As We Get Closer And Closer To The EU Requiring ContentID Everywhere, More Abuses Of ContentID Exposed

from the vast-shakedown-machine dept

EU member states are getting ready to implement Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive, which will more or less force every platform that hosts any user-generated content, to either license every damn thing (impossible) or to put in place a tool like ContentID, that automatically spots and takes down "infringing" content. Despite the fact that Google spent over $100 million on its ContentID and competitive offerings (mainly Audible Magic) are quite expensive, defenders of this plan kept insisting that those filters work. Plenty of people have pointed out that they don't work very well at all, and it's even worse than just leading to legitimate content being taken down. Having such a tool, means that it will be abused.

CCN.com recently wrote up yet another article highlighting the problem of massive false flagging campaigns showing up for YouTube videos:

The latest problem surrounds mass false copyright claims. It turns out that false claiming someone’s video revenue as your own is so easy that companies can seemingly do it en masse. And these companies aren’t just going after subtle, small-time channels. They’ve hit some of YouTube’s biggest creators.

Much of the article focuses on a company called Studio 71, which is the one filing a bunch of these recent false claims. Lots of folks are online highlighting these bogus takedowns.

There are a lot more like that too.

The company behind all of these claimed that it was "a technical problem with YouTube that is out of our hands" but never quite explained what sort of problem it was.

To its (slight) credit, the company claimed that it released all of those claims, even ones not disputed. But still.

At least one person asked them to explain how it happened and how it can be prevented in the future... and got no answer.

Whether or not this was an overzealous individual, an automated system out of control, or some other failure, it doesn't change the basic fact that any such filter system will be regularly abused, on purpose or not, to takedown or claim the revenue on tons of content. This is exactly what we tried to tell people in the EU before they voted on the Copyright Directive... and they kept insisting it wouldn't possibly happen. After all, they said, they wrote into the law that it shouldn't be abused. I'm sure that will work out just great...

Filed Under: contentid, copyright directive, eu, false claims, false flags
Companies: google, studio 71, youtube


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 24 Jan 2020 @ 3:37am

    A podcast I listen to regularly has recently lost access to their channel on YouTube, which features archives of old episodes. Despite paying ASCAP and other fees to allow them to play music during their breaks, they ended up compromising by only playing that music during the live stream and not archiving on YouTube. However, they didn't edit their old content. A week or two ago, their channel was removed due to a flurry of takedowns related to their archived episodes, some over 5 years old. They now have to fight tooth and nail to prove that they do indeed hold the righs to stream everything they had stored there, even though there's nothing but bare baseless accusations to support the idea that they didn't.

    That's the problem with this crap - even people who go out of their way to obey the law can be shut down by people who decide against all evidence that they're "guilty". It's not so much about abuse, it's the fact that content providers are forced to err on the side of believing the accuser, since it's so laborious to individually check the deluge of automated claims. The fact that a false claim results in virtually zero penalty for the people lying is the main issue, and that won't change in the near future.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 24 Jan 2020 @ 5:44am

      Re:

      "That's the problem with this crap - even people who go out of their way to obey the law can be shut down by people who decide against all evidence that they're "guilty"."

      Just the way we said the DMCA would work out, back in the day.

      I think it's a question of when, not if, someone builds a full youtube clone into a torrent client like tribler. At which point we'll get the full shitshow where we have to wade through tons of nazi propaganda and alt-right rhetoric without even sensible moderation or relevance filtering applied just so we can get to our silly cat videos...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 6:07am

        Re: Re:

        At which point we'll get the full shitshow ....

        Have you looked at the front page of Bitchute lately, that shitshow has arrived.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 24 Jan 2020 @ 6:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Have you looked at the front page of Bitchute lately, that shitshow has arrived."

          Early beta, looks like. Wait until it comes through on its promise and relocates fully to a DHT.

          Right now that's still not the shitshow I'm predicting. Bitchute only abstains from youtube-style moderation and currently can't compete with youtube among the John and Jane Does.

          Once youtube starts losing the content which the John and Janes are looking for over article 17...THAT is when the alternative which gives no fucks about either article 17 or moderation rules will become the popular alternative.

