IPPro The Internet Issue 140

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Supported Piracy We live in a cynical age where the public and the commentariat frequently dismiss, even demonise, the interests of copyright owners What complicates matters is that pirates frequently operate in foreign jurisdictions. We live in a cynical age where the public and the commentariat frequently dismiss, even demonise, the interests of copyright owners. For example, we are aware of a case where the producer of a Bollywood blockbuster tracked down a file-sharing website to central Europe. The pirates, of foreign origin, hadn’t the faintest clue about Indian cinema, but got wind of the fact that the film was commercially successful and could earn their website thousands of clicks (and, therefore, significant ad revenues). We also received information that, in 2015, the Indian government had complained to the US government about 500-odd US websites abetting Bollywood piracy. The list included Google (see below, discussed in a paper by law professor Arpan Banerjee, who shared with us the information): For many, corporations like Disney and Fox are gluttonous merchants of “free market fundamentalism”, to borrow an expression from the noted copyright scholar William Patry (incidentally, also senior copyright counsel at Google). As the High Court of Ireland observed in EMI v Eircom: “Among younger people, so much has the habit grown of downloading copyright material from the internet that a claim of entitlement seems to have arisen to have what is not theirs for free.” Adding to this are legal complications. Identifying and suing pirates overseas is extremely difficult, especially when many governments are not proactive in enforcing foreign copyrights. And while advertisers and brands are easily identifiable, it is hard to argue that the unintentional placement of ads on pirate channels amounts to infringement. Under these circumstances, dismantling advertising on pirate websites, through a non-litigious arrangement, could be a neat solution for embattled copyright owners. Here, the City of London’s Police IP Crime Unit (PIPCU) has been a success story of sorts. PIPCU maintains an Infringing Website List for online advertisers to be aware of. PIPCU can also block ads on infringing websites reported to it. Yet, pirates can evade PIPCU actions by migrating to different domains, free speech laws constrain action in many cases, and, most importantly, PIPCU is confined to Britain. Therefore, effective action against ad-supported piracy can perhaps best arise from a privately ordered arrangement, involving discussions between copyright owners and other stakeholders. Not necessarily a bad thing. No end-user targeted. No messy lawsuits. No police. No adverse publicity. Weatherley has called on to Google to “take the lead” and “maximise the prioritisation of sites with legitimate content” in search results. 24 IPPro The Internet www.ipprotheinternet.com
Supported Piracy Google has certainly recognised the problem of “badvertising” (to borrow a term from the FICCI-SIPI report) in the context of hate websites. According to recent news reports, YouTube will impose stricter criteria for the types of videos that can earn money from it, to prevent racist and extremist YouTube channels from benefiting commercially. This after a host of complaints to Google from reputed corporations, peeved at their ads showing up on hate channels. But why has badvertising on pirate websites and YouTube channels not triggered the same response? It could be that brands and advertisers see piracy as a much lesser evil than hate speech—an eminently justifiable position. Furthermore, considering the popularity of illegal downloading, some brands may even feel happy, or at least indifferent, about having their ads on pirate websites. Consider the screenshots to the right, from the FICCI-SIPI report, showing ads from Facebook and Shaadi (an Indian matchmaking portal) on a pirate website. Both Facebook and Shaadi cater to a young demographic, as does the pirate website. So why should these ads be a problem for either Facebook or Shaadi? One response could be that a sense of ethics should guide Facebook and Shaadi’s advertising policies. Another argument could be that such badvertising could harm Facebook and Shaadi’s brand image if users end up downloading viruses and malware. One could also point out that pirate websites often contain ads for pornographic websites, which Facebook and Shaadi may not like to see their ads being placed next to. Here, copyright owners will have a fair amount of convincing to do. Nevertheless, as the old fable reminds us, persuasion is better than force—especially if the latter has to be exercised against inoffensive grandmothers and teenagers. IPPro Both Facebook and Shaadi cater to a young demographic, as does the pirate website. So why should these ads be a problem for either Facebook or Shaadi? Bharat Dube, CEO, Strategic IP Information 25 IPPro The Internet www.ipprotheinternet.com
Page 1: ISSUE140 17 April 2018 www.ipprothe
Page 4 and 5: Contents www.ipprotheinternet.com @
Page 6 and 7: News Round-Up will the questions re
Page 8 and 9: News Round-Up Hargreaves imported l
Page 10 and 11: Corporate Brand Services Corporate
Page 12 and 13: Copyright Reform the Brussels polit
Page 14 and 15: Country Profile recognised, even th
Page 16 and 17: Case Report The Microsoft case: Wha
Page 18 and 19: J. Varbanov & Partners European and
Page 20 and 21: Alibaba Update As an example, in 20
Page 22 and 23: Supported Piracy Badvertising: This
Page 27 and 28: Record Emmanuel Harrar of IPzen exp
Page 30 and 31: Industry Events AIPPI Israel Confer
Page 32: Industry Appointments Movers and sh

IPPro The Internet Issue 140

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?