by Ellen Seidler | Google, Tech
YouTube and some of its advertisers apparently have no problem making money off videos of the WDBJ shooting incident
When it comes to making money, management at YouTube apparently has no shame
It’s no secret that YouTube slaps advertising on pretty much anything without regard for subject matter or ownership, but making money off of last week’s on-air murder of WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman Adam Ward is a new low. A source tipped me off to the fact that a number of opportunistic (and shameless) YouTube “partners” have uploaded and monetized clips of both the station’s live broadcast and the video taken, (and uploaded to Twitter) by the deranged murderer as he executed the two journalists during a televised live-shot for the morning news.
While there has been an ongoing debate among news organizations about how to handle the disturbing footage, there should be no debate as to whether this footage is monetization worthy. Earlier this year YouTube (and advertisers) were embarrassed by reports of advertisements appearing on terrorist recruiting videos. Now this.
The ads appear as sidebar ads, pre-roll ads, and overlay ads. It wouldn’t be difficult for YouTube to prevent this type of disturbing video from being uploaded in the first place, much less monetized. After all, YouTube brags about what a great job its Content ID program does keeping infringing content off the site. Why not use it to block these type of uploads? Can’t YouTube use its own technology to safeguard advertisers?
While the debate as to whether these clips are newsworthy will continue, are videos depicting the cold-blooded murder of two people really ad-worthy? Where are the advertisers in all this? Are they even aware of where their ads appear? They are culpable in this fiasco too. When ads were placed on ISIS videos advertisers several advertisers expressed their displeasure with YouTube and pledged to take action. With this latest revelation it appears their words may have simply been spin control. After all, we’ve heard time and time again how the ad industry is concerned about “brand integrity” online. Perhaps the industry should look at the consistent lack of “integrity” in YouTube’s monetization practices?
As for YouTube itself, in the past, company representatives have defended its hands-off approach. When called out for the ads on ISIS recruiting videos earlier this year a spokesman tried to justify YouTube’s approach in a statement to NBC News:
“YouTube has clear policies prohibiting content intended to incite violence, and we remove videos violating these policies when flagged by our users. We also have stringent advertising guidelines, and work to prevent ads appearing against any video once we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partners,” a YouTube spokesperson said Tuesday in a statement to NBC News. YouTube videos are frequently preceded by ads that are picked at random by an algorithm. That means often neither YouTube nor the advertiser will know what ads are playing before which videos.
WDBJ Shooting videos make money for YouTube and its “Partners”
YouTube boasts its monetized videos provide “Advertiser Friendly Content”
YouTube purports to require that partner monetized videos provide “advertiser friendly content.” What exactly is that? Well, this is how YouTube explains its standards on for its “Partner Program” :
Even though content may be acceptable for YouTube under our policies, not all of it is appropriate for Google advertising. Google has principles around what we monetize that we expect our content creators who want to monetize to comply with. Advertisers also have their own standards and requirements on the type of content that meets their individual needs. [emphasis added] Learn more below about how YouTube defines “advertiser-friendly” content and how we prevent ads from serving against videos that do not meet this criteria.
In short, advertiser-friendly content is appropriate for all audiences, from our youngest to older viewers. It is content that has little to no inappropriate and/or mature content in the video stream, thumbnail, or metadata such as video title. If there may be inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic where the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain, and not offend or shock.
Content that YouTube considers to be inappropriate for advertising includes but is not limited to:
-
Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
-
Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
-
Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
-
Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
-
Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown
If any of the above describes any portion of your video, then it may not be approved for monetization. In cases where monetization is approved, your video may not be eligible for all of the ad formats we offer. YouTube reserves the right to not monetize a video, as well as suspend monetization feature on channels who repeatedly submit videos that violate our policies.
The implication here is that some sort of quality control is happening. The Partner Program information continues with this disingenuous gem:
How do we qualify content as “advertiser-friendly”?
YouTube relies on sophisticated technology and our policy enforcement processes when determining if a video is suitable for advertising. [emphasis added] We have trained systems that automatically check various features of a video – from the video title, metadata, and visual imagery – and makes a decision on how appropriate this video is for general advertising.
In conjunction with these automated checks, we also depend on our user community to flag inappropriate videos to us for our review. Depending on the nature of the policy violation, videos can be removed from the site or age-restricted. Monetization is disabled on age-restricted videos and Google will immediately stop serving ads on these videos.
