{"id":77455,"date":"2024-06-10T09:00:41","date_gmt":"2024-06-10T09:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=77455"},"modified":"2024-06-10T09:00:41","modified_gmt":"2024-06-10T09:00:41","slug":"google-profits-from-pirated-textbooks-publishers-lawsuit-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=77455","title":{"rendered":"Google \u201cProfits From Pirated Textbooks\u201d Publishers\u2019 Lawsuit Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"dmca-google-s1\"<\/a>After years of criticism from rightsholders, punctuated by incremental but significant adjustments to limit the appearance of pirated content in search results, Google is no longer continuously painted as siding with the enemy.<\/p>\n

Of course, Google has always argued it never did. The company\u2019s search engine acts as an indexer of content, content placed on the internet by others, Google reminded frustrated rightsholders. In response to properly formatted DMCA notices, links to infringing content were systematically taken down but, in another reminder playing on repeat, Google advised that removing links does nothing to take infringing content offline.<\/p>\n

With tens of millions of search results now systematically wiped out before they even appear, anti-piracy groups such as BREIN seem happy with the direction<\/a> the relationship with Google is heading. Yet, a lawsuit filed in New York last week by Cengage Learning, Macmillan Learning, Macmillan Holdings, LLC; Elsevier Inc., Elsevier B.V., and McGraw Hill LLC, paints an entirely different picture for the publishing industry.<\/p>\n

Pirate Site Promoter, Piracy Profiteer<\/h2>\n

The opening salvo in the publishers\u2019 lawsuit, which majors on violations of the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and New York\u2019s General Business Law, details Google\u2019s \u2018systemic and pervasive advertising\u2019 of infringing copies of their textbooks and other educational works.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor years, Google has knowingly facilitated and reaped profits from the sale of infringing works through pirate websites that Google promotes. The Publishers have reported infringement after infringement to Google, only to have those reports ignored,\u201d the complaint begins. <\/p>\n

For background, the publishers claim that Google\u2019s position as the dominant provider of digital advertising services earned the company $300 billion in revenue last year. They claim that the company\u2019s advertising power is used to undermine publishers for the purpose of generating profit.<\/p>\n

Search and Shopping<\/h2>\n

Turning to Google Search, the publishers note that in addition to providing organic search results, results also contain advertisements. These include ads that are part of Google\u2019s Shopping platform containing both text and images, with the latter providing users with a \u201cstrong sense\u201d of advertisers\u2019 products, as per Google marketing.<\/p>\n

After clicking the \u2018Shopping\u2019 tab on the main search page, users are presented with more Shopping Ads, including sponsored ads where merchants pay Google based on the volume of clicks.<\/p>\n

\u201cOf course, Google\u2019s Shopping Ads for Infringing Works (\u2018Infringing Shopping Ads\u2019) do not use photos of the pirates\u2019 products; rather, they use unauthorized photos of the Publishers\u2019 own textbooks, many of which display the Marks. Thus, with Infringing Shopping Ads, this \u2018strong sense of the product\u2019 that Google is giving is a bait-and-switch,\u201d the complaint alleges.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Pirate Sellers rely on Google Shopping Ads to advertise their Infringing Works and gain sales, and Google systematically and repeatedly creates Infringing Shopping Ads to \u2018send\u2019 consumers to Pirate Sellers\u2019 websites (\u2018Pirate Sites\u2019) to buy their infringing products.\u201d<\/p>\n

No Indiscriminate Advertising<\/h2>\n

At this point the publishers\u2019 strategy begins to take shape. Drawing a reverse analogy to the Yellow Pages, where ads were allegedly printed as supplied and then disseminated \u201cindiscriminately\u201d to the public, Google\u2019s role here is described as active. The company creates the ads and targets merchants\u2019 products to the very users looking for those products, at a time it determines, the publishers claim. <\/p>\n

The significant allegation from the publishers in this respect is that Google ranks \u2018Paid Ads\u2019 by \u201cadvertiser bid and ad quality\u201d which puts the publishers and their distributors up against the \u2018Pirate Sellers.\u2019 Also in the mix is Google\u2019s assessment of \u201cad quality\u201d which considers the relevance of the ad to the user\u2019s search and Google\u2019s evaluation of the website the ad points to, i.e a pirate site.<\/p>\n

\u201cGoogle often ranks both Paid Ads and Free Ads for Infringing Works in close proximity to, or even ahead of, ads for the Publishers\u2019 authentic textbooks,\u201d the complaint alleges, adding the following:<\/p>\n