          And that's when we'll be wishing we were just rubbing elbows with the far-right and the crackpots, because the part of the web that alternative is carried on isn't just outside of the control of copyright enforcement.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        urza9814 (profile), 24 Jan 2020 @ 8:14am

        Re: Re:

        "I think it's a question of when, not if, someone builds a full youtube clone into a torrent client like tribler. At which point we'll get the full shitshow where we have to wade through tons of nazi propaganda and alt-right rhetoric without even sensible moderation or relevance filtering applied just so we can get to our silly cat videos..."

        So...LBRY?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 3:13pm

        Re: Re:

        Nazi propaganda
        Vs eu being big 3 publisher etc enforcer bro’s.

        It’s bad when the former and the latter are no longer registering with me when it comes to “how big can we take this”

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 7:28am

    This was a test, this was only a test

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 7:32am

      This was a test, this was only a test

      Next time all your @YouTube are belonging to us...

      Muahahahaha

      I'm sure this was just an initial 'test' from a company that is planning on taking over everything it can as long as no one is complaining (too loudly, you know to Politicians), I mean it's not like the 'little people' can do anything if a corporation decides to be evil and claim/monetize things they don't own.

      How much do you think this 'test' earned them? $10,000, $100,000, what makes you think the will ever STOP, sure they may reverse a few who have vocal and political ties, but the rest of the public domain (and everyone elses copyrighted material) will belong to them...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 24 Jan 2020 @ 8:05am

      Re: This was a test, this was only a test

      You know that when you try "testing" the site to see if you've been correctly caught by the spam filter, it only clues people in to who it is and how worthless the followup post will be?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 7:35am

    the whole aim is to ensure the entertainment industries, mainly the MPAA, Hollywood, RIAA etc etc remain in control of the stuff they claim is theirs, even when it has passed into the Public Domain, and can claim the rights to stuff they know full well they have NO RIGHT to at all, but because of the massive financial backing they have, the David involved has no chance against the Goliath! this is nothing but greed, control and fear of change. the Internet has been a boon to 99% of the Planet. unfortunately those industries mentioned, fought against it and still are but, rest assured, as soon as it is taken over by those industries, it will change from being the worst thing invented, full of virus and malware, attacking your personal stuff, bank accounts etc and magically become the best thing on the Planet. however, using it will be for a fee and permission will be needed to do anything, go anywhere. just look at what has happened, because of those industries and the holdups in technical advancement, just like they disputed mp3 players, home video players, etc, all through greed, control and fear of change. any difference here? i dont think so, except those who are condoning what's going on have personal agendas in play and bank accounts being filled!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 10:56am

      Re:

      Its unlikely the internet will be taken over by those industries also how will they be able to force fee and make sure that everyone needs permission to do anyting on the internet? you keep saying they will do that but how will it work seeing how big the internet is? and virus and malware, attacking your personal stuff like bank accounts are not going to go away IF they take the internet over.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 7:55am

    Article 17 requires websites that host user input to use ContentID to filter same.

    Are there plans to use the filter on user surfing? The UK tossed their filter I think ... it did not work either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 8:23am

    The uk tossed the filter, whereas adults would need to put in an id to acess adult / porn website,
    its nothing to do with any eu laws re filtering content.
    article 17 will need websites to filter any content or upload,s , by users
    or forum members to block content that might be owned by ip owners ,corporation,s , any content that might be infringing.
    video,audio,image file,s ,photo.s .
    content id is used by youtube, to avoid being sued by film and tv company,s for video and audio content..
    There should be a process whereas if revenue is claimed from video,s
    from some random company the money should be put into escrow
    until the claim is resolved .
    companys claim revenue from video,s because there might be 2 or 3 seconds of music in the background of a 1 hour video.
    Theres no plans to filter users from viewing a website,
    its up to websites to install filters to block infringing content.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Koby (profile), 24 Jan 2020 @ 8:52am

    Can't Explain

    It looks like "technical glitch" is going to become the new excuse for when someone gets caught red-handed. Just like how when someone says "no comment" or "allegedly", now you have to translate "technical glitch" into "yes, they did it".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 10:58am

    Its very likely that the Article 17 is going to be taken down in court before EU member states are able to get it into law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 24 Jan 2020 @ 1:16pm

    Dear YouTube Legal Department,

    Hi,

    Is this the correct address to send lawsuits to? My channel is currently being targeted by false copyright claims and since Google/YouTube have gone to great lengths to insulate themselves from ever dealing with the public, I figure maybe my lawyer will have better luck.