Sophisticated technology? Huh? Did YouTube’s “sophisticated technology” deem video depicting the murder of two innocent people suitable? The implication here is that some sort of quality control is happening, but that’s not at all the case. Crap uploaded by “partners” (aka scammers) routinely gets monetized on YouTube by without any sort of approval process. Whether its videos for ISIS or those promoting peeping Toms, it’s only when someone flags it or publishes a story, that YouTube takes action and even then, too little, too late.
Money over morals is the YouTube mantra
Of course one of the videos (with advertising) that I saw had attracted more than 600,000 hits. Eyeballs mean money for YouTube and the partner who uploaded the video, never mind he didn’t own the rights to it. Apparently money matters more than ethics.
Where are the advertisers in all this? YouTube infers that they have their own “standards” that must be met. Do these clips showing the murder of two people on live TV qualify? Do Celebrity Cruises, Hitachi, NFL GamePass, SolarCity, Book of Mormon Musical, Sprint, Save the Children, PayPal, Honda, Flir, Claritin and other major brands really want their products slapped onto these videos?
WDBJ officials could probably get some of these videos taken down, but I imagine they probably have better things to do–like mourn their colleagues–than send DMCA notices to YouTube.
I can’t imagine what it must be like for the family and friends of these victims to know that the murder of their loved ones has become a money-making opportunity for the likes of YouTube/Google. It’s beyond shameful and there’s absolutely no excuse. YouTube needs to clean up its act and if company officials won’t make it happen, advertisers better demand better accountability.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Facebook has long turned a blind eye to profiting from piracy on its pages. Has the worm finally turned?
This past week Facebook reached a milestone when, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg, more than one billion users logged on to the social media site in a single day. Part of that growth has come from video views (4 billion per day) and so this week Facebook also announced it would (finally) tackle the online piracy that has long plagued the site.
In recent months, as a result of its increased focus on encouraging video uploads, the social media giant has faced growing criticism that it allows “freebooters” to rip-off (monetized) YouTube videos and repost them on Facebook, thereby cannibalizing creators’ profits. According to Time’s Victor Luckerson:
Online video creators, who make money by selling advertising against their content, are increasingly frustrated with the problem. In June, George Strompolos, CEO of the multichannel network Fullscreen, said on Twitter that pirated versions of Fullscreen creators’ videos were racking up more than 50 million views on Facebook. This month, Hank Green, longtime YouTube vlogger and co-founder of the online video conference VidCon, penned a diatribe against Facebook’s video policies, arguing that the social network’s preference for Facebook-native videos in its News Feed algorithm encourages theft of creators’ YouTube videos. –
Of course the same thing has happened to filmmakers for what seems like forever, but it now appears complaints (and users) have reached critical mass so Facebook may finally have to confront the rampant copyright abuse that flourishes on its pages.
Given that Facebook has its sights set on competing with YouTube as the go-to (monetized) video platform–in order to effectively compete–it seems Facebook’s days of skipping around copyright compliance may have come to an end. Following in YouTube’s Content ID footsteps, Facebook will begin to rollout its own content fingerprinting technology. According to Recode two of Facebook piracy’s loudest critics will be the first in line to test the technology:
Now Facebook says Jukin and Fullscreen are two of its initial launch partners for the new technology, along with Zefr, a service company that helps content owners track their clips on YouTube. Facebook says it is also working with major media companies on the effort, but won’t identify them.
original image-iStock
Despite this news, Facebook still has a long way to go. Not only does it need to implement and effective content matching technology (and user interface), but it also has to figure out how to split up ad profits. If history is any indication, monetization income is likely to favor Facebook rather than creators.
As with YouTube, video monetization also opens the door to scammers and may in fact worsen the problem of bootleg uploads. YouTube, despite its Content ID system, is a tangled mess. Scammers routinely upload stolen and/or dummy content and monetize it. Perhaps Facebook will do a better job and learn from YouTube’s bad example, but I’m not holding out much hope.
Has the Ostrich finally (been forced) to pull its head out of the sand?
Meanwhile Facebook, like Google, still provides fertile ground for online pirates to share their stolen goods and it’s not limited to video uploads. Like their legit counterparts, it seems every online pirate website also has its own Facebook page to share illegal links and drive traffic and ad dollars to their sites. In typical fashion, Facebook also makes money from these pirate pages by placing advertising on them. Per usual, it’s the creators who lose.
