Porn Pirates Exploit Well-Known Loophole To Upload Raunchy Videos On YouTube (thenextweb.com) 91
Adult video websites appear to be exploiting a YouTube loophole to host explicit material on the platform. An anonymous reader shares a report on The Next Web: A number of adult streaming websites have begun using a known backdoor that ultimately makes it possible to store infringing material on Google's servers -- entirely free of charge. To pull this off, the pirates essentially take advantage of YouTube's option to upload content without sharing it publicly, which effectively allows them to embed the videos on their websites and bypass Google's Content-ID takedown system. This means the content remains unlisted on YouTube and is served directly from the GoogleVideo.com domain instead. While the move hasn't gone unnoticed by the porn industry, California-based adult content-maker Dreamroom Productions claims it has made it much harder for producers to hunt down and flag infringing material, since the videos are not shared publicly.
Porn Pirates (Score:5, Funny)
what do you mean? there is porn on the internet? when did this happen?
Re:Porn Pirates (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That would be a shitty thing to do.
Re:Porn Pirates (Score:5, Funny)
But I post from there!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Your winnings, sir." [youtube.com]
Thanks a lot, Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Now, when I Google "back door pirates" all I get is references to this damned story.
Well duh (Score:2)
> California-based adult content-maker Dreamroom Productions claims it has made it much harder for producers to hunt down and flag infringing material, since the videos are not shared publicly.
Of course it's harder to find infringers when they aren't advertising to you that they're doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
> California-based adult content-maker Dreamroom Productions claims it has made it much harder for producers to hunt down and flag infringing material, since the videos are not shared publicly.
Of course it's harder to find infringers when they aren't advertising to you that they're doing it.
Yeah, it's basically equivalent to using private trackers to share pirated movies, music and TV shows using the bittorrent protocol. You're much less likely to get an infringement notice that way.
Discarded (Score:5, Insightful)
>Write an article like this without links
Shameful
I've had ContentID flags for private videos (Score:2, Interesting)
'bypass Google's Content-ID takedown system'
Citation needed.
I've had several videos uploaded to YouTube, and left private, never published (slideshows with music for family). They've had their audio flagged by the ContentID system and removed.
Re: I've had ContentID flags for private videos (Score:3)
Is that for audio? Most porn movie audio tracks sound the same.
Re:I've had ContentID flags for private videos (Score:5, Informative)
Article update:
Update: As pointed out by our readers and contrary to TorrentFreak’s coverage, it appears private videos don’t automatically bypass YouTube’s Content-ID system.
Re:Related Links? (Score:4, Informative)
Here's why you don't see those stories:
https://boingboing.net/2017/01... [boingboing.net]
Because all of those "DisruptJ20" people turned out to be James O'Keefe.
Re: (Score:2)
"Playing along" with a sting operation is dumb, though, if you take acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. You're not a LEO. You don't have immunity. You should simply refuse to take part and instead film the people allegedly goading you into it. You can find a guide to the law on the subject here [lawcomic.net].
Re: (Score:2)
That's made in cooperation with the LEOs, at least after the first two episodes. Journalists don't have special rights. Pretending to be a 12-year-old online isn't illegal, anyhow, though seducing one is.
The real question is what acts are on camera or captured in email.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why they were freaking out [twitter.com] over this?
Because they were going to sting him?
I'm trying to figure out how, exactly, that makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
DisruptJ20 people who were caught plotting to gas people with butyric acid
Is that like the Planned Parenthood people who were "caught" selling baby parts, except they weren't?
Let me guess, you watch CNN? (Score:1, Offtopic)
> Is that like the Planned Parenthood people who were "caught" selling baby parts, except they weren't?
The Selectc Investigative Panel Final Report [house.gov] seems to contradict you on that one.
Re: (Score:1)
That 471 page document offers no proof of P.P. selling "baby parts", just insinuations related to fetal tissue research.
The anti-science chairperson of that report, BTW, is now the new head of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, "which has oversight of the FCC, as well as all matters related to cable, wireless, and broadband networks, including privacy and cybersecurity".
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-marsha-blackburns-rise-is-bad-news-for-net-neutrality-and-sc
Re: (Score:1)
It gives names, dates and places that can be corroborated. It references video evidence, some of which is easily available online. It mentions a large number of government audits. It talks specifically about profiting from the sale of human tissue, as well as violations of important patient protections like informed consent.
