TWIT: Kicking puppies or The firing of OMGChad

I'll be honest here...

I really haven't been spending that much time with TWIT lately.  The house that Leo built continues what appears to be a slow slide into oblivion which isn't news.  That more and more people agree with that assessment isn't either.

It's not good to fixate on negative things for any length of time unless you're trying to learn to avoid them.  At this point the writing's on the wall for TWIT and fans and detractors alike are growing weary of the whitewash every time the network takes another misstep.  

It's like trying to find something positive to say about a train wreck by mentioning the scrap value of the mangled cars.

The latest round of "changes" as former bookkeeper now CEO Lisa Kentzell likes to call them is the...ummm....

Firing? removal? change in status?  Well, whatever they're calling it these days, "former" protege' Chad Johnson is no longer a full time employee.

Apparently Johnson, whose OMGCraft show had already left the network, has been removed from TWIT production duties on all TWIT shows including MacBreak Weekly and TWIT among others.

Which means he was fired...

In the October 29th "Inside TWIT" Laporte cited the need for a producer whose time isn't split between their own endeavours and those of TWIT's cash cow programming.  He followed up with expressions of affection for the newly unleashed Johnson not unlike those bestowed on Brian Brushwood and Justin Robert Young earlier this year.

Those "changes" became most evident, however, after Johnson had his own "Erik Lanigan-esque" moment (meaning he said he got fired but wouldn't elaborate.)  It came about during an impromptu call-in on longtime friend and mentor Brian Brushwood's "Night Attack" show during a discussion about his termination.

Much like the now "banished to the ether" NFSW 218 where Brushwood and Young praised TWIT for their help in nurturing the fledgling show,  Johnosn remained professional in his discussion of the events surrounding his dismissal and appreciative of Laporte's tutelege.  Hopefully we'll see that professional courtesy reciprocated instead of the Night of 1000 bans leveled at the former hosts of NSFW.

NOTE: Skip to 1:07:27 to hear from Johnson himself...

Johnson will continue as co-host with Dick DeBartolo on "The Giz Wiz" although that may have more to do with DeBartolo's pull than any act of magnanimity by Laporte. 

With the continuing drain of talent at TWIT, Laporte needs to retain the few popular hosts he has left.  With successful endeavors of thier own and fame earned long before TWIT even existed, DeBartolo and  others like Security Now's Steve Gibson have little need of the exposure TWIT affords them.

Meaning that after DeBartolo was effectively abandoned by Laporte to be replaced by Johnson it's likely he wouldn't tolerate another host change.  Of course it could also be that Laporte just didn't want to take back hosting duties on The Giz Wiz like he had to for Before you Buy when Morse left.

That or Laporte is just running out of hosts.

Speaking of Shannon Morse...

She's even closer to "out the door" now.   Her departure from co-hosting duties with Fr. Robert Balacer on Coding 101 was announced on the October 15th Inside TWIT page.

The change is reportedly the result of format changes to the show which for all intents and purposes is going to be less about learning to code (the show's premise BTW) and more like a "Triangulation" for coders.  (That's my phrase not TWIT's)

You have to wonder just how much more of this the ol' Padre is going to put up with...

Morse already had one foot out the door when she ceased producer duties at TWIT this year and now has been reduced to the cameo role of "reviewer" on TWIT's Before You Buy product review show.

One can only surmise that OMGChad's future at TWIT will follow a similar path as TWIT "contractors" tend to have short tenures.

The official explanation is below on the inside TWIT Oct 15th announcement page...

A big thank you to everyone for their support of Coding 101, because without our fans it would not exist. A show about programming has always been a part of our vision for TWiT, and starting this week we are making changes to the format of the show.

Instead of focusing on teaching code and jumping from one language to the next, we will be interviewing developers/programmers/coders and taking a deeper dive into their work. We plan to cover everything from coding to programming philosophy and plan to integrate more projects on the show.

