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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • -Conflicted (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Stenchwarrior (1335051) on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:14AM (#42432217)
    I can't decide if the people who took advantage of the ranking system are to blame, or if the system itself is. I certainly can't blame anyone for trying to inflate numbers by utilizing a loophole left by Google or YouTube; I would probably do the same thing if it meant making more money. Even though I'm glad that Google and YouTube closed the "vulnerability", it does lend fuel to the idea that we're really just seeing the Internet that Google wants us to see.
  • by Piata (927858) on Monday December 31, 2012 @10:29AM (#42432307)
    Yep. In his case, he felt the competition might be trying to make him disapear. He occassionaly films weddings (which like most wedding services, is completely cut throat) or does videos for the city (which involves bidding on contracts) so if someone out there feels slighted or envious, they can get your video pulled with enough effort.
  • Re:YES! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Monday December 31, 2012 @11:03AM (#42432533)

    I'm not sure you are getting this. Google suing should be the least of these people's worries. From AFA linked from TFA:

    Google says that these companies violated its terms of services, which prohibits automated methods of inflating view counts

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31, 2012 @11:29AM (#42432743)

    As someone who has fought abuse in the past for an extremely large service, I can tell you that in any even-somewhat-sophisticated company, the abuse flags and signals flagging things are extremely complex and detailed. Especially when you're talking about the best data analyzers in the world (Google), don't doubt what they know about the abuse happening.

    I can also tell you that people constantly, all the time, blatantly horribly lie. People who shamelessly broke the rules would publicly bitch about being shut down and (at best) be misleading or (at worst) outright lie about the circumstances. They know that the company will never come forth publicly to refute their claims, so they do it as a form of revenge after they've been caught.

  • by mumblestheclown (569987) on Monday December 31, 2012 @11:38AM (#42432811)

    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.

  • Re:YES! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sirlark (1676276) on Monday December 31, 2012 @12:14PM (#42433151)
    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.
  • Re:-Conflicted (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SternisheFan (2529412) on Monday December 31, 2012 @12:37PM (#42433357)
    Okay, I found this using my google magic...

    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 [thefreedictionary.com]

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

Working...