TWIT hypocrisy part 2? ----- The TWIT Live Special of the Microsoft Surface Event

I'll keep this short....

We all know that TWIT appears to regularly violate other people's copyrights with its "Live Specials."  In the same breath they'll bully users of it's own content even when compliant with their purported "Creative Content" licensing.

So today we had yet another "questionable" example of wanton abuse of someone else's copyright in the form of a "TWIT Live Event" covering the Microsoft Surface announcement.

Now to be completely honest,  Microsoft isn't as explicit about rebroadcasting of it's live events as Apple but I did find a general statement of use of the company's Intellectual Property (or IP) that extends to online content.

As such, I managed to dig up a few sections where TWIT could be in violation of their Terms of Use for Copyrighted Content.

Specifically:  (from the Microsoft website)

"Offensive Use"

"Your use may not be obscene or pornographic, and you may not be disparaging, defamatory, or libelous to Microsoft, any of its products, or any other person or entity."

Laporte and Paul Thurrott repeatedly offered commentary during the "Live Event" that could be considered disparaging of the presenters especially Panos Panay.

AND...

"Link Methods"

"You may link to Microsoft content by using either a plain text link with words such as "This way to Microsoft.com" or by participating in an applicable Link Logo program. No other images may be used as a link to a Microsoft site."

Everybody else provided a hyperlink to the event.  TWIT decided to embed it in their own content and context.  If it were an Apple event there'd be no question how big a NO NO that is.

As for the actual event..

Surface tablets and a big all-in-one called "Surface Studio" that folds down into a desk with a big knob you can put on the screen...

Rah...

Who cares...this article is about hypocrisy not another boring product launch from a company desperate to be relevant.  

BTW, I'm referring to Microsoft but the observation could apply equally to TWIT...

At the end Leo wrapped up the "coverage" in his trademark style with a live read of a "Blue Apron" ad.

Nice of Microsoft to provide content for Leo's "reaction video" and Blue Apron to pay for it with an ad read.  

Maybe the term "reaction video" is incorrect.  Reaction videos usually don't violate commercial copyrights of whatever's being "reacted" to.

Here's the proof straight from the horse's ass...err mouth...

https://twit.tv/shows/twit-live-specials/episodes/309

Hypocrisy.

TWIT: Kicking puppies again ( on YouTube )

See that screen capture above?  That's the rule I went by for TWIT videos.  Guess what?  It doesn't matter.  

Newton's 3rd Law

\

For Every Action There Is An Equal And Opposite Reaction

Let me tell you a story....

TWIT: The Gloves are off....

I promised almost 2 years ago that barring people being led away in handcuffs I was going to stop covering TWIT and for the most part I did.

The continuing lewdness, misogyny and a tendency to circle the wagons at the slightest hint of detractors has hardly been  newsworthy.  As such, I was content to just passively watch them die in an implosion of their own making.

To that end I've never done anything to them that they didn't first do to themselves.  In fact, everything I've  written was meant more as a sanity check than attack.  

Believe me, I could have written so much more.  I could have documented the minutia of every misstep, every cruel word, every thoughtless act.

But I left such things to Totaldrama.   I wasn't interested in baldfaced attacks, name calling or sensationalism.  

TWIT does a fine job of that all on its own.

Well....guess what....

The gloves are off BITCH...

They came off because of the latest round of wagon circling.  It seems my video capture of TWIT's big move to the Eastside studios was a violation of copyright.  

At least according to the takedown notice I received today.

Unless something has changed that I don't know about, all TWIT broadcasts are licensed under a Creative Commons license.  As such, so long as you give full attribution of the source and don't try to make any money off of the content you can freely distribute whatever you capture.  

Even the most restrictive of Creative Commons Licenses allows what I've done all along that being...

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 

CC BY-NC-ND

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially. 

from the official Creative Commons site...

Which is what I've always done with all my TWIT video captures even going so far as to never edit or cut out material that may change the context of the programming in the slightest way.  In fact, the most editing I've ever done with a TWIT video capture was to edit out the paid advertising reads.

There's no reason that I should give free advertising to a TWIT sponsor nor do I want any hassles with YouTube over it. So it just never happened.  

There are less restrictive licenses under Creative Commons.  In fact most of them allow remixing, parodies, just about anything you want so long as you attribute the original work.  Some even allow for commercial use.