\n

Google\u2019s Infringing Shopping Ads are extremely effective at diverting would-be purchasers of the Publishers\u2019 textbooks to buy Infringing Works instead of legitimate copies. When students seeking to purchase textbooks initiate searches for the Publishers\u2019 textbooks on google.com, they see not just organic search results and ads for the Publishers\u2019 legitimate textbooks, but also ads for pirated textbooks. <\/em><\/small><\/p>\n

Indeed, Infringing Shopping Ads make up a substantial portion of the Shopping Ads these users see, often outnumbering ads for authentic textbooks and often with preferable placement. Worse, Google\u2019s advertisements reflect the Infringing Works\u2019 artificially low prices. And the ads, which reproduce the Publishers\u2019 own images of the textbooks without authorization, are often indistinguishable from legitimate ads.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The publishers say that in most or all cases, Google\u2019s \u2018Infringing Shopping Ads\u2019 include textbook cover images, which neither Google nor the Pirate Sellers have permission to use in connection with the promotion or sale of infringing books.<\/p>\n

Publishers Claim Google Should Know Products Are Illegal<\/h2>\n

With names including \u201cCheapbok,\u201d \u201cAthena Line Store,\u201d \u201cBiz Ninjas,\u201d \u201cNardab,\u201d \u201cLivyluxe,\u201d and \u201cShop Hoth,\u201d the publishers say that Google should\u2019ve known who they were dealing with; even more so since the publishers included those names in their takedown notices.<\/p>\n

The publishers note that other red flags include extremely low pricing. This is due to the Pirate Sellers offering books in PDF format when \u201clegitimate distributors rarely, if ever, sell their textbooks in PDF form.\u201d That Google allegedly helps users to refine their searches by adding \u2018pdf\u2019 via a dedicated button, only makes matters worse, they add.<\/p>\n

The complaint then turns to Google\u2019s claim that it verifies sellers\u2019 identities. Google also verifies sellers\u2019 authorized ownership of their sales websites and verifies their suitability to use Google ad services. The publishers\u2019 turn these claims to their own advantage.<\/p>\n

They claim that verification means Google has the ability to communicate with sellers via email or verified phone numbers<\/p>\n

In cases where Google was advised that a seller was offering pirated content and Google users were still able to place orders after clicking an ad, \u201cGoogle had the ability to stop the direct infringement entirely.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the majority of cases where pirate sellers predominantly or exclusively use Google Ads to reach their customer base, terminating their accounts would\u2019ve had a significant impact on future sales.<\/p>\n

\u201cGoogle\u2019s removal of Infringing Shopping Ads and termination of repeat infringers\u2019 advertising privileges also would have a significant impact by eliminating or greatly curtailing the reproduction of Infringing Works by Google\u2019s users when they make purchases on Pirate Sites promoted by Google,\u201d the complaint adds.<\/p>\n

Lacking Response to Infringement Notices, Lawsuit Ensues<\/h2>\n

The publishers claim that they began sending infringement notices to Google in June 2021, identifying pirate sellers, pirate sites, and Shopping ads advertising pirated works, but to no avail.<\/p>\n

\u201cIndeed, despite receiving notice after notice, Google has continued to advertise specific Infringing Works sold by specific Pirate Sellers identified in the Publishers\u2019 notices. Google has also continued to advertise Infringing Works for Pirate Sellers who have been the subject of repeated notices. Google did not terminate these repeat infringers\u2019 Merchant Center accounts within a reasonable time, if at all.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint also cites an aggravating factor; when the publishers sent follow-up notices for matters previously reported but not handled to their satisfaction, \u201cGoogle threatened on multiple occasions to stop reviewing all the Publishers\u2019 notices for up to six months,\u201d the complaint alleges.<\/p>\n

Google\u2019s response was due to duplicate requests; the company warned that if that happened three or more times on the same request, it would \u201cconsider that particular request to be manifestly unfounded\u201d which could lead the company to \u201ctemporarily stop reviewing your requests for a period of up to 180 days.\u201d<\/p>\n

The publishers claim that Google is contributorily liable for at least two forms of direct infringement, vicarious infringement, and trademark infringement for allowing the plaintiffs marks to be used in commerce in connection with infringing works. They also allege violations of New York General Business Law section 349(a) for engaging in materially deceptive and misleading practices.<\/p>\n

The publishers\u2019 complaint can be found here<\/a> (pdf)<\/em><\/p>\n

From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n

Powered by WPeMatico<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

After years of criticism from rightsholders, punctuated by incremental but significant adjustments to limit the appearance of pirated content in search results, Google is no longer continuously painted as siding with the enemy. Of course, Google has always argued it never did. The company\u2019s search engine acts as an indexer of content, content placed on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":77456,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-77455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-torrent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=77455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77455\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/77456"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=77455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=77455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=77455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}