Dan Bull's 'Death To ACTA' Video Silenced After Claim From Rapper Who Used The Same Sample

from the wait,-what-now? dept

Back in 2010 we wrote about rapper Dan Bull's excellent "Death to ACTA" song and video, which is a parody of Jay-Z's "Death of Autotune." In 2011, we further wrote about the MP3 of that song (which Bull distributes willingly on file sharing platforms) being taken down from Mediafire due to a questionable takedown request. Now, years later (well after ACTA is pretty much long dead), Dan's discovered that his video on YouTube was just silenced due to copyright claims. He wondered what it was about and discovered two claims on the video -- one being ridiculous, with the other being merely questionable. The ridiculous one is the claim about Bigg Brass's song, "Death of Fake Rapperz". That one, like Dan's, uses the backing track from Jay-Z's "Death of Autotune." The actual track that Jay-Z sampled is "In the Space" by Janko Nilovic and Dave Sarkys. It's likely that Jay-Z licensed that track (though he's run into legal trouble at times for failing to license some tracks). If anyone would have a claim over Bull's track then, it would likely be those guys. Here, it appears that Bigg Brass is working with the big digital distributor, The Orchard, who didn't even bother to figure out that Bigg Brass was using a sample of his own and just went hog wild stupidly going after others' music. The Universal Music Group claim is slightly more reasonable, but only slightly. Again, the actual music is not Jay-Z's but Nilovic's and Sarkys' and they don't appear to be the ones complaining.

At the same time Jay-Z has been quite public about his support for artists remixing his tracks into other songs saying that he's "honored" when it's done. It may be that Jay-Z doesn't hold the copyright for DoA, but even so... it seems like a pretty weak claim to go after Dan Bull. And, of course, you can find a ton of other videos that use the same backing track for their own songs. Here's one. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And there are a lot more. I'm just getting tired of cutting and pasting.

And none of those other ones are silenced.

Just Dan's. It almost makes you wonder if Universal Music has... a political reason for trying to silence Dan's songs, such as the fact that it mocks an international agreement that the recording industry was highly supportive of. And they say copyright isn't used to censor free speech...

Filed Under: acta, bigg brass, contentid, dan bull, death of autotune, fair use, jay-z, samples, videos, youtube
Companies: youtube

Once Again, Political Speech Is Silenced By Copyright/ContentID

from the because-that's-how-it-works dept

This seems to happen every political season. When he was a Presidential candidate, John McCain got annoyed at YouTube taking down political videos based on copyright claims. During the last Presidential election, a Mitt Romney TV ad featuring President Obama singing an Al Green song was taken down via a copyright claim. And now, 2016 Presidential candidate Rand Paul has discovered that his announcement speech from Tuesday morning has been taken down. This wasn't a DMCA takedown, but yet another case of YouTube's over-eager ContentID doing the job: Apparently the announcement kicked off with an anti-Wall Street country song, "Shuttin' Detroit Down" by John Rich, whose copyright is held by Warner Music Group.

Of course, Rand Paul has been sort of a mixed bag on copyright. He was one of the first Senators to speak out against SOPA/PIPA in 2011. But, not long after that, he and his father Ron put out a weird internet freedom "manifesto" that appeared to argue for much stronger copyright laws, and which argued that the public domain was an evil "collectivist" threat that was against basic property rights.

Of course, it would be nice if this little incident led candidate Rand Paul to support fixes to copyright law and the DMCA, but as some are pointing out, assuming this really was a ContentID takedown, changes to the DMCA wouldn't much matter -- since ContentID is a private solution, outside of copyright law. That said, it was put in place, in part, to help keep YouTube from getting sued over copyright claims, so a fixed DMCA might lead to a better ContentID offering. Unfortunately, despite a history of copyright and ContentID being abused against political candidates, it still hasn't really resulted in them taking a real platform stand on the problems of copyright law today and how it impacts free expression. It's unlikely that Rand Paul is going to really take a stand on this, especially given that weird manifesto from a few years ago.

