YouTube pirates cashing in on Hollywood's Blockbusters
However, the company also had cause for concern. In the days after the Disney film's opening, a pirated version of 'Lilo & Stitch' proved to be a hit on YouTube, where more than 200,000 people viewed it, potentially costing Disney millions of dollars in additional sales, according to research from Adalytics, a firm that analyzes advertising campaigns for brands.
The findings of the research shed new light on the copyright issues that once threatened to upend YouTube's business. They also show how advertisers have unwittingly supported illicit content on YouTube, and they provide rare data about piracy on the platform.
YouTube has long tried to tamp down piracy, but users who upload stolen films and television shows have employed new tactics to evade the platform's detection tools, the research showed, including cropping films and manipulating footage.
YouTube then recommended the uploaded videos to users on its homepage, promoting pirated streaming of box office releases like 'Lilo & Stitch,' or movies exclusively available on streaming platforms, like 'Captain America: Brave New World,' according to screen recordings compiled by Adalytics and an analysis by The New York Times.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, may also have generated revenue from some stolen videos, though it's unclear how much money it may have made.
The company has a program known as Content ID to identify videos protected by copyright. It allows copyright holders to block the videos, share in advertising sales of the videos, or receive data about who views the videos. Over the years, YouTube has paid billions of dollars to rights holders. YouTube reported flagging 2.2 billion videos last year and said rights holders permitted about 90% of those videos to stay on the platform.
Jack Malon, a spokesperson for YouTube, said the company does not analyze the less than 10% of videos it removes at the request of copyright holders and does not track how many of those videos may be recently released full-length movies.
The channels that uploaded the videos of 'Lilo & Stitch' and 'Captain America: Brave New World' were terminated for violating YouTube's policies on spam, Malon said.
He declined to say whether the company had profited from commercials shown in copyrighted videos that evaded detection by Content ID or racked up views before rights holders asked that they be taken down.
At YouTube's request, Adalytics and the Times provided 200 videos for YouTube to review, most of them full-length films. YouTube analyzed the videos but declined to provide insight into what percentage of the films their rights holders had permitted to stay up or had required to be removed.
'To frame these videos as 'illicit' without first reviewing the specific choices made by each rights holder misunderstands how the media landscape on YouTube works today,' Malon said. While 'mistakes do occur' on YouTube, he said, he dismissed the Adalytics report as an effort to get companies to sign up for the firm's services.
Holders of copyrights for the videos, including all the major film studios, did not respond when asked for comment by the Times.
The founder of Adalytics, Krzysztof Franaszek, who conducted the research, said he had observed 9,000 examples of possible copyright violations, 'including full-length movies that were in theatrical release, Netflix exclusives such as 'Extraction 2,' TV shows such as 'Family Guy' and live NCAA college football games.' The videos collectively had more than 250 million views. More than 100 of these uploads were also reviewed by the Times.
Movies from every major film studio were found on YouTube in unofficial streams uploaded from last July to May, Adalytics found. When briefed on the research findings, Larissa Knapp, the chief content protection officer of the Motion Picture Association, a trade group for movie studios, said she found them concerning.
At one point, the anti-piracy work between the studios and YouTube 'did work,' Knapp said. 'But now it seems like some of the stuff may have gone off the rails if illegal content is being placed with ads.'
The research recalled a time in YouTube's history when Hollywood accused the platform of profiting from its stolen content. In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube, claiming it engaged in 'brazen' copyright infringement by allowing uploads of the media company's material without its permission. In 2012, YouTube won the suit by arguing it was shielded from liability by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which exempted YouTube from liability for hosting copyrighted work.
The law shifted the burden for protecting a copyright from the platform and video creators to rights holders, said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University. Without the rule, he said, 'the internet would not be able to exist in its existing format.'
YouTube has tried to work with film studios, television networks and streaming services to combat piracy. Google, YouTube's parent company, developed its Content ID technology to recognize copyrighted videos, and YouTube became more aggressive at policing its platform for piracy. Copyright holders gained the right to either have the content removed or collect a share of the advertising revenue the videos generated.
The box office in the United States and Canada routinely loses $1 billion each year to piracy, which is roughly 15% of its annual haul, according to the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, a trade group of 50 entertainment companies that tries to reduce piracy.
Franaszek began the research after his advertising clients noticed that as much as 60% of their ad spending on YouTube went to videos or channels that were labeled 'no longer available.'
After digging deeper, he found that his clients had paid to support content that YouTube later removed because it violated company policies against nudity, violence or hate speech, or because of other offenses.
When videos are removed from the platform, YouTube scrubs advertisers' records so that they can no longer see the name of the video. Advertisers have to go to the link for the removed video to see if it was removed for a copyright violation, Franaszek said. He added that the platform did not fully reimburse the advertisers for the cost of commercials in those videos.
