Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Has An Illegal TV Streaming Problem (mashable.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mashable: Most people turn to Netflix to binge watch full seasons of a single TV show, but there could be a much cheaper way: YouTube. You might be surprised to learn that you can watch full episodes of popular TV shows on YouTube for free, thanks to a large number of rogue accounts that are hosting illegal live streams of shows. Perhaps the most shocking thing about these free (and very illegal) TV live streams might even make their way into your suggested video queue, if you watch enough "random shit" and Bobby Hill quote compilations on the site, as Mashable business editor Jason Abbruzzese recently experienced. He first noticed the surprisingly high number of illegal TV streaming accounts on his YouTube homepage, which has tailored recommended videos based on his viewing habits. Personalized recommendations aren't exactly new -- but the number of illegal live streams broadcasting copyrighted material on a loop was a shocker. When we looked deeper into the livestreams, the number we found was mindblowing. Many of these accounts appear to exist solely to give watchers an endless loop of their favorite shows and only have a few other posts related to the live streamed content. "YouTube respects the rights of copyright holders and we've invested heavily in copyright and content management tools to give rights holders control of their content on YouTube," a YouTube spokesperson told Mashable in an email. "When copyright holders work with us to provide reference files for their content, we ensure all live broadcasts are scanned for third party content, and we either pause or terminate streams when we find matches to third party content."
"(and very illegal)"
What makes something very illegal compare to just plain old boring illegal?
As YouTube is now overtly (i.e. actively) deciding what videos are too 'controversial' to be seen on their service even if they don't violate their Terms of Service, I think YouTube should have it's safe harbor protection in the DMCA revoked and be held liable for each and every one of the illegal videos/streams on their system.
Once you go above and beyond the 'take down videos upon DMCA request' and start deciding which videos can stay and which should go, you've lost the justification that you cannot be held responsible for which things appear on your service.
RIAA .. MPAA -- sic'em ;)
Actually it sounds like content producers have an untapped market problem. Here you have people wanting to consume your content but are having to turn to pirate sources to do so, so either you aren't providing a way for potential customers to pay you for your content or assuming the case where all of these people are too poor to even pay $.01, to show them a small amount of advertisement along side of your content.
Knowing this crowd though, they'll still fid a watch to bitch and moan about demand for their product. Oh to have their problems.
Better title: Copyright holders have a TV streaming problem.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A balance must be struck between the masses that want the entertainment as cheaply as possible vs. the content providers who would love to be able to charge you extra for letting house guests watch your TV with you.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
I usually want to watch a specific episode or episodes in order and that's just not usually something you can do with live streamed pirate marathons.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Yup. After 8 years, you should not be entitled to any interest on your investment. I'll take that principal, thank you very much.
Because enforcing copyright law with 100% accuracy on a video sharing website is basically impossible. Doing it with even 80% accuracy is highly improbable.
The government does not maintain an infallible list of all content that is copyrighted and who the copyright owners are. Therefore there is no such 'list' that a program can reference to identify copyrighted (and more importantly, non-copyrighted or public domain) works with 100% accuracy. Compound that with the fact that there is no program, deep learned or not, that can identify video with 100% accuracy and you have to conclude that there will ALWAYS be so-called 'illegal' copyrighted content on video and file sharing websites.
Maybe instead of continuing to have laws that defy technological reality, we can just reform our copyright laws. Any by 'reform' I mean 'abolish'. (Though some would be happy with 'reduce copyright term to some arbitrary number less than life of author + 150 years)
It's not a problem at all.
If they could provide a way for me to watch King of the Hill instead of shoving the Kardashians down my throat. I would subscribe, but as of right now only Game of Thrones (whatever that is about) matters. I'll keep watching king of the hill on YouTube.
Yup. After 8 years, you should not be entitled to any interest on your investment. I'll take that principal, thank you very much.
You're gonna have a hard time with your retirement planning, then.
#DeleteChrome
Like a virgin on her wedding night, looks like you eventually found the point.
YouTube's popularity up until it hit a critical mass was built on content that didn't belong to them.
This is just the latest variation.
Yeah... it's far better to trust completely untrusted sources while BROADCASTING to the world that I'm a pirate.
Unless you are a poor kid with no assets, you're better off just paying for what you use. If you can do it, there's no compelling reason to be a deadbeat.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
that boy ain't right!
Copyright exists because copyrightable works are different from other types of works (material, monetary). If I take your retirement principal, you no longer have it. If I take your copyrighted work, you still have it.
