Did YouTube "cheat" to gain top ranking among video sites

We've tracked YouTube at this site obviously and have been amazed at its rapid growth rate. Like we blogged about it two months ago, "Lessons on the volatility of digital communities" in the summer of 2005 YouTube was fifth among the top six most used video sharing sites, only one fifth the size of the runaway market leader, MSN Video. MSN Video was so far ahead of the game, it was almost twice the size of the second largest video site, NetFlix. Then in 12 months, while both leaders continued to grow - MSN Video grew 37% - YouTube rocketed past them, from fifth to first place, and by summer of 2008 had grown by a factor of 24 (!) and was already more than twice as big as MSN Video.

Then YouTube was sold to Google. Suddenly after the deal, YouTube has released several statements that it is removing content that fringes on copyrights, from Japanese manga (cartoons) to American SNL (Saturday Night Live) comedy clips.

Here is my thought for the day. Did YouTube "cheat" to achieve dramatic growth and popularity - deliberately even - just to achieve the big hype around it, and the billion dollar deal with Google?

Here at Communities Dominate, Alan and I are most happy for all success stories in digital communties and social networking. But we don't suggest the growth should come with breaking the laws. Surely there must be enough growth in this incredible industry to allow success stories without resorting to "cheating"?

Just a thought...

Comments

[Ras Delta]

Guys just making their sucessfull business...in their country uploading videos for personal aren't breaking law....

[David Cushman]

Tomi, it's an interesting take.
'Cheating' is a bit strong perhaps. What they did was give (tacit) freedom to co-create which so many users appear to have enjoyed. The others tried harder to play within the rules - I guess is the argument?
I'm a little depressed that google is now starting to sign deals with the huge corporations to allow video/music use on youtube.
It looks like the big brands are going to get a slice of ad revenues for their content whether it's mashed or completely as they broadcast it.
The balance ,of course, could be restored if/when google announces exactly how it intends to reward video creators for their content. If it's a mashup will the creator of the video/auido mashup get a share or just the creators of the original content? Who gets most? Who deserves most? It's the mashup getting the views on YouTube after all - views which the orignal content was not getting. Tough calls all round.

On a slightly different matter - but very much YouTube related - interesting that YouTube plans to be a mobile play within a year ( Users can already upload to it in moblogging style)
See link: http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2006/11/youtube-on-your-mobile.html

[Bert]

Due to the Grokster ruling, Youtube receives some legal protection from copyright lawsuits caused by users uploading pirated material.

However, that does not change the fact that they are earning advertising revenue, which is inflated by the volume of traffic generated by illegal videos.

Traffic is the most important commodity on the internet and as you can see, the new Web 2.0 companies are finding new and exciting ways to organise and maximise this. I believe you must earn your traffic and not hide behind legal loopholes.

Youtube is not doing enough to come clean. They should start sharing revenue with all content owners and not just the big media companies that come knocking at their door. If not, they should prevent pirated videos from being uploaded in the first place by using new filtering technology. (keyframes, tags)

[Juhani]

It's not Cheating, it's Creativity ;-)

YouTube thought they are in clear waters, because what I've read, their policy is in line with the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Basically they are not responsible what their users upload, as long as they promise to remove the content IF the copyright holder contacts them and demands the stuff to be taken down.

This is obviously one of the implications of an immature industry where nobody knows exactly what they are doing, there's not that much money involved YET and everybody wants to push the limits.

This is actually happening in the mobile content space now too. I'm not pointing anyone by finger.. ok yes I am. Knowing the hurdles involved in paying all the required royalties in the ringtone business, the content on these sites seem to be questionable: www.myxertones.com, www.mytinyphone.com, www.mobile9.com and www.mobango.com. Tell me if I'm wrong.

HOWEVER, Universal is now going to challenge this industry practice, suing two video sites for a nice sum of $150,000 PER copyright infringing video. This is going to be interesting to follow: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/universal_sues_vidoesharers/

Juhani

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Ras, David, Bert and Juhani

Thanks for stopping by and leaving the comments. I'm very rushed (returned from Taipei a few hours ago, now already back at Heathrow about to board flight via Munich to Trieste and onto Podgoroz Slovenia) and I'm sorry, I can't now leave more personalized replies.

I agree the "cheating" is quite a strong word, likely too strong, and creative it certainly was. Also am curious to see how both Google and YouTube play in the mobile space.

Thanks for comments!

