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.

How to have a succesful YouTube channel.

Mug shot smile?  Maybe his move from #18 to #6
on YouTube afterward had something
 to do with it...

Shakira, PewdiePie, Super Bowl commercials and Justin Bieber.  There's no accounting for taste but one thing they all have in common is that they consistently have more YouTube views than you do.

Why is that?  What are they doing that you're not.

Talent? 

Debatable, there's plenty of trash with views over a million.

Fame?

Some would claim YouTube takes care of that all by itself.  Of course if you're already famous then YouTube is just icing on the cake. 

Ok, so what about content?  It's king right?  Only the best and brightest rise to the top enriching us all...

Then again, if everyone watched a playlist of the top 10 YouTube videos for any given week the collective IQ of the planet would plummet 40 points.

That doesn't mean the entirety of YouTube is a wasteland, however.  There are those hidden gems that deserve more attention but never seem to get it.

The most successful YouTuber's didn't necessarily get that way because of the quality of their content but rather the way they delivered it.

I've had an active channel for about 3 years now with a small (as in microscopic) amount of success.  One thing I've learned is that while content may be king, viewers are a picky bunch.  If you manage to get their attention you still have some work to do to keep it. 

You may have the voice of James Earl Jones, the charisma of Harrison Ford and a Wall street banker's  wallet but if your video stinks you'll be lucky to break 100 views.

If you're a YouTube partner, it's all about engagement.  10,000 views that only last 5 seconds each won't make you a dime.   Actually, it'll probably get you kicked off the service.  YouTube protects its advertiser dollars and actively looks for people trying to cheat the system.   So ignore those "pay per view" scams.

Truth be told, I came to the game a bit late.  YouTube was already well established by the time I got around to trying it out and found it a saturated medium.  There aren't any original ideas left just original ways of delivering them.  I thought I had a niche of starting up a channel for older gamers until I found 100 channels with the same idea.  

I've done a lot of things wrong, some because of ignorance, some because of resources but mostly just a lack of talent on my part.

But my failings may be instructive....

So let's take a look at a few.  If they seem obvious that's only because they're easy to forget.  It's not uncommon to get so wrapped up in the message that we screw up the delivery.

I'll start with the basics.

First and foremost make sure you've got a decent camera or capture software if you're grabbing screens from a PC.  Low resolution, bad sound and the like turn off viewers fast no matter how good the content is otherwise.

Second, don't make a video just to hear yourself talk.  Only people that are already famous can get away with that.  You're asking someone to invest precious time in your creation, don't make them sorry with crap content and grainy party videos.  Trust me, nobody really cares about your lost weekend in Vegas.

Third, learn how to use your equipment.  Keep your subjects in frame and keep your edits simple.  You're not going to be the next Steven Spielberg with a webcam and Windows Movie Maker so don't try.

Fourth, grow up and have some respect for your viewers.  If you'd be afraid to see it on the nightly news then it shouldn't be on YouTube.  That means we don't need to hear any of your bodily functions thank you very much. 

Fifth, do some planning.  Meandering dialog and poorly organized content is confusing if not boring as hell.  Want to kill a channel, ignore this.

Sixth, make it interesting!  Think about everything that's in the shot.  Nobody wants to see a window behind you unless it's got a great view outside of it.  If you're the star then make sure you're worth seeing and  be comfortable in your own skin.  If you're not comfortable on camera or speaking to people then why the hell are you on YouTube? 

Seventh,   If you're doing a how-to video then for heaven's sake show HOW you actually do something, don't just talk about it.  Show the tools of the trade and actually use them.  Think of it this way, most people had more fun in auto shop class than English in High School.

Finally, be aware of copyrighted material.  It can show up where you wouldn't expect it.  Embedded music in a video game, a radio playing in the background or even singing a few bars of a favorite song can doom your monetization dreams.  Always upload a video privately and then monetize it to see if it trips YouTube's draconian ContentID system.  If it comes up with a so-called VIOLATION at least you can correct the issue before it goes viral without you getting anything for all your hard work but a Copyright strike and empty bragging rights.

I'm pretty sure why I'm a YouTube failure for many of the reasons above.   Take heed!

The video below will illustrate what we've covered above.  Hopefully I broke my own rules enough for you to get something out of it!

Enjoy!

New Media is older than you think - Part 2

YouTube is perhaps the most blatant example of the "New Media" hypocrisy. Their motto is "Broadcast Yourself" although it's hard to find on their webpage anymore.  Here's their current claimed reason for being...

Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.