The analogous situation with retirement savings can't really happen because money doesn't work that way. But if it did, it would be: I take your $200,000 retirement principle, and I have $200,000 and you still have $200,000.
So the way to maximize the value of a copyrighted work to society is for everyone to get a copy. But if everyone gets a copy for free, then there's no incentive for people to create new works. So we set up a system where for a short time creators have exclusive rights to distribute their works in exchange for money. Once that time expires, it falls into the public domain, and the entire public gets the benefit of the formerly copyrighted work.
Unfortunately, copyright holders have managed to get this time extended to a ridiculously long duration. Currently about 120 years (average remaining lifespan at time of creation + 70 years). Can you even name a dozen copyrighted works which were created 100-120 years ago? The duration is so ridiculously long that by the time copyrighted works fall into the public domain, they have next to zero value to society remaining, thus defeating the whole purpose of copyright. I'm not sure what the correct duration should be. 8 years seems too short. But it sure as hell isn't 120 years.
Oooh. They're streaming a show thats been syndicated since I was in college. That's not how the article portrays it.
Where the F have these people been the past decade? Google's whole business model is to strip potential competitors ability to make money and they can be the last leech standing. They do it with productivity software, OS, now advertising with their latest Chrome 'feature'. YouTube has been doing this in plain view since before they were even acquired.
I am way more worried about the Trump and rising hate and people getting killed problem this country is having right now. I think this piracy might actually be a good thing, as it it telling the suits that people don't like to be controlled, and don't want to be nickled and dimed to death. The moment the suits think people will accept being controlled, they will put the clamps on, and on HARD, and tighten them until your appendages fall off. This is sort of how streets, prison or even the schoolyard works: If you appear weak, you will be "punked" (victimized) over and over and over again and it will never stop. If you are strong, you won't be messed with and suffer as much. The general public needs to make sure they don't get punked.
You're gonna have a hard time with your retirement planning, then.
Retirement? What's that?
Ezekiel 23:20
> But if everyone gets a copy for free, then there's no incentive for people to create new works.
Incorrect.
1. You are assuming money is the _only_ reward. HINT: It is not.
2. Operating Systems are free yet people still create new ones. Did you _really_ ignore the ENTIRE open source movement???
> So we set up a system where for a LONG time PUBLISHERS have exclusive rights to distribute their works in exchange for money.
FTFY.
The dirty secret of Copyright is that it was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit !!
I've posted about this in the past ...
and
and
and
History of Copyright Law
Only a capitalist pig would make it illegal to share knowledge.
Anyway, I've wondered if content providers ever thought of dealing with piracy in a different way. Maybe include a big "This show is provided courtesy of Kraft Foods", or something like that, at the beginning, and only really go after the pirates who edit that out. Product placement has at times gotten extensive enough at times to be considered being an embedded commercial. I saw a Warehouse 13 episode where they basically stopped the show so Claudia could walk people through the virtues of her new Toyota Prius. White Collar did the same with a Ford Taurus, with Peter, the FBI agent, giving a demonstration of how its automatic anti-collision system worked. I don't know, maybe release a "here you go" version of TV shows that have an "Advertiser's cut" where some extra scenes are added that have even more product placement. We could have an episode of Fringe where the show stops so Walter could extoll the virtues of a candy he enjoys. Oh wait, they already did that. :) Lol, so just add in more of the same, and get your money up front from the advertisers. "Millions of people will see your candy being enjoyed in pirated episodes!".
Twitch.tv has an illegal... wait ... /me watches c-net on ustream... wait
I agree with most of what you say but why does 8 years seem too short?
How many movies are still making significant sums of money after 8 years, 8 years is plenty of time to recoup your investment plus profit. If you haven't made your money back by then you probably never will.
The reason 8 years sounds short is your are comparing it to 120 year and thinking that sounds like a big difference, really if a person doesn't go out to watch your movie in the first month, they probably don't care enough to pay for it anyway.
As you said goal is to give the producer incentive produce. It is not maximize there income.
...these free (and very illegal) TV live streams...
Was this article written by a copyright troll?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I actually think YouTube is policing some of this stuff fairly aggressively.
Once I discovered that Maddow is comprehensible at x2 speed (though not always her guests), I find her show worth watching in full (in my entire life, I once had an "introductory" cable subscription for a whole 30 days that they foolishly offered one year where my sad-sack sports team actually made the playoffs—after that it was back to the local pub if I cared enough to watch a game).
I start by watching Maddow's official feed, which usually has about 20 minutes in total, in two pieces, from her most recent show. Later in the day, YouTube usually "suggests" a bootleg copy of the entire show, and if the show was interesting, sometimes I fill in the gaps.
