Content ID tricks

imccafey said:

Had a looks see over the accounts. Unusual to be sure, but not unheard of. Channels like this are very likely exploiting access to a compromised or otherwise fraudulent CMS account. Gives them direct upload access under a company umbrella that normally bypasses standard copyright scanning or Content ID tagging.
That setup isn't really something your regular creator can get, usually it's meant for right holders, MCN (I can't believe these are still a thing), networks, etc. So I wouldn't really bet on the longevity of the content or accounts. It'd fly under the radar for a time but once the IP owners notice, they'd usually have the channels wiped. Seems like the oldest uploads were from a month or so ago so I'd be genuinely surprised if they survive for a month more.
You might be able to work a strat around something like that, but it's not sustainable and I wouldn't recommend it. High risk, narrow margins and even more narrow window to exploit so it's not a viably replicable strat.

Side note, I remember one channel that used to upload films (even very NSFW or NSFL films ) on Youtube and got away with it for years just by naming the vid "Not [Movie title here]" or "Unassuming slime video" and such. Never really knew if it was profitable, operated until 2022, iirc (or it was some copycat I saw then). Probably a 3 year stint, I'd say.

Click to expand...

imccafey said:

Well, not all CMS accs are created equal. There are different permission levels and policy controls within them and some have block, track monetise, or even "not claimable" options depending on how the system is configured and what entity it's tied to.
If this one doesn't have "not claimable" enabled (which is really hard to tell without access to it's dashoard), then it's likely leveraging a CMS with unusually high or possibly outdated policy perms. Would go a ways in explaining how they're bypassing Content ID entirely. At that level, Content ID may not scan uploads the usual way and just treat the content as "owned" by default unless the actual rights holders step in with manual takedowns filed.
So yeah, rare but not impossible. As an aside, there have been cases where bad actors have used CMS access to siphon millions of dollars from individuals or even strike legitimate rights holders for their own content, even extortions resulting from Content ID scams.

Anyway, this is all of course just speculation on my part. I can't say with absolute confidence that this is what's happening in this case, just that it's a plausible route someone could've take to pull something like this off.

Click to expand...

korcor said:

Another example of piracy. Almost 2 million views in 3 days.
Netflix movie -

You can't even imagine the scale of piracy on YouTube through CMS. CMS are untouchable despite hundreds of facts and hundreds of channels.

Click to expand...

korcor said:

This is a perfect example of how broken the YouTube CMS system has become.

LabelProM is one of several CMS accounts that were either revoked and re-purchased or silently restored, and now it’s back with dozens of pirate movie channels uploading full-length films owned by Netflix, Sony, Universal, etc. without permission.

Examples:

— The Mother (Netflix)

— Missing (2023)

Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm_F7kBcCXZIzGQHiyAKnJA/
→ CMS: LabelProM

⸻

What’s really disturbing?
•These channels reupload dozens of pirated films daily.
•The content is fully monetized through CMS assets.
•The asset ownership is faked or manually input with false metadata.
•CVP shows fake asset names like "sdfsfsdfsdfsdf" or "asddsad" (see attached).

And YouTube still approves this CMS and lets it run.
Even after previous takedowns.

⸻

CMS = Easy monetization of pirated films
Hundreds of channels, millions of views
Fake metadata, fake copyright docs
Zero enforcement from YouTube

This is why so many people are now openly selling CMS access on forums — because piracy at scale is now a business model backed by YouTube tools.

⸻

Let’s stop pretending this is a bug.
It’s a design failure — and possibly deliberate.

Click to expand...