Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Drops 2 Billion Fake Music Industry Views

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the cure-for-bieber-fever dept.

Google 167

An anonymous reader writes "YouTube has dropped 2 billion fake music industry views and their offending videos. From the article: 'Google made good on its promise to weed out views inflated by artificial means last week, according to Daily Dot. Record company sites impacted included titans like Universal Music Group, which reportedly lost 1 billion of its 7 billion views, and Sony, who lost 850 million views. The cuts affected marquee names like Rhianna, Beyonce and Justin Bieber. YouTube said in a statement that the figures had been deliberately, artificially inflated. 'This was not a bug or a security breach. This was an enforcement of our view count policy,' the company, which is owned by Google, wrote.'"

cancel ×

167 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

YES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432159)

lawsuit please... fuck *IAA

Re:YES! (1)

nosubmit (2800659) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432297)

lawsuit please... fuck *IAA

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE GOOGLE SUE INDUSTRY FOR ABUSE

sorry, it's a simple statement so I couldn't emphasize it any more without all capps.

Re:YES! (5, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432533)

I'm not sure you are getting this. Google suing should be the least of these people's worries. From AFA linked from TFA:

Google says that these companies violated its terms of services, which prohibits automated methods of inflating view counts

If they have been faking 1/8th of their viewership, then that was artificially increasing their apparent influence and so share price. The SEC should be coming around damn soon now if a shareholder would just make a complaint.

Now that would be sweet.

Re:YES! (5, Interesting)

sirlark (1676276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433151)

Assuming there's advertising revenue involved in the views as well, artificially inflating your count would constitute fraud wouldn't it. No need for a shareholder complaint.

Re:YES! (4, Funny)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433775)

Why not both? Two great tastes, taste great together!

Great (5, Funny)

sheehaje (240093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432175)

My band went from 72 views to 5. Damn you Google!

Re:Great (-1, Troll)

tonywestonuk (261622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432225)

My band went from 72 views to 5. Damn you Google!

Ok, ummm, post the youtube link -

Re:Great (4, Funny)

sheehaje (240093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432967)

That would be a shameless plug, which is a never done on Slashdot... and besides, that post was my attempt at self-deprecating humor. I see it's mostly failed so far.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433207)

Hope the same happened to my bro-in-law. I'd love to see him have an actual view count of 15 instead of the thousands of faked views.

*phew* (5, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432179)

"Gangnam Style was not affected", thank goodness, I didn't want to watch it another billion times!

Re:*phew* (4, Insightful)

OhPlz (168413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432187)

It'd be funny if it was since it was the showcase of Youtube's year in review 2012 video.

Re:*phew* (5, Insightful)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432291)

"NASA Johnson Style" ("Gangnam Style" Parody) was not affect either. Thank goodness! I could even watch it a billion more times! http://youtu.be/zulxSCb4ZVk [youtu.be]

Getting closer... (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432201)

First it's dropping views. Then they drop offending videos. Then they drop the copyrighted videos. Way to come from underneath, Google.

Re:Getting closer... (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433281)

Given that every video on the planet is copyrighted, I doubt they'll go that far.... It seems like it might hurt their business model.

Re:Getting closer... (2)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433385)

They've got no business model at this point, it seems like.

What if Google is wrong? (5, Informative)

Piata (927858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432207)

My brother is a local film maker in a small town and he got his demo reel pulled from Youtube for "artificially inflating views". Naturally my brother is a little confused by this as he's not savvy enough about the internet to even know how to do such things. Obviously he didn't go to his video and hit refresh a couple thousand times and it's possible some of his friends did but that's not his doing.

The worst part is he's left no recourse. Google pulled the video and warned that if another of his videos sees the same artifically inflated views, his account would be banned so now he's looking at Vimeo as an alternative.

Joe Jobbing of the future? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432231)

That suggests a way to suppress videos that some object to. Just pump them up by a few thousand with obviously faked views and let Google pull the video and ban the account.

Re:Joe Jobbing of the future? (5, Interesting)

Piata (927858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432307)

Yep. In his case, he felt the competition might be trying to make him disapear. He occassionaly films weddings (which like most wedding services, is completely cut throat) or does videos for the city (which involves bidding on contracts) so if someone out there feels slighted or envious, they can get your video pulled with enough effort.