The real truth is that only thing YouTube cares about since the Google acquisition is becoming the Internet equivalent of NBC. They've invested a few million in a Los Angeles production studio called the "Creation Space" supposedly to support the YouTube community.  What you find in the small print, however, is that you don't get to use it unless you've been "invited."    

To get that golden ticket you need to  have at least 300,000 average views with the first crop of "invitees" being closer to a half million or more.  Check out the bulk of the channels and  you're going to find a lot of crossover from old media interests, entertainment figures and those with a popular following elsewhere. 

Sorry guys, your chances of getting in on the new digs is pretty slim with videos of your new kittens produced with Windows Movie Maker.

By the way, a common thread among successful YouTube channels is a partnership agreement with an even  larger channel. 

Oh yeah, and being a pop star with a record company backing the production of your new "Internet only" video wouldn't hurt either.

So what exactly is this New Media then?  A shortcut for old media billionaires to make more money by spending less on production?

Seems that way which means supporting your tiny channel is not their focus.  In fact since the Google acquisition, the service has become increasingly hostile to small content creators.  The recommendation is to sign up with bigger partners if you want to increase your views. 

That means revenue sharing or basically paying the bigger partner a percentage of your monetized views on top of YouTube's normal cut.  Kind of like a pyramid scheme.  Paying for views, by the way, is something YouTube actively discourages anywhere but partner agreements.  They can't turn a profit outside that structure so they make sure you don't either.

The only thing YouTube is nurturing is its own fortunes.  Don't expect to get a call to reserve your slot in the "Creation Space" if you're not in the less than 1% of YouTubers able to live off your partner income.  It's not going to happen for smaller channels simply because their take isn't lucrative enough for them.

YouTube will reap millions from its relatively paltry investment in facilities and you're going to pay for it with deeper cuts into your monetization.  Even if you never get to use it.  So much for their philanthropic motives.

Why?  Simple, it's a corporate interest and  you're just a consumer of their product.  Your "partner" status just gives them license to hijack your content for their own ends with minimal benefit for you.  So while you spend hours hoping that all that slaving over the perfect upload will go viral, know that YouTube has your back.  Well at least so long as they can turn a profit on you.  Oh yeah and you don't do anything to threaten the sensibilities of their advertisers or even suggest the possibility of a copyright infringement. 

Do either of those and you'll quickly be branded "Not Advertiser Friendly" which at the minimum denies your videos monetization or at worst gets them pulled down.

Sound familiar?  It's the same dynamic that got your favorite show kicked off of network TV and drove innovative cable networks like TechTV into the ground. 

So dry your tears New Media pundits, it's the same old crap in a new package.  Nothing's really changed as the same "old media" gatekeepers are still collecting the tolls.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from engaging in this "New Media" just don't believe everything you hear about it.  It's definitely fun but it's far from free and not as lucrative as it seems so don't quit your day job.   

You can start a blog, post hundreds of videos on YouTube and spam all your Facebook friends with them  and still not earn a dime.  Without the backing of the gatekeepers you may as well post your blogs on telephone poles.  Just remember the "New Media" isn't all that new so take it with a grain of salt.  Most of the hype you're hearing is the same kind of noise you get from an "Internet Millions" infomercial. 

              

New Media is older than you think - Part 1

The Internet is delusional. More precisely, people who see it as something other than a shill for corporate interests are delusional. I suppose that means I'm raining on somebody's parade but then again, I've never thought Felicia Day was that big of a deal. The promise of "New Media" was broken the day the term was coined.

So it should be no surprise when you suddenly find your creative expression cut short by some mysterious mechanism that's denied your 15 minutes of fame.

 I've watched a lot of misty eyed podcast pundits proclaiming the impending doom of the "old" media model and the rise of the "New Media" model. They postulate on how all those silly old men in their corporate towers are powerless to prevent the tidal wave of content in this brave new media world. Surely the tables are turning and the rise of entertainment by mob rule will conquer the day.

They fondly recall short lived television shows that to their minds were unfairly struck down only to find rebirth in a new medium. A feat not possible without the promise of the... Internet!

 I guess they forgot about that whole thing with VCR's and DVD box sets. Oh yeah, and the fact that 90% of television programming couldn't draw 1000 views in a YouTube channel anyway. Worse, YouTube probably wouldn't let them monetize it due to some BS about "commercial use rights".
What they fail to mention is that the "rebirth" found its conception with an sympathetic ear who had control of the content. And why not, they had nothing to lose by offering up these "lost gems" on the web. All the better if they could squeeze a few more bucks out that old crap too.

So it goes with most of the New Media superstars as well. Most of whom started with more than just a laptop and a webcam.

People like to point to podcasting and YouTube as the best examples of new media. Look behind the curtains of the most popular "visionary" media offerings, however, and you find a deep bench of old media. 

