UPDATE: It seems that Lumen database has finally acknowledged that there is an issue and seen the light. Its operators have announced an important change, limiting access to actual infringing links. Per Torrent Freak:
In a nutshell, takedown notices presented in Lumen’s database will no longer list the precise URLs targeted by copyright holders. Instead, as the image below illustrates, the notices only list how many URLs were targeted at specific domains.
YouTube is a money machine for Google. While actual numbers are hard to come by, it’s estimated that the online video hub brings in upwards of $15 billion annually.With that much money at stake, it’s not surprising that its business model continues to put profits over people.
In 2015, following the on-air murder of a television reporter and her cameraman, gruesome videos of the event were quickly posted on YouTube with with ads alongside. I wrote a post about it at the time:
Excellent news out of the European Union, as contentious copyright reform directive (Copyright in the Digital Single Market) was recently approved by the European Council. While the agreement still has a couple more hurdles before it can become law, momentum seems to be moving in the right direction.
Doing the job, but not a very good jobWhen people talk about effective ways to mitigate the impact of online piracy, YouTube’s Content ID is often used as an example of what works. Unfortunately, despite its role as poster boy for anti-piracy tech, in reality it falls flat as a gatekeeper against online piracy.
Aside from a labyrinth-like user interface that seems likely to have been designed–not to help– but to discourage rights holders from using Content ID, the actual fingerprinting technology behind it can be easily fooled.
YouTube introduced the Content ID system in 2007. At the time, the company was facing pressure from a Viacom lawsuit, among others. According to YouTube, it’s pretty straightforward:
Videos uploaded to YouTube are scanned against a database of files that have been submitted to us by content owners. Copyright owners get to decide what happens when content in a video on YouTube matches a work they own. When this happens, the video gets a Content ID claim.
Looking to make money off work they don’t own, clever YouTube users have discovered ways to fool the technology so their illegal uploads of copyrighted movies and music don’t get flagged, blocked or removed.
I began noticing this phenomenon more lately as I’ve begun to find full, infringing copies of films uploaded that matched content owned by a film distributor I work for. This seems to be happening more often and I was curious as to how these pirated copies had avoided detected by Content ID. When I looked closely I saw that subtle manipulations in brightness had taken place along with slight adjustments to frame size and sometimes the crop of the frame.
When I started poking around YouTube to find other examples of these uploads they were easy to find. It only took me a few minutes to find dozens of copies of a variety of full copyrighted movies, old and new. One title I came across was the movie, Everest. Below are screen captures from two different full uploads of the movie I found streaming on YouTube.
Two full copies of the movie Everest uploaded to YouTube.
In this case the uploader had used several techniques to avoid detection including reversing the frame (note the backwards title), darkening the lower part of the frame and cropping it. Of course, having recently viewed the film on HBO, watching a lousy copy like this on YouTube wouldn’t be my choice, but apparently others didn’t mind. Uploaded only a month ago, the movie had already racked up more than 16,000 views.
Why go to all this trouble to manipulate a movie for upload to YouTube? Well, it’s the age-old pirate motivator–money. This uploader, who goes by the name Kenneth Lamb, has claimed ownership of this content and monetized it with ads. He makes money. YouTube makes money. The movie’s actual production companies make nothing.
This YouTube user claims to own rights to Everest movie worldwide and makes money off ads
In an ironic twist, several of the ads that appeared when I was examining (and reloading) this pirated copy of the film were for films including DreamWork’s upcoming movie Trolls and Warner Brother’s Jason Bourne. It’s more than a tad ironic that Hollywood studios are (inadvertently) putting cash in YouTube’s hands via advertising on a pirated copy for one of its own productions.
Ultimate irony that ads for upcoming movie releases are featured on pirated copies of Hollywood films
I don’t deal with music or audio files on YouTube but there are similar manipulations happening there as well where uploaders resample, add noise, etc. to fool the Content ID system into ignoring the file.