Re:Joe Jobbing of the future? (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42434005)

If it's his job, then he should seriously consider getting his own web site to host his videos for exactly this reason. YouTube can drop your videos for whatever reason they want. This is exactly the reason why you shouldn't rely on a third party who you aren't paying to help you do business. Similar thing happened for Facebook. They used to send your message out to everybody for free. Now they want to charge you to reach 100% of your subscribers. If you had just built up your own following on your own website, you wouldn't have any of these kinds of problems. Sure it costs more money up front, but nobody can come and take away the service from you without any warning.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432257)

Welcome to the world of Google. Don't be evil (if you're not us).

Re:What if Google is wrong? (4, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432463)

Welcome to the world of Google. Don't be evil (if you're not us).

You guys would be a bit more convincing if you posted with real examples. Most times when I follow up on this kind of thing I find that actually, in fact, the person obviously was doing whatever Google accused them of. In the few exceptional cases they seem to get their stuff back. There is nothing going on like Microsoft handing over blogger names to the Chinese authorities so that they get tortured into silence. Please feel free to convince us otherwise with evidence other than the stuff Facebook faked to try to discredit Google.

N.B. I'm not saying Google is particularly good. They just seem to be another bunch of normal people trying to muddle it through.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (5, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432289)

I had a similar experience months ago with a false positive on their copyright-enforcement system. There is no effective appeal, as the system is so heavily automated. I tried contacting them, but never was able to get a reply, even after a few attempts. I just stopped posting videos on youtube. They are on my own personal website now, but without the youtube social promotion system they aren't going to get many views.

Just my dabblings in video restoration and blowing fruit up with a capacitor bank.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (4, Funny)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432539)

I had a similar experience months ago with a false positive on their copyright-enforcement system. There is no effective appeal, as the system is so heavily automated. I tried contacting them, but never was able to get a reply, even after a few attempts. I just stopped posting videos on youtube. They are on my own personal website now, but without the youtube social promotion system they aren't going to get many views.

Just my dabblings in video restoration and blowing fruit up with a capacitor bank.

Does Gallagher have the copyright on that?

--

An evil doer just slashdotted this.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (5, Funny)

Shark (78448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432697)

Uh oh... I post example of work done on my milling machine. The horrible whine sound of the spindle definitely could be interpreted as RIAA copyrighted material, especially given the talent of pop singers lately.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432965)

They are on my own personal website now, but without the youtube social promotion system they aren't going to get many views.

Especially if you can not be bothered to give us a link.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433225)

Video restoration and filters: http://birds-are-nice.me/video/restorations.shtml [birds-are-nice.me]

Stuff go boom: http://birds-are-nice.me/explodium/ [birds-are-nice.me]

Re:What if Google is wrong? (1)

DaTrueDave (992134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433865)

Is that guy wearing leopard print pajamas while working on that high power device of destruction?!??

Re:What if Google is wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432429)

They probably are.

Their has been a viewcount war for years, and it became even more apparent with the whole reply-girl nonsense when they were using tactics like this to kill "haters" accounts by mass-botting their videos so they got flagged and eventually accounts got removed.
It has been used so much before this, though.

As well as fake companies sending DMCAs since youtube is just downright terrible in regards to this. You can uphold DMCA, but Youtube is just downright abusive with DMCA regulations. They OVER-do it.

Most likely your friend got attacked by someone else who never liked them.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (4, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432469)

So your brother gets a ban for an unaccountable 500 hits, but Sony gets nothing for a billion? Welcome to corporate whoring.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432613)

Welcome to the online world, where the actual reason someone gets banned has absolutely nothing to do with why they claim they got banned.

If you havent seen it a zillion times even just on slashdot (stories saying "I GOT BANNED FOR X, NOT FAIR" that are completely bogus), then you havent been paying attention.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433595)

Except for the part where that's definitely not what actually happened lol

Article wrong. (4, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433933)

The article at the top is wrong. Sony didn't lose 850 million views. Sony youtube channel lost views because sony moved all its vidoes off its youtube channel. They were moved to the Vimio youtube channel. Google did some housekeeping and removed channel views if the video is no longer there. Video views were not effected. Only about 1.5 million views were removed because of spammy sites that start a video when you first access the page.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432485)

They don't pull videos for inflating views, but nice try on your full of shit post in the first place. If this weren't a troll, you'd link to a video. Then again, it is a troll. The "google is evil, I'm going to the alternatives, see y'all" trollpost.

