions of Megaupload users without authorization ox license. On a daily basis, defendants intentionally infringed plaintiffs’ copyrighted motion picture and television programs on a massive scale and for a substantial profit. Defendants carried out this intentional, large-scale theft of plaintiffs’ intellectual property primarily through the operation of the Megaupload website, as well as associated websites like the video streanning service located at www.Megavideo.com (“Megavideo”).
2. Defendants intentionally and actively encouraged theix users to upload to the Megaupload computer servers infringing copies of the most popular entertainment content, including plaintiffs’ copyrighted television shows and movies. For example, through Megaupload’s “Uploader Rewards” program, defendants openly paid Megaupload users money to upload popular unauthorized and unlicensed content, including plaintiffs’ copyrighted television shows and movies, onto Megaupload’s computer servers. Pursuant to the Uploader Rewards program, the more often an uploaded file was downloaded by other users, the more money the uploader made.
3. Once a Megaupload user uploaded a file, defendants provided that user with a “link” to the infringing content and encouraged the user to disseminate the “link” as broadly as possible on the Internet so that as many people as possible would find the link and use it to download the infringing content from Megaupload’s servers.
4. Defendants profited handsomely from this copyright infringement in at least two ways: by selling users “premium” subscriptions, which enabled rapid, unrestricted downloading; and by selling online advertising space to advertisers.
The complaint goes to describe the site’s business model–one built on piracy whereby the more content uploaded, the more traffic for the site, and the more ad and subscription revenue earned–more than 25 million according to the complaint. It also pokes holes in the claims of Dotcom, and his apologists, that the site was a legitimate enterprise that merely provided storage for its users:
Contrary to some of defendants’ public assertions, Megaupload was not designed to be a private data storage provider. Users without premium subscriptions were restricted not only in their downloading capabilities, but also in their ability to store files on the site. Any content they uploaded would be deleted if it was not also downloaded within a certain period of time —after 21 days in the case of unregistered, anonymous users and after 90 days in the case of registered users who were not premium subscribers. Only premium subscribers (estimated to be 1% of users) could use Megaupload for long-term file storage. Thus, by design, Megaupload functioned not as a private online storage locker, but rather as a hub for uploading and downloading infringing copies of popular movies and television shows, including plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.
With this latest legal salvo fired against Megaupload and its founder perhaps it’s worth taking a moment to examine why YouTube, another site dependent on user-generated content (UGC) managed to survive and thrive, despite early accusations (and a major lawsuit) that labeled it a piracy cornucopia. Why did Megaupload end up on the dust bin of history while YouTube has become a web video (and music) juggernaut?
The early growth and popularity of both sites was dependent on the public’s general disregard for copyright law. Sure, some of the traffic to YouTube was generated by cute cat videos gone viral, but much of the site’s popular content included clips and often entire copies of tv shows and movies–content uploaders certainly had no right to disseminate. Like Megaupload, YouTube hid behind the shield of “safe harbor” and monetized the content with advertising but unlike Megaupload, the site did not offer cash or other incentives to uploaders, not directly anyway.*
In 2007 Viacom filed suit against YouTube and like today’s filing against Megaupload, the charge was “massive” and “brazen” copyright infringement. After seven years of legal back and forth, the parties finally announced they had settled the case in March, one week before they were scheduled to again face off in court. The companies issued a joint statement which characterized the resolution this way: “The settlement reflects the growing collaborative dialogue between our two companies on important opportunities, and we look forward to working more closely together.”
Ultimately what separates YouTube/Google’s success versus Megaupload’s demise lies with the fact that the head honchos at Google determined that respecting copyright ultimately provided a better business model than ignoring it. On the heels of Viacom’s infringement suit, YouTube introduced its Content ID (digital fingerprinting) system in 2008 which gave rights holders a (relatively) efficient way to deal the massive copyright abuses that plagued the site. Rather than send hundreds, if not thousands of DMCA takedowns, musicians and filmmakers could claim content they own and be proactive in blocking, removing, or monetizing it. The key was that Content ID allowed the creators to determine if and how their content could be viewed on YouTube, not the other way around.