Erich Garcia, a senior vice president at Quote.com, which lets consumers compare insurance offerings, said his company's ads routinely ran with videos that had disappeared, limiting his insight into the effectiveness of his promotions.
Malon said YouTube advertisers could get more insight into those videos by asking their account representatives for more information. Representatives can provide advertising credits.
Ads from Disney, Hulu, HBO Max, Focus Features, and dozens of other companies from various industries were found alongside unauthorized film and television uploads, Adalytics said.
Pirates deployed a range of deceptive tactics to evade YouTube's anti-piracy algorithms. Some uploaded and voluntarily removed copyrighted videos on the same day, racking up viewers before being caught. Other pirates mirrored the videos to reverse the images or cropped the frames to trick the Content ID system. Still, others placed clips of regular people at the end of a Hollywood blockbuster video to further cover their tracks, Adalytics and The Times found.
Franaszek said Adalytics clients who paid for advertising in videos that were removed over copyright issues had a simple request: 'to have visibility into what content their YouTube ad dollars are funding, and where their ads appear.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
YouTube pirates cashing in on Hollywood's Blockbusters
SAN FRANCISCO — After spending about $100 million on 'Lilo & Stitch,' a live-action remake of a 2002 animated film, Disney had plenty to celebrate. The film pulled in $361 million worldwide on its opening weekend in May and bested 'Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning' at the box office. However, the company also had cause for concern. In the days after the Disney film's opening, a pirated version of 'Lilo & Stitch' proved to be a hit on YouTube, where more than 200,000 people viewed it, potentially costing Disney millions of dollars in additional sales, according to research from Adalytics, a firm that analyzes advertising campaigns for brands. The findings of the research shed new light on the copyright issues that once threatened to upend YouTube's business. They also show how advertisers have unwittingly supported illicit content on YouTube, and they provide rare data about piracy on the platform. YouTube has long tried to tamp down piracy, but users who upload stolen films and television shows have employed new tactics to evade the platform's detection tools, the research showed, including cropping films and manipulating footage. YouTube then recommended the uploaded videos to users on its homepage, promoting pirated streaming of box office releases like 'Lilo & Stitch,' or movies exclusively available on streaming platforms, like 'Captain America: Brave New World,' according to screen recordings compiled by Adalytics and an analysis by The New York Times. YouTube, which is owned by Google, may also have generated revenue from some stolen videos, though it's unclear how much money it may have made. The company has a program known as Content ID to identify videos protected by copyright. It allows copyright holders to block the videos, share in advertising sales of the videos, or receive data about who views the videos. Over the years, YouTube has paid billions of dollars to rights holders. YouTube reported flagging 2.2 billion videos last year and said rights holders permitted about 90% of those videos to stay on the platform. Jack Malon, a spokesperson for YouTube, said the company does not analyze the less than 10% of videos it removes at the request of copyright holders and does not track how many of those videos may be recently released full-length movies. The channels that uploaded the videos of 'Lilo & Stitch' and 'Captain America: Brave New World' were terminated for violating YouTube's policies on spam, Malon said. He declined to say whether the company had profited from commercials shown in copyrighted videos that evaded detection by Content ID or racked up views before rights holders asked that they be taken down. At YouTube's request, Adalytics and the Times provided 200 videos for YouTube to review, most of them full-length films. YouTube analyzed the videos but declined to provide insight into what percentage of the films their rights holders had permitted to stay up or had required to be removed. 'To frame these videos as 'illicit' without first reviewing the specific choices made by each rights holder misunderstands how the media landscape on YouTube works today,' Malon said. While 'mistakes do occur' on YouTube, he said, he dismissed the Adalytics report as an effort to get companies to sign up for the firm's services. Holders of copyrights for the videos, including all the major film studios, did not respond when asked for comment by the Times. The founder of Adalytics, Krzysztof Franaszek, who conducted the research, said he had observed 9,000 examples of possible copyright violations, 'including full-length movies that were in theatrical release, Netflix exclusives such as 'Extraction 2,' TV shows such as 'Family Guy' and live NCAA college football games.' The videos collectively had more than 250 million views. More than 100 of these uploads were also reviewed by the Times. Movies from every major film studio were found on YouTube in unofficial streams uploaded from last July to May, Adalytics found. When briefed on the research findings, Larissa Knapp, the chief content protection officer of the Motion Picture Association, a trade group for movie studios, said she found them concerning. At one point, the anti-piracy work between the studios and YouTube 'did work,' Knapp said. 