Gimmicky Augmented Reality Videos Popping Up In Music Videos And Magazines

from the not-quite-there-yet dept

If you haven't been paying attention, over the last couple of months, the "buzz" over "augmented reality" has been building. It seems likely that it's going to be one of those topics you hear a lot about in 2010, so get ready for it now. The basic concept is that you'll be able to overlay digital information on the real world, and conceptually, it could be really cool. If you had heads-up displays or a contact lens, it could actually be quite useful. The concept itself isn't new. This video from five years ago shows that people have been working on the concept for quite some time:

Yet, in the last few months, it's reached new levels of buzz, in part due to the fact that new augmented reality apps for mobile phones have started showing up. Some of these are cool, some are gimmicky -- but all are pretty early in development. It's going to take some time before they're really useful.

But that isn't stopping some folks from trying to get ahead of the curve in jumping on the augmented reality bandwagon. Unfortunately, the end result seems kinda gimmicky and useless -- more for show, rather than to do anything useful. Last week, all the buzz was about singer John Mayer releasing an augmented reality video, but if you watch the following video, you might wonder what the point is: Beyond being complicated (you need to either print out an image on a piece of paper, or have the image show up on your iPhone, and then you need to turn on your webcam and line up the image on the paper/iPhone with one on the screen), it's not clear what value the augmented reality adds, other than the fact that you can rotate the video in 3D as it's playing.

And, now, Esquire magazine is trying to do the same thing. An image in the magazine, when held up to a computer webcam and lined up correctly, and Robert Downey Jr. will apparently show up on your screen and say stuff. I give Esquire some credit for trying, and making the paper magazine have something different that might attract some buyers, but it doesn't seem like they're using the augmented reality for anything useful.

My guess is that we'll be seeing a lot more of these useless augmented reality experiments, combined with lots of press coverage and hype -- and most people won't even bother, because it's not that useful. Perhaps, then, the hype can die down and some really useful augmented reality apps can start to show up.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

YouTube Smoking Guns? What Constitutes Actual Knowledge?

from the this-ought-to-get-interesting dept

With the judge tossing the Veoh/Universal Music lawsuit last month, it certainly appeared that Viacom might be on weak ground when it came to its lawsuit with Google over YouTube infringement. As with the Veoh suit (which was nearly identical) the DMCA's safe harbors on service providers almost certainly should protect the service provider from the actions of its users (which is a good and reasonable thing). However, I'd been hearing rumors for a little while now of a "smoking gun" from Viacom, and Greg Sandoval is now reporting on the same thing: that during discovery Viacom came across emails showing that YouTube employees "knew" and discussed infringing content on the site and did nothing about it. On top of that, some YouTube employees supposedly uploaded infringing content as well. The key question, then becomes, did YouTube have "actual knowledge" of infringement, and if so, does that remove the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.

But, of course, nothing is that simple. When you're talking about a corporation, what constitutes "actual knowledge"? Is it one employee knowing about things? Is it one executive? And how does fair use play into all of this? Even if YouTube employees saw content that was uploaded in an unauthorized manner, were they then supposed to make a fair use determination as well? And, of course, none of this is particularly simple. According to Sandoval, the same discovery process may have turned up the fact that Viacom employees were also caught uploading infringing materials. This then opens a whole new can of worms. If even Viacom can't determine what's infringing or what's legit, why should YouTube be expected to have that knowledge. On top of that, if YouTube saw that people at Viacom were uploading such content, then how was it possible for YouTube to have any idea that Viacom didn't want the same content uploaded by others? Finally, even if this does constitute "actual knowledge," wouldn't it then mean that the liability for YouTube was limited to the few files of which they had knowledge, rather than the wider spectrum of infringing content? Does knowledge of a single infringing content take away all safe harbors on the other content?

Suddenly, the lawsuit may have become a lot more interesting in that it may address some of those questions...

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is CBS Trying To Take Down Letterman Revelation Video?

from the what-good-does-it-do? dept

Last week, soon after the news broke that David Letterman had confessed, on air, to a variety of affairs with staffers, following a blackmail attempt about those affairs, Peter Kafka over at AllthingsD pointed to a YouTube video of the 10 minute revelation, noting that he expected CBS to be playing wac-a-mole in trying to force all of the clips offline. And, indeed, that's exactly what's happening. CBS has apparently been sending takedown after takedown to YouTube to get the clip offline. This is odd for a few reasons. First, CBS is actually one of the few TV networks to actually like YouTube, and use it regularly to its own advantage. Way back in 2006, the company announced that tests showed that when it put clips on YouTube, it resulted in more viewership, not less.

So why take down all these clips?