    So, should I tell him to send the lawsuit here, or is there a better address to send it to?

    Sincerely,

    A YouTube content creator

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 2:04pm

      Re:

      According to the statistics, YouTube have 2 billion subscribers that post at least once a month. If those subscribers required just 5 minutes support each a year, that is about 60,000 people to deal with their inquiries, then you need to add in about 25% more to allow for days off, holidays and sickness. All those people require the human resources people, and managers to look after them, buildings, computer systems, and all their support staff. Increase the support time, and you increase the required staff.

      In reality the choice is automation, or silence the majority of people.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 28 Jan 2020 @ 4:46pm

        Re: Re:

        According to the statistics, YouTube have 2 billion subscribers that post at least once a month. If those subscribers required just 5 minutes support each a year, that is about 60,000 people to deal with their inquiries, then you need to add in about 25% more to allow for days off, holidays and sickness.

        Except that not every user will need the personal attention of a human.

        In reality the choice is automation, or silence the majority of people.

        The argument that hiring support staff to deal with problems that automation isn't equipped for could be applied to pretty much any industry. You could have fast food restaurants where everything is automated and there's nobody to complain to when you get a cockroach in your burger. Or how about an automated hospital where you just select your symptoms from a checklist and the computer makes a diagnosis? If the robot surgeon accidentally removes the wrong organ, your only recourse is to file an automated complaint and let the algorithm decide who's at fault.

        Google wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to run a service that's popular with users, but they don't want to deal with any of the problems that will inevitably occur. "Here's a video platform for you to use, but even though some of you are bound to have problems that can't be solved by automation, don't expect us to pay any actual humans to deal with such problems. That would cut into our profits."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 29 Jan 2020 @ 12:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Except that not every user will need the personal attention of a human."

          No, but the people who do will typically require far more than 5 minutes.

          "You could have fast food restaurants where everything is automated and there's nobody to complain to when you get a cockroach in your burger"

          You would then have a restaurant that's shut down by the health department after the customer complains to them instead?

          "If the robot surgeon accidentally removes the wrong organ, your only recourse is to file an automated complaint and let the algorithm decide who's at fault."

          Or complain to a medical authority who would get the company providing the service to be shut down for manslaughter?

          If you're going to use analogies, at least pick ones that don't have life threatening consequences that won't happen with a YouTube video being wrongly filtered.

          "That would cut into our profits."

          Only one thing will affect their profits - attracting ad dollars to their competitors. Until that's likely, why would they spend more money on providing a service that people will still bitch about no matter how many humans are involved?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Rekrul, 29 Jan 2020 @ 2:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You would then have a restaurant that's shut down by the health department after the customer complains to them instead?

            Except that in this scenario, the complaint is handled entirely by automation. Even if you file a complaint with the health department, it's done electronically, they contact the restaurant company, the company denies any fault and the customer is SOL. They never get to talk to a real person.

            If you're going to use analogies, at least pick ones that don't have life threatening consequences that won't happen with a YouTube video being wrongly filtered.

            All physical stores have a customer service desk where people with problems can go. Typically these have a single employee manning them, however during busy times of the year, like holidays, they will have more people behind the desk to deal with the increased number of customer problems. Paying more people to work behind the desk costs the company more money, but they do it because they know that having long lines is bad for business. These people deal with returns, exchanges, incorrect prices, cashier mistakes, etc.

            If you were to apply the YouTube philosophy to these help desks, there would just be a single automated kiosk where customers could select from RETURN or EXCHANGE. Anyone with any other problem can go take a flying leap.

            That seems like a stupid way to do business, doesn't it? And yet when YouTube does it, everyone is like 'Oh well, they have to! Volume! Too expensive! Too many problems!"