The DMCA’s safe harbor provisions have allowed this Wild West to flourish. Some call it “innovation,” but for creators, it’s just plain theft. Facebook has profited from piracy for a long time. Its proposed actions against piracy are long overdue.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Law
Youtube slaps ads on scam uploads and collects dough from advertisers who look the other way.
It’s not news that Google doesn’t take kindly to anything standing in the way of revenue. Its business practices on YouTube are no exception.
In order to stuff the mother ship’s coffers, YouTube will monetize just about any crap upload, whether it’s a terrorist recruiting videos or scams linking to pirate websites. When Google monetizes these uploads both it and the uploader make money from the ads. Does anyone care about this dirty income?
Two years ago stories surfaced showing YouTube monetized Al Qaeda videos. At the time a YouTube the Daily Mail quoted a YouTube spokesperson as saying:
‘We also have stringent guidelines regarding advertising on the site, and we may choose to stop placing ads against any video or channel if we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partners.’
Ad for Amazon Prime links to scam pirate movie website
As with most of Google’s dubious business practices the attitude is shoot first, ask questions later (if caught). Is it really OK with advertisers that their ad budgets go to support YouTube and scam account holders (or terrorists)?
I wonder if the folks at Amazon Prime know where its YouTube ad dollars actually go? Do they realize Amazon Prime ads pre-roll on scams for pirate movie websites? It’s likely some of the productions pirated are Amazon Prime originals like Transparent. Does Amazon, or any advertiser on YouTube, demand any sort of accountability as to where their advertising appears?
I’ve written more than one blog post about these shady YouTube monetization practices, but it’s like the movie Ground Hog Day--nothing changes.
Earlier this year Google/YouTube was again called out for ads on terror group videos. This time ads played with ISIS recruiting videos. Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Toyota and Anheuser-Busch were among those who ads played alongside terror videos and Google scurried to remove the ads once it was outed by the press. Though clearly not pleased, advertisers didn’t say much, perhaps not wanting to draw more attention to an embarrassing situation. According to a report on NBC News:
“Our ads should not have appeared and we’re working with YouTube to understand how it happened and to avoid it happening again,” Proctor & Gamble said in a statement to NBC News. Other companies whose pre-roll ads were spotted on since-removed ISIS-related videos — Toyota, Anheuser-Busch and smartwatch maker Pebble — didn’t immediately respond to an NBC News request for comment.
Of course ads on videos linking to scam pirate movie sites are clearly not in the same category as ISIS recruiting videos, but the underlying issue remains the same. Where are the standards?
Why does Google depend on its community guidelines as a means to vet content for monetization rather than hire a staff to do it?
Why does Google allow YouTube to monetize uploads without checking them first? Where are the gatekeepers? Why doesn’t Google, with all its riches, hire staff to review content before ads appear on videos? Google wont’ stand in the way of users uploading pirated movies or hate videos but certainly it could vet the videos to determine if they are appropriate for monetization. Why don’t advertisers demand as much?
There’s a reason Google flacks pull out the same old rhetoric when any of its YouTube policies are scrutinized. For Google, muddying the waters by mixing its protect free speech message with its unfettered approach to monetization is a savvy tactical move. It’s a smoke bomb that provides political cover so YouTube can continue to rake in big bucks and avoid accountability.
It’s one thing to hide behind the shield of free speech by allowing unrestricted uploads, but making money off them is quite another. The two are very different issues, yet Google gets away with treating them as one in the same.
Those with enough clout to force change seem either impotent, or unconcerned. Despite the ad industry’s formation of the Trustworthy Accountability Group and its “Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy” there seems to 
have been little effort, beyond weak rhetoric, to call Google to account for its bad business practices.
Where’s TAG when it comes to Unilever’s ad promoting its sustainable business practices or the Weinstein Company promoting its upcoming movie No Escape on scam pirate uploads? Why don’t industry representatives demand accountability from Google?
Do the advertising folks for Intel, Lexus, Sanuk Shoes, Oxiclean, Sandals Resort, the Weinstein Company and Disney care that their ad campaigns underwrite criminals? Does anyone care?
The advertising industry needs to take charge and force change. I can write blog post after blog post documenting the myriad of ways YouTube scams advertisers (and the public) but unless those who send money Mountain View’s way demand accountability, nothing will change.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Law
From the Digital Citizens Alliance Report-Selling Rats
Whether it’s ISIS recruiting videos or porn, it’s not news that the YouTube monetizes whatever drek gets uploaded to the site. Now, according to a new report by Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA)*, YouTube is also infested with videos promoting RATS (Remote Access Trojans).