The anonymously sourced explanation in the article is just that there was a request from Letterman's production company to CBS not to put that clip online. I can see why that request was made in the first place (who wants that embarrassing clip up there...) but it still doesn't make much sense once you think about it. If Letterman didn't want that video out there, then why discuss it at all on the show? The show went out to millions of people. It's pretty silly to then pretend it doesn't exist at all. All it really does is call that much more attention to the situation. Meanwhile, the clips keep going up, and employees at both CBS and YouTube have to waste a ton of time repeatedly taking them down... And, in the end, the clips will end up on other sites anyway. If anyone wants to see the Letterman explanation, they'll see it. So why not put it up on the official CBS/Letterman feed and deal with it that way?

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Coldplay Sued Again For Copyright Infringement... But Is It Actually A PR Stunt By No Name Musician?

from the idea-expression-anyone? dept

The more successful you are, the more likely you are to get sued over some bogus claim of copyright infringement, it seems. Having just settled a silly lawsuit from Joe Satriani, it seems that others are stepping forward to see if Coldplay will settle with them. This latest one is seriously ridiculous. Peter Friedman has the details of a guy who is suing Coldplay for copyright infringement, because in a recent video they used the idea of interacting with things happening on a chalkboard. Seriously. Check the two videos out:

The only thing in common is the concept of interacting with chalk on a wall. Even the actual themes of the video are entirely different. And, of course, there have been many other videos predating this other guy's.

My guess is that the guy suing knows all of this (or had a lawyer explain it to him), but he's still suing for one reason: because it may get his video and his name some attention (which is why we're not naming him directly in this post). These are the types of lawsuits for which there should be serious sanctions against those bringing them. It's almost certainly a bogus lawsuit. Copyright doesn't cover an idea, and the idea itself wasn't even that original. The videos are entirely different. This has a high likelihood of simply being abuse of copyright law and the court system because some unknown musician wants extra attention.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Only Took 9 Months, But Warner Music Videos Finally Back On YouTube

from the how-big-were-the-losses? dept

You may recall last December that a spat over how much Google would pay Warner Music for hosting its videos (for free, mind you) created a situation whereby Warner Music videos were taken off the site (there are conflicting stories over who actually made the call to take the videos down). The end result of this was basically bad for everyone -- and even Warner's own musicians got pretty pissed off at Warner -- especially as they saw other musicians use YouTube to grow their audience. It only took nine months, but it looks like Warner Music and YouTube have finally worked out a deal to allow the videos back online. You have to wonder how much harm this did to Warner artists, and to the label itself. I'd argue that the failure to leverage a rather useful promotional platform to connect with audiences was likely to have been much greater than any "harm" done from file sharing.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Around The Globe, Entertainment Industry Pisses Off Fans Promoting Content

from the spin-the-globe dept

You would think that the various entertainment industry rights organizations around the world would recognize how badly attacking consumers has failed and wouldn't continue to do it in every other country, but apparently common sense travels a lot slower than unauthorized content these days. Roni Evron alerts us to how a bunch of Israeli YouTube users are pissed off after rights holder Unicell convinced YouTube to pull down a bunch of content and close user accounts, even for content that just isn't available anywhere else:

One of the more prominent Israeli users of YouTube is 40-year-old Guy, who has been operating his own homepage there for three years. Guy says that he spends about two hours every day uploading content. He focuses on old archival material: Israeli music which is now considered classic.

"I do it out of love and I have no commercial interests," he says. "The idea behind this is ideological, romantic, to expose older cultural material, to make it accessible to as many people as possible. In most cases it is not readily available anywhere else."

For example, he has uploaded the contents of singer-songwriter Matti Caspi's first album from 1974, and material from the "Siba L'mesiba" ("Excuse for a Party") television program, which aired on the Channel One from 1984-1990.

Most of the responses he gets, according to Guy, are from former Israelis who live abroad; they are enthusiastic and ask him to add more material.

He admits that he is not current on copyright law, but believes removal of the content from the Internet is proof of narrow-mindedness.

"Perhaps exposure to this material in fact increases demand," he says. "YouTube is no substitute for purchasing music in higher quality formats; it simply provokes nostalgia. This work is a community service."

You have to wonder if the recent Israeli ruling that found that the rights of users should be respected, and that copyright claims should only be dealt with if they were "especially severe, wrongs committed in aggravated circumstances," will come into play in these sorts of situations.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Tosses Universal Music Suit Against Veoh; Safe Harbors & Common Sense Prevail

from the google-should-be-happy dept

In a ruling that has to make the folks at Google/YouTube happy (despite not being a part of the case), a judge has granted summary judgment to Veoh over Universal Music, claiming that Veoh's video hosting site is protecting from liability of infringing videos due to the DMCA's safe harbors. This case, which has many similarities to Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube, has gone against Universal Music in almost every way. This is now the second time that Veoh has had such a lawsuit dismissed, and hopefully the judge in the YouTube case recognizes that this is, in fact, the right decision under the DMCA. This latest ruling isn't a huge surprise. Earlier this year, the judge seemed to reject all of Universal's arguments for why safe harbors shouldn't apply. Universal also got smacked down (twice) in its attempt to separately sue Veoh's investors for the actions of the company's users.