            Doesn't the same argument apply on a smaller scale to stores and any other business that has people to handle customer problems? Having employees to deal with issues is a normal part of running a business. You don't dump your service in the marketplace and say "Here you go. If you have problems, you're SOL because we don't care."

            It's doubly infuriating when you consider that YouTube depends on the content creators for its value. Without them, YouTube is nothing. They post videos, which brings in viewers, boosting YT's bottom line and then they turn around and virtually shit on those same users when they have a problem.

            I already know what you'll say: That in the real world, a company with shitty customer service will go out of business as customers take their business elsewhere. But what if there were few other choices? Comcast is a hated company, but for many people, they're the only viable choice. Many people hate Windows, but if you want to be able to run the majority of commercial software, they're the only practical choice. Sure, if enough people adopted Linux, it would gain more support from the mainstream software industry, but how likely is that to happen?

            I refuse to buy any piece of software that requires online activation. I only buy software that can be installed and registered/activated independent of a remote server. I post this view often and recommend that others do the same. How long until I change the industry? I'm guessing about as long as it takes for YouTube's shitty policies to drive people to smaller video platforms.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 30 Jan 2020 @ 12:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Except that in this scenario, the complaint is handled entirely by automation"

              So, as long as you make your analogy bear no relation to reality, it works?

              "All physical stores have a customer service desk where people with problems can go"

              ...and many digital ones don't. That's why these are bad analogies.

              Also, it takes a lot more effort to switch from one physical store to another, while online the change is trivial.

              "Typically these have a single employee manning them, however during busy times of the year, like holidays, they will have more people behind the desk to deal with the increased number of customer problems"

              Yes, but if the volume was constant all year round, as it is on YouTube, you'd probably find that the level of staffing remained constant and would relate to the cost vs. benefit analysis the store makes as that department would be a cost centre.

              "It's doubly infuriating when you consider that YouTube depends on the content creators for its value."

              I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them don't actually create a significant profit for YouTube. Some do, of course, but I imagine that many of them think they're more important to the company than they actually are, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who actually create value are not whining because they actually are treated with a better service.

              "That in the real world, a company with shitty customer service will go out of business as customers take their business elsewhere"

              ...and if YouTube users would actually do that rather than bitch about YouTube, this would be a different conversation.

              "Many people hate Windows, but if you want to be able to run the majority of commercial software, they're the only practical choice"

              Microsoft have changed fundamentally as a company over the last decade or so, going from being completely allergic to open source and using dirty tricks to kill competing products, to not only releasing some of their software as open source, but allowing real competition to some of its core products and even putting Linux components into Windows itself. You know why they did this? Lots of enterprise customers moving to Linux and Mac, and other customers revolting over bad policies. This has happened many times in their history now - they made shitty choices regarding Internet Explorer, and only changed when people started moving to Firefox, then Chrome. If people had continued using IE while bitching about Microsoft's bad policies, we'd all stuck with IE...

              This is a really bad example if you want to pretend that customers can't change things by looking elsewhere. It doesn't have to mean Linux suddenly becoming the default desktop choice for the masses, just the general threat of real competition has worked

              "I'm guessing about as long as it takes for YouTube's shitty policies to drive people to smaller video platforms."

              Then, if those people who have refused to move still bitch about those policies, that's their choice.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Rekrul, 30 Jan 2020 @ 1:46pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                So, as long as you make your analogy bear no relation to reality, it works?

                Amazon's a pretty big company, how do they manage to maintain support staff to deal with customer problems?

                Yes, but if the volume was constant all year round, as it is on YouTube, you'd probably find that the level of staffing remained constant and would relate to the cost vs. benefit analysis the store makes as that department would be a cost centre.

                So the way to succeed is to set up a service, understaff it and ignore customer user/problems?

                I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them don't actually create a significant profit for YouTube. Some do, of course, but I imagine that many of them think they're more important to the company than they actually are...

