YouTube (and Netflix) monetize online piracy

tt0150662Need more evidence that Google’s YouTube earns income from pirates who upload (and monetize) films for which they don’t own the rights?  Well, here’s another example I found today (1/26/13).  This time it’s a YouTube user with the moniker “iWatchEpicMovies.”   The film in question (one of many the uploaded claimed by the user) is a 1998 Swedish film, released in the United States under the title “Show Me Love.” The original title in Swedish was “Fucking Amal.”

The film was uploaded to YouTube on January 23rd and claimed by the uploader, who asserted “ownership in the following countries: Worldwide.”  When you view the film on YouTube it’s monetized with advertising, meaning the uploader and YouTube earn money very view.  Not only is the pirated film monetized, but ironically,  one of the ads  superimposed over the screen is a Netflix ad.  So, in this case, Netflix is also benefiting from the presence of this pirated film on YouTube.  BTW, Netflix is no stranger to allowing its advertising to be promoted aside pirated movies.  I wrote about another recent example of this here.

FA Youtube online.024

Pirated film Monetized on YouTube by Google featuring Netflix Ads

Google/YouTube will, as always, claim that it’s the rights holder’s job to police YouTube and to request that infringing content be removed.  Of course, in the interim, Google’s happy to make money and Netflix is happy to attract new customers (and make money).

In another ironic twist to this pirated upload, the YouTube user posts this disclaimer “I do not claim copyrights.  For entertainment purposes only.”  Perhaps “iWatchEpicMovies” should rewrite it to clarify, and say:  “I do not claim copyrights, but I assert ownership (worldwide) for the purpose of making money off something I don’t own.”

 

This post first published on Vox Indie.

Chronic, Ill-Gotten Gains- Google’s Web of Piracy Profit

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

— Sir Walter Scott

 

Surprise, surprise–Google announced today that its profits “surged” this quarter thanks to an increase in online advertising revenue.  A company press release heralded the news:

We ended 2012 with a strong quarter,” said Larry Page, CEO of Google. “Revenues were up 36% year-on-year, and 8% quarter-on-quarter. And we hit $50 billion in revenues for the first time last year – not a bad achievement in just a decade and a half. In today’s multi-screen world we face tremendous opportunities as a technology company focused on user benefit. It’s an incredibly exciting time to be at Google.”

The company’s stock price jumped nearly 5% on the news.  So, while Google executives and its shareholders are happy, one has to ask–how much of that “revenue” continues to come from not-so-ethical sources?  I hate to sound like a broken record, but until Google gets its act together, I will continue to point out its duplicity with regard to online piracy and its ad revenue.

google-circle-piracy

In the wake of this bullish news from Google I thought I’d point out a recent case study that demonstrates the myriad of ways Google supports (and profits from) piracy. This particular pirate movie website (shown below) is hosted on Google’s free “Blogger” platform.  As with most other posts on the site, this one (published 1-18-13) features an embedded movie (a complete version of the indie film David’s Birthday) hosted via Google’s YouTube.  The advertising above, and to the right of the embedded film, is served up by Google’s AdSense.  Oh, and I found this site using Google’s search engine.

blogspot.com pirated movies

This Google-hosted blog features pirated films hosted on YouTube as well as AdSense advertising.

What makes this situation particularly troubling is that this blog had already been reported to Google (via their DMCA system) in December of 2012.   

Screen Shot 2013-01-19 at 7.06.14 PM

After receiving a takedown notice from Google the site’s owner posted a response, saying that he was considering closing it.

pirate blogger site

Blogger site owner received this notice from Google. Despite the warning and repeated violations of Blogger “Terms of Use” the site remains online.

He apparently had a change of heart, and within a few days, resumed posting (infringing) content on his site –including (ironically) the aforementioned “David’s Birthday” despite its having been cited in the December DMCA notice.  This time, instead of posting infringing download links, he’s chosen to embed movies streamed via YouTube, each coupled with AdSense ads.

removed page.018

So, despite having been reported for multiple infringing links, the site remains up and running.  In the meantime, Google appears to be in no hurry to take it offline.   Don’t they have an obligation to remove the site?  The language in Blogger’s Terms of Service outlining their “content policy” is conveniently vague.  When a site violates its policy Google promises to take action “based on the severity of the violation” but it’s not really clear what criteria is used to measure the “severity” of a reported violation.

blogger terms of serv.014

Blogger’s terms of service

As for the AdSense, its  “Terms of Service” seem pretty straightforward.  Well, sort of…

 Prohibited Uses. You shall not, and shall not authorize or encourage any third party to…

(v) display any Ad(s), Link(s), or Referral Button(s) on any Web page or any Web site that contains any pornographic, hate-related, violent, or illegal content;

6.      Termination; Cancellation…Google may investigate any activity that may violate this Agreement. Google may at any time, in its sole discretion, terminate all or part of the Program, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate the participation of any Property in all or part of the Program for any reason.