RATS are used by hackers to install malware that takes over computers of unsuspecting internet users. According to the “Selling Slaving” report by the DCA, their targets are often the young:
…are actively looking to take over the computers, called “slaving,” of young girls and boys—and then selling that information online. In effect, they are selling access to our children’s bedrooms.
How does the growth of this illicit spying activity link back to YouTube? As is the case with terrorist recruiting videos, YouTube also offers unsavory creeps a worldwide portal that makes it easy to spread their criminal wares via video. To add insult to injury, these videos are often monetized, meaning YouTube and the hackers not only spread information on this unsavory activity, but also make money from it.
The tutorials included many that showed how to use and spread RATs; links where ratters could download the malware; and examples of RATs successfully deployed showing victims’ faces and IP addresses…Roughly 38 percent of the tutorials for the best-known RATs had advertisements running alongside the videos. The advertising we found included well-known car companies, cosmetics, and even tickets to New York Yankees’ baseball games. YouTube’s parent company, Google, is positioned to get revenue from the sharing of these malicious tutorials that target innocents. –DCA report
The fact Google is making money off garbage is nothing new, but lately a number of online businesses (like Reddit) have been forced to reexamine their “anything goes” policy when it comes to what content to allow online. The question is to ask in the case of YouTube RATS is why can’t Google do a better with housekeeping?
In a recent New York Times piece, “Limits at Gawker? Rules at Reddit? Wild West Web Turns a Page,” Jonathan Mahler wrote about a maturing web.
There has been no shortage of discussion about how legacy media companies will find their way forward in the digital age. But in trying to recalibrate their identities, Gawker and Reddit are demonstrating that digital media companies are struggling to manage a difficult transition of their own — from financially underachieving, if popular, start-ups to thriving, mature businesses.
“This feels like a moment of reckoning to me,” said Vivian Schiller, the former head of news at Twitter who was previously an executive at The New York Times. “We’re moving from the early days of ‘We’re free to write or post whatever we want,’ to the reality of building a business.”
With this latest DCA report in mind, and the fact that other dubious YouTube users earn income off the filth they spread, one wonders if Google will make better business decisions going forward. The DCA reports suggests a way forward for YouTube’s parent:
A solution exists, but it will require Google to change the way it approaches this issue. When Google is serious about solving a problem, it assigns a human team to do what an algorithm clearly can’t. Bringing in human teams helped block tens of thousands of search queries for child pornography and to ensure the quality of apps on Google Play. Hacking victims deserve the same concern and protection. Google should assign a human team to reviewing these videos and immediately cease advertising on such video platforms. These victims should not be clickbait and ad revenues from slaving tutorial videos can’t be worth the pain and suffering they cause. [emphasis added]
However, if past history is any indication, Google will likely continue to deflect and dodge. If they do, they risk further damage to its brand. The DCA report ends with this observation and a quote from a Ratter’s victim asking that Google do more to eradicate this insidious infestation on YouTube:
If Google continues to sell ads beside slaving videos, can it claim Internet freedom as a defense? If one of the world’s most admired companies takes a stand against slaving, others will follow. Perhaps the best advice on how the company could handle that question came from Cassidy Wolf, who said she would tell Google: “They need to put themselves in (the victim’s) shoes… and imagine if it was their daughter that was being watched in their room and now its being promoted on YouTube and the people that are doing this are making money of this and Google is making money off of this. Honestly, I would just tell them to put themselves in the victim’s shoes and imagine if this was happening to them.”
Once again, the ball is in Google’s court.
*full disclosure-I’m a member of the DCA’s Advisory Board
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Piracy, Tech
While Torrent Freak laments the fact that Google has already processed more than 100 million DMCA takedown notices this year, don’t shed any tears for the company. The massive number of takedowns is simply a sign that the internet giant’s nefarious business model (dependent on content theft) continues to chug merrily along. Per Torrent Freak:
A few days ago Google received its 100 millionth takedown request of 2015. The counter is currently at 103,218,572, which means yet another record. Last year it took a month longer to reach the same milestone.
If the numbers go up at the same rate throughout the year, Google will process half a billion allegedly infringing links during 2015.