The view inflation is not about hitting refresh on a video either - it's more like that the companies in question were paying people to actually artificially inflate views. You could have trolled better.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432797)

Nice try, you're the troll. How do you link to a video that has been removed?

Re:What if Google is wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433047)

By linking to the alternative he proposed - Vimeo, in this case.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (3, Funny)

codewarren (927270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433093)

Easy: here's mine that was removed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ReM0v3dVid [youtube.com]

It now says it is "unavailable". Can you believe that? All because I said this Halibut was good enough for Jehovah!

Re:What if Google is wrong? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432743)

As someone who has fought abuse in the past for an extremely large service, I can tell you that in any even-somewhat-sophisticated company, the abuse flags and signals flagging things are extremely complex and detailed. Especially when you're talking about the best data analyzers in the world (Google), don't doubt what they know about the abuse happening.

I can also tell you that people constantly, all the time, blatantly horribly lie. People who shamelessly broke the rules would publicly bitch about being shut down and (at best) be misleading or (at worst) outright lie about the circumstances. They know that the company will never come forth publicly to refute their claims, so they do it as a form of revenge after they've been caught.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433331)

I got hit with a youtube copyright infringement complaint, and it was real easy to dispute.
You just click the "I dispute this claim" checkbox, and type in your reason.

In my case it was someone said my minecraft build videos included sound recording from some random band I had never heard of.
My counterclaim was that none of my videos include sound.

You can google "minecraft computercraft sheep farm" if you want and find all of them, here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOuzNThFxBE

Re:What if Google is wrong? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433387)

a "Local Film Maker" are you sure he didn't violate other terms of service.

Re:What if Google is wrong? (1)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433589)

Yeah, Google pulled the same shit on me with my AdSense account...they've still got some $200 they owe me. I have since pulled most of my business from Google...now all I need is a reasonably good search engine replacement and I can dispense with their BS...

Re:What if Google is wrong? (1)

yahwotqa (817672) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433741)

DuckDuckGo is reasonably good. I don't think I've used Google search in a god while, save perhaps for image searches.

-Conflicted (1, Interesting)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432217)

I can't decide if the people who took advantage of the ranking system are to blame, or if the system itself is. I certainly can't blame anyone for trying to inflate numbers by utilizing a loophole left by Google or YouTube; I would probably do the same thing if it meant making more money. Even though I'm glad that Google and YouTube closed the "vulnerability", it does lend fuel to the idea that we're really just seeing the Internet that Google wants us to see.

Re:-Conflicted (5, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432277)

Well if you can't blame them for being dishonest, what does that say about *your* character, or lack of it?

Re:-Conflicted (1, Redundant)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432365)

Agreed, that's like stealing someone's purse and then justifying it with "Well they should have held on to it tighter..."

Re:-Conflicted (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432431)

One is a crime, the other is a legitimate, if unethical action. If there's money to be made, ethics may take a backseat.

To put it into a better context for you, it's like finding a lost wallet on the ground: you should turn it in to the police, but frankly, aside from the owner, who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for taking it, but you might not get rewarded for returning it, whereas if you take it, the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".

Re:-Conflicted (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432495)

And how many stories have there been of people who went out of their way to return found property, and find that the people who lost their wallet/purse were so grateful and had their faith in mankind restored? I believe there are laws about needing to at least try to find the owner of lost property, if they can't be located after a reasonable amount of time, then yes, finders keepers applies. At the end of the day, you have to answer to the person in the mirror, andlike and respect that person.

Re:-Conflicted (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433001)

At the end of the day, you have to answer to the person in the mirror, andlike and respect that person.

That's ... actually a rather nice way of summing up just what makes most people law-abiding, apart from the threat of punishment.
As for faith in mankind? Personally, I've lost that a long time ago, so it wouldn't be any surprise to me if I returned such a wallet and were turned away with barely a thanks. All the more reason for me to keep it, even if I'm enforcing the stereotype. My needs and interests come first for me, after all. And I assume the same for every rational person.

As far as I know, however, no rules state that you must try to locate the original owners. Given that my knowledge of US law is not exactly in-depth, I may stand corrected, though...