                No, not everyone who uploads videos generates significant profit for YouTube, but the sheer volume of videos does. What do you think would happen if you were to wave a magic wand and make every user who doesn't make significant profits for YouTube disappear from the site. The volume of videos on the site would probably be reduced by 50-75%. You don't think that would have an effect on their bottom line? Maybe you go to YouTube to want the latest video by a YouTube "star", but you end up watching a cute cat video, a review of a gaming mouse, a news report about an accident, etc. If all of those smaller channels were eliminated, the average person would spend significantly less time on the site which means significantly less ads that they're exposed to.

                It's the same principle as all the little crap that stores sell. Is gum a significant source of profits for most stores? I doubt it but they stock it because it helps boost people's impression of the store's selection and inventory. When was the last time you went to a store, any store, and all they had were the basic products on the shelves and nothing else? Even most gas stations with a store portion will have all sorts of little trinkets by the register. They probably bring in peanuts next to how much they make on gas sales, but having them there still helps increase the store's bottom line.

                and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who actually create value are not whining because they actually are treated with a better service.

                Well, I can't say I've talked to any of the really big content creators, but I talked to ones who have over a million subscribers and they've told me that YouTube is just as much of a faceless entity to them as well. One called it a complete enigma.

                This is a really bad example if you want to pretend that customers can't change things by looking elsewhere. It doesn't have to mean Linux suddenly becoming the default desktop choice for the masses, just the general threat of real competition has worked

                So they're going to be removing the spyware, ads and forced updates from Windows 10? They don't plan on eventually making Windows a subscription service with a yearly (or even monthly) registration fee?

                Then, if those people who have refused to move still bitch about those policies, that's their choice.

                You massively overestimate how how easy it is to change people. As long as YouTube has the largest volume of videos in the online world, it will continue to be the dominant video platform no matter how shitty its policies are. You can cast your vote by moving to another platform, but you're going to doing it (relatively) alone.

                Principled user: This site doesn't have any of the videos I want to watch, but I'm making a point by using it instead of the site I disagree with.

                Masses: Enjoy playing by yourself.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 30 Jan 2020 @ 5:56pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "Amazon's a pretty big company, how do they manage to maintain support staff to deal with customer problems?"

                  Amazon's not a "pretty big company", it's a gigantic company that stretches over a huge number of different industries and business models, most of which have no relationship whatsoever to what YouTube does. If you're trying to ask why Amazon have a different support structure for parcel delivery than YouTube has for filtering video content, it's because they're totally different situations. You might as well be asking why my local supermarket has a manned checkout while my work's vending machine is unmanned.

                  "So the way to succeed is to set up a service, understaff it and ignore customer user/problems?"

                  When they know that giving that service isn't losing them customers, and that vastly increasing their overheads won't really get most of the loud ones to shut up anyway? Pretty much. If people keep using a service and refuse to use competitors despite bad service, that's what you get.

                  "If all of those smaller channels were eliminated, the average person would spend significantly less time on the site which means significantly less ads that they're exposed to."

                  Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that YouTube give a shit about their opinions, especially when they conflict with either the larger channels that actually make them money, or the advertisers that actually pay them. Wal Mart makes lots of money after getting people in the door with loss leaders. That doesn't necessarily make the manufacturers of those loss leaders important to them in the grand scheme of things.

                  "So they're going to be removing the spyware, ads and forced updates from Windows 10?"

                  Who knows? They're a long way from perfect, and most people put up with that stuff without saying a word. But, if you think it's bad now, imagine what it would have been like if actual competition had not changed the company's culture from what it was 15 years ago.

                  "As long as YouTube has the largest volume of videos in the online world, it will continue to be the dominant video platform no matter how shitty its policies are"

                  ...and as long as MySpace remained the largest social network in the world, it would continue to be the dominant social network no matter how shitty the site was.

                  How did that work out again? Oh yeah, people saw a better option and started using that, despite the fact all their friends were still using MySpace. Movement started as a trickle, but became a major thing once it reached momentum that it wouldn't have done if people just sat around bitching.

                  Also, you're making one stupid assertion here it seem - people can only somehow use one site at a time. Perhaps when creators realise they don't have to put all their eggs in one basket, viewers will start using multiple sites the same way as they currently use multiple social networks? If you've built your business around a single supplier and are too scared/lazy to move some of it to a different supplier, you've set up a bad business model.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Rekrul, 31 Jan 2020 @ 3:13pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You might as well be asking why my local supermarket has a manned checkout while my work's vending machine is unmanned.