With this shift in focus, Shannon Morse is leaving Coding 101, but she is not leaving our network. I am happy to announce that Shannon will be returning as a contributor to Before You Buy with weekly product reviews. While I know that Shannon is very busy with her work outside our network, we are looking forward to keeping her presence on TWiT.

Stay tuned as we continue to improve our existing shows and announce new ones!

And why not?  After all, we tuned into Coding 101 for the stimulating conversation right?  Yes, of course, Coding 101 will now be the Tavis Smiley of coding podcasts!

Ok, by now we know the "changes" that happen at TWIT these days are largely driven by Lisa Kentzell with Laporte blithely following her lead.  There's no doubt who's in charge of the network and the visiion is clearly not Laporte's regardless of his claims to the contrary.

Much like Brian Brushwwood on Night Attack 35, I'm having issues not mentioning what part of the anatomy I believe  Laporte's decisions are likely being made by.

All I can say at this point is that shafting Chad Johnson is like kicking puppies while drowning kittens.

Prosecuting Youtube

Let me preface this article with the following statement. 

I firmly believe that content creators have an undeniable right to profit from their work. 

That said, I do have a problem with a copyright system that allows "owners" (which are usually not the content creators) to assert claims on anything they "believe" to be infringing without question by spineless "services" like YouTube. 

I also have a major problem with services that employ a hostile process for redress of the "accused."   

You're guilty with little opportunity to prove your innocence.  It shows up in dire legal verbiage designed to scare away any challenge and immediate penalties that effectively cripple the medium for the accused user.  

In short, on YouTube a copyright strike makes you guilty until proven innocent.  It's a  process that demands all but an admission of "guilt" before allowing you to do anything further on the service while the "infringement" is active.  In the end unless you live with a copyright attorney it's virtually impossible to mount an effective "defense."

So in case you haven't guessed, I just had another run in with YouTube but this one put the proverbial nail in the coffin...

I'd been using the service (notice the tense there) for over 3 years and had hosted almost 300 videos at one point.  I have an active adsense account that allowed me to participate in a revenue sharing agreement with YouTube by allowing them to place ads in my content.  A mutually beneficial arrangement although the benefit was decidedly slanted toward YouTube.

Over the years I'd dealt with a few copyright claims for music and game footage but none were ever elevated to the level of being an outright DMCA copyright violation.  My response was fairly routine.  

I'd either remove the "alleged" offending content if I was feeling generous or if I felt the claim invalid I'd contest it with varying degrees of success.  Over the years I had actually won a few disputes and got the so-called "owners" to back off.  If I lost I usually just deleted the offending video and was done with it.

I never intentionally tried to infringe anyone's copyright but if somebody thought I was trying to take their bone I wasn't going to risk any of my dogs fighting in a rigged game. 

But this was different...

The videos in question were about 2 years old and were simply some footage of a friend of mine testing Windows 8 Enterprise Evaluation edition in a VM.  

There was nothing about the videos that was a privileged information even when they were initially posted.  In fact I never saw anything obvious in Microsoft's EULA that mentioned a restriction on recording footage of the OS.

Unfortunately for me, Microsoft decided yesterday that it didn't like seeing footage of someone actually using their operating system and subsequently filed a take down demand with YouTube.  

Of course that's just supposition as YouTube almost never informs you of the exact "infringement" leaving you to guess.  Only recently have they began testing of an editing tool capable of removing alleged copyrighted content identified by their ContentID system.  Making every upload a coin toss...

Which means anyone who chooses to show a Windows desktop in their video could soon find their content ripped off of YouTube without warning, receive a copyright strike and never know why.

To me, this is nothing short of abuse of the copyright system.  It's bad enough that perpetual copyrights have become the norm effectively shutting anything remotely commercial in the past 50 years out of the public domain.  Now anything that even resembles or has elements of a copyrighted work can be suppressed. 

We're not talking about someone posting some unreleased Hollywood Blockbuster or the latest music video featuring Beyonce's... assets. 

It's about corporate bullying facilitated by a broken copyright system with lapdogs like YouTube doing their bidding. 