Re:-Conflicted (3, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433357)

Okay, I found this using my google magic...

An individual who finds lost property does not acquire absolute ownership of the property. In order to obtain title to, or rights in, the lost property, the finder must intentionally take possession and control over it.

The individual who acquires possession of a lost or mislaid article has superior rights to the item over anyone except the true owner. This person is only the apparent owner. The finder's title to the property may be forfeited upon discovery of the true owner, whose title in it is unaffected by the fact that the article has been lost. A finder's title is contingent upon the potential discovery of the true owner. He or she may not, therefore, transfer title to another individual.

If the true owner of lost property dies before his or her identity is discovered, the title and right to the lost article passes to the executor or administrator of the owner's estate for distribution to his or her heirs pursuant to the terms of his or her will or the laws of Descent and Distribution.

As between the finder of treasure trove and its true owner, the true owner prevails. It has been held, however, that the finder of treasure trove has greater rights to it than the heirs of the individual who concealed it.

The true owner of lost property is responsible for paying all reasonable expenses incurred by a finder in the discovery and preservation of lost property. The finder may also be entitled to a small compensation for his or her time and effort; however, the finding party does not acquire a lien against the property. The finder cannot receive reimbursement for his or her expenses and time with use of the property, nor is the individual entitled to a reward for finding it unless one has been offered.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Finding+Lost+Goods [thefreedictionary.com]

Re:-Conflicted (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433629)

I neglected this next paragraph...

"An individual who finds and takes possession of lost property ordinarily has the right to possess it over everyone but the true owner. Some statutes provide that if the true owner neglects to appear and claim the property within a certain time period after the finding of the article has been published in a local newspaper, the finder is entitled to retain part of the property or part of its value while the remaining portion passes to the state, or one of its departments or agencies."

Re:-Conflicted (1)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432599)

You have a funny definition of "legitimate".

You have justified the crime by saying if there is no reward for doing right, and no punishment for doing wrong, then it is justifiable to steal from another person? Keeping a lost wallet, when there is contact information in it, is indeed stealing. You are making a deliberate choice to keep something that could otherwise be placed in the hands of the owner. To basically disregard the negative effect on others for your own gain. You have no idea what kind of difficulties that person might be facing in their life already at the time and you are going to just shovel it on more.

To put it into a better context [of your own screwed up logic] for you, it's like finding a [lone woman] on the ground: you should [take her] to the [hospital], but frankly, aside from the [family and friends of the woman], who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for [raping her], but you might not get rewarded for it, whereas if you [rape her], the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".

If a cyclist finds an accident victim (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432807)

it's like finding a [lone woman] on the ground: you should [take her] to the [hospital], but frankly, aside from the [family and friends of the woman], who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for [raping her], but you might not get rewarded for it, whereas if you [rape her], the reward is guaranteed.

Like most analogies, this analogy is not exact. Say I find the woman while riding a bicycle to or from work. I wouldn't even think of assaulting her, but helping her would have a substantial cost to me. For example, how do you recommend that I transport her to the hospital? Likewise, how would someone who depends on public transit afford the bus fare and lost wages to carry a found purse with no ID to the police station?

Re:If a cyclist finds an accident victim (1)

BertieBaggio (944287) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433021)

Like most analogies, this analogy is not exact. Say I find the woman while riding a bicycle to or from work. I wouldn't even think of assaulting her, but helping her would have a substantial cost to me.

(emphasis mine) That is what makes it noble. Cost-benefit analysis shouldn't figure too heavily into helping someone.

For example, how do you recommend that I transport her to the hospital? Likewise, how would someone who depends on public transit afford the bus fare and lost wages to carry a found purse with no ID to the police station?

Perhaps by phone, arranging transport that way. And if you can't get to a police station, would a police officer accept it insead? (don't know if they'd take it or tell you to get lost instead).

Re:If a cyclist finds an accident victim (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433985)

If you call the police they'll send an officer around to wherever you are to pick it up, at least in Seattle. I've reported quite a few things that I've encountered while walking the dogs, mostly bicycles dumped in the park, but they came and picked up a wallet, an unfired .32 round, a phone and something else I forgot. Ninety nine percent of the time their job is pretty boring and they need something to do.

