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.

Copyhype “Support for Rogue Site Legislation Continues to Grow”

Last May, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the PROTECT IP Act, which aims to reduce the ability for sites dedicated to infringement to profit from piracy. Now that Congress is back in session, House Judiciary chairman Lamar Smith plans to introduce a House version of the bill.

In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee released its report on the proposed legislation. The report includes the bill’s background and legislative history to date, as well as a section-by-section summary and other housekeeping bits.

What’s notable about PROTECT IP is how broad the support for it is. On the political front, the support is bi-partisan and from every level of government, from local to state to federal.

To read full blog post at Copyhype.com go here.

I wish the press would cover the real story of the Protect IP Act

This letter was written to James Temple whose column “Don’t be overzealous on Internet copyright limits” was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on 6/15/11.

Dear James,

I read with great interest your column “Don’t be overzealous on Internet copyright limits” in today’s San Francisco Chronicle.  While I appreciate very much what you had to say with regard the proposed Protect IP legislation and the need to balance risks versus rewards, I believe you overlooked an important element of the story—the impact that online piracy is having on content creators (filmmakers, musicians, artists, authors, photographers, etc.)  This isn’t just about big business battling it out over the legislation.  The proposed law, imperfect as it may be, is an overdue step in the right direction to protect the livelihoods–and legal rights–of the “little guys” as well.  With that in mind, as a local independent filmmaker, I thought I’d share some personal perspectives on the negative impact online piracy is having on content creators and what I see as possible solutions.

A little over a year ago the film I co-produced/co-directed “And Then Came Lola” (financed through credit cards, personal and home equity loans) was released on DVD and VOD (video on demand).   My filmmaking partner and I were excited because we could finally see the possibility of paying off our production debts which, by that time, had reached nearly $250,000.

Like many independents, though our film screened in nearly 100 festivals worldwide, we didn’t have any sort of theatrical release. As such, most of our income would come from the back-end.  Once released, our film was made available worldwide on DVD, Blu-ray and via on VOD via iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Busk Films and others online platforms.

Now, I wasn’t totally naive when it came to issue of online piracy, so I’d given some consideration to strategies as how best to deal with it.  But the fact is, when the day came and our film hit the streets, I wasn’t prepared for what actually transpired.  Within 24 hours, copies of our film could be found online. Soon one link became hundreds, which became thousands, which, by mid-summer, became tens of thousands—a figure that doesn’t begin to count the tens of thousands we DIDN’T find on websites throughout the world, China, Egypt, Russian, etc.  Multiply each of those illegal streams and links, downloaded or viewed hundreds, sometimes thousands of times (in one case 300,000 times) and you can begin to appreciate astounding numbers, even for a small independent film like ours.  Of course not every illegal download equals a lost sale, but even if you only count a fraction of them as lost revenue, the number becomes financially significant.

At first, I dutifully tried to send out DMCA take-down notices to the various websites that had stolen our film. Unfortunately, for independent artists combating tens of thousands of links, the DMCA is sort like being handed an umbrella and told to go stand under Niagara Falls.  It’s not a very effective solution.

After wading through the various websites and investigating the mechanisms by which our film was being illegally distributed, a light bulb went off.   This rampant theft was NOT motivated by altruism–it was motivated by GREED.  Those who stole our film (and thousands of others) were making money from their theft.

Since I’m a journalist by training and teach courses in new media as my day job, I decided to use those skills to document my discoveries on a blog (https://voxindie.org/pirates) in the hope that I could educate, and inform, creators and end-users about the true nature of today’s online piracy.

Once you spend a few minutes online examining these illicit websites, the business model is pretty clear. It’s all about generating web traffic.  Steal some enticing content (like movies) both studio-produced and indie–pirates are equal opportunity thieves—to drive traffic to your website so you can make money via advertising (services like AdSense, AdBrite, etc.).

A more insidious and growing threat are the so-called cyber-locker sites, or UGC (user-generated-content) sites, like Megaupload, Rapidshare and Filesonic.  These are cloud-based storage sites, spreading like a cancer across  the internet, that offer “free” uploading/downloading of large files.  When you examine the UGC business model closely it becomes clear that these sites essentially produce mini-pirates by offering CASH rewards to “partners” who upload content (mostly illegal) then share those links with as many people as possible.  The more downloads a partner tallies, the more CASH they earn.  In turn, by increasing traffic to their sites through this model, cyber-lockers make money from advertising and by offering paid subscriptions enabling faster download speeds (i.e. 3 minutes versus 30).

