Copyright Scammers Getting More Sophisticated, Just As The US Is About To Make It Easier For Them

from the giving-more-power-to-the-scammers dept

Back in May, we wrote about the growing number of pure copyright scammers, using completely made up claims of copyright infringement as a form of a phishing technique. As I mentioned in a comment, we get multiple such messages every week here at Techdirt -- with almost identical comments being placed (or attempted at least -- since our spam filter seems to have caught all or most of them) on various Techdirt articles claiming infringement. They always came with a link to "the evidence," (which we never clicked of course).

These scams are different than standard copyright trolling, in which there may even be a kernel of truth in the initial copyright claim. Here, the scammers are just phishing for logins or other private data, and using the ridiculously overbroad power of copyright statutory damages to frighten people into coughing up the information. And, not surprisingly, the scam is evolving. Sophos recently reported that it's now seeing scammers sending the copyright threats with phone numbers to call, rather than phishing links.

In this case, the crooks are deliberately avoiding using a “call to action” link that leads to a fake login page or an unlikely domain name, which could easily be blocked by cybersecurity products or even by your browser.

They’ve copied a trick that tech support scammers have been using for years, and that some ransomware scammers have recently adopted, namely giving you a toll-free phone number to call for “help”.

Given that the call is free, and given that phoning up doesn’t directly expose your computer or your browser to fake websites or booby-trapped downloads…

…it feels as though dialling the number ought to be a low-risk option by means of which you can quickly find out whether this is a scam or not.

All we can say is, “Don’t do it!”

Never feel bullied, pressurised, lured, seduced or cajoled into contacting someone you don’t know on their say-so.

Remember that the crooks at the other end of the phone line in this case are almost certainly not in the US, even though the contact number is directed via a US tollfree service.

And these scammers take calls like this for a living, so they know every trick in the social engineering book.

The best that can happen if you do call back is that you will reveal nothing about yourself that you didn’t mean to; the worst is that you might just blurt out something you later wish you hadn’t.

Of course, what's really concerning about all this is that, very soon, these scammers will have another tool to use to intimidate people. At the end of this year, the Copyright Office is supposed to be launching the Copyright Claims Board, the key part of the CASE Act that Congress slipped into a "must pass" government funding bill at the end of last year.

Defenders of the CASE Act insisted that the system can't be abused, because it includes an "opt-out." We've already detailed why that's not going to work -- but it also ignores that not all abuse actually involves using the system in the first place. Instead, merely threatening people with taking them to the Copyright Claims Board will almost certainly be added to the playbook of these scammers. Since there will be news articles and coverage about the CCB and what it means for people, it will feel that much more "legitimate" to potential victims of these scammers.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, links, phishing, phone calls, scammers, scams

Letting Newspapers Band Together To Demand Payments From Internet Companies Is Bad For The Internet And Bad For Journalism

from the bad-ideas dept

In the wake of Australia getting its ridiculous, anti-open internet link tax passed into law, the push to create similar such laws everywhere else has gone into overdrive. In the US, the main driver of this effort (which has been pushed by legacy newspaper giants) has been an antitrust exemption that would allow the newspapers to collude, in order to put up (what they think is) a joint effort to demand that Google and Facebook pay them for links. The supposed "antitrust" wing of the Democratic party, David Cicilline in the House and Amy Klobuchar in the Senate, have decided that this is a good idea and introduced the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) (here's the House version). Leaving aside the oddity of thinking that the best way to deal with what you believe are dominant firms is to allow other firms to collude and avoid antitrust laws, the entire proposal is silly, and potentially destructive to the open internet.

Public Knowledge has put together a letter to Congress explaining why (our think tank, the Copia Institute, has signed onto the letter). In a separate blog post, Public Knowledge notes that while it as an organization has been largely supportive of Cicilline and Klobuchar's antitrust efforts around the tech companies (something we at Techdirt are somewhat less convinced by), this bill is a complete disaster.

The key part is exactly what we highlighted was wrong with the Australian law. The idea that this is a competition issue and that newspapers need to be able to band together to have enough clout to negotiate a price for linking to their stories has a totally false underlying assumption, that there's some underlying right to be paid for links. The whole nature of the open internet is that you don't need permission or a license to link to someone else. But this bill seems to think that's not true. And that's a problem.