'But now it seems like some of the stuff may have gone off the rails if illegal content is being placed with ads.' The research recalled a time in YouTube's history when Hollywood accused the platform of profiting from its stolen content. In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube, claiming it engaged in 'brazen' copyright infringement by allowing uploads of the media company's material without its permission. In 2012, YouTube won the suit by arguing it was shielded from liability by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which exempted YouTube from liability for hosting copyrighted work. The law shifted the burden for protecting a copyright from the platform and video creators to rights holders, said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University. Without the rule, he said, 'the internet would not be able to exist in its existing format.' YouTube has tried to work with film studios, television networks and streaming services to combat piracy. Google, YouTube's parent company, developed its Content ID technology to recognize copyrighted videos, and YouTube became more aggressive at policing its platform for piracy. Copyright holders gained the right to either have the content removed or collect a share of the advertising revenue the videos generated. The box office in the United States and Canada routinely loses $1 billion each year to piracy, which is roughly 15% of its annual haul, according to the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, a trade group of 50 entertainment companies that tries to reduce piracy. Franaszek began the research after his advertising clients noticed that as much as 60% of their ad spending on YouTube went to videos or channels that were labeled 'no longer available.' After digging deeper, he found that his clients had paid to support content that YouTube later removed because it violated company policies against nudity, violence or hate speech, or because of other offenses. When videos are removed from the platform, YouTube scrubs advertisers' records so that they can no longer see the name of the video. Advertisers have to go to the link for the removed video to see if it was removed for a copyright violation, Franaszek said. He added that the platform did not fully reimburse the advertisers for the cost of commercials in those videos. Erich Garcia, a senior vice president at which lets consumers compare insurance offerings, said his company's ads routinely ran with videos that had disappeared, limiting his insight into the effectiveness of his promotions. Malon said YouTube advertisers could get more insight into those videos by asking their account representatives for more information. Representatives can provide advertising credits. Ads from Disney, Hulu, HBO Max, Focus Features, and dozens of other companies from various industries were found alongside unauthorized film and television uploads, Adalytics said. Pirates deployed a range of deceptive tactics to evade YouTube's anti-piracy algorithms. Some uploaded and voluntarily removed copyrighted videos on the same day, racking up viewers before being caught. Other pirates mirrored the videos to reverse the images or cropped the frames to trick the Content ID system. Still, others placed clips of regular people at the end of a Hollywood blockbuster video to further cover their tracks, Adalytics and The Times found. Franaszek said Adalytics clients who paid for advertising in videos that were removed over copyright issues had a simple request: 'to have visibility into what content their YouTube ad dollars are funding, and where their ads appear.' This article originally appeared in
Observer
4 days ago
- Observer
A Look at the Decline of Traditional TV and Radio and the Rise of Multi-Platform Media
In the last two decades, the media landscape has undergone a profound transformation. What was once dominated by traditional TV and radio has given way to a dynamic, fragmented, and highly personalized ecosystem of multi-platform media. This shift has not only changed how people consume content, but also redefined the very nature of media itself—from linear programming and passive consumption to on-demand access and active engagement. The decline of traditional broadcasting and the rise of digital platforms is more than a trend; it is a fundamental reordering of information, entertainment, and culture. The Erosion of Traditional TV and Radio Traditional television and radio, for decades the mainstay of global communication and entertainment, are experiencing a slow but steady decline. Several factors have contributed to this erosion: technological advancement, demographic changes, and evolving consumer expectations. Linear programming, the hallmark of traditional TV and radio, no longer aligns with the needs of modern audiences. Viewers today prefer content on their own schedules, not dictated by a network's timetable. The era when families gathered at 8 p.m. to watch the nightly news or prime-time dramas has been replaced by binge-watching Netflix, catching up on YouTube playlists, or streaming music on Spotify. Demographics play a critical role in this shift. Younger generations, particularly Millennials and Gen Z, grew up with the internet and smartphones. They are digital natives, fluent in the use of apps, streaming services, and social media. According to numerous surveys, people under 35 consume far more digital content than traditional broadcasts. Even among older adults, there is growing adoption of digital media platforms. Advertising revenue, once a reliable stream for TV and radio broadcasters, has followed the audiences. Companies now prefer placing ads on digital platforms like YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram, where targeting is precise and measurable. Traditional media's broad but vague reach cannot compete with the data-driven marketing strategies of online platforms. The result: declining ad revenues and reduced budgets for traditional broadcasters. The Rise of Multi-Platform Media As traditional media wanes, multi-platform media—defined by its accessibility across various digital devices and networks—has emerged as the dominant form of content delivery. This includes social media, streaming services, podcasts, blogs, and online news outlets. Content is no longer confined to one format or device. A single show can live on cable, stream on-demand, be clipped on TikTok, and spark discussions on Reddit. One of the most significant aspects of multi-platform media is personalization. Algorithms on platforms like YouTube, Netflix, and Spotify recommend content based on user behavior, ensuring a more engaging