Filed Under: contentid, copyright, dmca, john rich, rand paul, shuttin detroit down, takedown, youtube
Companies: warner music group, youtube

Is Retweeting ISIS 'Material Support Of Terrorism'?

from the depends-on-your-point-of-view-apparently dept

Last week there was a bizarre and ill-informed post by music industry lawyer Chris Castle -- who has a weird infatuation with the idea that Google must be pure evil -- in which he tried to argue that because YouTube wasn't able to take down propaganda videos showing ISIS atrocities fast enough, that Google was providing "material support" for terrorism. As Castle notes:

Google's distribution of jihadi videos on Google’s monopoly video search platform certainly looks like material support of terrorists which is itself a violation of the federal law Google claims to hold so dear. (See 18 U.S. Code §2339A and §2339B aka the U.S. Patriot Act.)

Of course, there are all sorts of problems with the Patriot Act, including its definitions of "material support of terrorism," but to stretch the law to argue that providing an open platform and simply not removing videos fast enough (the videos in question all got removed pretty rapidly anyway, but not fast enough for Castle) is somehow "material support for terrorism" is flat out crazy. It stems from the same sort of confused logic that Castle has used in the past, arguing that Google and others must magically "just know" what is infringing and what is not -- suggesting a true lack of understanding about the scale of offerings like YouTube and the resources needed to sort through all the content.

We were inclined to simply dismiss Castle's nuttiness to the category of "WTF" where it belongs... until at a conference earlier this week, a DOJ official, John Carlin, who holds the role of assistant attorney general for national security, appeared to suggest that anyone helping ISIS's social media campaign could be guilty of "material support" for terrorism:

John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security, told a cybersecurity conference in Washington on Monday that officials could try to blunt ISIS’s violent PR operation by essentially trying propagandists as terrorists. He suggested the Justice Department could bring prosecutions under the law against providing material support to a terrorist organization. His remarks were believed to be the first time a U.S. official has ever said that people who assist ISIS with online media could face criminal prosecution.

Carlin was asked at the conference whether he would “consider criminal charges” against people who are “proliferating ISIS social media.”  

His answer: “Yes. You need to look at the particular facts and evidence.” But Carlin noted that the United States could use the material support law to prosecute “technical expertise” to a designated terrorist organization. And spreading the word for ISIS online could count as such expertise.

Carlin seems more focused on someone tweeting a link to ISIS propaganda or something along those lines, which would raise significant First Amendment issues, but his comment about "technical expertise" could certainly be turned around and put upon YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other providers of social media tools. That would create a huge mess, and open a Pandora's box that would undermine one of the key premises of the internet that has made it so successful.

Is the DOJ really looking to undermine the entire internet, just because some terrorists have figured out that it's a good way to get out their message?

Meanwhile, if you want to see just how far this sort of ridiculous thinking takes you -- at the same time that people like Castle and Carlin are arguing about how YouTube may be supplying material support for terrorists, YouTube was deleting videos that were being used to document ISIS war crimes. YouTube has been rushing around trying to take down all kinds of ISIS and other terrorist content for a while now -- ever since then Senator Joe Lieberman demanded that YouTube block terrorist videos. And, the end result is that important channels that catalog and archive evidence and documentation of war crimes are being taken down. And, this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.

When you start accusing these platforms of having some sort of liability (potentially criminal liability in the form of "materially supporting terrorists" for merely providing an open platform that anyone can use, you are more or less guaranteeing that important content, such as that which documents war crimes and atrocities gets banned as well. Is that really what Castle and Carlin are looking to do?

Filed Under: chris castle, doj, isis, john carlin, material support, patriot act, propaganda, social media, terrorism, war crimes, youtube
Companies: google, twitter, youtube

YouTube's Offer To Musicians Isn't As Bad As Some Believe, But YouTube Should Still Change Its Policies

from the things-can-be-fixed dept

Last summer, there was some kerfuffle about YouTube allegedly threatening to kick musicians off of YouTube if they didn't agree to license their music to the subscription service it was building. At the time, we wrote about how this was overblown. As we noted, anyone could still post whatever videos they wanted to YouTube, it was just a question of whether or not you would be in YouTube's partner program, which would allow the artists to use ContentID to monetize other people's videos and a few other features as well. After I wrote that, musician Zoe Keating, who I consider a friend, emailed me the details of her own struggle with YouTube over this issue, and how the deal being offered actually was pretty crappy for her. Late last week, she posted a similar discussion on her blog, asking what she should do about YouTube, because she wants to use ContentID, but doesn't like some of the other terms in the deal.