                    I've seen a lot of vending machines in a lot of places. Never once have I seen a vending machine eat someone's money or the product get stuck and the management tells that person to take it up with the vending machine company because it's not their problem. Either the person gets their money back, or they open the machine and give the person what they paid for.

                    Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that YouTube give a shit about their opinions...

                    And that's the problem in a nutshell. All those users indirectly help YouTube while YouTube doesn't give a shit about them. The same exact situation exists with the IMDb. Users contribute goofs, trivia, FAQ items, user reviews and links to each title and actor page, all of which helps increase the worth of the site as a whole, but the staff seems to despise the users. While the main information is probably now added by production companies, I believe most of the supplemental information still comes from users. At least judging by all the typos, grammatical mistakes and "Engrish" in the various sections.

                    Who knows? They're [Microsoft] a long way from perfect, and most people put up with that stuff without saying a word. But, if you think it's bad now, imagine what it would have been like if actual competition had not changed the company's culture from what it was 15 years ago.

                    Actually, I'd prefer the company from 15 years ago. I never really understood the IE case anyway. They included IE with every version of windows as standard, they got sued, it was ruled that it was wrong to do this as it created a monopoly, and yet every prebuilt computer and retail version of Windows still includes IE as standard. So from the average person's point of view, not much changed. Every version of Windows included some version of their mail program, but third party programs like Thunderbird still rose in popularity. At least back then they didn't take the position that they have the absolute right to do what they want with users' computers and that the users have no right to refuse this. You can go to bed and wake up to find that Windows looks completely different and maybe some of your programs have been disabled/uninstalled.

                    Look at the fact that they cut off Windows 7 updates to systems running certain processors long in advance of that version being declared obsolete. Oh I'm sure they'll have some excuse for doing it, but the only one that holds any water is that they wanted to try and force people to switch to Windows 10.

                    And no, the idea that Windows 7 wasn't designed to run on those processors so they stopped updates to them to avoid problems doesn't cut it because stopping updates creates its own problems and they weren't too concerned about that.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 31 Jan 2020 @ 9:51pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "I've seen a lot of vending machines in a lot of places. Never once have I seen a vending machine eat someone's money or the product get stuck and the management tells that person to take it up with the vending machine company because it's not their problem."

                      Congrats on never having worked a weekend late shift, I guess.

                      "And that's the problem in a nutshell."
                      "The same exact situation exists with the IMDb."

                      Yet, you apparently insist on using both companies instead of their many competitors, ensuring nothing will change...

                      "Actually, I'd prefer the company from 15 years ago"

                      The company that outright stated that in order to get IE7, you would have to upgrade your entire operating system (until Firefox changed their minds)? The company that funded attempts to have open source software judged to be illegal? The company that deliberately introduced fake error messages in their beta programs to ensure that third party developers would not support other OSes? The company whose response to Windows 7 taking too long to develop was to release their broken beta version commercially? You prefer that to the company that actually allows customers to choose?

                      I can only conclude that you love companies that want to screw you, and hate those that offer good competitive alternatives. If that's your kink, go for it I guess, but don't expect reasonable people to support you in your sadomasocism.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Rekrul, 3 Feb 2020 @ 12:10pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Yet, you apparently insist on using both companies instead of their many competitors, ensuring nothing will change...

                        Please post the link to one of the many IMDb competitors that has even half the information that they do.

                        You prefer that to the company that actually allows customers to choose?

                        So you can choose which updates to Windows 10 you want to accept and which ones you want to refuse? You can choose to completely opt out of Microsoft's spyware program?

                        I can only conclude that you love companies that want to screw you, and hate those that offer good competitive alternatives.

                        Like mandating that Secure Boot be enabled on certain types of systems so that other OSs can't installed?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2020 @ 8:52pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "Please post the link to one of the many IMDb competitors that has even half the information that they do."

                          Depends on what you actually need. I usually find that more specialised competitors give better and more accurate info that a one stop shop like iMDB anyway. Competitor does not necessarily mean clone. If you have a decent, cheaply priced butcher near where you live, but you insist on going to the local WalMart and bitch about the quality of their meat because you're too lazy to go to more than one shop, that's on you, not on the butcher not setting up a giant supermarket.

