YouTube Drops 2 Billion Fake Music Industry Views 167
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.'"
Great (Score:5, Funny)
My band went from 72 views to 5. Damn you Google!
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
FAKE!.
below 300 views youtube does not care too much about the views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIkhgagvrjI [youtube.com]
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
That would be a shameless plug, which is a never done on Slashdot... and besides, that post was my attempt at self-deprecating humor. I see it's mostly failed so far.
*phew* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*phew* (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be funny if it was since it was the showcase of Youtube's year in review 2012 video.
Re:*phew* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how the video went viral, and how little marketing was used for it in the beginning (which is how music industry is likely inflating, to get music "started up"), it's pretty unlikely that videos like gangnam style would be guilty of artificial inflation to any meaningful extent.
This is more of a thing of a large industry which needs its videos to look good at the very start to succeed. Gangnam style took months from being published to going viral.
What if Google is wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Joe Jobbing of the future? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Joe Jobbing of the future? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Joe Jobbing of the future? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much this. With free sites, you get the service you paid for. Remember, they don't care about you or your success - they care about giving you free dose at the start to hook you and then milk you as hard as they can.
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
I had a similar experience months ago with a false positive on their copyright-enforcement system. There is no effective appeal, as the system is so heavily automated. I tried contacting them, but never was able to get a reply, even after a few attempts. I just stopped posting videos on youtube. They are on my own personal website now, but without the youtube social promotion system they aren't going to get many views.
Just my dabblings in video restoration and blowing fruit up with a capacitor bank.
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
I had a similar experience months ago with a false positive on their copyright-enforcement system. There is no effective appeal, as the system is so heavily automated. I tried contacting them, but never was able to get a reply, even after a few attempts. I just stopped posting videos on youtube. They are on my own personal website now, but without the youtube social promotion system they aren't going to get many views.
Just my dabblings in video restoration and blowing fruit up with a capacitor bank.
Does Gallagher have the copyright on that?
--
An evil doer just slashdotted this.
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Uh oh... I post example of work done on my milling machine. The horrible whine sound of the spindle definitely could be interpreted as RIAA copyrighted material, especially given the talent of pop singers lately.
Re: (Score:3)
And now the views of all the RIAA attorneys aren't going to count. Sucks to be you.
Re: (Score:2)
They are on my own personal website now, but without the youtube social promotion system they aren't going to get many views.
Especially if you can not be bothered to give us a link.
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Video restoration and filters: http://birds-are-nice.me/video/restorations.shtml [birds-are-nice.me]
Stuff go boom: http://birds-are-nice.me/explodium/ [birds-are-nice.me]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a kigu.
So... yes.
We all do.
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Article wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They don't pull videos for inflating views, but nice try on your full of shit post in the first place. If this weren't a troll, you'd link to a video. Then again, it is a troll. The "google is evil, I'm going to the alternatives, see y'all" trollpost.
The view inflation is not about hitting refresh on a video either - it's more like that the companies in question were paying people to actually artificially inflate views. You could have trolled better.
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:4, Funny)
Easy: here's mine that was removed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ReM0v3dVid [youtube.com]
It now says it is "unavailable". Can you believe that? All because I said this Halibut was good enough for Jehovah!
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:4, Funny)
Easy: here's mine that was removed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ReM0v3dVid [youtube.com]
It now says it is "unavailable". Can you believe that? All because I said this Halibut was good enough for Jehovah!
Wait, we can post videos that offend people? And I am just finding out about this now?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
I still remember a thread on League of Legends forums where Riot, the company behind the game started calling people out on real reasons for their bans. With detailed explanations.
The stuff that they quoted was so full of absolutely retarded levels of flaming and trolling you almost had to bring a fire extinguisher just to read the thread. The really nice sounding people on the forums who made really good cases about how they were unfairly banned came out as ridiculous trolls telling people that they will f
Re: (Score:2)
a "Local Film Maker" are you sure he didn't violate other terms of service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DuckDuckGo is reasonably good. I don't think I've used Google search in a god while, save perhaps for image searches.
Re:What if Google is wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
-Conflicted (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Agreed, that's like stealing someone's purse and then justifying it with "Well they should have held on to it tighter..."
Re: (Score:3)
One is a crime, the other is a legitimate, if unethical action. If there's money to be made, ethics may take a backseat.