Since Google seems to have “investigated” this website in response to multiple DMCA notices, why is this AdSense account allowed to remain active?  Does the aggrieved party have to file a DMCA with Blogger and with AdSense over and over again?  It’s hard to imagine that Google’s copyright “team” isn’t aware these violations.  Does Google not have the money to hire staff to follow-up on reported sites to enforce compliance?  Is Google complying with U.S. law?  What is meant by the caveat “its [Google’s] sole discretion?”

Does looking at the actual law clarify matters?  According to Title 17 of U.S. Copyright Law, “conditions for eligibility” for “limitations on liability” include:

(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; (emphasis added)

How exactly does Google define a “repeat infringer?”  They apparently don’t.

In a post published in September of 2011 on its own Public Policy Blog entitled “Making Copyright Work Better Online-A Progress Report,” Google gave itself a pat on the back, asserting that the company had made great strides in discouraging ad-sponsored piracy.

Improving our AdSense anti-piracy review. We have always prohibited the use of our AdSense program on web pages that provide infringing materials, and we routinely terminate publishers who violate our policies. In recent months, we have worked hard to improve our internal enforcement procedures. In April, we were among the first companies to certify compliance in the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB’s) Quality Assurance Certification program, through which participating advertising companies will take steps to enhance buyer control over the placement and context of advertising and build brand safety. In addition, we have invited rightsholder associations to identify their top priority sites for immediate review, and have acted on those tips when we have received them.

Sounds good right? On paper perhaps, but given the continued and pervasive presence of Google-sponsored advertising on pirate sites throughout the web,  the reality is that Google’s public pledge appears to be carefully crafted lip-service designed to obfuscate the facts, rather than a representation of any meaningful progress.

Over the past two and a half years I’ve written extensively about Google’s ongoing link to ad piracy profits.  Earlier this month USC’s Annenberg Innovation Lab released a report documenting the fact that search giant is at the head of the pack when it comes to monetizing (and subsidizing) online piracy via its ad networks.  The relationship between Google and online piracy seems clear as day.

Yet, in the meantime–Google apparently plays fast and loose with the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision.  Given the fact they have teams of lawyers, one has to assume the company is careful to follow the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of it.  Did the legislators who crafted the DMCA really intend for the law to enable entities like Google to hide behind the shield of safe harbor, under the guise of “innovation and free expression”–while simultaneously make (lots of) money monetizing stolen content?   I doubt it.

Even the advertising industry recognizes that this is a area of concern.  In May of last year The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and the America Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s) issued a statement entitled,  “Best Practices to Address Online Piracy and Counterfeiting.”   The statement included the following:

 (i) All such intermediaries shall use commercially reasonable measures to prevent ads from being placed on such sites;

(ii) All such intermediaries shall have and implement commercially reasonable processes for removing or excluding such sites from their services, and for expeditiously terminating non-compliant ad placements, in response to reasonable and sufficiently detailed complaints or notices from rights holders and advertisers;

(iii) All such intermediaries shall refund or credit the advertiser for the fees, costs and/or value associated with non-compliant ad placements, or provide alternative remediation.

So, back to Google.  Would a “reasonable measure” include removing AdSense ads from a site reported for piracy?  What about reimbursing the advertiser who paid Google for these “non-compliant” ads and how does the fact Blogger is a Google-hosted site factor in?  Should ad services do business with hosts that routinely serve pirated ads?  In other words,  should Google (AdSense) do business with itself (Blogger) if they are to honor these “best practices?”

My head is spinning.  I guess that’s just the way the powers that be at Google like it.

 

This story originally posted on my other blog, voxindie.org. 

Googlenocchio? What a Tangled Web They Weave.

"Google is committed to being an industry leader in eradicating this behavior."

 “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”    –Winston Churchill    

 

I read with great interest the piece in today’s New York Times by Edward Wyatt entitled “Lines Drawn on Antipiracy Bills.”  The article was a fairly comprehensive overview of the standoff between the tech sector and those who represent the interest of content creators (filmmakers, musicians, authors, etc.) in the debate over the”Stop Online Piracy Act” currently playing out in Washington.

 

I was particularly interested to read the section on Google, and how, according to those at Google, the company was very responsive when it came to enforcing copyright, etc.  After all, they’d removed on more than 5 MILLION infringing links in response to DMCA notices over the years.  Poor Google….never mind that number represents probably a fraction of infringing links served up by Google.

Frankly, I’m not concerned about Google’s search engine, nor  have I  ever sent them a DMCA requesting the removal of search results for infringing links to our film.  No, the part of the article that made my head explode was this zinger offered by a Google policy counsel, Katherine Oyama,  in her recent testimony before the House committee.  From Wyatt’s article:

Ms. Oyama added that Google also ejected companies from its advertising system when notified of illegal activities.”