Re:-Conflicted (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432933)

Let me start from the end of your comment, your example. Frankly, aside from her family and friends, nobody cares if you don't help her. Oh sure, people say you're an asshole, and you should help her, take her to the hospital, etc. But tell them to do it themselves, and they make up an excuse and hurry on: Bystander Effect. On the other hand, raping her is a crime unto itself, punishable by law. That's where your analogy goes astray, in that you attempt to substitute a clearly illegal act for a legal, if unethical one.

Which leads me on to the first part of your comment. Given that the wallet was lost, it left possession of its owner. According to Michael v First Chicago Corp. Illinois, 1985, "A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.". Meaning unless the original owner tracks you down (which, let's face it, is quite unlikely in any moderately sized city, let alone a metropolis) and reclaims his wallet, it is, indeed, yours to keep. Whether it was ethical to keep or not.
The fact that there was contact information inside is quite irrelevant, given that the true owner has to claim the wallet from you to enforce his possession, in which case you must yield it. Sure, people might think even less of you for not even attempting to return it, but that doesn't make it any less legal.

Re:-Conflicted (1)

Sabriel (134364) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433959)

Hmm. I disagree. In your quote, I notice that the court differentiated between mislaid property (you acquire no rights), lost property (you are not entitled to possess it against the true owner) and abandoned property (you are entitled to keep it). So if you find a wallet that is lost rather than abandoned (however the court defined those terms), then it seems to me that you would not be entitled to keep it, only to possess it - and if you had (or believed you had) knowledge of the true owner then you would not be entitled to possession against them and so deliberately deciding to retain possession with no intent to return it would seem to be unlawful.

Re:-Conflicted (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433007)

Short version of your statement is something like this.
Stealing money from someone is not bad if you can find a way to justify it.

Re:-Conflicted (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433181)

Short version of your statement is something like this.
Stealing money from someone is not illegal if you can find a way to justify it.

Ethics is optional, and often overrated. Legality is what matters. Welcome to reality.

Re:-Conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433375)

It's the reality that people like you impose on everyone. If everyone was ethical there would be no need for more and more stupider and stupider laws... and the world would be significantly more efficient that way.

Re:-Conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433677)

Ethics is optional in your family.
Not in mine.

Re:-Conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433249)

If your ethics is so changeable by a small personal advantage, just admit that you have no ethics.
The point isn't if you'll get caught, the issue is with your personal action.

Re:-Conflicted (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433317)

To put it into a better context for you, it's like finding a lost wallet on the ground: you should turn it in to the police, but frankly, aside from the owner, who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for taking it, but you might not get rewarded for returning it, whereas if you take it, the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".

Let's just say that in California it is theft. And in the state of New York it is theft. And I bet in many other states of the USA it is theft, or in some other way criminal.

Re:-Conflicted (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42434001)

Actually, it isn't. I explained before, according to Michael v First Chicago Corp. Illinois, 1985, "A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.". Therefore, unless the true owner comes to claim it from you after having tracked you down, and you refuse to return the wallet, it becomes theft. If you return it, or the owner doesn't turn up, it's nothing, since you're entitled to possession of the lost wallet against everyone but the original owner.

Re:-Conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433549)

Another example: you find a wallet just sitting in the pocket of some guy you just mugged. You won't get punished for taking it (it's three in the morning in a dark alley), and you won't get rewarded for leaving it, whereas taking it guarantees a reward. After all, "Finders keepers, guy I just hit with a brick weepers."

Re:-Conflicted (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432279)

Well, yes. If you use Google, then you see what they want you to see. If you use Bing/Microsoft, you see what they want you to see. This is true for their search engine, and a hundred times more true for sites they wholly own (IE: YouTube).

Re:-Conflicted (2)

ortholattice (175065) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432593)

I certainly can't blame anyone for trying to inflate numbers by utilizing a loophole left by Google or YouTube; I would probably do the same thing if it meant making more money.

Ever heard of "ethics"? People with your attitude do not make the world a better place. If you found a wallet with money someone lost, I guess you'd keep it since it would mean more money for you.

Re:-Conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433647)

And why can't you blame them for that? It's impossible for YouTube to stop people from artificially inflating their views, all they can do is make it harder and tell people not to. I definitely blame people for being dishonest. As for "seeing the internet google wants us to see." No...? We're just seeing the view counts that they calculate as they calculate them. Given that it's their view count, they could do whatever with it. I'd complain if their view count was purposefully misleading, however, the whole point of this is that they're trying to make the view count more fair. So what the fuck are you complaining about?