To put it into a better context for you, it's like finding a lost wallet on the ground: you should turn it in to the police, but frankly, aside from the owner, who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for taking it, but you might not get rewarded for returning it, whereas if you take it, the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day, you have to answer to the person in the mirror, andlike and respect that person.
That's ... actually a rather nice way of summing up just what makes most people law-abiding, apart from the threat of punishment.
As for faith in mankind? Personally, I've lost that a long time ago, so it wouldn't be any surprise to me if I returned such a wallet and were turned away with barely a thanks. All the more reason for me to keep it, even if I'm enforcing the stereotype. My needs and interests come first for me, after all. And I assume the same for every rational person.
As far as I know, however, n
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a funny definition of "legitimate".
You have justified the crime by saying if there is no reward for doing right, and no punishment for doing wrong, then it is justifiable to steal from another person? Keeping a lost wallet, when there is contact information in it, is indeed stealing. You are making a deliberate choice to keep something that could otherwise be placed in the hands of the owner. To basically disregard the negative effect on others for your own gain. You have no idea what kind of d
If a cyclist finds an accident victim (Score:2)
it's like finding a [lone woman] on the ground: you should [take her] to the [hospital], but frankly, aside from the [family and friends of the woman], who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for [raping her], but you might not get rewarded for it, whereas if you [rape her], the reward is guaranteed.
Like most analogies, this analogy is not exact. Say I find the woman while riding a bicycle to or from work. I wouldn't even think of assaulting her, but helping her would have a substantial cost to me. For example, how do you recommend that I transport her to the hospital? Likewise, how would someone who depends on public transit afford the bus fare and lost wages to carry a found purse with no ID to the police station?
Re: (Score:2)
Like most analogies, this analogy is not exact. Say I find the woman while riding a bicycle to or from work. I wouldn't even think of assaulting her, but helping her would have a substantial cost to me.
(emphasis mine) That is what makes it noble. Cost-benefit analysis shouldn't figure too heavily into helping someone.
For example, how do you recommend that I transport her to the hospital? Likewise, how would someone who depends on public transit afford the bus fare and lost wages to carry a found purse with no ID to the police station?
Perhaps by phone, arranging transport that way. And if you can't get to a police station, would a police officer accept it insead? (don't know if they'd take it or tell you to get lost instead).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. Yay for humanity!
Re: (Score:2)
Let me start from the end of your comment, your example. Frankly, aside from her family and friends, nobody cares if you don't help her. Oh sure, people say you're an asshole, and you should help her, take her to the hospital, etc. But tell them to do it themselves, and they make up an excuse and hurry on: Bystander Effect. On the other hand, raping her is a crime unto itself, punishable by law. That's where your analogy goes astray, in that you attempt to substitute a clearly illegal act for a legal, if un
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I disagree. In your quote, I notice that the court differentiated between mislaid property (you acquire no rights), lost property (you are not entitled to possess it against the true owner) and abandoned property (you are entitled to keep it). So if you find a wallet that is lost rather than abandoned (however the court defined those terms), then it seems to me that you would not be entitled to keep it, only to possess it - and if you had (or believed you had) knowledge of the true owner then you would
Re: (Score:2)
For you to cast aside the importance of her life and well being so casually, shows you are a sociopath.
Re: (Score:2)
Is she someone I know? No, she's a complete stranger. Is she someone important to me? No, I don't even know her name. Therefore she bears no weight, no importance, nothing.
On the other hand, could you address the point I made in response to yours, if you're replying?
Re: (Score:2)
You are just further exemplifying your sociopathy with your self centered devaluing of human life.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, avoiding making, supporting, or refuting points: I've seen this behavior before. I think those exhibiting it are called ... "trolls". Or politicians. Take your pick.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention there is a big difference between the Bystander Effect, where no one has the courage to step across the social line of "minding your own business", vs. you, who simply rationalize yourself to a point where you justify wrong doing. One may care, but fail to act, whereas you make a deliberate choice due to your screwed up view of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Short version of your statement is something like this.
Stealing money from someone is not bad if you can find a way to justify it.
Re: (Score:3)
Short version of your statement is something like this.
Stealing money from someone is not illegal if you can find a way to justify it.
Ethics is optional, and often overrated. Legality is what matters. Welcome to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it into a better context for you, it's like finding a lost wallet on the ground: you should turn it in to the police, but frankly, aside from the owner, who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for taking it, but you might not get rewarded for returning it, whereas if you take it, the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".