and relevant experience. This kind of personalization is impossible in traditional formats, which treat all viewers or listeners as a homogeneous mass. Interactivity is another hallmark of multi-platform media. Audiences are no longer passive recipients of content—they are participants. They comment, share, remix, and even create their own media. Livestreaming platforms like Twitch and TikTok Live offer real-time interaction between creators and audiences, blurring the lines between consumer and producer. Moreover, the barriers to entry in content creation have drastically lowered. Unlike the expensive, regulated world of TV and radio broadcasting, digital platforms allow almost anyone to become a creator. This democratization of media has led to a proliferation of voices and perspectives, many of which were historically marginalized in traditional media. The Impact on Culture and Society The decline of traditional media and the rise of multi-platform systems have far-reaching implications for culture, politics, and identity. On one hand, we now have a richer, more diverse media environment than ever before. Independent journalists, niche content creators, and underrepresented communities have found platforms to share their stories and build audiences. On the other hand, the fragmentation of media has led to a more polarized society. In the past, traditional media acted as a shared cultural experience—everyone watched the same news, the same shows. Now, people often exist in algorithmic bubbles, where their media diets are tailored to their existing beliefs and preferences. This has raised concerns about echo chambers, misinformation, and the erosion of a common public discourse. The economic implications are also significant. Traditional media companies have had to adapt or perish. Some have embraced digital transformation, launching their own streaming platforms or integrating social media strategies. Others have struggled to remain relevant, unable to compete with the speed and agility of newer tech-driven platforms. For creators, the new landscape offers both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, there's more freedom and fewer gatekeepers. On the other, monetization is complex and often unstable. Algorithms change, platforms rise and fall, and creators are subject to policies they don't control. The Hybrid Future: Integration Over Replacement It would be inaccurate to declare the death of TV and radio outright. Instead, what we're witnessing is a convergence of old and new media. Traditional broadcasters are increasingly adopting multi-platform strategies: television shows are now live-tweeted, news reports are shared on Instagram Stories, and radio programs are repackaged as podcasts. The distinction between 'traditional' and 'digital' is becoming increasingly blurred. Public broadcasters, like the BBC or NPR, have shown how traditional institutions can successfully integrate digital practices. They offer live streams, podcasts, YouTube clips, and social media engagement while maintaining journalistic integrity and public trust. Similarly, smart TVs and digital radio illustrate the hybrid nature of today's media consumption. People may still watch linear TV or listen to FM radio, but often through smart devices that offer access to streaming apps and on-demand content. It's no longer a question of either/or but rather how these formats can coexist and complement each other. Conclusion The shift from traditional TV and radio to multi-platform media represents one of the most dramatic transformations in the history of communication. Driven by technological innovation and changing consumer behaviors, the new media ecosystem is defined by personalization, interactivity, and accessibility. While this has led to a democratization of content and a wider array of voices, it has also introduced challenges around fragmentation, misinformation, and sustainability. As media continues to evolve, the focus should not be on preserving old forms for nostalgia's sake, but on integrating the best aspects of traditional media—such as trust, editorial standards, and shared cultural moments—with the innovation and inclusivity of digital platforms. The future of media is not in silos, but in synergy. The real question is not whether TV or radio will survive, but how they will adapt—and how we, as a society, will navigate the opportunities and responsibilities of this new media age.
Observer
5 days ago
- Observer
Future of Media
The 12th edition of The Correspondent explores Media Now: Power, Platform and Possibilities, offering a fascinating look at how the media landscape is transforming and what it means for us all. Packed with insightful stories, it's a must-read for anyone wanting to understand these changes. The magazine begins by examining the global media ecosystem, showing how traditional TV and radio are making way for streaming giants like Netflix and Disney+. It also highlights how international news agencies are using data and AI to deliver news faster across borders, illustrating the rapid evolution of news gathering and sharing worldwide. This edition also focuses on how technology is reshaping media. Stories explore how AI-powered chatbots and deepfakes are raising ethical questions for newsrooms, while algorithms decide which stories get seen, influencing public discourse. The rise of short-form videos on TikTok, Reels and Shorts demonstrates how storytelling is becoming quicker and more viral, challenging long-form journalism formats. Regional stories from the Middle East, particularly Oman, reveal how traditional values are blending with digital innovation, transforming media outlets. Arabic content, from Netflix to TikTok, is gaining prominence globally, opening new cultural avenues. The magazine also tackles serious issues such as misinformation, censorship and the crucial role of community journalism in maintaining trust and democracy. It discusses how careers are evolving with influencer culture, changes in journalism education and increased women's representation in Arab media. Overall, this edition offers vital insights into the power, platforms and future of media.
