Content Leeches-The Dark Underbelly of YouTube’s Content Monetization

pirate-leech-4Black markets are endemic in criminal culture, so it’s not much of a surprise, given the popularity of Internet commerce, that an illicit economy thrives online.  By now we’ve grown accustomed to finding pirated content and counterfeit products marketed on web sites across the world.  What’s disturbing is how entwined (and dependent) some of these shady enterprises are on so-called “legit” companies and how complicit such companies have become in creating, sustaining, and profiting from these dubious activities.

Google’s YouTube appears to be one such entity–a respected online portal favored by videophiles worldwide. Yet if you pull back the curtain, you’ll find that the site’s partner program facilitates–and reaps income from–a thriving crooked economy. It’s a racket that financially benefits the uploader, an intermediary and YouTube. Like a leech, its business (survival) model depends on a host (content creator) to thrive.

In a blog post published earlier this week, I outlined an instance where an industrious YouTube user had uploaded and monetized full-length feature films–films they did not own the rights to.  In that piece I mentioned other instances I’d discovered whereby a number of YouTube account holders upload and monetize various movie trailers, most likely without permission from the rights holders.

Screen Shot 2013-01-12 at 5.48.47 PMI recently found an example of this activity on YouTube channels published by the user “MyTrailerIsRich.”  It’s an ironic, and apt, choice of moniker since his channels boast more than 51 million monetized views.  If the trailer isn’t “rich,” this industrious YouTube entrepreneur might be well on his way to becoming so, thanks to his mastery of this monetizing scheme.  I call these folks “pleeches” for short–content “pirates” that operate like leeches–hangers-on who cling to, and feed off (the work of) others for personal gain.

Here’s one of this pleech’s channel offerings.  Note that it’s easy to navigate to the pleech’s other channels (TV Series, Indie Movies, Documentaries and Sci-Fi Horror) by clicking a handy menu atop the page.  To date he’s uploaded 362 videos to YouTube.

rich trailer channel page.009

One of “MyTrailerIsRich’s” YouTube’s channel featuring trailers the user doesn’t own rights to but earns money off of.

A trailer for a recent indie release “Gayby” has attracted more than 350 views in just one day.  Like the other trailers on this channel, it’s monetized with advertising and when I looked to see who claimed the trailer, I found this:

gayby claim.008

What’s worth noting about claim is that the “provider” is Wizdeo, an actual company based in France that’s serves as an intermediary to those seeking to monetize content online.  Using YouTube’s Content Management System I researched the clip’s  ”ownership information.”  According to the results, Wizdeo has claimed “worldwide” rights to this trailer.  There’s just one problem; it’s not true.  I spoke with 2 distributors who do own rights (in multiple countries) and neither has given this company permission to monetize the trailer. (This trailer was likely downloaded from YouTube via a distributor’s own channel).

I also found this trailer (shown below) for the upcoming release “A Perfect Ending,”  uploaded four days ago (January 9th, 2013).   It’s already attracted nearly 2,000 monetized views.  Distributors for this film also confirmed to me that they did not give this pleech (YouTube user) or Wizdeo permission to upload and monetize this clip.

perfect ending YT trailer.011

YouTube user “MyTrailerisRich” claims this asset (worldwide) through Wizdeo even though he doesn’t own the rights to it.

Wizdeo may well have a number of clients who legitimately own the content they upload, but since I’ve verified that this pleech does not own the rights to these trailers, it begs the question: What exactly does Wizdeo do to monitor compliance with its terms and, in turn, what does YouTube do to make sure that third-parties such as Wizdeo comply with YouTube’s terms of service?  In this situation, it appears to be a case of “Who’s on first?”

Screen Shot 2013-01-09 at 7.58.15 PM

Wizdeo’s terms for acceptance in their partner program includes the following language:

We will review your application before you notify our acceptance or refusal. We may reject your application if we believe that your string is not consistent with these terms and conditions…

(B) in any way violate the intellectual property rights. You must not distribute videos on your channel protected by copyright, which you are not the author, nor include in your video content that you do not have rights if you do not get authorization holders rights…

Screen Shot 2013-01-10 at 11.32.28 AM

If a partner violates these terms, supposedly their account can be terminated:

In addition to any other rights or remedies available to us, we can at once or as the case may terminate this Program if we determine that you or other people, we establish that they are your affiliates or act in concert you (either as part of an existing partner account, either as part of a previously terminated account Associate)

  • do not comply with any requirements or limitations described in one page “Requirements for participation in the Program Partners” or have otherwise violated these Terms or any Documentation operating
  • have breached the Agreement distribution of audiovisual programs on the Internet, confirming your membership in our program,

Essentially, Wizdeo allows its users to create an account and then utilize Wizdeo’s drop-box account to upload content directly to YouTube.  Using this setup, Wizdeo also acts as the financial intermediary (or bagman) and collects the resulting ad revenue from YouTube.  They keep a portion of the proceeds; the uploader (in this case the pleech) gets a share, and YouTube/Google the rest.  The actual rights holder earns zero.

