Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Music The Almighty Buck Youtube Your Rights Online

YouTube Drops 2 Billion Fake Music Industry Views 167

Posted by samzenpus
from the cure-for-bieber-fever dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Drops 2 Billion Fake Music Industry Views

Comments Filter:
  • Re:*phew* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OhPlz (168413) on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:07AM (#42432187)

    It'd be funny if it was since it was the showcase of Youtube's year in review 2012 video.

  • Same old tactics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marcello_dl (667940) on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:15AM (#42432221) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:16AM (#42432231)

    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.

  • Re:-Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SternisheFan (2529412) on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:24AM (#42432277)
    Well if you can't blame them for being dishonest, what does that say about *your* character, or lack of it?
  • Re:*phew* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndyKron (937105) on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:27AM (#42432291)
    "NASA Johnson Style" ("Gangnam Style" Parody) was not affect either. Thank goodness! I could even watch it a billion more times! http://youtu.be/zulxSCb4ZVk [youtu.be]
  • Unsurprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bogtha (906264) on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:51AM (#42432439)

    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.

  • by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:55AM (#42432463)

    Welcome to the world of Google. Don't be evil (if you're not us).

    You guys would be a bit more convincing if you posted with real examples. Most times when I follow up on this kind of thing I find that actually, in fact, the person obviously was doing whatever Google accused them of. In the few exceptional cases they seem to get their stuff back. There is nothing going on like Microsoft handing over blogger names to the Chinese authorities so that they get tortured into silence. Please feel free to convince us otherwise with evidence other than the stuff Facebook faked to try to discredit Google.

    N.B. I'm not saying Google is particularly good. They just seem to be another bunch of normal people trying to muddle it through.

  • by alphatel (1450715) * on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:55AM (#42432469)
    So your brother gets a ban for an unaccountable 500 hits, but Sony gets nothing for a billion? Welcome to corporate whoring.
  • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday December 31, 2012 @11:12AM (#42432613)

    Welcome to the online world, where the actual reason someone gets banned has absolutely nothing to do with why they claim they got banned.

    If you havent seen it a zillion times even just on slashdot (stories saying "I GOT BANNED FOR X, NOT FAIR" that are completely bogus), then you havent been paying attention.

  • by ultrasawblade (2105922) on Monday December 31, 2012 @11:29AM (#42432731)

    The people that look at what's popular to buy seem to comprise of thirty/fourtysomething females who are out of touch with pop culture and want to rejoin it after not having young kids consume every moment of their time, and a certain class of young usually small- to mid-town teenage girls. The older women want to indulge in something that seems younger and fresher, and the younger girls want to indulge in something that seems more "adult" - and this fits that bill perfectly I guess.

    No one else buys into this shit, not that I know of. As a male growing up in the 90's I've NEVER understood the term "popular music" because no one I know listens to it or follows it. Were I live now the "Top 40" radio station is among the lowest rated. Yet it stays alive.

  • by JazzHarper (745403) on Monday December 31, 2012 @12:07PM (#42433095) Journal

    Why were you trying to use the takedown process if you are not the copyright holder?

  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday December 31, 2012 @01:46PM (#42434005) Homepage
    If it's his job, then he should seriously consider getting his own web site to host his videos for exactly this reason. YouTube can drop your videos for whatever reason they want. This is exactly the reason why you shouldn't rely on a third party who you aren't paying to help you do business. Similar thing happened for Facebook. They used to send your message out to everybody for free. Now they want to charge you to reach 100% of your subscribers. If you had just built up your own following on your own website, you wouldn't have any of these kinds of problems. Sure it costs more money up front, but nobody can come and take away the service from you without any warning.
  • Re:YES! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Luckyo (1726890) on Monday December 31, 2012 @03:56PM (#42435263)

    No, get them for defrauding advertisers, who assume the views are legit and pay money for them.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...