How Major Film Studios Manipulate YouTube Users 120
Posted
by
timothy
from the velvet-glove-cast-in-iron dept.
from the velvet-glove-cast-in-iron dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A year before the major movie companies were offered the chance by YouTube to 'block, monetize or track' uploaded copyrighted material, studios such as Disney were already commissioning PR companies to create bogus YouTube users — complete with authentically 'trendy' semi-literate user-profiles, on accounts that appeared to be set up by young and 'edgy' teenagers. These faux 'users' were able to post high-definition videos from copyrighted movies without being penalised or impeded by YouTube's Content ID algorithms, and their posts, deliberately crammed with piracy-related search terms and timed (even to the day, in one case) to coincide with related DVD and Blu-ray releases, sometimes accrue a million and a half hits or more, whilst those of genuine YouTube uploaders fall at the site's Content ID firewall. This article looks at how the major studios have reacted to YouTube in the last four years, and also examines in-depth three such examples of apparent 'astroturfing' involving the theatrical or disc releases of Toy Story 2, Speed Racer and Spider-Man 3."
Would you rather they... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go to court?
Hire goons?
Shut down Youtube with DOS attacks?
They have a multi-billion dollar investment in their industry. You can hate their movies if you like. You can despise the prices of popcorn. You can't deny they have an interest in being sure that their investment pays off.
As far as actions go, it's less annoying than rick-rolling.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you post good videos, they're still good regardless of who you are, your agenda, or if everything in your profile is made up. I don't see how they're manipulating anyone.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Only me (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I'm a big supporter of copyright, but it's IMHO entirely logical: the studios do it (via hired astroturfers) with *their own* content. You are free to upload hi-def content as long as it's yours, so no hypocrisy here.
Re:looking in the wrong place (Score:4, Insightful)
Because YouTube offers 720p, 1080p and now 4K [slashdot.org]?
Re:Only me (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes its logical and legal but it should also be marked as an advertisement.
Re:Only me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only me (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hypocritical for at least two reasons:
1. The movie companies claim to lose money on piracy, despite their revenues continuing to increase steadily throughout most of the 2000's, and despite research showing that pirating often stimulates sales. And now it turns out they were using the marketing effect of piracy themselves - that it was "pretend" piracy doesn't make a difference to its marketing effect.
2. By pretending to pirate movies, they set a bad example and encouraged the behaviour they claim to be against, and even brand as immoral in their anti-piracy propaganda.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you post good videos, they're still good regardless of who you are, your agenda, or if everything in your profile is made up. I don't see how they're manipulating anyone.
Well, if they don't accurately and honestly identify themselves then how are others who upload supposed to know that the videos by the movie companies are not violating any copyrights? If it's OK for some random people (aka the movie studios hiding behind fake personas) who's to say other videos of the same movie aren't allowed?
BTW, if it isn't clear that they have something to hide by doing it this way then ask yourself: Why are they hiding behind many fake YouTube accounts in order to post their content? If they weren't trying to pull a fast one then why not just post it as themselves/their company?
Re:Only me (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's being funded or run by the product owner or retailer then it should be. It's an easy way to fraudulently pass a product marketing off as an unbiased community review.
Re:Only me (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the way it goes. Same with record companies releasing music out on the torrents to gather interest. Come to think of it, games and print are the only entertainment mediums I can think of that don't commonly use this tactic.
Too bad the studios and record companies don't realize that they lose something with these tactics: consumer's respect.
When a game studio or print publisher goes belly up, we feel bad for the people working in those businesses. We think of all the hard work and often times, little pay and appreciation they get back. On the other side of the aisle, the movie and music industry can run ads 24/7 showing the sound engineers and stunt men and their families and thanks to the industry's notoriously underhanded ethics, you can only think, "Man, what a manipulative group of assholes."
Re:Only me (Score:2, Insightful)