Frankly, I was blown away by this observation and immediately jumped online to find the actual transcript from the hearing on November 16th of this year.  From her testimony:

We also employ a wide array of procedures and expend considerable financial resources to prevent our advertising products from being used to monetize material that infringe copyright. For example, our AdSense program enables website publishers to display ads alongside their content. Our policies prohibit the use of this program for infringing sites, and we use automated and manual review to weed out abuse. In 2010, we took action on our own initiative against nearly 12,000 sites for violating this policy. Already in 2011, we have taken action against 12,000 more. We also respond swiftly when notified by rightsholders, and we recently agreed to improve our AdSense anti-piracy review procedures and are working together with rightsholders on better ways to identify websites that violate our policies.

Was she under oath when she made this claim?  I certainly hope not. In my experience with Google over this past year and a half, nothing she said bears any resemblance to my reality.  Perhaps she resides in a parallel Google-verse where the company takes copyright law and the rights of creators seriously?  In my Google-verse it’s a company that seems to bend over backwards to avoid taking responsibility when it comes to the monetization of infringing content .

Over the past year and a half I’ve repeatedly sent DMCA notices to Google reporting pirate sites featuring AdSense advertising (and links to our film). While most of the links I reported were eventually removed, most infuriating was the fact that the pirate sites didn’t skip a beat and continued to display Google ads aside their myriad of pirated movie offerings.   As far as I could tell–and contrary to what Ms. Oyama claimed in her testimony–these AdSense accounts (more recently camouflaged  as AdChoices) were rarely, if ever, disabled by Google.  To add insult to injury, in most cases I usually discovered fresh links to our film posted on those very same sites a day or two later.  AdSense accounts were never disabled despite clear evidence the reported site was in business of pirating movies.  In her testimony Oyama went on to state:

We will need the cooperation of rightsholders to identify and terminate our services to the sites that manage to evade our procedures. While the industry is aggressively going after this abuse, it is a cat-and-mouse game to stay ahead of the bad actors. Google is committed to being an industry leader in eradicating this behavior.

Cooperation of rights holders?  Huh?  I’m sorry but this heartfelt plea rings a tad hollow considering Google makes a practice of sending DMCA notices it receives to the Chilling Effects website, in a veiled effort to dissuade (intimidate) rightsholders from exercising their rights under the law. For the record, over these past months, I’ve repeatedly “cooperated” with Google and reported hundreds of infringing pirate sites displaying Google ads.  I’ve tried to engage them and ask why these pirate operators are allowed to retain active AdSense accounts despite obvious, repeated violations of the Terms of Service.  Aside from boilerplate emails in response to my DMCA notices, I’ve not heard a peep from the folks in Mountain View.  So much for “needing the cooperation of rightsholders.”

Meanwhile, Google continues to profit and funnel money to pirate websites operators around the world. Sorry, but I don’t believe one word of what  Ms. Oyama had to say about Google’s efforts to thwart those violating its AdSense Terms of Service. Don’t believe me? Check out this video I made documenting Google’s aversion to enforcing its own AdSense “Terms of Service.” Of course, in addition to highlighting all of Google’s supposed good works in the area of copyright enforcement, Ms. Oyama went on to say:

Last December, we announced that we were building new tools and procedures to enable us to act on reliable DMCA takedown requests within 24 hours. We are happy to report that we have met and exceeded that goal.

Of course, this too  rings rather hollow considering my experience last week (described in a recent blog post “The Road to Google DMCA Hell is Paved With Good Intentions”).  Is it any wonder I find everything that comes out of Google HQ self-serving, disingenuous rhetoric?  Google’s public posturing makes for good political theater and soundbites that resonate with eager acolytes across the web, but sadly, they reflect little in the way of truth.  Sorry, but I don’t believe a word they say.

Google Ads grace pirate websites around the world.

Dear Google, I have a suggestion…

If you’ve read this blog you already know that Google reaps in millions (if not billions) of profit via online piracy. It’s no surprise, therefore that Google is fighting tooth and nail against efforts by Congress to enact a law that would reign in the rampant online black market flourishes thanks piracy (and Google’s ad money).

Since Google under is under scrutiny, company flacks have been giving lip service to the notion of fighting piracy  (never mind that no one ever pins them down when it comes to specifics).  So I have a very specific suggestion to offer.  Everyone knows Google owns Youtube.  Many may not know that Youtube has instituted a pretty decent “Content Management System” which allows rights holders to fingerprint their content (audio, video or both) and receive an alert when content matching theirs is uploaded.  The rights holder can then determine the fate of their content.  They can remove it, block it by territory, track it, or monetize it (sharing proceeds with Google).  While the system is imperfect, it’s certainly better than the alternative.