I think you're just taking a slightly different opinion to the obvious one because you think holding the obvious opinion won't make you look smart.

Same old tactics (5, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432221)

Back in the day it was payola to radio djs and buying back your own records in the stores.

Now it's scripted youtube visits.

Same tactics from the producers, but also same behavior from consumers who have to know if something is popular before adopting it.
I suggest not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself.

Re:Same old tactics (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432247)

Same tactics from the producers, but also same behavior from consumers who have to know if something is popular before adopting it.
I suggest not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself.

But millions of people look at what's popular when choosing what to buy, and they can't all be wrong, right?

Re:Same old tactics (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432399)

Same tactics from the producers, but also same behavior from consumers who have to know if something is popular before adopting it.
I suggest not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself.

But millions of people look at what's popular when choosing what to buy, and they can't all be wrong, right?

But billions of people look at what's popular when choosing what to buy, and they can't all be wrong, right?

Re:Same old tactics (4, Insightful)

ultrasawblade (2105922) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432731)

The people that look at what's popular to buy seem to comprise of thirty/fourtysomething females who are out of touch with pop culture and want to rejoin it after not having young kids consume every moment of their time, and a certain class of young usually small- to mid-town teenage girls. The older women want to indulge in something that seems younger and fresher, and the younger girls want to indulge in something that seems more "adult" - and this fits that bill perfectly I guess.

No one else buys into this shit, not that I know of. As a male growing up in the 90's I've NEVER understood the term "popular music" because no one I know listens to it or follows it. Were I live now the "Top 40" radio station is among the lowest rated. Yet it stays alive.

Re:Same old tactics (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432299)

The trick back then was in knowing which stores to buy from. Not all stores contributed to the counts used to determine the chart order. Effective rigging via purchasing needed a bit of insider information to know where to buy.

Re:Same old tactics (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433903)

I'm not sure if it's still in use or not, but the way the album sales chart was calculated 10 years or so was through a service called Soundscan. The way it worked (in a nutshell) is that certain stores would submit their sales numbers to Soundscan, and then Soundscan would run those numbers through an algorithm to "calculate" the sales from other, non-Soundscan stores. I have no idea how accurate these numbers were.

There was a case I know of where one label (a larger independent label) got wind of which stores were the Soundscan stores. This was tricky information, because one album sold in these stores "represented" many more albums sold from the other stores, baed on that algorithm. So this label would send bands and artists on tour, and focus all of their in-story appearances on these Soundscan stores. This, of course, led to more sales in those stores, which tended to inflate the label's sales numbers for less effort than honest sales would have taken.

Network effect (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432839)

I suggest not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself.

Unless a product or service has a substantial network effect [wikipedia.org] , such that it becomes more useful as the user base grows. For example, people might not want to buy a smartphone that only has 10,000 units sold because not a lot of developers of useful applications would find it profitable to target a market of 10,000.

Re:Same old tactics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433689)

"I suggest not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself."

What the fuck? I don't think you have any idea how YouTube works. It's not like I'm gonna go to YouTube and be like "oh man, that video has more views I pick that one!" Videos with more views get better rankings, and you're therefore more likely to find them. There's a shitton of stuff on YouTube, the ranking system helps you sort through it. I'm sorry that you're all better than me for "not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself" (and having your +5 Insightful) but that's really not how it works. I'm not sure how you couldn't know that.

More importantly, when were the views? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432287)

More importantly, when were the fake views generated? Could it be before any of these people were popular? And that artificially inflating views caused them to be artificially popular? *facepalm*

Counting method? (1)

futhermocker (2667575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432355)

Makes me wonder about the counting method.
Would they:
a. count each pageview
b. count after video played last frame
c. combination of both
?

If they would only count pageviews, how about counting people watching videos with an app or on a smart tv (which I regularly do).

Re:Counting method? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432401)

They count pageviews. They have discussed plans to rank by how long people tend to watch the particular video ('engagement')

YouTube Insight (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432851)

They have discussed plans to rank by how long people tend to watch the particular video ('engagement')

YouTube makes engagement statistics available to the uploader.