Let's just say that in California it is theft. And in the state of New York it is theft. And I bet in many other states of the USA it is theft, or in some other way criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it isn't. I explained before, according to Michael v First Chicago Corp. Illinois, 1985, "A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.". Therefore, unless the true owner comes to claim it from you after having tracked you down, and you refuse to return the wallet, it becomes theft. If you return it, or the owner doesn't turn up, it's nothing, since you're e
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, assaulting the person in question and then robbing him is a clearly illegal act. Assault and battery is punishable, and so is theft, but taking possession of lost property is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. If you use Google, then you see what they want you to see. If you use Bing/Microsoft, you see what they want you to see. This is true for their search engine, and a hundred times more true for sites they wholly own (IE: YouTube).
Re: (Score:3)
Ever heard of "ethics"? People with your attitude do not make the world a better place. If you found a wallet with money someone lost, I guess you'd keep it since it would mean more money for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no interest in looking smart to anyone here just like I would have no interest in looking ethical. If I'm the owner of a company and have the ability to make more money by taking advantage of a loophole in whatever system, then I'm going to do it. Unless there's a legal punishment, then why not? If I don't then someone else will and in the business world the advantage goes to whomever does.
Unfortunate as is may be, nice guys usually do not finish first. Sorry.
Same old tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Same old tactics (Score:5, Funny)
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.
But millions of people look at what's popular when choosing what to buy, and they can't all be wrong, right?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
But millions of people look at what's popular when choosing what to buy, and they can't all be wrong, right?
But billions of people look at what's popular when choosing what to buy, and they can't all be wrong, right?
Re:Same old tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The more popular guys who actually got laid did understand it however.
Personally I was always in the middle ground, as I happened to be both a "jock" (I was great at sports, still am) and a "nerd" (I liked computers), so I can understand both points of view.
But popular culture is about of giving young people regardless of sex one of greatest tools of sorting who is a part of "popular" crowd and who isn't. That is why view numbers now and DJs playing the music before matters so much when you're commercially
Re: (Score:3)
The trick back then was in knowing which stores to buy from. Not all stores contributed to the counts used to determine the chart order. Effective rigging via purchasing needed a bit of insider information to know where to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a case I know of where one label (a larger independent label) got wind of which
Network effect (Score:2)
I suggest not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself.
Unless a product or service has a substantial network effect [wikipedia.org], such that it becomes more useful as the user base grows. For example, people might not want to buy a smartphone that only has 10,000 units sold because not a lot of developers of useful applications would find it profitable to target a market of 10,000.
Not so many Bieber fans after all... (Score:5, Funny)
"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...
Re:Not so many Bieber fans after all... (Score:5, Funny)
Now if we could just get confirmation that 90% of the people watching "Here Comes Honey Boo-boo" are bots too...
They ARE mindless robots. Just that they're the flesh and blood kind, so they still get pageviews.
Unsurprising (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not exactly (Score:2)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/28/youtube-video-views-disappear-migrate
Views and videos just got shifted over to VEVO.
How about weeding out infringing material? (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why were you trying to use the takedown process if you are not the copyright holder?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to agree with me, but I (as a YouTube content producer) get frustrated when I see blatant rips of items that have ad content on them. I would very much like to report these people in a way to get them removed. It frustrates me that I produce content and work hard to put out what I do, but these people take the Rudolph song and make 3mil+ views quite against copyright. So, call it petty jealousy or whatever you want, but yes, I would very much report infringing videos given the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What you are saying is that you have no legal standing, but you have moral outrage, so you have appointed yourself as a copyright vigilante. The law (OCILLA) doesn't permit that, so you are going to be, at the very least, frustrated in your efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
actually try the takedown process before you flame away. it's diabolical.
So diabolical that NASAs own live stream of the Curiosity landing got taken down. And you want it to be easier?
Re: (Score:2)
It is refreshing that GEMA looks after starving artists like HRM The Queen in Germany.
I find it more and more difficult to approach this matter with any seriousness whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm familiar with the hoops you have to jump through to take down videos but I've found them to be painless in my experience. I had 2 high traffic videos re-uploaded by other users (with ads) that I filed claims for. By providing a link to my original video the process was sped up quite a bit.