Take the example of Leo Laporte's TWIT netcast (podcast) network. Built on decades of broadcast experience on radio and television as America's favorite tech pundit, Laporte's TWIT it is the wet dream of anyone with a YouTube channel. With over 20 shows built around technology related topics from social media to law it's frequently held up as the example of successful "New Media."

The part that gets glossed over is that without Laporte's "Old Media" gravitas and a few handpicked hosts from his TechTV days, TWIT would be just another hobbyist channel on YouTube. Not surprisingly, the collective TWIT resume is heavy in traditional media as well as technology luminaries like Steve Gibson, Bob Heil and Alex Lindsay. Not exactly the kind of talent easily accessible to the average podcaster trying to make their way in the world.

There's nothing wrong with leveraging your strengths but you can't hold TWIT up as a pure example of New Media precisely because of them. It's existence is entirely reliant on leveraging old media concepts if not its on-air personalities.

I mean, really now, TWIT would literally have to start airing "This week in gym socks" and "The Social Terrorist Today" to fail with their talent lineup.

While tightly controlled, TWIT still relies on advertising and audience metrics for a revenue stream. Programming that doesn't meet a revenue threshold no matter how popular can find itself cancelled, which isn't exactly a new idea. We're still being asked to vote with our wallets instead of our interests. Even popular hosts organically grown from this "New Media" that run afoul of "old media" hierarchies can quickly find themselves out on the cold.

Perhaps the most vivid example was the ousting of a rising star on the TWIT network in 2011. Erik Lanigan came fresh out of college and worked for TWIT as an editor before beginning the rise to the ranks of a show host after Laporte recognized his talent. Toward the end he gained a loyal following and was reportedly being groomed to substitute for Laporte on his weekend "Tech Guy" syndicated radio show.

From available information Lanigan wasn't receiving adequate support for his fledgling overnight show not to mention a paycheck in general. It culminated in a chat conversation where he admitted as much. Viewers of the live broadcast were none the wiser, however, with even Laporte struggling to find anything derogatory in the show's recorded video. It appears Lanigans sin, was to admit that he wasn't being fairly treated by TWIT management to chatroom friends.

Laporte's commentary on the subject was probably the most emblematic of old media icons when in response to questions about Lanigan's firing he said, "I had to kiss a lot of butt in the first 20 years, that's why I'm here...You kiss butt in media for a long ass time"

Isn't this the core issue of old media that the New Media is supposed to correct? Isn't the rule that the quality of the content should supersede ego or advertiser metric? So the old maxim of brown nosing to the top is part of the new revolution in media? It calls into question if New Media outlets are really the incubators of fresh ideas or just a new medium for the old guard to monetize.

Part 2

                  

Google NBC

Recently I wrote an article about Google's recent hiring of Kevin Rose and expansion of their premium content channels on YouTube.  In that piece I commented on the concern of independent content providers that Google may be making a push to become the dominant player on the Internet.  In essence a content gatekeeper minimizing all other outlets.

While questions remain as to whether it's proper or even an anti-trust issue for Google to operate in both the content and search spaces it's important to keep things in perspective.

Let's face it, what lands in Google's premium channels will still have the restrictions of the medium to contend with not to mention varying degrees of production quality.  Couple that with the basic fact that the majority of popular video content on YouTube is for all intents and purposes, garbage.

I watched the IAWTV(Intl. Academy of Web TV) awards a few months back.  Aside from the one news related program nominated that I was interested in, the rest of the nominees never rose above the quality of fan films. Much of it reminded me of those awful videos made in high school multimedia classes.  The common thread among many of the nominees was YouTube, with the notable exception of the news program that I was interested in. 

When you've got content like this...

I wouldn't worry too much about Google crushing the Free Internet. 

I'd be far more concerned about providing good programming than a giant monolith betting on pet videos and B list talent to corner the content market.  The Internet is a fickle beast and those who seek to control its destiny soon find themselves on the sidelines.  That an Internet company like Google would think otherwise seems unlikely. 

The medium lends itself to specialized content for very distinct audiences that can number in the thousands if not millions. Google sees that as a potential cash cow but that's a very traditional view of media.   Internet consumers tend to distrust singular sources for their information and always prefer an a la' carte experience to the combo deal.  Unlike television, your audience isn't captive and always finds a way to bypass you if you don't meet their needs.

I'd cite the recent examples of Myspace and RIM for those who thought otherwise.  If Google does become the next Internet NBC it's a safe bet that other alternatives will surface shortly thereafter and relegate Google to the ranks of Alta Vista.