The JCPA would create an antitrust law exception to allow certain publishers the ability to jointly negotiate business terms with major online platforms. Notably, it does not otherwise alter substantive law. However, no individual news publication currently has any legal right (via copyright, or any other statute) to prohibit third parties from linking to their content. Nor does banding together to collectively negotiate give such a right. In other words, a cartel of news sites is exactly as powerless to prevent Facebook or Google from linking to its members’ content as a small site would be negotiating on its own.

And that could lead some -- perhaps even courts -- to think that this bill actually alters copyright law to mean that you do need a license to link, and that would be horrific for the open internet.

This central disconnect means that the structure of the bill does not achieve its stated legislative aims. As such, we are concerned that this bill could be interpreted by courts to implicitly change the scope of copyright, expanding the exclusive rights that news publications enjoy in their material beyond what any copyright owner has ever enjoyed. To the extent that this creates a new substantive right to demand that material not be linked to, this is unwise; to the extent that it interferes with fair use rights, particularly of the rights of users of platforms, it is unconstitutional and violative of our international obligations.

The ability of one website to connect (“link”) to other websites, without needing to negotiate to do so, is a foundational component of modern internet infrastructure. Linking is not, and has never been, an act within the scope of copyright. It is not within the statutory or common-law ambit of copyright law, as merely linking to a piece of external content is not a reproduction, display, performance, or distribution of that content. As such rightsholders do not--and should not--have the ability under copyright law to prevent third parties from linking to their publicly available content. (Notably, the vast majority of rightsholders do not want such a right, and those that do already have technical methods which allow them to do so.)

Once again, what we're seeing with Klobuchar and Cicilline is that they're so deeply infatuated with the idea that "big tech is bad" that they fail to bother to look at the details of their own proposals and what they would mean for the open internet.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, antitrust, cmpetition, collusion, copyright, david cicilline, jcpa, link tax, links, negotiations, newspapers

Microsoft Attacks The Open Web Because It's Jealous Of Google's Success

from the stop-it dept

Lots of attention has been paid to the mess down in Australia with its news link tax "bargaining code", and Facebook's response to it, including the eventual caving. So now both Google and Facebook have effectively agree to pay a tax to Australia's largest media companies... for daring to send them free traffic. It's the most bizarre thing in the world. Imagine if every time TV stations ran an advertisement, they also had to pay the advertiser. That's what this is.

However, we should focus in a bit on Microsoft's role in all of this. First, before Google agreed to its deal and was threatening to shut down news links in Australia, Microsoft stepped in and said it would gladly support the law. This was so transparently greedy of the company. Basically, Microsoft has realized that it's failure to actually be able to compete in the marketplace means that it wants to support this kind of law knowing that one of two things will happen: (1) Google will bail out of a market, leaving it open to Microsoft or (2) it'll just cost its competitor Google a lot of money.

The fact that it also fucks with the basic concept of the open web and not having to pay to link doesn't seem to enter into Microsoft's calculus at all. This takes Microsoft back to the shameful era in which it paid some godawful amount of money to political trickster Mark Penn not to help Microsoft better compete, but to simply attack Google like a political candidate. This is classic political entrepreneurship rather than market entrepreneurship. It's a sign of failure, when you're not trying to actually innovate, but simply abusing the political process to hamstring competitors.

But, in this case, it's even worse, because it's not just Google and Facebook that get screwed, but the entire concept of the open web.

And it gets worse. Microsoft seems so positively giddy about how this all worked out in Australia, that it's now taken the campaign global. Microsoft's President, Brad Smith wrote a blog post calling for this policy to be adopted elsewhere. Incredibly, Smith seems to argue that the attack on the Capitol might not have happened if Google and Facebook were taxed this way globally. The whole thing is just... so obnoxiously dishonest. It bemoans the loss of "professional journalism" and blames it all on social media.

But that's garbage. Multiple studies have shown that Fox News was a bigger problem in spreading disinformation than social media. And, remember, that Fox News boss Rupert Murdoch is the main beneficiary of the Australian law. It's literally taking money from the less problematic spreader of disinfo and giving it to the more problematic one. But Smith/Microsoft act as if this is all for the good of society:

The ideas are straightforward. Dominant tech properties like Facebook and Google will need to invest in transparency, including by explaining how they display news content.

Even more important, the legislation will redress the economic imbalance between technology and journalism by mandating negotiations between these tech gatekeepers and independent news organizations. The goal is to provide the news organizations with compensation for the benefit derived by tech gatekeepers from the inclusion of news content on their platforms.