I've always chosen the most restrictive interpretation making no substantive changes to the content or monetizing them in any way.

Even the rather damning videos creatively edited by those less than kind to TWIT were covered under versions of Creative Commons.

Which is the root of my newfound crusade.

You see, my innocuous little YouTube channel consisting primarily of videos of monsoon storms with it's 16 whole subscribers is somehow a threat to TWIT.

So much so that I've earned a copyright strike that puts my channel and my reputation in jeopardy.   The infraction is for a video capture of the TWIT move to the Eastside studio.  A video offered without editing, commentary and free of charge. 

For the unfamiliar, A YouTube copyright strike is a virtually indefensible charge of copyright infringement which in an Internet context is akin to grand theft.

The only recourse, a YouTube form to "Request" the retraction of the charge that demands full contact information. 

Just the thing for a copyright troll to pursue a frivolous lawsuit.  Or to bully a detractor into silence.

I won't be bulled but I'm also not stupid. 

Rack up too many copyright claims and you can find your channel shut down.  As such I've removed similar videos from the channel to prevent from being bullied into oblivion.  Unless you plan on asserting a claim on raindrops and lightning strikes you got nothin'....

So what's the game TWIT?  Are you attempting to rewrite your own questionable history?  Then stop making so much of it!  

Surprising that such a staunch liberal as Leo Laporte would chose a tactic favored by the Texas school board.  You know, that Conservative body that wants our children to at least "consider" that humans were running around underfoot of dinosaurs.  In which case the Flintstones could be considered a documentary series...

..Intelligent design indeed.

What's the threat of presenting content that's already been freely shared for those who care to watch?  

Are we trying to put the genie back into the bottle? Do we want to ensure that the free and uninhibited nature of TWIT is a premise without foundation?  Is anything not directly controlled by TWIT a threat regardless of the intent?

Then you better be damned sure that your edits happen well before the broadcast.  Perhaps the appointment of a propaganda minster would be in order.  Someone with the power over even the Fuhrer...

Josef Goebbels isn't available but I hear Roger Ailes is looking for a gig...

TWIT proudly professes to be more than just another podcast network.  They claim to be community driven but lately it seems like they're more of a cult.  

Communities are made up of like minded people with a common purpose.  OK, so far the same goes for a cult.  The difference is a community is made up of individuals some with controversial ideas.  Ideas that allow the community to learn, grow and persist.  

Cults usually end up with a lot of dead people and a weird website.

We've already got the weird website...

So what's next?  Well, I'm not putting my thunderstorm videos at risk over TWIT.  But I will keep writing.  I will keep watching and I will expose that which is offered freely be it good or bad.

You made a mistake Leo and Lisa.  I was content to be passive even sharing your content on occasion.  Always without spin.  

I'm not content anymore and it's because of you.  I don't have a hell of a lot to look forward to these days but you...you just gave me a new purpose.

I won't be bullied and you can expect greater scrutiny. 

None of which you can do anything about because what I produce will be backed up with irrefutable evidence.  

Meaning, unless you want it splashed all over the Internet, you'd better clean up your act.  I don't need to make shit up, you provide plenty of content and nobody has to guess at the context.

Tit for Tat.

I'm watching...

Jodi Arias: No Blood for Blood

11 to 1... 

That was the vote that determined whether Jodi Arias' life would run the remainder of its course behind bars or come to a less natural end.  She was guilty as far as the law was concerned and of that there was no further deliberation necessary.  It was the last word on what seemed like a never ending trial that  took years for jurors to come the conclusion...that they could not come to a conclusion.

Luckily for Arias, Arizona only gives prosecutors 2 runs at the death sentence.  If 2 juries can't come to a verdict during the sentencing phase of a murder trial it's automatically a life sentence.

So justice is done and we can all go on with our lives.

Except...

What happened after the verdict..

Arizona's good at a lot of things: Superbowls, sunshine and cheap labor.  It's often celebrated as a land of rugged individualists who believe in freedom and self determination.  That is, so long as it's ok with your bible and you don't offend the wrong people. 

It's a place that would outlaw smoking but allow firearms in public buildings.  It's both nanny state and anarchist which often leads to a cognitive dissonance seen nowhere else in the country.

So with the end of a 7 year spectacle we finally know the outcome of Jodi Arias.  But that wasn't enough for the victim's family or for the other 11 jurors.  They wanted blood for blood and it was denied.  For them there is no justice.