Zoe's post has since gone somewhat viral, with many people insisting that YouTube's terms are absolutely crazy. Of course, when you look at the details, the terms are not really that crazy. However, YouTube should change them. Let's dig into the situation to explain why.

Zoe's main concerns were these terms:

1) All of my catalog must be included in both the free and premium music service. Even if I don’t deliver all my music, because I’m a music partner, anything that a 3rd party uploads with my info in the description will be automatically included in the music service too.

2) All songs will be set to “monetize,” meaning there will be ads on them.

3) I will be required to release new music on YouTube at the same time I release it anywhere else. So no more releasing to my core fans first on Bandcamp and then on iTunes.

4) All my catalog must be uploaded at high resolution, according to Google’s standard which is currently 320 kbps.

5) The contract lasts for 5 years.

As she noted, if she didn't sign the agreement, her YouTube channel would be blocked -- though, as we explained in our post last year, and as Zoe added in an update -- she could take her existing YouTube channel out of the partner program and keep it up. However, in doing so, she would give up the ability to monetize her music under the same terms.

Why these terms aren't entirely insane: From my reading of it, YouTube's concern is that consumers who pay for YouTube's fee-based music service will be reasonably angry if there is music they can find on the good old-fashioned free side of YouTube, but which is not accessible after they pay. From a consumer experience standpoint, that is kind of a crappy situation. You could definitely see some subscribers who get frustrated. In fact, I'd bet that there'd be some blog posts somewhere of someone bitching out YouTube's paid service for not having certain music that was available on the site for free... and that post would likely go viral as well, with people talking about how crappy YouTube's paid service was. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if some enterprising copyright holder somewhere would come up with some sort of legal theory involving suing YouTube over this, saying that it now knows which tracks are unlicensed, and thus has to proactively take them down. That is, it's entirely possible that without these requirements, YouTube goes back to facing a massive copyright liability problem.

Why YouTube should change its terms anyway: These are truly edge cases. Most musicians do seem fine with being in the various services, but if they (like Zoe) want to just to make use of ContentID, but not release all their music on YouTube, that should be allowed. As Zoe has told me in the past, the thing she likes about ContentID is the ability to pick and choose what videos to monetize. Use her music in a school project -- and she just let's it go and is happy to see. Use her music in a big commercial feature, and she'll click the button and get some money out of it. But the ContentID portion should be separate from the "release my music" portion.

On top of that, the requirement to release all music on the service, combined with the similar requirement that you have to release the music on YouTube the same time as on any other platform, is unnecessary. Yes, YouTube wants to make sure that its catalog competes with everyone else's. And, fragmenting the music world with "exclusives" is generally a crappy experience, but there should be some reasonable way to allow Zoe to do things like offer up songs to her biggest fans on Bandcamp first. YouTube should be able to create terms that accommodate that, and it's a shame that the company won't do so.

In the end, most of the terms are not really that unreasonable. It only creates an issue in special cases where someone wants to do something a little bit different. YouTube is left with the choice of which crappy edge case it's going to have to make a mess of: either the one where a musician wants to do something a little different, or the one where some consumers might get annoyed that certain music isn't available on its service. YouTube went with option (a), but there's really no reason that the company can't be a little more flexible in designing terms that account for cases like Zoe's.

The other issue is that, once again, YouTube has done an absolutely dreadful job explaining itself. This is not the first time this has happened. In fact, it seems to happen with alarming frequency that when YouTube makes these kinds of policy changes, it doesn't do a good job (or any job at all) of explaining them to the public in a way that makes sense. Frankly, the company could do a much better job being open and transparent about the policy choices it makes and the reasons why it does these things, but for whatever reason, it chooses not to do so.