And I've had enough...

YouTube always sides with the accuser and as I already mentioned you're given feeble mechanisms for rebuttal. 

This latest insult was the final straw and my response was to delete the entire channel.  I'd rather sacrifice 3 years of work than suffer the Scarlet Letter foisted on me.    

Now some may say I'm in the wrong and list the myriad of ways a copyright holder can claim the exclusive right to distribute anything related to their "property."

Perhaps as things are now that's so but again I reiterate, this was not content that denied anyone their payday.

I like analogies so let's try one that is a little less ambiguous than a video of some geek clicking around a  Windows desktop for an hour...

Imagine you've just bought a brand new car.  It's the first one you've ever had and it's exactly what you wanted.  You're bursting with pride and want to show it off to all your friends and family on the Internet. 

So you record a video, spend hours editing it till it's perfect, upload it to YouTube and send everyone a link who cares to have it.

A month goes by and suddenly your video gets a takedown notice and you get a copyright strike against your account.

Why?  Because the manufacturer of your brand new car claims that they have the exclusive right to any  exhibition of it. 

Seem ridiculous?  It is but that's how the copyright system currently works.  All an "owner" has to do is make a claim and YouTube will dutifully begin prosecuting you.

Which is why I've deleted the channel and removed all the content.

It's bad enough that Google's acquisition of YouTube has resulted in the mass suffering of its users by herding everyone into Google Plus whether they wanted it or not.  

Add in constant attacks by prepubescent teens and quasi-sociopaths determined to destroy your self esteem and your dreams of PewdiePie fandom soon evaporate.

All of that I can deal with.  When you put your stuff out there for all to see you learn to develop a thick skin. 

But when I get branded as a criminal with YouTube as proxy Judge, Jury and Executioner to pass "sentence" it's a step too far. 

YouTube's copyright enforcement system is flawed, ambiguous and to my mind designed that way.  

Hiding behind the shield of "Safe Harbor" they fail to define what constitutes an "infringement" in order to profit off the legitimate work of millions of YouTube creators.  At least until such time as someone makes a claim against you be it legitimate or otherwise.  Leaving a bewildered user base potentially branded as criminals without recourse.

This is one content creator that's had enough.

I'm tired of the constant badgering of copyright trolls with YouTube's blessing and no recourse.  I'm tired of finding my videos mysteriously losing monetization without warning or reason.  I'm tired of YouTube's flawed "ContentID" system throwing innocent users into copyright disputes based on false positives. 

But ultimately, I'm just tired of participating in an abusive relationship.  

Or maybe I'm just tired of writing about A-holes...


UPDATE!

Apparently I wasn't the only one getting screwed over by Microsoft and thousands of other YouTubers including some Microsoft employees suffered the same treatment at the hands of a 3rd party marketing agency called "Marketly." They decided to slap a takedown notice on just about anyone with "Windows" in their video's title.  

When I checked my account today, I no longer found a copyright strike although I'm unsure whether that was because I deleted the channel or the takedown was released.  I will risk uploading the same "offending" videos in a new channel focused on IT this week and see what happens.

TWIT: NSFW 218 becomes night of 1000 redactions!

Talk about circling the wagons!

This will be short but it seems I and others may have touched a nerve at TWIT as it appears that all evidence of the final NSFW show #218 has been removed from popular media outlets.  That apparently includes me as the link to the final NSFW broadcast now only offers up "This video is Private" when the embedded video link on my February post is activated...

I know I've had to change the source link 3 times since publishing the article on NSFW's final broadcast on TWIT and now the show is nowhere to be found.

On Sunday October 5th's This Week In Tech there was some discussion concerning the possible "banning" of NSFW hosts Justin Robert young and Brian Brushwood from the network but little more was said.

Now it appears that copies of the final NSFW broadcast have been withdrawn leaving viewers with only Pre and Post show video captures.  

I've recently been informed that this move wasn't an isolated event as archives of past TWIT shows featuring departed TWIT hosts have reportedly been removed from public view.