                          My personal preferred movie sites include:

                          www.letterboxd.com
                          www.themoviedb.org
                          www.flickchart.com
                          www.boxofficemojo.com (like iMDB an Amazon owned sites, but it seems to have better box office information for some reason)

                          There are others, these are just my usual go tos. None is as wide reaching as iMDB, but some are more accurate and create better user environments than iMDB for my money. Flickchart is more of a fun site than a directly informative one, but the community surrounding it is far better than that horrifically immature and trolling iMDB forums ever were.

                          "So you can choose which updates to Windows 10 you want to accept and which ones you want to refuse? "

                          Yes you can, if you invest in the right control mechanisms. But, you're conflating several different things here. Yes, MS could offer more choice overall, but they're a vast improvement on what they used to be, and that is purely due to viable competition being seriously considered by the user base. They're now a company that seems capable of learning from their mistakes and putting user needs first, rather than using dirty tricks to undermine competitors and dictating how people use their systems. They can do more, but they are absolutely not the same culture as they were.

                          It seems you're one of those people who will reject anything new if it's not 100% perfect, and reject any improvement if it's not perfect and immediate. Enjoy hating subpar services as a result, I suppose.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Rekrul, 4 Feb 2020 @ 2:54pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Depends on what you actually need. I usually find that more specialised competitors give better and more accurate info that a one stop shop like iMDB anyway.

                            I most often want to look up cast information, especially the guest stars in TV episodes. I like to read the trivia, goofs and alternate version information, if there is any, and sometimes the FAQ, although lately those have been pretty bare. The Plot keywords have also helped me decide on a couple low-budget movies.

                            TheMovieDB seems the best of the ones you listed. However their guest cast information for TV shows is pretty lacking, they don't list webisodes for shows like The Walking Dead and no video game information (actors often do voice work in games). I also managed to find one obscure TV show that's not listed, although to be fair, the information on the IMDb is a little threadbare too. And I just looked up a lesser known actress, Ellen Blain, and it only listed four credits for her while IMDb lists 15.

                            I know what you'll say; Add them and help the site grow! The thing is that most of the time, I don't know this information, I go to sites to look it up myself. If I wanted to add it to TheMovieDB, I'd still need to use IMDb to find most of this information in the first place. I'd just be poaching information from that site.

                            I was also hoping that they'd have more forums. No, not one for every movie and show like IMDb had, but more categories.

                            FlickChart I didn't test because it seems to require registration to use it. And BoxOfficeMojo doesn't seem to have most of the info I'm looking for.

                            There are others, these are just my usual go tos.

                            I go to;

                            http://www.tvmaze.com

                            For most TV info. I like the episode listings better than IMDb, however they don't always have every old show listed, or all the guest stars for each episode. The front page also seems to occasionally miss listing shows that are new that night.

                            Yes you can, if you invest in the right control mechanisms.

                            I tried Googling this and found conflicting information. Some sites claim that you can block updates, after you've installed them, had problems and uninstalled them, while others claim that you can only delay them. Some sites say that you can only delay "feature" updates, but not block them and most of them seem to claim that while you can delay a Windows version update, you can't permanently block it and that it will eventually be force-installed on your system when your current version is declared obsolete. There are apparently steps to completely disable updates through the registry, but then you won't get any updates. At least that's my understanding.

                            Information on disabling the spying was also confusing. Some sites claim that you can disable it through Microsoft provided controls while others claim that even with all the privacy options toggled, Windows 10 still sends a ton of information to MS. Some claim it's impossible to stop all the spying.

                            It seems you're one of those people who will reject anything new if it's not 100% perfect, and reject any improvement if it's not perfect and immediate.

                            No, I reject new things that I see as inferior to what I already have. If a new store opens up and after a year, they still don't have the products that I want, even after asking the store to carry them, I stop going to them. If they have things I want, I go there. A few years ago, they opened an Aldi locally. It's smaller than other supermarkets and doesn't carry everything, but I go there for some of the things that they do carry.