In their terms of service, Wizdeo claims the company does not tolerate copyright infringement but it’s a claim that rings hollow.  I spoke with a representative from another U.S. distributor who owns rights to a trailer that’s also posted on one of MyTrailerisRich’s YouTube channels.  He said the company was familiar with Wizdeo and has had ongoing problems with them for the very reasons I’ve outlined.  He told me that when the studio’s content management staff discovered trailers uploaded and erroneously claimed by Wizdeo, they corrected the claim via their YouTube CMS dashboard.  Despite owning no rights for the trailer, Wizdeo reinstated the claim forcing studio staff to contact the Wizdeo tech department (in France) directly. If a distributor can’t come to an agreement to correct the claim, YouTube requires the aggrieved party to go to court if they want the video removed permanently.  This can be an expensive proposition, particularly for those without deep pockets (like indie filmmakers).

Meanwhile, according to my source, they’ve made little progress in forcing Wizdeo to drop their false claim(s).  It’s obvious as to why.  The longer Wizdeo drags their feet, the more money they make.  My source explained that if, and when Wizdeo does eventually give up, the company knows it’s not likely to face any real consequences.   Meanwhile, the cash keeps coming.  Reviewing their terms of service, it becomes obvious that in this instance, Wizdeo’s legalistic homage to honoring copyrights is boilerplate bull.

YouTube instructs a rights holders to use their DMCA takedown procedure when they come across this situation and routinely ignore any  direct correspondence on the subject.    They also won’t acknowledge how much income is derived from this illegal commerce, nor do they refund any of the resulting income to a video’s rightful owner. As is typical for YouTube/Google, it’s a matter of  “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”  when it comes to this dubious activity.  Meanwhile, company balance sheets continue to grow.  Missing from this scenario is the fourth monkey, “do no evil.”

Content monetization is a business model that works well for both those who seek legitimate profits, and those seeking illegitimate ones.  For YouTube and its stockholders, the difference between the two is apparently irrelevant.  This despite their own “YouTube Partner” criteria:

You may not be able to monetize videos which use any of the following without the explicit permission of the person who created or produced all material:

  • Music (including cover songs, lyrics, and background music)
  • Graphics and pictures (including photographs and artwork)
  • Movie or TV visuals
  • Video game or software visuals. Click here for details.
  • Live performances (including concerts, sporting events, and shows)

For more information about content copyright requirements, please review the resources here.

YouTube also specifically includes movie “trailers” in its explanation of “what is copyright:”

Some examples of potentially infringing content are:

  • TV shows
  • Music videos, such as the ones you might find on music video channels
  • Videos of live concerts, even if you captured the video yourself
  • Movies and movie trailers
  • Commercials
  • Slide shows that include photos or images owned by somebody else

What you have here is a crime that falls through the cracks, not obvious at first glance, but insidious nonetheless.  It’s a criminal business model that has seemingly become routine.  YouTube can deny responsibility since Wizdeo provided the interface to upload and monetize the video, and Wizdeo can claim that it’s the “partners” who violated their terms of service by uploading content that’s not their own.  Where exactly does the buck stop?  Is this the sort of “safe harbor” envisioned by those who crafted the DMCA?  Is it really acceptable for YouTube and Wizdeo to look the other way while pocketing loads of cash from what is clearly illegal activity?

Imagine how much money you could make if the dancing cat videos you uploaded to YouTube got 51 million hits?  Some will argue that trailers are designed to publicize films and that this viral marketing is good for business.  Of course having one’s trailer on YouTube is good for business.  If I search YouTube for “Gayby” or “A Perfect Ending” I can easily find and view the legit versions uploaded by the film’s distributors.  In fact, I can embed one right here on this website.


Theres no doubt viral marketing has become a fundamental part of modern-day film marketing.   In most cases, distributors have no problem with YouTube users who upload and share trailers to films, but it should be left to the rights owner to monetize them, not the uploader or intermediaries.  As host of the site, it’s reasonable that YouTube share in any revenues for legitimately claimed trailers, but beyond that, it’s basically theft.