This has been Murdoch's framing all along and it's total bullshit. There is no "imbalance" here because there's nothing to negotiate over. You don't need to negotiate to link. It's a free thing, and as we saw when Facebook pulled its links, and all these news organizations started whining, it showed that those news organizations actually recognize they derive value from the free links. The whole thing is ridiculous.

And Smith tries to frame it as if it's protecting democracy and the American way. That's garbage.

These are now pressing questions for the Biden administration. Facebook and Google persuaded the Trump administration to object to Australia’s proposal. However, as the United States takes stock of the events on January 6, it’s time to widen the aperture.

The ultimate question is what values we want the tech sector and independent journalism to serve. Yes, Australia’s proposal will reduce the bargaining imbalance that currently favors tech gatekeepers and will help increase opportunities for independent journalism. But this a defining issue of our time that goes to the heart of our democratic freedoms. As we wrote in 2019, “The tech sector was born and has grown because it has benefited from these freedoms. We owe it to the future to help ensure that these values survive and even flourish long after we and our products have passed from the scene.”

The United States should not object to a creative Australian proposal that strengthens democracy by requiring tech companies to support a free press. It should copy it instead.

I'm an independent journalist. This isn't going to help me. There's no way in hell any of these solutions will ever involve us getting any money out of this, and if it did, then suddenly there would be all sorts of questions about whether or not we could even cover those companies fairly, since they'd be a key source of revenue. How the hell does this help democracy?

And, then it gets even worse. Soon after, Microsoft announced that it was teaming up with EU publishers to seek a similar link tax in the EU.

Microsoft is teaming up with European publishers to push for a system to make big tech platforms pay for news, raising the stakes in the brewing battle led by Australia to get Google and Facebook to pay for journalism.

The Seattle tech giant and four big European Union news industry groups unveiled their plan Monday to work together on a solution to “mandate payments” for use of news content from online “gatekeepers with dominant market power.”

They said they will “take inspiration” from proposed legislation in Australia to force tech platforms to share revenue with news companies and which includes an arbitration system to resolve disputes over a fair price for news.

Some people are seeing through all of this -- and even Inc. Magazine called out Microsoft as "the ultimate troll" for its stance here. But this isn't a game. This isn't just politics. This is about the nature of the open web.

And Microsoft is singing happily along as it helps regulators and old, failed publishers around the globe break the open web. All because they're jealous of Google.

It's not difficult to see the path this is likely to head down, and it's bad. A few countries force Google/Facebook to pay these old school publishers. Then, basically everyone else on the web notices this and says "hey, how come they get to link to me for free? Shouldn't they be paying me too?!?" And then, one by one, we'll just hear of every failed and flopped industry demanding free money from the companies that actually innovated. The music industry must be so excited. Book publishing? Absolutely. What about boxed software providers (hi, Microsoft!).

Basically, every industry that failed to adapt and innovate online is likely to go running to government demanding payment. And the very nature of the open internet ceases to exist the way it has for the past three decades. It's a terrible, terrible idea, and it was ridiculous that it went ahead in Australia. But Microsoft is an actual tech company, which should know better, but it's trollish obsession with Google beating Microsoft in the market means it's willing to toss out the open internet if it thinks it will harm Google.

It's shameful and disgusting.

Filed Under: antitrust, australia, brad smith, competition, links, negotiations, news tax, paying for links
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft

Facebook Caves To Australia: Will Restore Links After Government Gives It More Time To Negotiate Paying For News Links

from the still-not-great dept

Facebook is restoring news links in Australia after the government agreed to amend the proposed link tax law. We'll explain the details down below, but at the very least, this shows part of the reason Facebook did what it did, when it did. The end result still sucks, and I wish Facebook had stood its ground here because this portends a significant closing off of the open internet.

Many of the people who were annoyed over my support of Facebook's decision last week to block all news links in Australia kept saying "but the law hasn't passed yet -- why would they do this now?" Except... that ignored the reality of the situation. Facebook had announced last summer that it would remove links to all news if the law wasn't changed. And the Australian Parliament mocked Facebook and refused to make any changes to the law -- which was set to pass this week.

So, Facebook showed that it was serious about what it said last September, and it did so days before the law was supposed to pass... and now the Australian government has agreed to make changes. So, Facebook did get something out of making the move last week. Unfortunately, they didn't get nearly enough, and the end result is a disaster for the open web, but good for Rupert Murdoch.