What can YouTube do to fix this growing problem? Per usual, the list is long and varied, but begins with asking Google engineers to design better fingerprinting tech. There are other companies that offer digital fingerprinting technology seem to do a better job catching these circumventions. If I can easily uncover an upload is a copy of the movie Everest, why can’t Content ID? You can’t tell me that with all its financial (and technological) resources YouTube doesn’t means to upgrade its system?
Aside from updating its fingerprinting capabilities, YouTube could also improve the Content ID system through providing a better interface, more transparency, better compensation for artists, etc. Of course again that would mean lower profits for Google/YouTube so such straightforward fixes are unlikely. Meanwhile, YouTube makes great hay out of its concerns for poor, maligned users who may have received an erroneous DMCA notice. The company is willing to spend money to defend a few select uploaders but won’t spend resources to fix its broken Content ID system?
Of course the powers that be at YouTube probably prefer to keep Content ID just the way it is–creaking along, occupying a neutral zone positioned between accolades and scorn. It’s a safe position, one that gives YouTube officials cover when they use disingenuous excuses about their anti-piracy practices to critics, while avoiding any real (legal or financial) consequences.
Content ID does the job just well enough….but that doesn’t mean it does a good job. It could serve as a true model for technological safeguards against piracy, but as now, it’s merely a slight bump in the road for those determined to steal and monetize the works of others. Meanwhile, YouTube continues to pocket advertising cash, make its stockholders happy while leaving filmmakers and musicians on the outside, looking in.
Illustration-iStock
YouTube is great for finding videos about pretty much everything. Need to learn how to fix a furnace or use the latest camera equipment? There’s bound to be a video shows you how. Unfortunately, amid the useful stuff, YouTube is also chock full of garbage. The question is, with its massive technical resources, why doesn’t the site do a better job keeping house?
I’ve written before about the epidemic of fake “full-movie” uploads that fill YouTube. That was in 2012. Now, six years later, the problem still exists. Apparently, YouTube isn’t concerned that its pages are full of spam files, many of them fake pirate movie uploads that lead users to sites rife with malware and money-making scams.
These fake uploads, promising full copies of hundreds of films, both indie and mainstream, are easy to find. Go to YouTube, search for a specific film title using the term “full movie,” and voilà, most results will lead to garbage. These bogus uploads fall into two categories. Some offer links to other dubious websites while others are merely dummy files uploaded to generate advertising income (for the user and YouTube). Some do both.
As for these offsite scam movie/gaming portals, it’s difficult to figure out who is actually behind them. The site URLs vary and include tzarmedia.com, gnomicfun.com, cnidaplay.com, jabirufun.com, flogame.com, among dozens of others. Curiously, a WHOIS search for these various domains indicates they are all registered via the same domain registrar, enom.com. One can’t help but suspect that this particular business model is being orchestrated by a few, linked operators. When I called their customer service number to ask questions I was given the proverbial run-around. Other contact information was essentially non-existent.
These scam movies sites share domain registrar and likely more
Why are such dummy files an issue? Not only do they pollute legit searches for content on YouTube, but they make the process of reviewing pirated content more difficult for rights holders. When I search for copies of my film using my Content ID account, I have to wade through dozens of these fake uploads.
Removing them is an incredibly time-consuming task as it seems YouTube has purposely chosen to make the Content ID dashboard as inconvenient as possible for users.
When I get page of results that is nothing but dummy uploads why can’t doesn’t YouTube offer a select all option so that I can remove them en masse? Instead–if I want to remove them–I’m forced to click and open each one and go through a 5 step process: select takedown, select title, acknowledge, fill in my signature and then click takedown. Instead, why not offer a select all option?
Another interesting twist is that many of these fake movie uploads also share links to legit social media sites like MTV’s Facebook or The Wrap’s Twitter account. I checked to see whether the operators of these sites knew about this and was assured they didn’t. It would appear these dummy uploads include such links drive more traffic to the bogus uploads and make them seem legit.