Remember, even those who developed the Creative Commons license options have made the distinction clear.  Creative commons licensors may be happy to allow sharing with attribution, but generally not content commercialization without compensation.  The recent kerfuffle over Instagram’s proposed changes in their terms of service was also sparked by the fact its users did not appreciate the idea that the company would monetize uploaded photographs without permission.

This activity has clearly evolved into a cottage industry on YouTube and it’s clearly “good” business for their bottom line– but the question remains, is it an ethical way of doing business?   Not so much.

Youtube Allows Pirate “Partners” to Profit From Illegal Movie Uploads

tt0245238-1I was on YouTube recently and came across another, not so surprising, downside to their content monetization.  At first I’d noticed some movie trailers that were uploaded, claimed, and monetized by entities other than the studios/rights holders.  Now it’s not surprising that folks upload trailers that aren’t theirs, claim it and make money off it.  However, it doesn’t stop there.

How about uploading an entire movie and earning money off it even if you don’t own the rights?  Well, on YouTube it’s apparently pretty easy.  Here’s an example of a Canadian feature film called “Lost and Delirious” that I discovered on YouTube—the entire film, all 95 minutes of it, conveniently offering subtitle options in multiple languages.  Take your pick:  Czech, French, German, Polish, English, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish…

Los Delirous Youtube stream.002

Full stream of “Lost and Delirious” complete with subtitles in multiple languages monetized on YouTube by someone other than copyright holder.

When I checked to see what entity “claimed” the film I found that it wasn’t the director Lea Pool or the studio that had claimed it.  It was claimed by YouTube user __u1DkXdYlQ6__.  It’s not a user name per se, the actual uploader seems to be attached to a channel aptly titled “Art Cinema” with the YouTube user name: myArtCinema3.   However, by the looks of it, it appears that  __u1DkXdYlQ6__ is the “Partner” (i.e. monetization account) that has “claimed” the film on behalf of “Art Cinema.”  Since there is advertising on this upload, one can assume that the clip was indeed claimed for the purpose of monetizing it.

Here’s the ownership information for this movie viewed via my CMS dashboard.  The user “asserts ownership” worldwide.  I wonder what the film’s legit distributor thinks about that claim?

cms user youtube.001

 

Notice that the film was uploaded on October 15th, 2012 and in less than four months, has already attracted nearly 1.5 million views.  What that means is lots of ad money for YouTube/Google and lots of money for the pirate who uploaded the film.  The filmmaker and her production company apparently get nothing.

This is not an isolated example.  It appears that this same YouTube user has uploaded other complete films, using several accounts,  with varying degrees of success.  In November, “myartcinema4″ uploaded and claimed another popular indie film from the 90s,  “The Incredibly True Adventures of  Two Girls in Love.”  It’s already attracted more than 2 million views, worth nearly $6,000, a tidy pirate profit.*

2 girls graphic.005

YouTube user “artcinema4″ has uploaded and “claimed” this film. Uploaded in November it’s already attracted more than 2 million views.

Another upload “Antonia’s Line”,  has attracted more than 400,000 views but can’t be monetized since it’s labeled  “age restricted” under YouTube community guidelines (meaning some user tagged it, probably for sexual content).

Screen Shot 2013-01-06 at 8.33.56 PM

Zoosk ad appears at the beginning of this pirated film, despite its “R” rating.

“Lost and Delirious,” also rated “R,” seems to have slipped under the “community” censorship radar–for the time being anyway, but it’s probably why this user uploaded a duplicate copy of the film.  In case the first cash cow gets tagged as having “age restricted” content, the second copy can fill viewer demand and earn clicks and cash for this industrious pirate’s coffers.

Uploaded a month later on November 15th, this second version has garnered more than 119,000 views.  Adding the two together, that’s more than 1.6 million total views.  It’s impossible to know exactly how much income that generates, but it’s likely somewhere around $3,000 so far.

Overall, not a bad payday considering the uploader didn’t do a lick of work…well, unless you count uploading the films and, in profound bit of hubris, adding a customized “art cinema” graphic (below) to the opening credits of  the stolen films.  Of course we’ll also never know how much YouTube/Google makes on these illegal uploads since the company is notoriously opaque when it comes to providing specifics on its billions in advertising income.  I’ve attempted to contact a representative from YouTube for comment on this story and will update if any response is forthcoming.