In looking at these figures it’s important to remember that the vast majority of these takedowns are automated so it’s not as if thousands of Google worker bees are laboriously checking and removing infringing content from Google hosted sites. Operating takedown services (via online DMCA templates, content ID, and “trusted submitter” programs) is simply the cost of running a business that routinely allows (and encourages) users to upload and monetize infringing movies and music.
One should also remember that Google doesn’t really remove pirate links from its search engine, it just re-links to its partner, the Chilling Effects database so that users can still easily find the pirated movies, music, books, etc.
YouTube turns to licensing content to bolster its business model against increasing competition
Takedowns aside, it’s worth noting that Google’s YouTube nefarious business model is showing signs of decay. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that YouTube failed (again) to actually make a profit for Google despite revenues that grew by more than a billion dollars from 2103 to 2014 (3 billion to 4).
Google/YouTube is under increasing threat from other social media companies that promise content creators more favorable revenue deals for licensed content. According to a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal by by Shalini Ramachandran and Mike Shields:
Technology companies including Facebook Inc., Snapchat and streaming-startup Vessel are promising large TV-channel owners better terms for their video programming than Google Inc.’s YouTube, hoping to capitalize on mounting frustration with the Web giant in the entertainment industry.
The challengers to YouTube have been in talks with programming suppliers such asViacom Inc.,Time Warner Inc.,Comcast Corp.’s NBCUniversal and 21st Century Fox.They are all promising more generous revenue-sharing deals than YouTube, which lets content creators keep 55% of ad revenue, people familiar with the discussions say.
It’s a sweet irony that in order for Google/YouTube to remain at the top of its game its innovators have to turn to the very thing the company has spent the past ten years ignoring–licensing creative content. According to Variety, feeling the heat from competitors, Google has been forced to pony up to produce original programs in order to compete:
YouTube, too, is plowing bucks back into its most popular talent — a bid to keep its top creators from jumping to Vessel, Vimeo or others. With the YouTube Originals initiative, the Google subsidiary is paying its biggest stars to produce family and comedy programming, whether scripted or unscripted. That content is slated to debut in exclusive windows by the end of 2015.
Note the emphasis on “exclusive.” Of course, in order for (licensed) content to remain exclusive the sharing of unauthorized copies, i.e. piracy, will have to be squelched, otherwise the content quickly becomes non-exclusive, right?
How many DMCA notices Google will be sending to others when its own “original” content gets pirated?
One has to wonder how many new employees will Google have to hire to protect its “exclusive” content from online thieves? Will the anti-copyright apologists at Google ever eat crow and acknowledge that protecting creators’ work from online theft is important to sustaining one’s bottom line? If Google wants to succeed as a producer of content it’s likely that it will be sending a few DMCA notices of its own.
Meanwhile the DMCA safe harbor provision is out of date and due for a major overhaul
No matter how Google/YouTube’s business evolves moving forward, news of 100 million takedowns should serve as a (further) wakeup call for lawmakers to revisit the worn out “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA. Safe harbor was intended to protect online innovation, but instead has become a legal loophole routinely exploited by companies like Google to game the system at the expense of creators.
As I noted in my blog post, “Everyone Hates the DMCA,” safe harbor’s sell-by date is long past:
…this oft-abused language has served to shelter digital thieves at the expense of rights holders. “Safe Harbor” has enabled the growth of a criminal cancer and it’s a cancer–that as of now–cannot be beaten, only kept (marginally) at bay.
Where else, aside from the internet, is it OK to build a business around theft? If anything Google’s 100 million takedowns is a stark sign that its failed to effectively safeguard the rights of content creators.
While most creators have better things to do (like making more music or films), unless they act, Google and its partners in crime are free to monetize the stolen content. Basically it’s fill up the piggy bank until someone complains.
So, don’t feel sorry for Google’s 100 million takedowns–feel sorry for all those who continue to be ripped off by its innovative business model. As Google begins to view its business from the other side of the creative fence perhaps it will develop some innovations to better protect rightsholders. That would be a true, and welcome, innovation.
While the debate as to whether these clips are newsworthy will continue, are videos depicting the cold-blooded murder of two people really ad-worthy? Where are the advertisers in all this? Are they even aware of where their ads appear? They are culpable in this fiasco too. When ads were placed on ISIS videos advertisers several advertisers expressed their displeasure with YouTube and pledged to take action. With this latest revelation it appears their words may have simply been spin control. After all, we’ve heard time and time again how the ad industry is concerned about “brand integrity” online. Perhaps the industry should look at the consistent lack of “integrity” in YouTube’s monetization practices?