Filed Under: contracts, streaming, youtube, zoe keating
Companies: google, youtube

Prominent YouTube Personality Locked Out Of His Account After A Bogus Copyright Claim

from the so-much-power-in-one-little-symbol dept

Another bogus takedown targeting a prominent YouTube personality. In other words, business as usual for the world's largest video platform. This time it's Jacksepticeye, a very popular creator of videogame-related videos, most of which utilize in-game footage, "Let's Play"-style, as well as plenty of related (and unrelated) commentary. At the risk of sounding like The Narrator in "Fight Club," I know Jacksepticeye because my boys know Jacksepticeye. [There is no generation gap because of cultural osmosis. Discuss.]

Jacksepticeye had put together a video featuring two bots carrying on a conversation. One was Cleverbot Evie. The other was Talking Angela, the female spinoff of the ultra-popular Talking Tom app. Fun stuff, probably, but we can't see it (at the moment) because of some unpleasant takedown shenanigans.

One of YouTube's most known gamer guys, Jacksepticeye, took to his Twitter account on Wednesday morning citing copyright claims against him. The claims were made by Outfit7 Limited, the entertainment company that created the Talking Tom and Friends franchise.

Here are the tweets:

Apparently one of my Evie and Talking Angela vids copyright infringed on something and if I don't acknowledge it my account will be deleted

— jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) January 7, 2015

This wasn't some normal copyright strike either, I can't get into my youtube account now unless I answer copyright questions

— jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) January 7, 2015

So @Outfit7 are the ones who flagged the video. The owners of Talking Angela because I had her talking to Evie :/

— jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) January 7, 2015

If you can't read/see the tweets, they say (in order):

Apparently one of my Evie and Talking Angela vids copyright infringed on something and if I don't acknowledge it my account will be deleted

This wasn't some normal copyright strike either, I can't get into my youtube account now unless I answer copyright questions

So @Outfit7 are the ones who flagged the video. The owners of Talking Angela because I had her talking to Evie :/

Now, the question of fair use will be addressed here because the limitations of YouTube's system won't. Firing up an app to talk to a bot isn't copyright infringement. The app will talk to whoever will chat with it (and vice versa, in terms of CleverBot). Recording this interaction doesn't violate Outfit7's copyright anymore than someone recording their siblings/kids talking to it. The app exists to talk and presumably Outfit7 would like more people to download the Talking Angela app because in-app purchases is a numbers game. The more people that try it out, the more likely the chance that some of them will start tossing money into the company's revenue stream.

So, why take it down? Who knows? But considering the outcome of this situation, it appears it may have been a mistake -- albeit the sort of mistake that is both a) far too common and b) engenders ill will towards the entity who screwed up.

This is Jacksepticeye's latest tweet on the takedown.

The copyright strike against me has been retracted and everything is back to normal :D

— jacksepticeye (@Jack_Septic_Eye) January 9, 2015

If you can't see/read it:

The copyright strike against me has been retracted and everything is back to normal :D

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean Outfit7 came to its senses and walked back its erroneous takedown. It could be that YouTube pulled the strike because it wasn't actually an infringing video. But the former is much more likely than the latter, although there's been no public confirmation from Outfit7 itself.

The video itself still remains dead, at least at its original URL. Perhaps Jack will have to re-upload or he has decided to keep the video offline until he hears more from Outfit7… just in case. Either way, copyright gets in the way of creation again, and someone who makes a living on YouTube came this much closer to losing his source of income -- not the sort of thing that exactly endears IP rights to the general public.

Filed Under: censorship, cleverbot, copyright, jacksepticeye, takedowns, talking angela, youtube
Companies: google, outfit7, youtube

Developer Issues Bogus Takedowns Against Cup Of Linux YouTube Channel In Retaliation For Being Banned For Abusive Behavior

from the IP-as-low-rent-thug dept

When you've run out of good ideas and constructive actions, there's always IP abuse. It's the perfect accomplice for all sorts of abusive behavior. Don't like someone using your own words against you? Just holler about copyright until the criticism goes away. Pissed off by a bad review? Fire off copyright claims on the footage used in the video.

Fair use and YouTube will never work in sync, mainly for logistical reasons. So it has become a go-to platform for IP abusers. Here's yet another story in which a legitimate YouTube account is a few steps closer to permanent death because a person decided to act vindictively, rather than responsibly.