Screen Shot 2013-01-06 at 8.20.20 PM

YouTube pirate adds his/her own fancy graphic to pirated films.

It also appears that this uploader has created a number of other similarly theme YouTube accounts, four of which (created in September, October and November 2012) under the user names: myArtCinema, myArtCinema2, myArtCinema3, and myArtCinema4.   All four “channels” offer uploads of complete films, some of which are older foreign titles and may be in the public domain.  The uploaded films seem to be linked to various YouTube “Partner” accounts including (__OkhXVt6c-7__) and (__BnxrHCbbK2__), but I suspect they all link back to the same individual, or group of individuals.  Though I haven’t yet been able to confirm this with YouTube,  given the way the channels are presented, organized and linked, it’s hard not to believe otherwise.

There’s also an account, presumably by the same individual, with the moniker artcinema4.  Not sure what happened to artcinema1, 2, and 3…but I would guess they were removed due to repeated copyright infringement.  This thief certainly believes in multiple layers of redundancy to protect his/her scheme.

vox indie youtube.004

This YouTube pirate has opened multiple accounts using variations on the moniker “art cinema” –all feature full-length movies monetized with advertising

One might ask what YouTube should do about this situation?  After all, the films’ distributors don’t seem to have set up Content ID matching to protect  these title, or perhaps they just slipped through (Content ID matching is not infallible).  Should the onus be on them to prevent this kind of theft–theft that benefits the uploader and the host?  By allowing uploads for longer content, including feature length films, YouTube has opened the door to this activity.

I’m all for allowing users to upload works that exceed 20 minutes in length, as long as it’s their own work.  For uploads with running times longer than 20 minutes, why not put the burden on YouTube users to prove that they, in fact, own the rights to such material before it’s approved for upload?  Of course, until recently, YouTube restricted upload lengths for most users, so pirates would often break films into multiple, 10-minute parts….still piracy, but at least that format created a disincentive to watch a pirated movie.

As of now, YouTube seems to place few obstacles in the path of pirates and their profits. Let’s also not forget that it’s the lure of profits, not altruism, that encourages users like “myArtCinema” to upload this type of stolen content in the first place.  This is but one example of a very calculated, and all too common crime.   A crime, that for the time being, has little apparent risk and much potential reward.  These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.  Perhaps the films’ rights holders will go to court and ask for the income to which they are entitled.  I hope so.

 

*My income estimate is based on a similar title that earned $700+ for 250,000 hits on YouTube.  Google/YouTube does not release specific information regarding Youtube monetization income.

Update: 9:12 p.m.

Well, apparently the film’s rights holders weren’t pleased with this situation either.  Here’s the result:

R.I.P. myArtCinema2

One of Art Cinema’s accounts (myArtCinema2) was terminated due to repeated copyright infringement

via NPR-How Much do Artists Make on Youtube?

NPR’s Laura Sydell has a story today that examines how much musicians earn via Youtube’s ad monetization, “Youtube Shares Ad Revenue With Musicians, But Does it Add Up?

YouTube is well-known for videos, but a recent Nielsen study revealed 64 percent of teens and young adults go to it to listen to and discover music. The free website, which is owned by Google, has set up advertising deals to help musicians get compensated. But it’s not clear how they’re getting paid — or how much.

First of all, I’d point out that Google didn’t “set up” advertising deals to “help” musicians get compensated.  Advertising on YouTube was established to help Google make money.  For them, compensating artists in some fashion is merely a part of doing business.  Google’s motivations aside, as I mentioned in an earlier blog post on YouTube’s monetization program:

The other grey area with regard to the Content ID system and monetization is the utter lack of transparency.  How much does Google actually make off the ads that appear next to your content?  It’s not entirely clear and something Google should fix.  One can only assume it’s to Google’s benefit, and not the artist’s, to keep this part of the system as opaque as possible.

Bottom line, musicians and filmmakers whose work is routinely uploaded to YouTube without permission can make some money from it.  Time for Google to tell us exactly how much they are making.  Anything less than full transparency is unacceptable.

Youtube Content ID-A Must for Every Indie Filmmaker or Musician

When Google recently announced a change to its search rankings algorithm, lowering results for known pirate sites, critics asked why the company would not do the same for Youtube , despite the site’s popularity as a repository for pirated films and music.

Such criticism seems justified.  After all, Google-owned Youtube, like the pirate sites being penalized, receives thousands of DMCA notices each day.  If they’re serious about re-ranking pirate site search results, how can Google justify Youtube’s exclusion from this self-imposed pirate penalty?