Megaupload paid lip service to honoring DMCA takedown requests, but in actuality was playing a shell game, removing infringing links but not removing the actual files. If you read the 70 page federal indictment against notorious pirate cyberlocker website Megaupload, you will find this charge on page 10, section 22:
When a file is being uploaded to Megaupload.com, the Conspiracy’s automated system calculates a unique identifier for the file (called a “MD5 hash”) that is generated using a mathematical algorithm. If, after the MD5 hash calculation, the system determines that the uploading file already exists on a server controlled by the Mega Conspiracy, Megaupload.com does not reproduce a second copy of the file on that server. Instead, the system provides a newand unique URL link to the new user that is pointed to the original file already present on the server. If there is more than one URL link to a file, then any attempt by the copyright holder to terminate access to the file using the Abuse Tool or other DMCA takedown request will fail because the additional access links will continue to be available.
During my dealings with Megaupload I’d long suspected as much. Time after time, I’d remove links using Megaupload’s content management tool only to see a duplicate file reappear (with a new link) minutes later. Of course, unlike federal authorities, I did not have access to the actual content residing on Megaupload’s servers, so I couldn’t really prove it.
In the fall of 2011 while I was researching a pirate blog that offered illegal downloads to LGBT films, I saw that the film “Kyss Mig” was being pirated. Since it’s a film distributed by the same company (Wolfe Video) that distributes our film I notified them of the infringing link. A DMCA notice was sent and, as expected, the link was disabled. However, when I went back to the website the following day I noticed that the disabled link had been replaced by a new one. That led me to again notify Wolfe and the exercise in futility was repeated. A few days later I noticed that the link was alive yet again, but the blog owner had changed things up (to protect her download) and the link now took me to an intermediate site “undeadlink.com.”
Essentially the site offered a convenient way to regenerate links to supposedly “dead” files on Megaupload (and apparently Fileserve). If Megaupload had actually removed the infringing file when it was originally reported, this wouldn’t have been an option. However, because Megaupload apparently did exactly what is spelled out in the indictment, it was very possible (and efficient). When I discovered what was going on last fall, and that it verified my suspicions, I decided to record the process. This video documents what I found.
[fve]http://vimeo.com/35648310[/fve]
Dotcom likes to pontificate (to anyone who will listen) and claims he’s “…at the forefront of creating the cool stuff that will allow creative works to thrive in an Internet age. I have the solutions to your problems. I am not your enemy.” Were that really true, why didn’t Mr. Dotcom use technology to transform Megaupload.com into legitimate UGC site by implementing a Content ID system like Youtube’s? Oh right, he would have had to share the profits. Despite disingenuous rhetoric to the contrary, unlike YouTube, Megaupload actually employed technology to ensure that copyright infringement continued rather than prevent it.
It’s an ethos that has allowed online piracy for profit (under the guise of innovation) to propagate across the globe. Why invest in a product when it’s just as easy to steal (and monetize) it? Of course Dotcom and Michael Robertson (founder of MP3tunes who was found liable and hit with a 41 million dollar verdict last month in a copyright infringement suit) have both discovered there are consequences to such theft, but this should be the norm, not the exception. Dotcom’s unbridled hubris and greed got the better of him. One can only imagine what he could have achieved had he crossed over from the dark side and followed YouTube’s lead.
Moving forward, preventing such businesses from taking root in the first place should be one goal in Congressional efforts to update the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for the 21st century. For all its faults, YouTube’s Content ID system lights the way for a possible path forward in redefining “safe harbor.” If a website’s business model to is predicated on “sharing” creative work, providing content creators with technological tools to safeguard their work should be a requirement for meeting the “safe harbor” provisions of the law. Such a requirement would not “break” the internet. It actually would could go a long way in fixing what’s currently broken.