The backstory: the Cup of Linux YouTube channel handles all things Linux, including coverage of distributions and how-to guides for new users. One Linux developer, Antoni Norman, is the main force behind the Pinguy OS Linux/Ubuntu hybrid. Over the years, he's been a valuable contributor to the Linux community, including the one centered around Cup of Linux. Also, over the years, Shawn Patrick Ryan ("Spatry") has covered Pinguy OS releases in a number of YouTube videos. So far, so good.

But things went bad. Here's Spatry's account of recent events (via email).

Pinguy was banned by moderators of my community at cupoflinux.com for several counts of misconduct while impaired. Pinguy is a great source of information and we have been more lenient with him than anyone else. I was going to consider lifting his ban after a 3 month period to send a strong message to him that we will not tolerate bad behavior from anyone. This act of acrimony makes his ban permanent and is treated as a "trademark troll" attack. The GNU general public license grants us the freedom to use GPL software in any way we see fit with the inclusion modifying, sharing and providing tutorials under FAIR USE.

An announcement at the Cup of Linux forums makes it a bit more explicit.

Users who require support for "P I N G U Y - O S" will need to direct their inquiries to their forum. The developer was justly banned from this community for multiple counts of bad behavior on our Mumble server.

In retaliation the developer of "P I N G U Y - O S" filed a trademark complaint against Cup of Linux for having promotional videos of that product. All developer posts have been removed from this board and all related materials have been purged from my YouTUBE channel. The forced removal of such videos do not hurt me personally but causes harm to community members who benefit from the tutorials.

Compiz videos tied to that series will be re-branded and re-released without "P I N G U Y - O S" logos or verbiage.

This is the notice Spatry received.

This has every appearance of being done for purely retaliatory reasons. This concern about his Pinguy trademarks didn't manifest itself until after he was banned from the Cup of Linux forums and server. Spatry has provided more evidence of the previously friendly relationship these two enjoyed, including Norman's appearance on videos produced by Cup of Linux, as well as his willingness to share his Pinguy OS logo with others for their own use.

In this thread, Norman praises Spatry for his How To video series featuring Pinguy OS and raises no objection to the sharing of a "Pinguy OS sticker" created by the Cup of Linux head.

This thread features both Spartry and Norman discussing a recent video featuring the Pinguy OS developer as a guest. Again, everything about the discussion is friendly. The only thing notable about it is Norman's assertion that he shouldn't have done the video "at 3am after 8 beers." Despite the abusive behavior leading to his banning being (apparently) alcohol-related, there's nothing in this discussion that indicates Norman crossed any lines during this recording session.

So, we have a friendly relationship that went south, due to Norman's problematic behavior when impaired. Norman had any number of options available to address this situation if he felt it was unfair. But rather than use any of those routes (appeal to moderators, wait out the suspension, address it at his own forum, etc.), he decided to jeopardize Cup of Linux's YouTube account by deliberately issuing bogus takedown demands.

As Spatry points out, the use of any Pinguy OS trademarks (and there's no evidence any of these are registered -- although ultimately that lack of official registration has little bearing on Norman's right to issue takedowns) was clearly fair use. The marks were used in the context of instructional videos and, apparently with Norman's full support prior to his banning. This is nothing more than Norman abusing tenuously-held "rights" to retaliate against Spatry for banning him.

YouTube has allowed Spatry to make changes in response to the requests and his channel doesn't seem to be threatened with a shutdown at this point. But that could change. The system is easily abused and Norman knows it. The amount of damage he can do is disproportionate to the actual "harm" he's experienced -- both by being banned and (especially) by having his suddenly beloved "trademarks" used in videos that were largely supportive of him and his OS.

Norman experienced no harm from Spatry's use of his trademarks. If he felt he had, he never mentioned it during the previous few years of interaction. It wasn't until he engaged in self-destructive behavior that he suddenly became interested in "protecting" his IP. Spatry is challenging the claims, but everything about the situation will be left up to YouTube's mostly automated processes. Context -- as well as fair use considerations -- won't be considered. No doubt Norman is aware how slanted the system is towards rightsholders. He knew he could hurt Spatry and his channel and suffer zero repercussions. The only damage he'll suffer is to his reputation.