In addition to offering this fairly workable CMS system, I think there’s another way for Youtube/Google to effectively combat piracy on their site.

Pirate thieves are entrepreneurs at heart.  Money is what drives them.  Since they can’t upload and/or monetize content they own via Youtube they resort to the next, best thing.  They use Youtube as an advertising vehicle–a convenient gateway–to connect “customers” to their illegal websites.

Dummy file on Youtube linking to pirate site.

It’s pretty simple.  The pirates upload dummy content and title and tag it with terms associated to a specific film.  This happens with tons of Hollywood fare but it also happens with indie titles as well.

Here are several examples of “dummy” files for indie films I found on Youtube today.  Note in the video window there’s often a screen capture from the film and clear instructions how to find a “free” stream or download.  Also if you look at the description, there’s usually a direct link to the pirate website along with a description that provides search terms designed to drive users to the content.  (film title and link obscured for obvious reasons).  Note that I took this screen cap on the same day (January 15th, that the dummy file was uploaded to Youtube.

Dummy file on Youtube linking to pirate website.

I should note that many of the website that these dummy videos link to are portals that require customers to pay a fee for access.  Others allow users to download or stream the film at no cost (the site earns income from ads).

Now I’m sure Youtube/Google cannot totally eliminate this problem but I have to believe they could do something to monitor and remove dummy content that provides a gateway to online pirates.  How?  Well, I’m not an engineer but I know Google employs some of the best in the world.  Why can’t they develop algorithms and content matching technology that ferrets out these dummy files? (This file was upload on 1/14 and by 1/15 had received 41 views).

Dummy file uploaded to Youtube to advertise illegal pirate website.

It’s not rocket science to figure out the tags used by these pirates– “steaming” “download” “online” “free” “full movie.”   Why not implement automated search technology that can tag such content.  Why not hire staff whose job it is to examine tagged content to determine if it was uploaded with the express purpose of linking to an illegal pirate website?  It doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to do.  Why give pirates yet another “free” way to disseminate their stolen goods?  How ‘bout it Google?  What do you say?

The Road to Google DMCA Hell is Paved with Good Intentions….

A year ago, in December of 2010, Kent Walker, General Counsel for Google, promised to make “copyright work better online.”  According to his post on Google’s Public Policy website Walker assured copyright holders:

We’ll act on reliable copyright takedown requests within 24 hours. We will build tools to improve the submission process to make it easier for rightsholders to submitDMCA takedown requests for Google products (starting with Blogger and web Search). And for copyright owners who use the tools responsibly, we’ll reduce our average response time to 24 hours or less.

Well, as well all know,  the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  This afternoon in my email I received responses to 3 DMCA notices I’d sent to Google regarding ads which appeared on pirate websites aside download links to my film.  It’s nice to get a response, but there’s only one problem.  Today’s emails were in  response to DMCA notices I sent to Google last March–March 31st to be exact.  Today is December 7th, 2011,by my count that’s more than 8 months (or approximately 5,928 hours) later– just a tad longer than Mr. Walker’s promise of 24.  Oh well, better luck next time, eh?

Click to see full size image.

 

 


“Show Me the Money” Mr. Schmidt

It’s not a surprise that Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt continued his attacks on proposed U.S. anti-piracy legislation (Protect IP Act and SOPA-Stop Online Piracy Act).  His latest volley came yesterday during an appearance at M.I.T.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov 15 (Reuters) – Google Inc Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt blasted proposed legislation to tighten online copyright regulation on Tuesday, saying the bills would lead to censorship of the Internet.

Intended to combat the trade in pirated movies and music, the two bills would give copyright holders and law enforcement officials added powers to cut off websites and require search engines, payment collectors and others to block access.

“The solutions are draconian,” Schmidt said during an appearance at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “There’s a bill that would require (Internet service providers) to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked.”

Forgive me if I find his protestations a tad disingenuous, if not laughable.  Of course he’s against the legislation, and it’s not because of some higher principle.  He’s against it because, if passed,  it would hit Google where it hurts–in the pocketbook.  If Chairman Schmidt wants me, and others, to take him seriously I would suggest that he engage in a bit of corporate soul-searching and come clean about just how much money Google makes from ad revenues earned off products placed on pirate websites.  By the way, in the most recent quarter, Google reported 9.3 billion in advertising revenue.

If the cure is really that much worse than the disease, then why not prove it?  SHOW ME THE MONEY Mr. Schmidt. Show me, and everyone else concerned about this issue,  that Google doesn’t earns millions off content theft and counterfeit products.  Open your books and prove it.  Show me where that 9.3 billion in advertising profits came from.  Maybe then you will have the credibility to speak on this issue. A little transparency could go a long way.  For now, it just seems like all you are doing is protecting Google’s profits at the expense of others.