Most of these have the bootleg content downsized substantially, with a lot of visual clutter, audio gaps and pops and clicks overlaid, and sometimes bits and pieces of other news coverage randomly appended at the end. This all appears to be a ruse to evade YouTube's automatic copyright detection. It probably has fairly limited appeal, the kind of hardcore wonk such as myself who doesn't give a shit that it was filmed through a potato, so long as the guest is entirely unlike Kellyanne Conway.
Lately the pops and clicks have disappeared, but the audio is 3–5 seconds out of sync with the video (it shocks me that YouTube doesn't provide a way to adjust audio sync on the fly; I found a tip today that VLC supports the J and K keys to shift the audio by 50 ms increments in either direction).
In general, the level of distortion has been on the rise. I have a strong suspicion that this is due to a cat and mouse game that YouTube is taking fairly seriously. They could probably block the generating accounts fairly easily, but they seem to prefer automatic content analysis. I suspect the cat is playing with this mouse somewhat deliberately.
Maybe the clip lasts for 24 hours and gets 1000 views. I think it's fairly immaterial to Maddow's and MSNBC's long term economic prospects.
The biggest trove of copyright material I've found (without seeking it out as such) was several dozen episodes of Inside the Actors Studio featuring all kinds of A-list celebrities.
Then one day in January 2014 I noticed that all of these had vanished in a puff of sour lips. There was one or two episodes I wouldn't mind owning (Robin Williams, Kevin Spacey). But not at USD $80 per disk, which is how I recall the retail price.
YouTube could be better about all this, but it could also be far worse.
Note that YouTube takedowns are fairly severe: it's not just the contents, but the title, the description, the date it was posted, the likes, and all of the user comments that vanish. Total sour face 404.
Unless you are a poor kid with no assets, you're better off just paying for what you use.
Most people in the world are "a poor kid with no assets." Even if you limit it to U.S. residents, most people lack billions of dollars to purchase a controlling interest in a publisher that refuses to take people's money. For example, in order for a U.S. resident to find a lawful stream of the film Song of the South or Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea, he'd first have to buy half the voting stock of the owner of copyright in each of those works in order to force the publisher to make it available at all. I'd bet not even President Trump is rich enough for that route.
If so, the stream's description would include a license identifier.
First you tell me the amazing news that there is free television in the air all around us, I just need this "antenna" thing. Now, I was pleasantly 'surprised to learn that' there is sometimes free television on this youtube thing as well. Golly!
Now I'm all excited for the next 'but wait, there's more!' article. Don't disappoint me /., and please tell me where to send a self addressed and stamped envelope to receive a free brochure and dvd.
I have a VERY hard time believing they dont know. I am constantly pushed family guy streams even tho i have no interest and never search for family guy or anything like it.
Many copyright holders will not force a takedown but instead select the option to "receive the revenue" instead and leave the video up.
Having many shows generate revenue on youtube can be a very lucrative business instead of having them just sit on a shelf somewhere.
The fact is if you are not streaming your content somewhere now, your content is worth less than a rock out back. if people can not find your stuff they just move on to one of the other countless options they have.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
They put ads on obviously copyright protected music and make money with that. I'm not talking about pop music, I'm talking about stuff from small labels that don't bother to send out copyright strikes. I mean you could argue that "well, they didn't flag it!", but if it's obviously copyrighted nonetheless then don't talk about "we care about blablablabla" No you don't. All you fuckers care about is money. Google was a mistake.
Nah, I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one.
(See? I'm hip and with it! That's a hippity hop reference, in line with today's youth!)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Bullshit... if they did they would allow somebody other than the copyright holder to report the violation... but they don't. In fact they have made it nearly impossible for non-copyright holders to report such violations directly to YouTube...
Why? To keep their views, and thus ad revenue, as high as possible... because they're only in it for the money...
Regarding point 2, I would say they are shitty so people make new ones, which are also shitty. So the better something is, the less likely it needs to be remade. Shit, I just realized that sentence is completely garbage to Hollywood.
What the fuck does the Kardashians have to do with this? I watch over 50 hours of satellite TV a week and the Kardashians haven't been forced on me once. That is some fucked logic, or you are so stupid you can't operate a TV. Fucking loser.
These 1 minute spots are shit. Microsoft and a car did it on Royal Pains and totally took me out of interest. I watched the show Room 104 and they had a cherry 7-up spot. Given brands are usually not shown, this stood out without taking me out of the story. I don't mind product placement, but a fucking demo likely kills the actors shilling for it (unless they get bonus money...).