The law is still really bad. The only major difference is that Facebook gets a little more time to cut a deal with Murdoch and other Australian news org owners:

But on Monday, the Australian government added amendments to the proposed code. That included a two-month mediation period, giving the two sides more time to negotiate commercial deals that could help Facebook avoid having to work under the code’s provisions.

In exchange, Facebook agreed to restore news links and articles for Australian users “in the coming days,” according to a statement from Josh Frydenberg, Australia’s treasurer, and Paul Fletcher, the minister for communications, infrastructure, cities and the arts.

“Importantly, the amendments will strengthen the hand of regional and small publishers in obtaining appropriate remuneration for the use of their content by the digital platforms,” the statement added.

Campbell Brown, Facebook’s vice president of global news partnerships, said in a statement, “We’re restoring news on Facebook in Australia in the coming days. Going forward, the government has clarified we will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that we won’t automatically be subject to a forced negotiation.”

I honestly don't know what this actually means for the future of the law, but it still looks like a mess. Having Facebook pay for any links to news articles should be a non-starter. It is fundamentally against the idea of an open web. People who keep insisting that this is not a "tax" or that it's somehow about "competition" are wrong and fundamentally misrepresenting what is happening here. Yes, Facebook and Google are big. Yes, if there were negotiating a deal they would have leverage. But -- and here's the important part -- there's nothing to negotiate over here, because there's no requirement anywhere to pay for links, because that's fundamentally stupid and against the idea of an open internet.

So, those who keep saying this is necessary because without it the media organizations in Australia "don't have bargaining power" against Google and Facebook are simply missing the point. I mean, those same media organizations do have bargaining power with a site like, let's say, Techdirt. I link to them sometimes. They're a hell of a lot bigger than me. So, does this mean that I should be able to go to the Australian Competition authority and demand they make News Corp pay me when I link to them? That makes no sense at all. There should never need to be any negotiation or any discussion about bargaining power over links because links are fundamentally free.

And, yet, the end result of this deal is that it sounds like Facebook is effectively caving and agreeing to pay for links. The "compromise" appears to be just that Facebook gets a few more months to negotiate what it will pay (and if those negotiations fail, Australian arbitrators will simply choose how much it pays). This remains a very bad and dangerous idea, that is going to lead to a big mess around the globe. Lots of other industries are going to start demanding payments for links as well, and it puts the fundamental nature of the open internet under attack.

Filed Under: australia, competition, link tax, links, negotiations, news, rupert murdoch
Companies: facebook, news corp.

The Bizarre Reaction To Facebook's Decision To Get Out Of The News Business In Australia

from the it's-quite-reasonable dept

None of this should have been a surprise. Back in September we wrote about Facebook publicly saying that if Australia went forward with its ridiculous attack on the open internet, and instituted a "news link tax" on Facebook and Google, that it would block news links on Facebook in Australia... and basically everyone ignored it. So, yesterday, when Facebook announced that it was no longer allowing news to be shared in Australia (and relatedly, no longer allowing the sharing of Australian news services on Facebook), it should not have been a surprise.

And yet... it seemed to make tons of people freak out for all the wrong reasons. Almost everyone started blaming and attacking Facebook. And, look, I get it, Facebook is a terrible, terrible company and deserves lots of blame for lots of bad things that it does. But this ain't it. There are a lot of examples of this, but because he's the top member of the House of Representatives working on antitrust issues, I'll specifically call out Rep. David Cicilline's response:

That says:

If it is not already clear, Facebook is not compatible with democracy.

Threatening to bring an entire country to its knees to agree to Facebook’s terms is the ultimate admission of monopoly power.

But that's completely nonsensical. We can argue about whether or not Facebook is "compatible with democracy" but the simple facts of the situation are that Australia -- pushed heavily by Rupert Murdoch -- has decided to put in place a plan to tax Google and Facebook for any links to news. The bill has all sorts of problems, but there are two huge ones that should concern basically anyone who supports a free and open internet.

First is the link tax. This is fundamentally against the principles of an open internet. The government saying that you can't link to a news site unless you pay a tax should be seen as inherently problematic for a long list of reasons. At a most basic level, it's demanding payment for traffic. There are two entire industries out there based entirely around trying to get more traffic from these companies: "search engine optimization" and "social media management." The reasons there are those industries is because everyone else in the world has figured out that having prominent links on search engines and social media is valuable in its own right and that it's up to the sites that get those links, and the corresponding traffic, to make use of it.