Meanwhile, while YouTube has thrived where Megaupload has failed, businesses like YouTube can and should better reward the creators on whose work they depend. As online distribution options grow and improve, hopefully many will say goodbye to the opaque revenue “sharing” model imposed by YouTube (and others) and take their content to sites/businesses where formulas for compensation are more transparent, and more generous to those who actually create the content.
A download link to a pirated copy of our film on Megaupload.com
BTW, is there a way indie artists could jump on board the lawsuit filed by the studios? Why not make it a class action affair? There are plenty of indie musicians, filmmakers and authors around the world whose works (and livelihoods) were ripped off by Kim Dotcom’s enterprise. In their lawsuit the studios are asking for maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement plus the profits the defendants generated. Just imagine how many new works might be in the offing if those thousands of creators whose works were pirated on Megaupload were awarded damages along with the studios?
*To this day there are still some YouTube users ‘s that earn ad revenue by uploading dubious content. Of course YouTube/Google earns income off these uploads too.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy, Tech
When people talk about DMCA abuse it’s usually folks representing companies like Google or the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Time and time again this red herring is used as a cudgel to attack those who believe in copyright law. However, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, if one really wants to examine the law and its potential for abuse it’s worthwhile to explain why Google and the EFF have it backwards.
Bottom line, if an erroneous DMCA is sent all the recipient really needs to do to stop enforcement is to file a “counter-claim.” Unless sender of the DMCA wants to spend money to go to court to enforce their rights, that’s it, end of the story. This is why the characterization of who is “damaged” should be reversed.
Let me show you an example that I recently uncovered that demonstrates my point. French indie filmmaker Celine Sciamma’s 2011 film “Tomboy” was uploaded to YouTube on July 13th of this year (all 122 minutes) At the time the film’s U.S. distributor, a small independent company, matched the infringing content via Content ID on YouTube and issued a DMCA “takedown” in order to remove the infringing copy from the site. The uploader, who goes by the YouTube user name “Dirceu Alves” filed a “counter-claim” with YouTube saying he had the right to upload the film.
At this point, regardless of the fact the YouTube user filed an false counter-notice, per U.S. law, the only option remaining for the distributor to enforce the takedown is spend money and seek a court order against the uploader:
If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber [emphasis added],the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.
Perhaps, because he appears to live in Brazil, Dirceu Alves isn’t too worried about being charged with perjury. Note YouTube’s instructions for filing a counter-claim to a DMCA notice:
A counter notification is a legal request for YouTube to reinstate a video that has been removed for alleged copyright infringement. The process may only be pursued in instances where the upload was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled, such as fair use. It should not be pursued under any other circumstances. [emphasis added]
Despite the fact this YouTube user does not own rights to this film in the United States (or anywhere), because its indie distributor doesn’t have deep pockets to fight the matter in court, the pirated movie remains online. Now, if the distributor tries to remove the pirated film, this is the notification from YouTube that appears:
According to a graphic overlaid at the beginning of the pirated film, the pirated copy originates from a Brazilian-based pirate website (offering illegal downloads). There’s also a companion Twitter account and Facebook Page as well. It’s not clear whether the YouTube account holder is one in the same, but the upload’s links to online piracy are obvious.
So, for all the hoopla surrounding DMCA abuse, maybe it’s time to look at who’s really damaged when the law is used under false circumstances–content creators who have limited resources to protect their work and their rights. As I wrote in an earlier post on this blog:
…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 online content has been removed in error, the owner can file a counter-claim. 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.
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.
Of course Google continues to publicly deflect criticism of its business practices by repeating the tired mantra that anything goes in the name of innovation. Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s CEO penned a panegyric for Google’s thinkwithGoogle newsletter, The Eight Pillars of Innovation, in which she waxed on about Google “striving for continual innovation, but not perfection.” She also makes this observation about Google’s mission:
Hmmm, I wonder if that special “in-depth” YouTube training includes any mention of copyright law and/or ethical business practices? Doubt it… Ironic too that YouTube doesn’t do a better job “evaluating” these companies once they’ve been certified.