Someone who made it to the end would probably describe it as a 413 page report, though.
Re: (Score:2)
> How is the name date or place relevant? It's the dialog that's fake.
I will enjoy seeing if they argue this in court. You can disbelieve the evidence all you want, but as one might know from the "Criminal and Regulatory Referrals" section, this will get split into pieces and a number of criminal and regulatory bodies will now comb over the evidence of the allegations which fall under their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
They can argue against the evidence in court. The evidence they found has led to multiple referrals for prosecution.
I doubt you'll be satisfied no matter what evidence is presented, but frankly, your opinion doesn't matter. The only opinions that do matter are those of the various legal and regulatory bodies this has been referred to. It's quite unusual to refuse a referral from Congress, so I expect the courts will be sorting this out before long.
Do the needful informations? (Score:1)
The report I read had patients tricked into giving consent, it had them making large profits from selling particular parts and modifying the procedure to procure those parts (who cares about the patient?) and it says they have videos. Some of the information indicates that these modified procedures result in birth, which means it's legally a baby, no matter how much you'd rather dehumanize them.
By my count, that's both "caught" and "selling baby parts."
> do the needful and take an esl class currycakes
Th
Re: (Score:2)
You remind me of this guy [youtube.com] right now.
Only on slashdot are bigoted rants 'interesting' (Score:2)
> lot's of people in jail for a long time i guess with all that proof.
Does the timing of the release of the report not tell you anything? :)
FWIW, I don't really care about your words. I've already been called every racist epithet there is by people like you.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that like the Planned Parenthood people who were "caught" selling baby parts, except they weren't?
Hey hey, lets not get all "facty" now. Just because it was proven to be false doesn't mean Trump supporters still won't believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people got scammed by /pol into believing that hookers were paid to pee on Obama's bed in Moscow.
Technically we don't know that they didn't pee on the bed. We only have /pol's claim that they made it all up, and who can believe any of the things /pol says?
After all, they admit to lying, so how do we know they aren't lying about making it up?
Personally, I believe Trump did pay hookers to pee on the bed, it's completely in keeping with the rest of his personality. And if he did do it it only makes sense that he would deny it and fabricate a story about some internet site making it up.
Welcome to the post-
More hardcore goodness on YouTube... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't beat two girls playing with a big snake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpmZKwTu6pI [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, there were three girls later on. :P
Links (Score:3)
Links please, or it didn't happen.
I call bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
...harder for producers to hunt down and flag infringing material, since the videos are not shared publicly.
I've uploaded video of a dance routine that contained edited music – used under the Fair Use provision of the law.
It was not publicly shared.
That didn't stop the music owner from having it taken down.
I have to wonder how the music owner would otherwise have found it unless Google/Youtube themselves told the music owner about it.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that they have automated the ability to find audio content, but automation of sexual content is harder or less effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Who?
TOP. MEN.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know for sure, but I thought they had a method for fingerprinting songs that made it (relatively) simple for them find copyrighted audio in video audio tracks.
Since each porn star has a different voice, coupled with background music or sounds, it's they'd have to fingerprint the audio from every porn movie.
Plus I always thought that porn was detected more or less by people flagging the videos as porn if they weren't detected by more obvious screening methods (ie, keywords or something in the titles)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. Uploaded a choral concert, private link only, and it got flagged in less than an hour. I'm not sure whether I'm mad that it was flagged or pleased that the performance was good enough to produce a match. ;-) I believe they have a monetization agreement in place with the publishers, so the video stayed. I've had a couple of short clips I uploaded (which were clearly infinging, but just meant to show some examples of ideas to friends) flagged and taken down, while other, similar clips (clearly no
That's not a loop-hole (Score:2)
That a business can use google's services for free, isn't a loop-hole. That's google's business model.
That google offers free hosting for your business's private web-site isn't a loop-hole. Again, that's google's business model.
That google doesn't ID or take down private-yet-infringing content isn't a loop-hole. Again, that's google's business model.