Tomi :-)

[Allen]

Cheating is the perfect word for YouTube, as they have practically sanctioned cheating from the get-go amongst their heralded "vloggers" who routinely ramp up numbers with multiple fake accounts, which are utilized to boost subscriber rates, and comments.

The most willful cheaters are, not surprisingly, on all of YouTube's Top Ten lists. By my perception, that's sanctioning cheating. There are a number of accounts with over a million video "views" that have only been activated for six months.

You do the math on that phenomenea. My math skills tells me that is impossible by a wide margin. YouTube allows these accounts to remain. YouTube sanctions cheating.

Here is just one youtube vlogger who shows you how it's done, and is continuing to be done:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D9DH1IyCoXQ

Follow his directions, and you too can be a YouTube "star."

BTW, YouTube has recently been contacted by the LA Times on the matter and they refuse to respond, rather, they issue a form letter stating that they don't allow cheating.

[James]

One other factor which gets very little public attention is YouTube is currently the premier distributor for what is arguably soft child porn.
Newsgroups on YouTube have been organized expressly for pedophiles, by pedophiles, to share information on the latest soft child porn videos uploaded to youtube.
Kids from just under 18, all the way to toddler age, routinely upload video's of "strip teases" that seem tailor made for pedophiles, and YouTube allows many to stay up on their site.
It's the law of supply and demand. Child porn is presumably hard to obtain, and YouTube's offering of "soft" child porn is the best of both worlds for them, in that they can watch a 10 year old engage in a strip tease down to her underwear, dancing to "my humps," or worse, and it's approved by YouTube.
Call them their "stealth subscribers." They really run up the repetitive viewhits, they are all over YouTube, and have been since the beginning.

[David Cushman]

Further to my previous comment on this post; it seems YouTube has been beaten to the punch re mobile.
Try here:
http://www.wireless-weblog.com/50226711/orb_networks_beats_youtube_to_the_mobile_arena.php

[Troy Riser]

Regarding not-so-subtle promotion of 'softcore' child porn on YouTube, James (above) is dead-on. But it is worse than that--much worse. When my children and I set out to do a family video project and post our videos to YouTube to share with family and friends, I did some investigating at the urging of a friend (shortly after the MySpace pedophile scandal). Even the most perfunctory examination shows YouTube is rife with pedophiles. Worse yet, these pedophiles are networked, organized, and seemingly influential within the YouTube community. Those who identify and expose pedophiles and active, online predators are branded as 'Haters' not only by the not-so-closeted pedophiles but by that morally challenged segment of the YouTube user population for whom 'intolerance' is the greatest sin. I am aghast at the passivity of YouTube and its parent company, Google. Their complicity in this sordid mess demonstrates a major league failure of their corporate and social responsibilities.

[shuddupstupid]

Youtube, being informed of the pedophile problem chooses to not to address it (webhits = $$). To some pedophiles using their system YouTube is no more than a dating service. Since there are no reprecussions for asking children to expose their genitals these pedophiles pass the word to their social networks and pedophile chat boards. Thus, many videos hits from embedded videos on pedophile websites. These are innocent naive children who have been taken advantange of, many soliced for private webcam chats. There is also the issue of pedophiles posting as close to porn as they can get away with and sharing these videos with their freinds. It's common knowledge throughout Youtube that the pedophiles can fight opposition and in many cases get the accounts of those who oppose them suspended. Perhaps if YouTube addressed this issue they would suffer some losses so it seems they choose to enable the pedophiles since the child victims don't own corporate dollars.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Allen, James, David, Troy and shuddupstupid

Thanks for writing

Allen, good points. We agree :-)

James, very good angle. And thank you David, Troy and shuddupstupid for joining in that discussion.

Again I agree of course with you. We see similar problems in many areas of the digitally converging world. One of the problems with teenagers getting 3G cameraphones is that they can quickly become either amateour porn stars (and on services where users are paid for content by the time it is viewed, they make quick money this way) which is unfortunate enough, the next step is then teenager adventures into making money out of prostitution, and using 3G video services as their private calling cards and advertisements.

It is not limited to 3G or video sharing sites like YouTube. This kind of problem also is very quick to try to emerge on dating and flirting services online (web and mobile) and also on various online virtual worlds. Someone estimated that nearly half of all transactions in Second Life were either adult-oriented or gambling oriented in 2006.

But it is particularly "suitable" to video sites, as so much of the pornography industry is visual, whether images or video.

Very good points, thank you for writing. I think we should perhaps blog about this dimension separately.

Tomi Ahonen :-)