But here, a bunch of lazy newspaper execs who failed to adapt and to figure out better internet business models not only want the traffic, they also want to get paid for it.

This is like saying that not only should NBC have to run an advertisement for Techdirt, but it should have to pay me for it. If that seems totally nonsensical, that's because it is. The link tax makes no sense.

And, most importantly, as any economist will tell you, taxing something doesn't just bring in revenue, it decreases whatever you tax. This is why we have things like cigarette taxes and pollution taxes. It's a tool to get less of something. So, in this case, Australia is saying it wants to tax links to news on Facebook, and Facebook responds in the exact way any reasonable economist would predict: it says that's just not worth it and bans links. That's not incompatible with democracy. It's not bringing a country to its knees. The country said "this is how much news links cost" and Facebook said "oh, that's too expensive, so we'll stop."

Contrary to the idea that this is an "attack" on journalism or news in Australia, it's not. The news still exists in Australia. News companies still have websites. People can still visit those websites.

Indeed, the people who are saying that this move by Facebook is somehow an "attack" on news or an attack on Australian sovereignty seem to be admitting more than they'd really like: that they think Facebook must be a dominant source of news in the country.

I mean, if Facebook is really such a problem, shouldn't they all be celebrating? This is Facebook saying "okay, okay, we'll completely remove ourselves from the news business." Since everyone was complaining that Facebook was too much of a presence in the news business... isn't that... a victory?

And we haven't even gotten to the other problematic part of the law -- which is that it requires Facebook and Google to give newspapers heads up to algorithmic changes. This is completely disconnected from reality. Facebook and Google may make multiple algorithm changes every day, just to keep their services running. Having to tell newspapers (and them alone) about those changes with a few weeks notice is basically giving those news organizations the keys to the kingdom: it's telling them how to game the algorithms. If you think bogus clickbait is a problem now, just imagine what it's like when all of the Australian press get to know the secrets behind the algorithm, and get to prepare for any changes.

The whole story is absolutely ridiculous. And the most incredible thing is that no matter what Facebook did here it would have gotten yelled at. And the proof is not hard to find. Because just an hour or two before Facebook made this announcement, Google went the other way -- coming to an agreement to pay Rupert Murdoch for featuring Murdoch-owned news organizations content on Google. And people freaked out, complaining about Google helping fund Rupert Murdoch's disinformation empire. Except... that's the whole point of the law? So it's a bit bizarre that the same people are mad about both Facebook's decision to not give free money to Rupert and Google caving to do exactly that:

So... it's bad to pay Murdoch. And it's bad not to pay Murdoch. There is no consistency or principle behind all this other than people so focused on "Facebook and Google must be evil, so even when they do the exact opposite of each other, both are more evidence of evil."

This fight was not "Facebook v. Australia." Or "Facebook v. journalism" even though some ignorant or dishonest people are making it out to be the case. This was always "Rupert Murdoch v. the open web." We may not like Facebook in the role of the defender of the open web (and it's far from the best representative for the open web). But Facebook saying that it won't pay a link tax is a defense of the open web and against Rupert Murdoch. It's the right move, and whatever else you may think of Facebook, the company deserves credit for taking the right stand here.

Filed Under: australia, link tax, links, news, open internet, rupert murdoch
Companies: facebook, google, news corp.

Microsoft Offers To Break The Web In A Desperate Attempt To Get Somebody To Use Its Widely-Ignored Bing Search Engine

from the opportunistic-much? dept

One of the key battles surrounding the EU Copyright Directive involves the threshold at which upload filters will block the use of copyright material in things like memes and mashups. A year ago, Germany was proposing ridiculously tight restrictions: 128-by-128 pixel images, and three-second videos. Now, it is framing the issue in terms of uses that aren't "automatically" blocked by upload filters. The proposed limits here are 15 seconds of video or audio, 125K graphics, and 160 -- yes, 160 -- characters of text (original in German). Even these tiny extracts could be subsequently blocked by upload filters, depending on the circumstances.