This last avenue is the only route Spatry and Cup of Linux have available to them while YouTube sorts this out. While Spatry points out that Norman has been a useful contributor in the past, his current activity makes him any enemy of the same community he claims to be a part of.

As a community leader, I feel that I would be doing a major dis-service by keeping silent. If Antoni Norman wants to censor the community, maybe he should consider removing GPL licensing and applications from his operating system because this goes against everything the Free and Open software community stands for.

At this point, Spatry has removed an additional 29 23 videos from his channel in hopes of steering clear of further retaliatory actions -- above and beyond the six being disputed. That's 35 29 videos gone because of bogus trademark claims motivated by nothing more than vindictiveness. While we can all appreciate creators' desire to protect their creations, the solution isn't a system that can easily be exploited by petty individuals who have run out of good ideas.

Filed Under: antoni norman, cup of linux, fair use, ip, linux, pinguy linux, retaliation, spatry, takedowns, trademark, youtube
Companies: youtube

Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Universal Music Takes Down Fun Mashup Of Taylor Swift's 'Shake It Off' And 1989 Aerobics Video

from the because-universal-music-sucks dept

Last year, when Daft Punk released it's super popular single "Get Lucky" the first time I actually heard it was when someone I know linked to a fantastic video of the song put over a danceline from Soul Train. It's pretty amazing how well it works. You can see it here. That video has about 4.5 million views. Not bad.

As you may have heard, Taylor Swift recently came out with a new album, "1989," and she's at war with Spotify over it and making some statements about streaming royalties and such (which we've mostly been avoiding covering because this fight has gone on long enough already and it's silly and mostly misleading).

However, in the last day or so, someone tried to do the equivalent of the Soul Train/Get Lucky video above with Swift's song "Shake it Off." They matched the song to an aerobics competition video from (amusingly) 1989 -- and it worked quite well. It got lots of attention with the Huffington Post and Slate and others writing about it. So, I went to check out the video and got this instead: Yup. Thanks, Universal Music and copyright for taking down something that was getting this song more attention. Of course, multiple other copies appear to have shown up in response (not all identical, but all using versions of the same footage). Those are all up as I post this, but I imagine they're likely to disappear soon too.

It makes you wonder what's the point here? Yes, legally, Universal/Taylor Swift may have the legal right to pull the video down (though, some could make a reasonable fair use argument), but it seems pretty futile. Here are people having fun with her music, doing something of their own free will to get it more attention (I hadn't heard the song at all before this), and then it gets pulled down, because copyright.

In many ways, this is the antithesis of how music worked for ages. Music was always about people sharing and building on the works of others. Someone would create a song, and others would take it, resing it, adapt it, change it, mix it up with other things. That's how culture works. But not so much in an era with strict copyright laws and automated takedown systems. What a shame.

Filed Under: copyright, culture, mashups, shake it off, taylor swift, youtube
Companies: google, universal music, youtube

Microsoft Takes Down A Bunch Of Non-Infringing YouTube Videos Over People Posting Product Keys In Comments

from the collateral-damage dept

Oh, Microsoft. The company has now admitted that it ended up sending a bunch of DMCA takedown notices on non-infringing videos, all because someone had posted product keys in comments to those videos. To its credit, Microsoft has apologized and said that it has "taken steps to reinstate legitimate video content and are working towards a better solution to targeting stolen IP while respecting legitimate content." That's all well and good, but this seems like the kind of thing that they should have done long before issuing obviously bad takedowns. This is the kind of thing that happens when you have a tool like the DMCA notice-and-takedown provision that makes it just so damn easy to censor content. Those issuing the takedowns do little to nothing to make sure the content being removed actually infringes. They just use either automated means or someone rushing through the process with little review, sending off takedowns willy nilly with no real concern about how they might kill off perfectly legal content. It still boggles the mind that a basic notice-and-notice regime couldn't suffice to handle situations like this. That and making sure that those issuing bogus DMCA notices receive some sort of real punishment to give them the incentive to stop sending bogus takedowns.