Not so many Bieber fans after all... (4, Funny)

Cid Highwind (9258) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432377)

"The cuts affected marquee names like Rhianna, Beyonce and Justin Bieber."

This restores a tiny bit of my faith in humanity. Now if we could just get confirmation that 90% of the people watching "Here Comes Honey Boo-boo" are bots too...

Re:Not so many Bieber fans after all... (5, Funny)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432481)

Now if we could just get confirmation that 90% of the people watching "Here Comes Honey Boo-boo" are bots too...

They ARE mindless robots. Just that they're the flesh and blood kind, so they still get pageviews.

Unsurprising (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432439)

The brand managers who commission stuff like this are typically inexperienced, low-paid and overworked. They don't know what the fuck they are doing but they know they've got to get it done quickly and for next to no money. You'd be shocked at how low the budgets they have to work with are for digital stuff - sure, drop a couple of hundred grand on a music video to promote their latest single, but good luck getting more than ten grand for a website that they'll be using for years. They also have the habit of following the crowd and simply using the suppliers and techniques their colleagues use. So it doesn't surprise me that a few of them decided to use cheap off-shored clicks to inflate their results, or that once a few of them did it, it spread like wildfire within their ranks.

Not exactly (2)

Rylfaeth (138910) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432523)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/28/youtube-video-views-disappear-migrate

Views and videos just got shifted over to VEVO.

My Prison Labor Video was Unaffected... (-1, Flamebait)

Internal Modem (1281796) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432557)

I produced a video [youtube.com] about Prison Labor [youtube.com] , with actual video of prisoners working in prison factories [youtube.com] .

I'm curious if it would be affected by Google's recent action to reduce views inflated by artificial means....

So in other words, (1)

stixn (1881538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432701)

The billions of views they lost is about the same amount of money the music industry has lost due to piracy.

Who said perception is reality? Just make your own, it's easier.

Re:So in other words, (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432799)

The billions of views they lost is about the same amount of money the music industry has lost due to piracy.

Who said perception is reality? Just make your own, it's easier.

You've got it slightly wrong. The effect of losing all these "fake views" is exactly the same as the amount they have lost due to piracy -- nearly zero.

And seriously, what kind of bullshit story is this anyway? Nobody gives a rat's ass if Rhianna, Beyonce and Justin Bieber have 12 views or 12 billion.

How about weeding out infringing material? (3, Interesting)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432811)

I know, -1 Flamebait, but ...

has anybody here every seriously looked at the process to report and have removed infringing material from youtube? if you try, the first thing google/youtube does is basically threaten you with jail and worse if you dont happen to be the copyright holder. they make it as slow and painful as possible though probably within what is allowed by law. why? google has a vested interest in keeping the pirated material on there.

it would take me all of one day at most to find over 1000 movies just with the search "full movie", each of which has a view count of 10,000+. Google could too, but they have no interest in this. They play this game where they pretend they are some innocent service, and of course meanhwhile providing de facto anonymity to serial uploaders (anybody even ONCE prosecuted for uploading pirated stuff? at worst it's "account suspended, make a new one homer jo jo junior shabadoo"). meanwhile, google collects HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in ad revenue on infringing material. Oh, and when something is pointed out to be infringing, does google contact the rightsholder and offer them a the money or at least a split? you must be joking.

If youtube were anything but a giant company armed with masses of lawyers *and didnt enjoy the popular support of those below who find it useful and who are about to make all sorts of yesbuts and rationalizations, it would have been shut down for conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement a long time ago.

yes, i find it useful too. but i'm under no illusions that the system is any way a fair to the rightsholders off of whom youtube is making massive profits especially during that delay between upload and takedown.

again - actually try the takedown process before you flame away. it's diabolical.

Re:How about weeding out infringing material? (2, Insightful)

JazzHarper (745403) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433095)

Why were you trying to use the takedown process if you are not the copyright holder?

Re:How about weeding out infringing material? (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433535)

Given the current system, a copyrightholder pretty much has to have a full-time person monitoring youtube for infringement. Meanwhile, youtube continues to make hundreds of millions off their copyrighted work. how is this fair?

If youtuve had any integrity, google would be forced to give advertising monies gained from showing copyrighted vidoes to the copyright holder..

but, is that happening any time soon? no, google prefers to keep the cash.