What can YouTube do to prevent this scheme? Why not utilize their own fingerprinting tech (Content ID) to detect and block these dummy files? If necessary, why not employ a team of actual humans to help with the task. I imagine if their engineers put their minds to it the task would be a relatively simple one. Certainly YouTube can afford to invest in keeping its house tidy?
Perhaps YouTube doesn’t take action against such uploads because it makes money off them? Here are just a few examples I found recently–bogus uploads with advertisements for New York Life, Walmart, Tide and Walgreens. These fake pirate full-movie uploads emblazoned with ads are a dime a dozen on YouTube. Do these advertisers know what they’re paying for? Do they care? Perhaps TAG, the Trustworthy Accountability Group, should take a look at this situation and pressure YouTube to take action.
Can you think of any other business that could get away charging money this for type of thing? Isn’t Internet commerce–and YouTube–mature enough at this point to operate a business where what you see is what you get? Apparently not… Imagine walking down the aisles of Target and finding half the merchandise to be knock-offs or empty boxes?
It’s not only the spam fake movie uploads and advertising scams that are problematic. As a study by the Digital Citizens Alliance found, YouTube is also rife with uploads that link to various types of malware including RATS (Remote Access Trojans), used by hackers to install malware that hijacks computers of unsuspecting internet users. Why is it OK for YouTube to continue to allow activity that scams–and possibly endangers–users?
As I mentioned, YouTube has the technical expertise and financial means to develop better algorithms and Content ID matching to weed out these garbage uploads if it chose to do so. Until then, the site will increasingly resemble a hoarders home with junk stuffed into every conceivable corner. Is that any way to run a business?
Why not make Content ID more accessible and transparent?Much has been written about YouTube’s Content ID program, a fingerprinting technology that allows rights holders to find and claim their music or movies when uploaded to YouTube. The technology was introduced in 2008 in the wake of Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube and since then has helped (some) creators mitigate the problem of piracy on the popular UGC (user-generated content) site.
Those who have access to the Content ID system can uploaded reference files and use a dashboard to choose how matches should be handled. They can be limited based on audio, video, and length. Matching content then can be blocked, removed, or monetized based on territorial rights.
I’ve written many pieces about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to Content ID so I won’t be redundant here, but this week I read some pieces which highlight some lingering issues that continue to limit the reach (and effectiveness) of this technology–most notably limited access and accountability.
Author Ryan Holiday published a piece in The Observer asking, “When Will YouTube Deal With Its Audiobook and Podcast Piracy Problem?” He described how using search, he’d found the audio version of one of his books streaming, in full, on YouTube. The audio had been streamed 16,000 times. He observed, “It might not seem like a ton but the book had sold about 50,000 copies in audio—an additional 30% of that figure pirated it through a single video?”
Holiday goes on to repeat the oft-heard lament of filmmakers, musicians, et al who have found their pirated works streaming on YouTube. Like many of them, Holiday believes YouTube needs to make it easier for artists to protect their creations from this type of theft:
For its part, YouTube needs to get its act together and offer tools directly to publishers and authors. Audiobook piracy is real and clearly growing. The idea that songs and television and films all deserve protections from Content ID but authors don’t is absurd.
Now, to be fair, it’s not clear that Holiday himself has ever applied for Content ID access. It seems that the YouTube’s language dissuaded him.
I can continue to file these claims as the author but since I’m not a major publisher with a “substantial body of original material,” I can’t participate in YouTube’s Content ID personally.
If I were an author (or publisher) I would not hesitate to at least try to apply for a Content ID account. I had no difficulty being approved for a Content ID account in 2010 and only own the rights to two films, a feature and a documentary that I co-produced. The companies that distribute my film also have Content ID for their film catalogues.