The move seems retaliatory which is unfortunate.  Considering NSFW 218 was nothing but conciliatory and praising of Laporte it makes no sense to withdraw it from public view.

But then, this is the "new" TWIT.

Stitcher still has an active link to the audio MP3.  

You can find it below, at least until someone yanks it down too....

TWIT defines the news

It's official...

This Blog is NOT, I repeat, NOT a news site.

Not that I ever said it was but I digress..

I was informed of this fact by a "helpful" TWIT chatroom moderator who goes by the mysterious moniker of "Dan" during the Sunday October 5th edition of This Week in Tech (TWIT).

The whole exchange came about whilst happily participating in the "G-rated" revelry that is the TWIT IRC chatroom.  As the messages flew by, I noticed somebody asking if a popular TWIT show called, "The Social Hour" was still on.

Realizing that I had recently written an article on the topic I responded to the inquiry with a link and moved on.

Apparently, that was a mistake.

After a few more exchanges on unrelated topics covered in Sunday's show I noticed that TWIT Chat Moderator "Dan" was requesting that I check my "PM's"

So I complied and upon entering Dan's private little IRC channel he informed me that, " Only links from a news site were acceptable in the IRC channel." and " that your blog was not a legitimate news source."  Considering I'd seen this rule violated on more than one occasion by others including show producers, hosts and even moderators I knew I was again running headlong into the TWIT delusion. 

But I let it pass as I knew it was just the grumblings of yet another TWIT chat moderator with an inflated ego.

He went on to inform me that this was my only "Warning."

A little stunned but not really surprised given my checkered past with TWIT chatroom moderators I replied, " I'll keep your warning in mind" 

That wasn't enough for good ol' Dan, however, and he proceeded to go into half a paragraph of how he set the rules for the TWIT chatroom and was the final say in all things TWIT IRC, and he alone set the tone etc, etc...

Which after a brief pause brought out my inner 12 year old resulting in a response of...

"You really enjoy your little power trip don't you?  You know what Dan, Fuck Off...bye"

Being a mature male I probably could have handled that exchange better but I tend to respond as a child when treated like one.  Especially when it's undeserved....

To hell with turning the other cheek...

I'll be damned if I'll let some IRC moderator with a Napoleon complex get the better of me.  Besides, it's the first opportunity I've had to blindside the SOB the same way he blindsided me the last time I got kicked for some unknown, ambiguous sin.

I'm probably banned for life from TWIT chatrooms now but to be honest, the quality of TWIT programming has me finding less and less need of the convenience.  What it does bring to mind, however, is just what the definition of news is.

Dan's little admonition to me reeks of hypocrisy.  A close look at TWIT's "news" coverage finds it  largely comprised of rehashed content from other so-called "legitimate" news sources like TechCrunch, Engadget, Reddit and the occasional tweet.  TWIT's "news" programming is best described as a collection of editorial magazines aggregating someone else's content.  Which may have triggered my response. 

The articles in this blog that have been written about TWIT are no less valid if TWIT's "news" coverage is held up as the standard.  While they may be more editorial in nature they're always researched, sourced and unlike much of TWIT's news content, original reporting.  The difference is, the subject is TWIT which is likely what got dear old Dan's feathers ruffled.    

Dan can do whatever he wants with his chatrooms but his motives appear less about upholding journalistic integrity than censorship of anything that denies the delusion that currently pervades TWIT. 

The definition of "news" no longer meets the definition that "Dan" subscribes to.  How a "progressive" medium like TWIT fails to realize that is hypocritical bordering on the ridiculous.  Hey guys, we're not limited to 3 TV networks and some disembodied voice on the radio to tell us what's going on anymore.   

As far as TWIT goes, I've yet to see anything original come from them that had a Reuters or Associated Press tag attached to a story.  Meaning if we accept TWIT's definition of "news" coverage then what they provide is little more than editorials aggregated from so-called "real" sources.

Leading to the conclusion that they have no more value than what you'll find here...