State of Ethics on the Internet: How to steal content.
It’s easier than people think, to become a profitable content thief. The average user holds about six active social media accounts across different platforms [1]. Not every content creator can spread their success throughout every platform evenly, and it’s safe to assume their fans still engage with other platforms. Therefore, some of the easiest ways to steal content is to “clip” someone’s videos, Tik Toks, or posts, and host them on a “ghost account”. As for me, I do not have a TikTok account, but I am terminally on Youtube, which is funnily how I consume the most of my TikTok content. My personal reason is quite ironic; which is that I feel that another video streaming app on my phone would be too distracting, even though the content still makes its way to me.
To better explain what a “clipped” video is, they are essentially a downloaded video that is edited to a different format, whether longer or maybe with watermarks, then re-uploaded by someone else. These ghost accounts are typically where clipped and stolen content are hosted. They may also be called fan accounts, but I have heard them being called ghost accounts, referring to their generic or copied branding with non-accredited reloaded content. Most people are at least peripherally aware of these accounts, if one were to come across a TikTok on Youtube,or a Youtube Video on Facebook. A fan account is a more accurate term, when someone who isn’t working with a creator, reuploads a clip of a live stream to an archival playlist with some informal approval from the creator. I would like to bring to attention a situation that happened recently, but I have seen these scenarios increase since roughly 2015.
This example begins with HasanAbi, a commentary Twitch streamer, reacting to another creator’s Youtube video [2]. The video at the time was recommended by a viewer of Hasan, to react to Pinely’s (otherwise known as Orr)[3] about radicalized celebrities. Hasan being a political commentary streamer, this was a normal occurrence, however there are more moving parts to these streams than one may think. For example, Hasan has a Youtube present but it is exclusively clips from his streams, where he is usually reacting to some kind of internet content. The commentary Hasan provides is valid under fair-use copyright laws, as it is considered transformative. Like many streamers, there are smaller independent fan accounts who archive clips from his streams that are not always uploaded by his paid editor to his official account [1]. Most of the time, these streamers overlook these accounts because they ultimately create more exposure, and streamers are more invested in their twitch earnings. Even if a streamer were to file copyright takedowns on these accounts, another one would quickly take its place, taking in ad revenue and views. Youtube has been under criticism for their frankly patchwork copyright rules, unfortunately these are some of these most extensive among social media sites. There are so many videos uploaded a minute, let alone a single day, that copyright claims are often mishandled by Youtube’s AI based systems [4].
These systems are very abuseable but every year they attempt to become more refined, and if I had the opportunity to, I would love to become more informed about this process. For example, a false copyright claim can hold the individual accountable by suspending their account temporarily. This is the point of contention for most creators, because it is just too easy to disregard the punishment for maliciously striking someone’s video. When these videos get taken down, or possibly demonetized, they are often reuploaded by ghost accounts who theoretically steal views the original video was most likely going to receive. This now brings the situation of Pinely’s most viewed video, being incidentally sabotaged by Hasan’s satellite “fan” accounts clipping the entirety of Hasan’s review of the video. In this situation, Pinely’s video was not falsely copyright striked, but even worse, it leeched views away from Pinely during what would have been the video's peak for viewers. Video essays that are almost a half hour long are not likely to be watched twice, so the viewers who clicked on the fan account’s reupload were not likely to return to Pinely’s original video.
For those who may have a hard time following this sequence, this would be as if an article written about another author’s opinion on a book, took away sales from the book it was originally viewing in the first place! This situation has become a Russian nesting doll of content stealing. Not only did the account fail to credit Pinely’s channel in the description or comments, but the reupload used Pinely’s original thumbnail, with Hasan’s face edited over Pinely’s. Hasan responded very quickly to the situation [5], and used his platform to work with youtube to correct the situation, however the damage has been done. If I could have any input on Youtube’s content theft issue, it would be to restore the metrics that have been taken from the original video. This would mean crediting Pinely for views he would have been potentially earning, and prosecuting the person who uploaded his content without permission. Being that this is often how copyright laws work outside of internet videos, but I suspect there may be a reason for this.
This solution brings with it more complications though, like; how would youtube be able to effectively track down the content thief, when part of Youtube’s success is that anybody can upload content under any alias? In theory if someone has taken in money from Youtube ad revenue, then that would be the place to start, essentially following the papertrail to identify the individual. The more I develop as a communications major, the more I am interested in the social media platforms we use everyday. These platforms operate on rules and policies like any company, and these rules should be held to a high ethical standard. Outside of the interest for Youtube to make a profit, investigating their copyright policies is paramount for the platform’s projected growth and reputation.
I would highly recommend watching Hasan’s video on the resolution of this issue, because it boils down both his perspective on the situation, and Pinely’s view on Hasan. The two resolved the issue like professionals, displaying their values in recognition and respect. The conclusion of these events serve as a crash course to fair-use and transformative media. Content creators who wish to use others' work as talking points in their own content must practice these ethical practices.
1. Crediting the original creator- Whether you’re reviewing indie films, or using stock drone shot footage that is not your own, credit is always due. Outside of the legality of it, without crediting the original creator, you could be labeling yourself as a mistrustful. Crediting someone for their work shows that you understand their work also has merit and deserves recognition just as yours would. [5]
2. Is it transformative- You must be completely honest with yourself, is it truly transformative. Are the things you're adding to the original media note worthy and valuable. Whether it be praise or criticism, there must be some artistic value added to the original content, or else it is just theft. [4]
3. If it isn’t yours, don’t touch it!- If you want to show your favorite creator some love and download their video to move it to your facebook page, you must ask permission. Perhaps they have the video on their page and you trying to share their work, good intentioned or not, is not your right.
4. Check content for sources- This is very easily overlooked. If there is any content you see on the internet, and there are pieces taken from others without credit, feel free to reach out. This may have been an oversight by the creator, but it is the professional way of informing others. A well constructed email or comment can quickly resolve the error and may improve someone’s ethical practices on the internet.
5. Diversify your platforms, be flexible with your approach to content formats- Lastly, if you are in a position as some sort of internet personality, how do you adjust to this system? Unfortunately, if you want to be able to support yourself, you cannot compete with these content thieves for ad revenue and watch time. It may be more effective to focus on other revenue streams, or even streaming platforms. Youtube and twitch operate as the most robust video hosting sites on the internet, and they have some of the most intensive copyright rules out there. However these rules can sometimes only do so much. Seeking alternative ad revenue is key, and measuring your influence cannot just stop at your own viewer metrics. How many times does someone mention you in a tweet? How many people reply to your original tweets and youtube videos? How many twitch watchers do you reach during peak streams? The law of averages can work against, selling you short among the sea of content thieves.
I hope to begin a small amount of content creation myself, and Pinely’s content theft situation is so well documented, and it highlights issues creators face navigating the current state of the internet. Before exploring this topic, I did not consider these idiosyncrasies of Youtube, but seeing it through a professional's perspective helped me see the underlying ethical values of one's intellectual properties.
References
Backlinko. (2021). Social Network Usage & Growth Statistics: How Many People Use Social Media in 2022? Backlinko. Social Network Usage & Growth Statistics: How Many People Use Social Media in 2022?
Copyright and rights management (Google, Compiler). (2023). Google. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622
Hasan Responds to Pinely Tweet about Clip Channels (Youtube, Compiler). (2023). HasanabiCult. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeoDBjBRN8&t=369s
Twitch.tv. (n.d.). HasanAbi. Twitch.tv. https://www.twitch.tv/hasanabi
Youtube. (n.d.). Pinely. Youtube.com. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiHRg_hyyHQe_IZ-efHR5Vg