According to YouTube, acceptance is based on:
…an evaluation of each applicant’s actual need for the tools. Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights…Content ID applicants may be rejected if other tools better suit their needs
The key here is the last sentence. There’s also Content Verification which seems to be another, higher tier of Content ID aimed at large companies. The other “tool” is simply sending a takedown via web form. That may be appropriate in very limited situations, but using it can be time-consuming and also requires a rights holder be proactive in searching for infringing content. Since Content ID does that work for you it’s the key reason it should be made available on a much wider scale. As Holiday noted, one copy of his book was accessed thousands of times….shouldn’t the onus be on YouTube to put a roadblock up to prevent infringement? Why should creators be required to be copyright cops too?
Frustration over YouTube’s Content ID and monetization scheme was also at the core of a blog post by 5-time Grammy winner, musician Maria Schneider published on Music Tech Policy. Schneider has become a strong advocate for artists rights and attacks Content ID on a number of levels including skewering YouTube over its lack of transparency (a common complaint among many musicians) and for its apparent refusal to grant access to artists–even those like her–who are Grammy recipients.
Content ID is reserved for big record companies with big catalogues, and probably selected independent artists whom YouTube believes will make YouTube a heap of money…In the press, YouTube has fought back against the recent flood of criticism, saying that all rights-holders can access Content ID – that they can get it through “third-party vendors.” These third party vendors often take between 20% to 50% of the revenue paid by YouTube—after YouTube takes its share.
I highly recommend reading Schneider’s post for her account of how Content ID has failed her and other musicians. As a filmmaker, in terms of using Content ID simply to combat piracy, my experiences have differed, but I do share many of her overall concerns. Unfortunately, the fact she (and others) are apparently being denied direct access to Content ID tools is an ongoing issue that inflames the lingering, legitimate mistrust creators have with Google.
In spite of years of ongoing complaints like these, neither Google nor YouTube seem really to have made a genuine effort to work with artists–instead preferring to stonewall or sidestep debate. When YouTube officials do comment, they often find themselves tangled up in webs of their own making, as was the case when musician Zoe Keating took them to task in a very public exchange. Why not work with creators to solve some of these problems instead of demonizing them? There are ways to find common ground if only the powers that be at Google would care to (really) listen.
Moving the Content ID machinery out of the shadows could pay dividends in other ways–perhaps by helping bridge the divide in disputes over copyright. Maarten Zeinstra, an “advisor on copyright and technology” recently penned a thoughtful blog post proposing that YouTube’s Content ID could become a useful tool for those who interested in utilizing content in legitimate ways. His piece, “YouTube should open up Content ID” was published this past May on the Dutch website, Kennisland. In it, Zeinstra noted:
YouTube should open up Content ID and make their register of rights holders publicly available...Let anyone be able to contact the rights owners of a certain clip or publicly contest that ownership. This creates an innovative new possibility in using content with permission or under copyright exceptions, and create legal certainty for copyright holders and remixers alike.
Now, I’m a tad skeptical as to what he means by “contest that ownership” but I’m open to the possibility that he’s merely describing a middle ground. If someone wants to make a mashup video using clips from my film or segments of archival footage from my documentary they could use Content ID to find that I am the rightful owner of the footage and can ask permission. Personally, I support the idea of fair use but also appreciate the fact that one should ask permission. I did so with footage used in my documentary and was always met with a positive response. Perhaps opening up Content ID in this way could foster a new respect for the work of creators and support the idea of asking, and not simply taking.
Clearly, Google needs to do a much better job in providing access and accountability with its Content ID and monetization programs. Expand outreach to indie artists. Include them in discussions about how to improve Content ID. Update the interface to make it more intuitive and user-friendly. Open the books so that creators can see exactly how much revenue is earned and where it goes. Be innovative and use Content ID to open new avenues to legitimate use of copyrighted content.
There’s little doubt that YouTube’s Content ID is a powerful tool that’s in dire need of an overhaul, both in terms of who uses it and how it’s used. This technology could provide so much more than it now does–but the ball is in Google’s court. I won’t hold my breath waiting for something to change–but there’s always hope isn’t there?