The worsening situation over upload filters has obscured the other bad idea of the EU Copyright Directive: the so-called "link tax", which would require large Internet companies like Google to pay when they use even small amounts of news material. One worrying development in this area is that the idea has spread beyond the EU. As Techdirt reported, Australia is bringing in what amounts to a tax on Google and Facebook for daring to send traffic to legacy news organizations -- notably those of Rupert Murdoch. In July last year, the Australian government released a draft of what is now dubbed the "News Media Bargaining Code". One of the people arguing against the idea is Tim Berners-Lee (pdf):

Requiring a charge for a link on the web blocks an important aspect of the value of web content. To my knowledge, there is no current example of legally requiring payments for links to other content. The ability to link freely -- meaning without limitations regarding the content of the linked site and without monetary fees -- is fundamental to how the web operates, how it has flourished till present, and how it will continue to grow in decades to come.

He concludes: "If this precedent were followed elsewhere it could make the web unworkable around the world." This, indeed, is the danger here: if Australia and the EU go ahead with their plans, it is likely to become the norm globally, with serious consequences for the Internet as a whole.

In response, Google has threatened to pull out of Australia entirely. That's probably just part of its negotiating strategy. In a blog post from a couple of months ago, Mel Silva, VP for Google Australia & New Zealand, wrote: "we strongly believe that with the practical changes we've outlined [in the post], there is a path forward." Similarly, Australian's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is now talking of a "constructive" conversation with Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai. But that hasn't stopped Microsoft sensing an opportunity to make life harder for its rival in the online search market. Microsoft's President, Brad Smith, has published the following intervention:

Microsoft fully supports the News Media Bargaining Code. The code reasonably attempts to address the bargaining power imbalance between digital platforms and Australian news businesses. It also recognises the important role search plays, not only to consumers but to the thousands of Australian small businesses that rely on search and advertising technology to fund and support their organisations. While Microsoft is not subject to the legislation currently pending, we'd be willing to live by these rules if the government designates us.

And here's why it "fully supports" this misguided link tax:

Microsoft will ensure that small businesses who wish to transfer their advertising to Bing can do so simply and with no transfer costs. We recognise the important role search advertising plays to the more than two million small businesses in Australia.

We will invest further to ensure Bing is comparable to our competitors and we remind people that they can help, with every search Bing gets better at finding what you are looking for.

That is, in a desperate attempt to get someone to use its still largely-ignored search engine Bing, Microsoft is apparently willing to throw the Web under the bus. It's an incredibly short-sighted and selfish move. Sure, it's legitimate to want to take advantage of a rival's problems. But not to the extent of causing serious harm to the very fabric of the Web, the hyperlink.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: australia, bing, competition, google tax, link tax, links, news
Companies: google, microsoft

Copyright Trolling/SEO Scam, Changing The Photo Credits On Wikimedia Commons

from the shakedown dept

Want to know yet another reason why the CASE Act is so dangerous? It will inspire ever more new attempts at fraud in the copyright trolling space. Giving people the ability to shake down others leads to... lots of attempts to shake down or scam others. The latest scam we've heard of comes to us from photographer Kyle Cassidy, who posted this wonderful photo of NPR host Peter Sagal running to Wikimedia Commons under a CC BY-SA 3.0 (attribution, sharealike) license:

A writer named Eric San Juan used the image, properly attributed on his blog. Last month, Eric received an email from "Aldwin Sturdivant" from a company called "Green Cap Marketing" which claims to be one of the many companies that will scan the web on behalf of photographers and shake down anyone who used those images for money. The site claims "Your Images. Your Revenue." Also, somewhat ironically, it claims: "Nothing is more frustrating than knowing your work is being stolen and used for someone else’s gain." It's ironic, because it appears that it's actually "Green Cap Marketing" that is trying to gain from pretending to hold the copyright on someone else's images. Here's the email that Sturdivant sent to San Juan:

It says:

Hi I hope you are the right person on this.,

I hope you’re doing well.

I am very pleased to see that my creative work in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Running_Man_Kyle_Cassidy.jpg is being used on this article found on your site: .http://ericsanjuan.com/get-more-exercise-day-to-day-with-these-stunning-hacks/.

It means a lot to me that you selected my work. I prefer that you keep the image on as I can see it provides value to your followers.

Simple image credit to my site is all I ask. It motivates me to continue uploading images that contribute to informative content like yours.