Re:How about weeding out infringing material? (1, Informative)

JazzHarper (745403) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433931)

What you are saying is that you have no legal standing, but you have moral outrage, so you have appointed yourself as a copyright vigilante. The law (OCILLA) doesn't permit that, so you are going to be, at the very least, frustrated in your efforts.

Re:How about weeding out infringing material? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433175)

actually try the takedown process before you flame away. it's diabolical.

So diabolical that NASAs own live stream of the Curiosity landing got taken down. And you want it to be easier?

Re:How about weeding out infringing material? (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433515)

right, because the one in a million counterexample, easily rectified, clearly has more weight than the tens if not hundreds of thousands fo infringing videos.

really: shame. shame on you for such an obvious self-serving bs rationalization.

Re:How about weeding out infringing material? (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about a year and a half ago | (#42434003)

The Diamond Jubilee speach of HRM The Queen on Her Most Royal own Youtube channel was blocked by Bertelsmann in Germany due HRM the Queen not getting her royalties cut due to the royalties not being yet sorted out in Germany.

It is refreshing that GEMA looks after starving artists like HRM The Queen in Germany.

I find it more and more difficult to approach this matter with any seriousness whatsoever.

Re:How about weeding out infringing material? (2)

NIK282000 (737852) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433209)

I'm familiar with the hoops you have to jump through to take down videos but I've found them to be painless in my experience. I had 2 high traffic videos re-uploaded by other users (with ads) that I filed claims for. By providing a link to my original video the process was sped up quite a bit.
 
However I do agree that Google has no incentive to enforce their own copyright rules unless someone notices. I can't imagine how much ad revenue they have made on movies and music that was uploaded by other than owners.

Re:How about weeding out infringing material? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433769)

if you try, the first thing google/youtube does is basically threaten you with jail and worse if you dont happen to be the copyright holder.

Yes, and...? This is the law, and this is not decided by Google. Would you rather there be no warning, and instead surprise you with a visit from the FBI after a takedown-spree?

it would take me all of one day at most to find over 1000 movies just with the search "full movie", each of which has a view count of 10,000+. Google could too, but they have no interest in this.

They are not legally required to, and should they decide to, they can then be held accountable for copyright infringing material.

Weren't these views dropped because of VEVO? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42432909)

"On Thursday, when YouTube sent out its regular reports on view counts, one data company, SocialBlade, noticed that the channel views for Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group saw its channel count sliced by about 2 billion views.

That led some folks to conclude that the views were "fake" and that nefarious "black hat" techniques were being cooked up by the labels to falsely inflate their views. The truth, however, isn't nearly as sexy.

Interviews Billboard.biz conducted with YouTube, label executives and analysts from Next Big Sound told a very different tale. Here's what really happened.

Read more at http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/what-really-happened-to-sony-and-universal-1008059892.story#3BCYRJW518fJqDPC.99 "

Article is wrong (4, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432957)

According to Billboard most of the 2 Billion views were removed because the videos were moved off the channel. Only a few million views were removed because of spamming. Basically the views were moved from the UMG channel to the Vevo channel. http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/945498-shin-megami-tensei-persona-4/faqs/53550 [gamefaqs.com]

iTunes (1)

jtara (133429) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433103)

"As news of the cuts spread, some critics suggested other recording artist social media could be similarly manipulated."

Well, that explains this rather bold request on Elance:

https://www.elance.com/j/build-software-that-makes-itunes-sales-go-up/36006811/ [elance.com]

"I need a talented freelancer developer to develop a software tool for Mac, or online web based which we input an iTunes Link for a Song or an App. Then it automatically increases their sale to the top charts.

I've seen 2 companies do it. i will give more details about it on message to work on how its done."

This must be rather widespread, as the employer references existing solutions. The employer seems to think this is OK enough to make an open request in a public place. (Wouldn't it be a shame if this employer were slashdotted?)

Meanwhile... 100's of terrorist videos remain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433407)

Yet posting "jihadi" videos that are clearly in violation not just of YouTube regs but of US law is not a problem with GoogTube...

False Flag Censorship 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42433593)

Isn't this the best way to fix society.

Find any video you don't like (cough, bieb, cough).

Setup a bot to create fake clicks on the video. Video gets taken down. World becomes better place?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>