As I see it, there’s really only one way that Google/Youtube can justify this apparent contradiction.  Unlike the penalized pirate sites, Youtube distinguishes itself  in one significant way—by offering rights holders access to a “Content ID” system.  Imperfect though it may be,  Youtube’s Content ID technology is a feature that all indie musicians and filmmakers should understand and utilize.

Here’s Youtube’s short video that explains how Content ID works:

As Youtube explains it:

Rights holders deliver YouTube reference files (audio-only or video) of content they own, metadata describing that content, and policies on what they want YouTube to do when we find a match. We compare videos uploaded to YouTube against those reference files.Our technology automatically identifies your content and applies your preferred policy: monetize, track, or block.

According to Youtube, here are reasons you should use Content ID:

  • Make Money. Hundreds of media companies have signed up already, multiplying their inventory of monetizeable videos.
  • Fan Interaction. Turn your fans into marketers and distributors of your content—while letting them interact with their favorite content.
  • Reduce Infringement. Educate your fans about your copyright preferences and prevent your content from being distributed on YouTube without your permission.
  • Fully Automated. Once you’re set up, Content ID will identify, claim, and apply policies to YouTube videos for you.
  • Market Data. Access snapshots of your content profile on YouTube, anytime. See how your videos are performing, monetizing, being blocked—at a glance.

Sounds too good to be true right?  Well, kinda….but, despite overblown claims and systemic weaknesses, it’s better than the alternative (rampant piracy). With a Content ID account, you’ll gain some control over your content that’s uploaded to Youtube and can determine its fate. Based on what rights you hold, you can remove it, monetize it (share ad revenue with Youtube) or block it (worldwide or by territory) via a fairly straightforward dashboard-a welcome alternative to wasting precious time sending Youtube multiple DMCA notices.  As with DMCA takedowns, uploaders retain the right to dispute  a file’s removal via a counter-notice, but if you have removed legitimately infringing content, this is usually moot.

You can apply for a Content ID account here.  Once you’ve been approved, you all have access to a “Content Management” dashboard that looks like this:

The process is actually relatively straightforward.  In order to “deliver” content to Youtube, technically all you really have to do is “claim it” when you upload it. Even if you don’t plan to post a public file on Youtube, you can upload a copy of your song or film just as a reference copy for the Content ID system to use as a “fingerprint.”  Below is an example of what the claiming options look like when you upload a file (and have an approved Content ID account).

If the file is for reference purposes only, make sure to make it “private” so that it won’t be accessible to the public.  Once you have a copy  of your work (video or audio) uploaded and claimed, you can use the search option, and search for your work by title or other associated key words that uploaders might use. For demonstration purposes, I searched using the term “Hunger Games Full Movie” by date to demonstrate what results could look like.

Note the search results showed dozens of pirate links uploaded within the last hour, something not uncommon for large Hollywood features.  Most of these files are uploads made by pirates seeking to publicize (illegal) download links on other, non-Youtube sites.  For pirates, uploading these bogus files is a free and easy way to advertise and direct users to their pirates websites.  Unfortunately, while it appears that thousands of these are pirate clips are uploaded daily, Youtube’s  Content ID program  can’t detect them, so you’ll have to use search to find.  n the example below, you can see how using a keyword  search can detect these infringing uploads.

Once you have a list like the one above, you can sort through it and see how you want to handle each file.  I recommend making multiple searches using various keyword combinations.  If you are searching for bogus pirate film files, including the word “full” or “full movie” are helpful.  When you find illegal copies of your work, take note of what keywords the uploader used as it may provide insight into what search terms to use.

There’s also an option to send the entire list to “automated review.” That can be helpful if the clips include snippets of your film or music, but in the example above, most of the results point to dummy uploads (i.e. 10 minutes of black video with a single frame from pirated film).  As I mentioned,  Content ID cannot match these to any content, users are forced to look at each one by one and remove them.  It’s tedious and time-consuming, but necessary.

Another option on your CMS dashboard is the option to view all “claims” that have been generated, either through manual search (shown above) or via Content ID.  In terms of the latter, when a file is uploaded that matches your claimed content, it’s automatically added to your claims list. You can predetermine what happens to any matches (blocking or monetization) but if you choose to remove a file entirely, you must manually change the designation to “takedown.”  Here’s an example from our CMS dashboard claims page that lists a number of recent pirate uploads linking to our film and some fan tributes/mashups.