Can you support my humble work? Stay safe. 🙂

Cheers,
Aldwin Sturdivant
Content Editor
Green Cap Marketing

Just looking at this should raise some alarm bells. I mean, photograph's file name actually has the name of the actual photographer, Kyle Cassidy, in the file name. San Juan originally assumed that Sturdivant was sincere, and noticed that the Wikimedia Commons page did say that he was the photographer:

But, if you look in the Wikipedia edit history, you'll see that the "photo taken by" credits have changed over time, with a bunch of name changes in the past few months:

Basically, on August 13th, someone changed the photographer to be "Natasha Spencer" of a sketchy health site I will not name. That was reverted. On August 17th, the same thing happened. It was reverted. On November 23rd, the same day "Sturdivant" emailed San Juan, it was changed again to say the photo was taken by Sturdivant, again in association with the sketchy health site.

Indeed, this appears to not be so much a copyright trolling scam, but a search engine optimization scam. "Sturdivant" and Green Cap Marketing didn't ask San Juan for payment... but to link to an affiliate site. According to San Juan:

In no time, they send a reply with the link info for me, but what he sent back was a website that had nothing to do with him or the photo, and the photo attribution they asked for was for a BUSINESS, not the photographer. It was a link affiliate site, a commercial site that earns money through clicks. What the hell?

San Juan has blacked out the URL, but I'll take a wild guess that it's likely to be the same one that "Sturdivant" and "Spencer" named when they claimed credit for the Wikimedia photos.

So what originally looked like a copyright trolling scam, may be more of an SEO scam. Either way, it's a scam.

Cassidy himself went snooping and found that there were a bunch of other files attributed to A. Sturdivant, but honestly, many of those appear to be legit, as they appear to be old documents that have some connection to an actual "Sturdivant" from very far in the past.

However, others have pointed out that this is a common problem, with people vandalizing photo credits, and that "A. Sturdivant" was a name used for this in the past as well. Some Wikipedia editors have been reporting and banning users for engaging in this kind of scam.

However, what does seem clear is that Green Cap Marketing (since the "Sturdivant" emails came from there) is not just engaged in typical copyright trolling, but has expanded its business into the truly scammy SEO game, by faking credits on photos and then asking sites to link to their affiliate fee links instead of the actual photographer's images and sites.

Filed Under: aldwin sturdivant, commons, copyright, copyright trolling, creative commons, eric san juan, kyle cassidy, links, natasha spencer, peter sagal, seo, wikimedia commons, wikipedia
Companies: green cap marketing, wikimedia

Facebook Says It Will Block News Sharing In Australia If Murdoch's Social Media Tax Becomes Law

from the the-nuclear-option dept

Earlier this year, regulators in Australia announced plans to tax Google and Facebook for sending traffic to news organizations, and then pay those news organization. The draft law literally names Google and Facebook and says that this law only impacts those two companies. The whole thing is bizarre. There are no pretenses here. It's just that old line media companies (many owned by Rupert Murdoch) are jealous of the success of Google and Facebook online, and seem to think they're magically owed money. And that's what the tax would do. It would force Google and Facebook to pay money for the awful crime of sending traffic to news sites without paying them.

Nevermind that if they didn't want this traffic they could use robots.txt to block it. Nevermind that companies (including many of these media companies) hire SEO and social media experts to try to get more traffic. These companies feel so entitled to money that they feel that Facebook and Google need to pay them for sending traffic, just because.

And Australian regulators seem to think this is a grand idea.

A few weeks back Google posted an open letter to Australians noting that this would do a lot more harm than good, and other parts of the draft law would damage the quality of Google's search results (among other things, the law wouldn't let Google make changes to its search algorithms without giving media companies a 4-week notice, which is insane, given that Google tweaks its algorithm multiple times a day).

Now Facebook has gone even further, and outright said that if this becomes law, it will no longer allow publishers to share news on its platform in Australia. This is the nuclear option -- similar to what Google did in Spain six years ago when Spain passed a similar law. In that case, Google waited until after the law went into effect to make the announcement and pull the plug.

In this case, Facebook is firing a warning shot by saying that's exactly what it will do if this draft bill becomes law:

Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram. This is not our first choice – it is our last. But it is the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long-term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector.

We share the Australian Government’s goal of supporting struggling news organisations, particularly local newspapers, and have engaged extensively with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that has led the effort. But its solution is counterproductive to that goal. The proposed law is unprecedented in its reach and seeks to regulate every aspect of how tech companies do business with news publishers. Most perplexing, it would force Facebook to pay news organisations for content that the publishers voluntarily place on our platforms and at a price that ignores the financial value we bring publishers.

The ACCC presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true. News represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us.