Looks like we've found the loop-hole after-all: google is allowed to provide free hosting of illegal content. I guess that's in-line with most pimps -- pay
MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this exactly megaupload's case? They were a legitimate service for storing and sharing files publicly and privately, just like youtube. They had a takedown system and were compliant to the DMCA, just like youtube. But not enough for the content "owners" liking, like youtube. Their system was used for piracy some of the time, just like youtube (and the proportion BS people tell about torrent sites does not apply here, the legitimate use was huge).
If the US had a decent prosecutor, he/she would go after Google with the same methods and arguments used in megaupload's case. To lose the case, of course, and set some precedents for the small people and the foreigners (Kim is anything but small).
American imperialism sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand, if the content owners wanted to sell files and provide them to customers through a link on megaupload, they could. Just like content owners expose their files on youtube in exchange for advertising money. The "original content owner" doesn't get anything for pirate views on youtube, like they didn't on megaupload.
Or did you mean megaupload didn't bribe the RIAA?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I read the wikipedia page too, but the prosecution's side ignores the technical reason why they didn't necessarily delete the files. I read an example of the file deletion thing, it was on these lines:
1. user1 makes a copy of the file for personal use (legal);
2. user2 makes a copy for sharing in his blog (illegal according to American laws)
3. user3, the rights holder, makes another copy of the file, for private use (legal).
If they deleted the file because of a notice on user2's link, the other users that ha
Re: (Score:1)
This has caused some controversy, since when a DMCA takedown notice is issued only the link that was provided is removed; not necessarily the file itself
There has been cases of movie companies demanding movie trailers taking down, even though these are a form of advertising. The idea being that they only want you to watch the trailer on their official channel.
Now imagine the fun the lawyers of a movie company would have, if they sent a DMCA request to take down unauthorized posts of a movie trailer, and MegaUpload takes down the trailer itself, rather than just the links posted by unauthorized uploaders. Remember that the "link to the existing hash" system
Not at all. Read Dotcom's license plate (Score:2)
If you want to know whether Kim Dotcom is guilty, look at his license plate.
Mega was designed for, and heavily advertised, unlawfully uploaded videos. The owners actually unlawfully uploaded copyright-protected content themselves, and discussed a reward system to get people to unlawfully upload more infringing material. Mega was a service designed and operated for illegal activity.
Youtube is a place for cat videos.
Someone *could* have used Mega for some legal activity, just as they *could* use a pipe bomb
Re: (Score:2)
US Military Members Had More than 15,600 Accounts on MegaUpload [siliconangle.com]. It's not someone could have used megaupload for some legal activity. Lots of people were using it, the above article points to just a small subset of Americans who were doing it (the whole world used megaupload). I know American soldiers are not known for legal activity, but in this case it seems it was mostly a means of communication with their families.
Mega is one thing, Megaupload was another. I wouldn't bother with this shortening if the M
How long until they get detected? (Score:3)
I once uploaded a self-captured 2 minute sequence from Doctor Who to Youtube. The video wasn't just unlisted, but it was private. The title was some random noise like "X". I had 2 or 3 views, because I uploaded it to show a friend the scene in the context of a chat we were having and then I totally forgot about it. Yet after a few months after uploading it I get an email from Youtube telling me that they found infringing content in my account.
Surely they can find unlisted porn too?
YouTube as a criminal enterprise? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a simple trick. Search for some popular show on YouTube, such as "Bill Maher Real Time" and then select the filter for "Upload date". Your results will include lots of pseudo-pirate computer-pwning hits.
These accounts are created constantly on YouTube and this has been going on for many years. A typical account will have lots of videos that are supposed to be the popular shows, but each video just says YouTube blocked the video and promises the suckers that they can get the actual videos by following the links and installing the software to pwn their computers into zombie networks. Generally annoying, but it especially bothers me that a lot of these videos are popular with children, and targeting innocent children strikes me as a higher level of EVIL, even for the monster that the google has become.
There are some obvious countermeasures, but rather than implement any of them, YouTube has chosen to tolerate, perhaps even encourage, this situation for some years. My conclusion is that YouTube believes they are deriving profits from supporting these criminals. (Perhaps they're selling them bandwidth?) I don't think google employees are naive and innocent as the children who are getting victimized, and it would make me a bad person to hope that their own kids click on the links.
Just reading Googled , another history of the google with emphasis on the "Don't be evil" thing. I think that google needs to hire a chief exorcist.