                            When I learn about a new web site, I check it out and may go back occasionally, but if it doesn't have the information I'm looking for, what's the point in using it?

                            When it comes to Windows (or any OS), I see it in a supporting role. It should make the hardware work, allow me to run programs and stay out of my way. Microsoft seems to see the OS as the reason that people own a computer. They tout each new version as the must-have piece of software and assume that people are on the edges of their seats waiting for the next big update packed with all new features. The only "features" I care about are whether it runs the latest third-party software and doesn't annoy me.

                            From talking to people with Windows 10, it seems it passes the first test and fails the second. A friend of mine installed it on all of his systems during the big push to get everyone to install it. Infact, I think at least one of his systems had it installed covertly when MS was pushing it as a must-install update to Win7 (remember that?). He's had more problems and mysterious lockups/freezes than he ever did with past versions. Systems that used to work fine now go off into limbo while copying files or reading large directories, even when no updates are in progress. Software that used to work sometimes doesn't after an update. It disabled his printer and it took him quite a while to get it working again.

                            Oh and then there's the fact that Windows updates may remove some of your programs...

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 5 Feb 2020 @ 2:28am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              "I most often want to look up cast information, especially the guest stars in TV episodes"

                              Then, there are definitely better sources than IMDB. They're not always comprehensive when it comes to TV in my experience.

                              " I like to read the trivia, goofs and alternate version information"

                              iMDB are also notoriously shaky about the accuracy of the trivia that gets on there. Other sites are often more trustworthy and more in depth about alternate versions, although the ones that leap immediately to mind are movie rather than TV focussed.

                              What you seem to be saying here is that you like having a one-stop shop for everything even if you know the quality of the product is not as good as elsewhere. That's OK, but like the Wal Mart analogy, that's why there's no major competitor - people opted to use the mediocre general provider instead of the ones that delivered the quality they wanted. Only in the case of online services there's not the price or travel time issues to consider.

                              "However their guest cast information for TV shows is pretty lacking,"

                              Yes, when asking for IMDB competitors, I expected you to be asking about movies, not TV. There's other sites available that specialise in TV that are more comprehensive in that area. But, this is exactly what I'm talking about - instead of finding the competitors that fit the niche you're actually interested in, you put up with a generalist version that doesn't always meet your specific requirements.

                              "I know what you'll say; Add them and help the site grow!"

                              So... you won't help the community, just whine that others haven't already done the work for you yet? Wikipedia would be a much smaller place if everybody thought like you.

                              This is part of what I'm referring to - you want a fully formed service that conforms to your needs before you move from IMDB, but you won't do anything to improve competing services. If you and others helped improve TMDB's database, then you would not only improve their service, but other IMDB competitors (for example, Letterboxd, who you did not mention trying, uses TMBD).

                              "No, I reject new things that I see as inferior to what I already have"

                              Then, stop whining about what you already have isn't catering to you because they have no competition.

                              "When I learn about a new web site, I check it out and may go back occasionally, but if it doesn't have the information I'm looking for, what's the point in using it?"

                              That's your choice. But, again, stop whining about the ones you do use when you give them no reason to change, and competitors no reason to cater to your needs.

                              "Microsoft seems to see the OS as the reason that people own a computer."

                              They always have done, but they give you more choice than you used to. You're getting your argument lost here. I don't give 2 shits about Windows because I don't use it for the most part. But, they have demonstrably changed their business model due to viable competition. Whatever you think of them now, they have been worse in the past.

                              That's the point - competition to the sites you use can force them to improve when they have viable competition. It didn't take Linux becoming a mainstream desktop OS to get Microsoft to change, and it won't take a clone of IMDB taking over the internet to get them to compete.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2020 @ 12:22pm

    Obviously the EU would not pass a flawed law, therefore this is a good solid plan.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Abhinav, 26 Jan 2020 @ 2:53am

    PPC Company

    PPC IS ONE OF THE BEST TECHNIQUE TO EARN MORE LEADS FOR YOUR BUSINESS CONTACT NOW FOR MORE INFORMATION.
    https://www.kingofdigitalmarketing.com/PPC-Package.aspx

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.