In either case, whether discovering a questionable upload via search results or the claims list, if you find a file that contains  your copyrighted content you can select it, and claim it based on your original reference version (note the bogus “Dreamworks” logo on this example used to make it look legit).

 

We tend to monetize the fan videos and remove (takedown) the pirate links.  In the example below (pirate link to offsite version of our film) we chose “takedown.

Once you’ve taken down a video, viewers visiting the link will see this:

If a clip is discovered through video match, you can open the claim and change the default selection.  This clip was monetized automatically, but had we wanted to, we could have blocked the clip or removed it.  In this case, since it was a fan mashup, we chose to leave the default setting in place.

The dashboard also provides users with the ability to view income and drill down into analytics to determine the demographics and locations of your viewers.  (Who knew lesbian rom-coms would be so popular in Saudia Arabia?)

You can also keep track of income, though, not surprisingly, this is the weakest and most opaque part of this system.

In order to actually be paid for any income accrued through monetization of your content, you must also have an active Google AdSense account.  Fortunately, applying for an AdSense account is not all that difficult.  Once approved, you must link your Youtube Content ID account with your AdSense account and receive payouts once your income exceeds $100.  Depending on the type and amount of content you claim on Youtube, this can happen quickly or take months.

Is this system perfect?  The short answer is NO.  As mentioned previously, Content ID cannot catch the dozens or, in some cases, thousands of pirate uploads that contain dummy content but link to offsite downloads.  You’ll have to ferret these out using search and remove them manually, but it’s still a thousand times more efficient than having to send DMCA notices.

The Content ID system  also seems to have a harder time finding clips that were previously uploaded to the site (before you claimed your content).  When you create a new account, it’s advisable use search option on a regular basis to double-check for uploaded content, rather than depend entirely on Content ID’s automatic matching capabilities.   If you do both, you can feel pretty good about having your bases covered when it comes to keeping pirated copies of your work off Youtube.

The other grey area with regard to the Content ID system and monetization is the utter lack of transparency.  How much does Google actually make off the ads that appear next to your content?  It’s not entirely clear and something Google should fix.  One can only assume it’s to Google’s benefit, and not the artist’s, to keep this part of the system as opaque as possible.

When you start claiming and monetizing your content online you may also have uploaders who protest, citing the oft-used “fair use” excuse.   If you have selected the option to monetize the content they uploaded, it’s usually as simple as writing them a short, polite message explaining that you own the rights to the material, but are not removing it, just monetizing it.  However I’ve also had instances where someone uploads 10-minute sections of our film in multiple parts and claim “fair use” when I remove the clips.  Again, I send a polite note explaining “fair use” does not allow one to upload 10 minutes excerpts of a feature film.  It’s not a bad idea to include a link to Youtube’s copyright information/education pages as well.  Once I send a note, I generally never hear back.

Whether or not you earn much income from your claimed content depends on the volume of material present, and the number of views generated.   However, even if you won’t earn much in the way of income, it’s still worthwhile to take advantage of Content ID, if only to safeguard your work from piracy.  The analytics can also offer some useful information as to the demographics  and reach of your uploaded work and perhaps help guide you in developing effective new alternative approaches to online distribution.

Given today’s technology, there’s no reason websites around the globe can’t institute similar systems. Megaupload’s embattled Kim Dotcom likes to pontificate (to anyone who will listen) and claims he’s “…at the forefront of creating the cool stuff that will allow creative works to thrive in an Internet age. I have the solutions to your problems. I am not your enemy.”   

Were that really true, why didn’t Mr. Dotcom use technology to transform Megaupload.com into legitimate UGC (user-generated content) by implementing a Content ID system like Youtube’s?  Oh right, he would have had to share the profits.  Despite his disingenuous rhetoric to the contrary, for him, theft for profit trumps technology any day of the week.

For sites that hope to create a legitimate business model to “share” creative work, providing content creators with technological tools to control online access to their work should be mandatory.  If and when Congress revisits the antiquated DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) why not make such fingerprinting technology a requirement for meeting the “safe harbor” provisions of the law. Such a requirement wouldn’t “break” the internet, but could go a long way in mitigating piracy’s negative impact.

As online distribution options grow and improve, hopefully indie artists can say goodbye to the opaque revenue “sharing” model imposed by Youtube and take their content to sites/businesses where formulas for compensation are more transparent, and more generous to those who actually create the content.

For now, however, something is a whole lot better than nothing….