Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Drops 2 Billion Fake Music Industry Views
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.'"
My band went from 72 views to 5. Damn you Google!
"Gangnam Style was not affected", thank goodness, I didn't want to watch it another billion times!
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
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.
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.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
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.
Well if you can't blame them for being dishonest, what does that say about *your* character, or lack of it?
"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...
0 1 - just my two bits
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.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I'm not sure you are getting this. Google suing should be the least of these people's worries. From AFA linked from TFA:
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.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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.
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
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.
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
Why not both? Two great tastes, taste great together!
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.
No, get them for defrauding advertisers, who assume the views are legit and pay money for them.