Filed Under: censorship, comments, copyright, dmca, product keys, takedown, youtube
Companies: microsoft

Not Just Governments Hacking Your Computers Via YouTube Videos; Malicious Ads Found On Popular Videos

from the danger-danger dept

Over the summer, a research report came out detailing how "lawful intercept" offerings from Hacking Team and FinFisher could be used to hack computers via YouTube videos. YouTube quickly closed the vulnerability that enabled this (a man-in-the-middle attack on non-SSL'd videos), but it appears that criminals are still figuring out ways to use YouTube videos to hack your computer. The latest trick: exploiting ads on popular YouTube videos:

This was a worrying development: not only were malicious ads showing up on YouTube, they were on videos with more than 11 million views – in particular, a music video uploaded by a high-profile record label.

The ads we’ve observed do not directly lead to malicious sites from YouTube. Instead, the traffic passes through two advertising sites, suggesting that the cybercriminals behind this campaign bought their traffic from legitimate ad providers.

In order to make their activity look legitimate, the attackers used the modified DNS information of a Polish government site. The attackers did not compromise the actual site; instead they were able to change the DNS information by adding subdomains that lead to their own servers. (How they were able to do this is unclear.)

The traffic passes through two redirection servers (located in the Netherlands) before ending up at the malicious server, located in the United States.

The target here: computers using Internet Explorer (based on our stats, this means that most of the people reading this site were safe from this particular attack). Once again, we see how scammers are using traditional ad networks to do nefarious things. And yet publishers still wonder why so many people decide to use ad blockers.

Filed Under: ads, malicious ads, scammers, videos, youtube
Companies: google

YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?

from the curious... dept

Remember those days when YouTube was "killing" the entertainment industry. You don't even have to look back very far. There are artists who still insist that YouTube is killing creativity and is nothing but a den of piracy. Viacom spent years trying to argue that YouTube was the equivalent of Napster, but for video, until that lawsuit finally settled just a few months ago.

However, reality is looking pretty different these days. A couple months ago, Businessweek had a big cover story about how YouTube has become Hollywood's "hit factory", and just this week, YouTube revealed that its ContentID program, which allows copyright holders to monetize unauthorized uses of their works, had paid out over $1 billion since its inception. This isn't to say there aren't problems with ContentID. We've noted in the past the problems with false flagging, revenue diversion and other issues -- but the simple fact is that it appears to be making money for content creators. Actually, quite a lot of money.

And this brings us back to a key point that we've hit on over and over and over again: given a chance to operate, these business models tend to come about without the need to pass draconian copyright laws and without the need to completely takedown and destroy businesses. When allowed to thrive, innovate and experiment, it's only natural that workable business models develop. We've seen it over and over again in the industry. The recording industry insisted radio was going to kill the entire industry -- and then it made the industry into a massive juggernaut. The movie industry insisted that the VCR would be its "Boston Strangler," but four years later home video outpaced the box office in generating revenue for the studios.

The continuous claims of "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" on copyright issues is so clearly bogus. As we've argued for years, it's the innovations of the tech industry that keep saving the entertainment industry over and over and over again. There's no "war" between the two when it appears that Silicon Valley is the one supplying the "weapons" that's making Hollywood very, very wealthy.

But when will those folks in Hollywood learn this? Instead, they keep attacking these new services, demanding more copyright "enforcement" and blocking these forms of innovation. Who knows what other innovations might have occurred had the industry not shut down Veoh. Or Grokster. Before the US government completely shut down Megaupload, it was experimenting with new revenue models were attracting the interest of lots of famous musicians. Imagine if that had been allowed to continue. Who knows what other kinds of cool business models would be in place today making more money for artists.

Attacking innovation seems to be the legacy entertainment industry's default position, no matter how many times that innovation actually opens up new markets, provides new revenue streams and makes pretty much everyone better off. Oh, except some of the gatekeepers. Those guys tend not to be able to keep quite as much of the revenue generated by these new platforms. And maybe, just maybe, that's the real reason they're so angry about innovation.

Filed Under: business models, contentid, copyright, culture, experiments, hollywood, innovation, silicon valley, youtube
Companies: google, youtube