Frontier justice, that is...

Arizonans seem to think they're living in a Louis L'Amour novel where convicts wear leg irons and sleep in tents no matter what the weather or the offense.  So I suppose it should be no surprise that jurors in a murder trial act like a lynch mob.

A stunning example of Arizona sensibilities was on display when the jurors delivered a prepared statement.  They offered condolences and apologies to the victim's family for not delivering what they wanted.  When asked how it felt to not deliver the death penalty the response was, "...we felt like we failed. " and " I had a knot in my stomach."

Failed? 

Where does this bloodlust come from?  To hear the statements of the 11 jurors who wanted the death penalty you'd think that jury deliberations were nothing more than a formality on the way to the hangman's noose.  

By the way, since when do jurors get press conferences? 

Hang 'em High! I suppose and sell the book rights later...

Afterward news outlets chased after the 1 dissenting juror demanding a statement and when they didn't get it they trotted out the non sequitur.

Everything from "suspicious" Facebook likes to questioning of her character.  Local news stations have stopped just short of accusing her of being an Arias shill.  I guess they've never heard of voir dire.  If this juror was a problem she would have been removed long ago as a number of others had been throughout the trial.  True to form instead of balancing their coverage, local news outlets chose to instead deliver more statements from the Gang of 11. 

"We tried to tell the judge she was biased" and "She kept to herself and wouldn't budge"

Is this really in the public interest or are the ratings better when they get another pound of flesh.  The talking heads are sensationalist whores, that we know.  What's disturbing is that they have to preach to the choir and in Arizona the choir wants blood.

Arizona, you need to admit that you really don't care much for the rule of law when it doesn't suit you.  From governors waving fingers at presidents who happen to be the wrong complexion to starving education funding it seems the Grand Canyon State is always inching closer to falling off the edge.

If there's any saving grace in this whole mess it's that the default judgment wasn't the death penalty.  At least there's some civility in that.

This isn't an indictment of captial punishment, however.  It's an indictment of the bloodlust it nurtures.

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.

Just Talkin Tech - Episode 4 No Refunds!

It's all about the product or rather what really qualifies as one.  In this episode we're discussing how software companies can sell you a defective product and you have no recourse but to accept it.  It's a casual but spirited conversation where I try to explain the difference between owning something and just having a license to it. 

In the end anything you don't own affords you very few rights when it goes wrong.   The sad fact is when it comes to a "product" you can't hold in your hand like software code or music (CD's are just a medium BTW) you  don't own anything.

The YouTube monetization follies

I've been waiting....

Waiting for YouTube's vaunted "content ID" system to screw up and it finally did, big time...

On my other blog, Midagedgamer.blogspot.com I do a weekly gaming news wrap-up that generally includes a video of me reporting on the week's events.

For the Week of November 16th I took great pains to not run afoul of anything that would deny me the 26 cents of revenue I could potentially make from viewings.  (I'm not that popular on YouTube)

I had run afoul of the arbitrary copyright enforcement processes that YouTube employs before but in each case I was never clear on exactly what the issue was.  As such I usually hold my breath on every upload till my video clears all of YouTube's legal hurdles.

Knowing that I'm not going to make a living off YouTube I primarily do the videos as a convenience to my Blog readers.  It's also a decent way of getting some cross-pollination between the blogs and the YouTube channel.

Back to my latest YouTube adventure...

After 24 hours of waiting for my monetization request to be approved I finally got the dreaded,
"We need proof of commercial use rights to monetize" email.  I knew it was coming.  Monetization is usually instantaneous unless the video gestapos think there's a problem....

At this time, we are unable to approve your video(s) because we do not have sufficient information regarding your commercial use rights. We may consider your video(s) for further review provided you verify that you are authorized to commercially use all of the elements of your content. This includes all video, images, music, video game footage, and any other audio or visual elements. Learn more Please note that YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision whether to monetize a video, and we may disable monetization for partners who repeatedly submit ineligible videos. All videos are subject to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, and may be removed from the site if they do not meet those standards. Please submit your additional information below: "Black ops 2, THQ, AMD, & Sinofsky in the news" Remember that a variety of factors, such as video performance, may affect review time. We may not be able to process every submission, but we continually monitor these factors and prioritize accordingly. Thanks, The YouTube Team

Proof of what? That I have the right to use my own face, voice and content?  Let's not forget that I'm fully cognizant of the gestapo tactics of YouTube's copyright policing so I do everything I can to make sure I don't have to deal with them. 