However I do agree that Google has no incentive to enforce their own copyright rules unless someone notices. I can't imagine how much ad revenue they have made on movies and music that was uploaded by other th
Re: (Score:2)
Afaict google doesn't follow their own copyright rules unless the copyright holder forces them to.
There is LOADS of stuff on youtube that is almost certainly infringing. If the copyright holder wanted to upload is they almost certainly wouldn't upload a crappy vhs recording or cam copy (unless that was the only version in existence) and they almost certainly would use a user account that reflects their brand. Nevertheless there is no report category for normal users to report probable copyright infringement
Re: (Score:2)
You own the copyright of 1000+ movies? You must be the most powerful man in Hollywood.
Seriously? Google will pull that in a heartbeat if the copyright owner complained. Their system is freakin' militant. It's actually MORE aggressive than the legal DMCA process calls for, with less room for reprieve.
The problem you'r
Weren't these views dropped because of VEVO? (Score:2, Informative)
"On Thursday, when YouTube sent out its regular reports on view counts, one data company, SocialBlade, noticed that the channel views for Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group saw its channel count sliced by about 2 billion views.
That led some folks to conclude that the views were "fake" and that nefarious "black hat" techniques were being cooked up by the labels to falsely inflate their views. The truth, however, isn't nearly as sexy.
Interviews Billboard.biz conducted with YouTube, label execu
Article is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong Link. (Score:3)
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/what-really-happened-to-sony-and-universal-1008059892.story [billboard.biz]
Re: (Score:2)
You're believing what the music industry marketers claim?
I followed a link from TFA, and whilst I wouldn't trust this lot either, it does seem to confirm that the truth is that scammers are having their videos deleted by YouTube.
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/youtube/513696-youtube-changed-game.html [blackhatworld.com]
Occam's Razor says those disappeared music industry videos were also deleted by YouTube, not by the music industry themselves. Of course the music industry use black hat techniques to bump their view c
Re: (Score:2)
Argg. Stupid copy paste didn't work. Sorry for the bad link. Didn't mean to redirect people to a persona 4 faq.
Now slashdot knows I suck at RPGs and read guides.
here is billboard link
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/what-really-happened-to-sony-and-universal-1008059892.story [billboard.biz]
Hows the game? Haven't played it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes (Score:2)
"As news of the cuts spread, some critics suggested other recording artist social media could be similarly manipulated."
Well, that explains this rather bold request on Elance:
https://www.elance.com/j/build-software-that-makes-itunes-sales-go-up/36006811/ [elance.com]
"I need a talented freelancer developer to develop a software tool for Mac, or online web based which we input an iTunes Link for a Song or an App. Then it automatically increases their sale to the top charts.
I've seen 2 companies do it. i will give more det
Meme time (Score:2)
I can best describe my feelings with a meme [twimg.com].
If a "normal" used had been inflating their views (Score:2)
google would have blocked their account all together wouldn't they? I hope they follow their own terms this time too.
Re:YES! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:YES! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:YES! (Score:5, Funny)
Why not both? Two great tastes, taste great together!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, get them for defrauding advertisers, who assume the views are legit and pay money for them.
Re: (Score:3)
The billions of views they lost is about the same amount of money the music industry has lost due to piracy.
Who said perception is reality? Just make your own, it's easier.
You've got it slightly wrong. The effect of losing all these "fake views" is exactly the same as the amount they have lost due to piracy -- nearly zero.
And seriously, what kind of bullshit story is this anyway? Nobody gives a rat's ass if Rhianna, Beyonce and Justin Bieber have 12 views or 12 billion.
Re: (Score:3)
The billions of views they lost is about the same amount of money the music industry has lost due to piracy.
Who said perception is reality? Just make your own, it's easier.
You've got it slightly wrong. The effect of losing all these "fake views" is exactly the same as the amount they have lost due to piracy -- nearly zero.
And seriously, what kind of bullshit story is this anyway? Nobody gives a rat's ass if Rhianna, Beyonce and Justin Bieber have 12 views or 12 billion.
Their producers and record companies do.
YouTube Insight (Score:2)
They have discussed plans to rank by how long people tend to watch the particular video ('engagement')
YouTube makes engagement statistics available to the uploader.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that every video on the planet is copyrighted, I doubt they'll go that far.... It seems like it might hurt their business model.
Re: (Score:2)