This black-market business model, and the cash incentives these sites offer, is helping fuel piracy’s rapid growth.  The cash rewards are a recruiting tool and entice members of the public to join what is essentially, an army of pirate “partners.”  By encouraging users to spread illegal downloads “virally” the cyber-lockers successfully seed their illegal links on websites far and wide.  More partners join, more content is stolen and more traffic comes to the cyber-locker operators.  The more traffic, the more money. Everyone makes money in this scenario except the content creators.

To be honest, online piracy makes me long for the good old days of bootleg DVDs. At least that illegal activity required an investment on the part of the thief (DVDs, replication, packaging, etc.). Sales were limited to corner stores or flea markets. They had a tangible “product” and had to spend resources to deliver it.  Had we released our film five years ago there’s no doubt we would have easily earned our investment back.  Now, with a mere click of a mouse, a web pirate can steal our work and profit from it. This kind of activity, were it happening in the brick and mortar world, would be roundly condemned and stopped through legal means. Now, no matter how creative one’s business model, no matter that for the price of a coffee you can watch a legit copy of our film online–it’s hard to compete with FREE.

Indie filmmakers don’t make movies to make millions, but it would be nice to be able to pay our bills and put food on the table. There are lots of people who work behind-the-scenes (on productions large and small) whose jobs are threatened by this ever-growing threat. Don’t they deserve some protection as well?

This isn’t only about Hollywood or the RIAA versus the rest of the world, it’s about all creators—the Hollywood studios AND the independents, musicians, artists, etc.  People’s livelihoods are being threatened and, if something isn’t done, it’s the consumer who will lose out as the diversity and the quality of creative content available will decline.  Only those with deep pockets will survive and they will be forced to focus on blockbuster movies that guarantee a healthy return at the box office.

We will never be totally rid of piracy, but, as content creators work daily to adapt to a changing online world, I believe our laws should also adapt.   The internet is not sacred, nor should it be lawless.  We can make a difference if we focus on cutting off the blood supply—the illicit money—that encourages, enables and sustains piracy.  If effective legislation can be passed that targets this cog in the online piracy business machine, I believe it will go a long way to level the playing field and give content creators a fighting chance.

Perhaps the legislation that’s been introduced is imperfect.  If so, we all need to work together to offers ideas and craft this law in a way that protects the interests of those who make their living creating, as well as the consumer. Since there are some in Washington and elsewhere—free speech advocates, and individuals like Senator Ron Wyden, who oppose the Protect IP Act, I’d ask them to come forward to offer some alternatives.

It’s easy to stand in the way of a proposed law–what takes courage is having the willingness to come to the table to work with others to craft a solution.   I hope that time comes soon.

Sincerely,

Ellen Seidler
Fast Girl Films

 

Chilling Effects DMCA Agent?

From Chris Castle’s Music-Tech-Policy Blog:

One of the intimidation tactics regularly used by Google in responding to DMCA notices is to forward the notice to something called the Chilling Effects Clearing House. The website promotes itself as being run as “[a] joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.”

What these people do is repost your DMCA notice for a nice Two Minutes Hate from the Google Amen Chorus.  (A random sampling of the re-posted DMCA notices shows that all the re-published notices seem to be from Google.)  And so here’s the interesting thing about ChillingEffects.com.  It is republishing links (or at least the text of links) to what pretty clearly seem to be infringing websites.  So in case you were looking for a handy repository of this information, it’s probably one of the best.

Chilling Effects redacts some information from the DMCA letters–some but not all.  And based on what I’ve seen so far, one data point they never delete is the link (or at least the text of the link) to the infringing work.  So, why aren’t they just redistributing and republishing the (at least potentially) infringing links?

To read the full post on this topic, go to the Musictechpolicy.com blog here.

Ironic Much? Google Sends Copyright Violators to “School?”

Perhaps Google should send members of “The Google Team” to “copyright school” while they’re at it. Seems the folks at AdSense prefer to look the other way when it comes to copyright infringement.

Google released a set of tougher copyright policies for YouTube online video users on Thursday, requiring violators to watch a copyright tutorial and pass a test before allowing them to continue using the service.

The search giant has faced mounting criticism from lawmakers and the entertainment industry for not doing enough to combat online copyright infringement.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53178.html#ixzz1JW6l1q6c

NY Times Op-Ed

An excellent piece in the New York Times about the impact of online piracy has had, and will have, on content creators of all stripes:

Op-Ed Contributors

Published: February 14, 2011

Would the Bard Have Survived the Web?

By SCOTT TUROW, PAUL AIKEN and JAMES SHAPIRO

ARCHAEOLOGISTS finished a remarkable dig last summer in East London. Among their finds were seven earthenware knobs, physical evidence of a near perfect 16th-century experiment into the link between commerce and culture.    To read full Op-Ed piece in the NY Times go here.