It's not like people didn't warn Australia how all of this would play out (just like people warned various European countries). I don't know why each one expects a different result.

Filed Under: australia, google tax, journalism, links, murdoch tax, news
Companies: facebook, google

Australia Gives Up Any Pretense: Pushes Straight Up Tax On Facebook & Google To Pay News Orgs

from the how-dare-you-send-us-traffic-without-paying dept

Last week we wrote about France's push to force Google to pay legacy news organizations for the high crime of... sending them traffic. That was somewhat expected, as under the EU Copyright Directive, some version of this will show up in every EU country over the next few months (though France's first approach is particularly dumb). Down in Australia, they're not subject to the EU Copyright Directive, but it's not stopping them from taking the same ridiculous approach:

Facebook and Google will be forced to share advertising revenue with Australian media companies after the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, instructed the competition watchdog to develop a mandatory code of conduct for the digital giants amid a steep decline in advertising brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

As the article notes, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had been working to get the media companies and Google and Facebook to come up with a voluntary plan, but since the media companies basically want it all, that hasn't worked out so well. Instead, the ACCC has now been told to just write up the plan. Make no mistake about this: this is the Australian government, at the behest of a bunch of legacy media companies that failed to adapt to the internet, now taxing Google and Facebook for sending media companies free internet traffic that those companies don't know how to monetize.

And it goes beyond just having to pay to send them traffic, it also requires Google and Facebook to let media companies know ahead of time if they're going to make any changes to their algorithms that might impact content rankings. That is ridiculous. It's basically giving news companies preferred placement in search rankings, and locking those legacy providers in. Why in the world should media companies get special access to the algorithm of either company?

Frydenberg said it was only fair that media companies that created the content got paid for it.

They do get paid for it. They decided to put content on the web. If they don't like the traffic, they can easily use robots.txt to block sites from scraping them. If they can't monetize the traffic, that's on them, isn't it?

“This will help to create a level playing field,” he said.

This is the exact opposite of a level playing field. This is basically tilting the playing field strongly towards legacy media companies in a manner that is not only silly for the internet companies, but in a manner that makes it nearly impossible for new entrants in the field, as the legacy players get an automatic boost from the free money they get from the internet companies that send them free traffic.

Filed Under: aggregation, australia, journalism, legacy, links, media, news, tax, traffic
Companies: facebook, google

Other Big CJEU Case Says Google Must Put Certain Links At The Top Of Search Results

from the must-carry dept

While most of the attention today was focused on the CJEU "right to be forgotten" ruling concerning global censorship, the court actually released another ruling concerning the right to be forgotten, again around disagreement between French regulators and Google. And, as intermediary liability expert Daphne Keller notes, this ruling may turn out to be more interesting in the long run.

This case involved how Google should deal with "sensitive data," when it's a part of a RTBF request. The court does decide that a "notice and takedown" regime makes sense for such sensitive content, which is better than the possible alternative advanced by some: that the law requires Google to pro-actively stop the indexing of such sensitive information (or even to first get consent). The court points out that this wouldn't make any sense at all, given how search engines work:

In practice, it is scarcely conceivable — nor, moreover, does it appear from the documents before the Court — that the operator of a search engine will seek the express consent of data subjects before processing personal data concerning them for the purposes of his referencing activity.

But what really stands out is what appears to be a totally uncalled for random aside by the court towards the end of the ruling:

It must, however, be added that, even if the operator of a search engine were to find that that is not the case because the inclusion of the link in question is strictly necessary for reconciling the data subject’s rights to privacy and protection of personal data with the freedom of information of potentially interested internet users, the operator is in any event required, at the latest on the occasion of the request for de-referencing, to adjust the list of results in such a way that the overall picture it gives the internet user reflects the current legal position, which means in particular that links to web pages containing information on that point must appear in first place on the list.

This seems like it could be a very big deal. It's the court saying that Google is required to make sure that top search results "reflects the current legal position." In other words, if someone was exonerated after being accused of a crime, that must now be the top link. As Keller notes, this is going to have some strange consequences that probably won't be very good:

Having a court come in and tell a search engine what is "required" to be the top search result, tossed off without much detail or thought in a world where getting certain links to certain places on search engines is literally an entire industry, is going to have pretty significant consequences -- nearly all of them I can guarantee you the court did not even begin to think about.

Filed Under: cjeu, cnil, eu, links, must carry, right to be forgotten, rtbf, search engines, search results, seo
Companies: google