My reply was simple...

After clicking the "Contains only my own original content" option from the drop down menu under the video's monetization tab I wrote...

Details?  Here they are.  Nothing in this video violates any copyright or requires a release from any party but me.  There are no background noises, radio broadcasts or reflections of a television broadcast in my glasses or anything else that could cause any issue with copyrights not held by me personally.

All the content contained in the video is 100% original and of my own creation.  I challenge you to prove otherwise as I'm confident your efforts will be unsuccessful.

In short, it's my ugly face, crappy voice, bad editing and original content.  The fish has signed a release as well and there is no content that wasn't created and controlled by me in the video. (I usually have my aquarium in the shot in case you wondered) 

To satisfy your request for proof of ownership I make the following statement...

I hereby authorize myself to use whatever content I may produce without restriction.  All content claimed by me is under my direct control.  No copyrighted or derivative works appear in the subject video and I certify that all the content is owned and created by me with all associated copyrights at my disposal.

So now I wait.  In the meantime the few views I have gotten haven't netted me a dime (which would be 1/2 my revenue! )  while I go through the process.

UPDATE:  As of Nov. 27th YouTube still hasn't monetized the video but had no problem with the prior or following videos...

Advertising to your affliction

Commercials annoy me.

"Yeah so what", you're likely saying to yourself right now...

If you have time on your hands like I do, you get to see a lot of ads pitching everything from luxury automobiles to breakfast cereal.  Of course the later the hour the more egregious the commercials become. 

Male enhancement and impotence cures show up the most frequently followed closely by well dressed lawyers pitching resolution via litigation.

All of those are the standard fare.  Even those products that promise to rectify men's...shortcomings. 

Most disgusting of all, however, are the ads from the pharmaceutical companies.  Regardless of how you feel about modern medicine, hawking prescription drugs like feminine hygiene products is something just short of criminal. 

"Ask your doctor" and "You don't have to suffer anymore" are common pitches.  Since when is it acceptable to create a demand for a controlled substance?  Is it wise to blithely wander into your doctor's office requesting medication without being sure of the affliction?  The commercials would make you think so.

How arrogant is that? The pharmaceuticals industry does the diagnosis making your doctor just another middleman.  I'd hope that rampant capitalism hasn't done the medical profession what it's done to our eating habits but I wouldn't hold your breath.  The practice of kickbacks and promotions given to physicians to favor one treatment option over another isn't as rare as we'd like it to be. 

With the advent of the Internet it seems self-diagnosis with a website as attending physician  has turned us all into hypochondriacs.  Every pain or discomfort is sure to have a miracle pill and all we have to do is make an appointment and ask for it.

Of course all the ads mention, "Ask your Doctor". 

Why?

If my doctor knows my physical condition and I don't have any medical training shouldn't he be the one prescribing treatments?  Who cares what a commercial says?  Why is it so important that I be aware of the names of prescription drugs and why do the drug companies feel the need to give them catchy names? 

So what's the point? 

Why does a company that makes drugs have a retail profit motive?  Need should dictate sales in medicine, not the other way around.  Commercials are explicitly designed to create a desire for a product.  In the case of prescription drugs that's a potentially unhealthy goal to say the least.

It's disgusting and highlights one of the primary flaws with the healthcare industry in the United States.  Personally, I don't believe healing should have a profit motive.  When you corrupt healthcare with greed both health and care are compromised.  There is no profit without sales and the ultimate goal of the salesman is to sell as much product as they can.  It's a goal inconsistent with medicine. 

Medicine should be more like the Red Cross than General Motors.  After all GM may charge you for antenna wax but the Red Cross will never charge you for a cot and a blanket when you need one. 

The worst part comes when we see our friends in the legal industry show up on late night TV again.  This time, however, it's not an auto accident or denied disability claim.  It's a class action against the pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by their wares. 

Medicine isn't M&M's and shouldn't be marketed as such.  Pharmaceutical companies rush products to market often with inadequate testing and lax safeguards.  Competition may be the core of capitalism but it can be lethal to the unlucky patient receiving a recalled prescription.  Profit motives in business is fine, profit motives in healthcare at any level is a perversion.