While Veoh, as a company, may be struggling, this is a huge victory for common sense. This case describes exactly the sort of situation that the DMCA safe harbors were designed to deal with. A service provider who has no direct say in what content is uploaded by users should not be liable for that content. It's great that judges are seeing this, and hopefully the judge in the YouTube case sees it the same way. Veoh's case isn't "over" yet, though, since Universal will appeal -- and has already claimed the ruling is "wrong." Yet, so far odds of a successful appeal are not looking good. Hopefully, the appeals courts will also correctly interpret safe harbors (and common sense) to recognize that a service provider should never be liable for the content put up by users.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does No One Remember That Google Tried And Failed To 'Rent' Videos Online In The Past?

from the short-memory-syndrome dept

The tech press is excitedly discussing the fact that YouTube is looking to work with movie studios to allow movie rentals, with many talking up how this is a way for Google to put in place a new business model for YouTube. But here's the thing: everyone seems to forget that, back when Google first launched Google Video (which was a competitor to YouTube before Google bought YouTube and merged the two), it was based on this very idea. You could "buy" videos on the site to watch. And what happened? It failed pretty miserably. People just weren't interested. Instead, they flocked to YouTube to get all that free content and community, and Google quietly changed around Google Videos' entire business model and concept, and then eventually realized that it couldn't compete, and so it bought YouTube.

So why would people suddenly be willing to pay when something that sounds nearly identical a few years ago failed to get much interest at all? Perhaps culture or technology has changed (it's easier to watch downloaded movies on a TV screen, certainly). But, I have to admit to being rather skeptical of this as a big business opportunity. We've already seen this movie, and it didn't end well.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Music Comes Back To Life On YouTube In The UK

from the but-who-caved? dept

I still can't quite figure out what sort of leverage the various music labels and collections societies think they have over YouTube. Musicians who have embraced YouTube have found that it can help boost their careers and turn out more fans at their shows. And, without music videos, YouTube still gets a ton of traffic. The only ones who lose out with the music taken off the site are the musicians and the labels -- and that was seen in the way the musicians who first complained that Google wasn't paying them enough then freaked out that Google took down all their videos in the UK, after being unable to agree on a payment scheme. Clearly, the musicians valued the exposure a lot more than Google needed to have those videos.

It only took about six months, but PRS for Music (the UK collection society) and Google have finally worked out a deal so that the music videos will return to YouTube. It's not entirely clear what the details are, but it certainly sounds like it was PRS who caved (which makes sense, given the leverage situation). Google is paying a lump sum, rather than a per stream fee. PRS had been pushing for per stream fees that were significantly higher than anything Google could have made on ads. So it certainly seems like PRS folded here, and Google tossed them some spare change just to get them to stop whining and get the videos back online.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Premier League's Fear Of The Internet A Case Study In What Not To Do

from the this-is-not-a-good-idea dept

While we have many problems with the way MLB.com conducts itself concerning its attempts to claim ownership of factual information, you can't deny that (separate from that), it's built up a nice business by really focusing on giving fans what they want in terms of online video. While the product has had technical problems, on the whole MLB.com continues to improve it, adding many unique and useful features, such that it's actually well worth purchasing. If you order the package to watch baseball games, it gives you all sorts of neat tools that can't be found elsewhere, and are great for tracking pretty much any game you want. There are still some problems -- including silly blackout zones (so it's tough to watch local teams) and blackout times when games are being shown on national TV, but on the whole MLB.com has done a pretty good job making the service worth buying.

Compare that to the Premier League in the UK. It's been nearly five years since the league first started freaking out about people watching unauthorized streams online. But rather than trying to serve those underserved customers, the Premier League has repeatedly lashed out at anyone who might possibly enable these games to be seen online. For example, it's sued YouTube apparently unaware that the company is protected by the safe harbors of the DMCA, and (if anyone) it should be going after those who actually upload the games. It's also suing Justin.tv in the same misguided fashion.

Amazingly, the league seems proud of the fact that it's going after these companies, rather than the appropriate targets. Jeff T alerts us to an article in the Guardian which is basically a case study in what not to do about these things. It hypes up how the Premier League purposely goes after the platform providers, as if that's a good thing. It also (bizarrely) claims that these anti-fan maneuvers are somehow a different and better response than the way the music industry responded to unauthorized file sharing. But that's not true. While it's not suing fans directly, it's still suing to stop fans from doing what they want to do. It's the same exact mistake.

Rather than recognizing the simple fact that the reason fans watch these streams online is because the Premier League has failed to offer it up themselves, the Premier League seems to relish the fact that it makes it more difficult for fans to see its product. The article talks about the "Saturday blackouts" on video designed to get more fans to go to matches, without recognizing that such blackouts have been shown to be pointless. There used to be rules for baseball in the US that games that weren't sold out wouldn't be shown on TV, but eventually people realized that people weren't watching on TV as a substitute for going to the game, but because they love their favorite team and want to watch them however possible. The more they can watch them on TV, the more interested they are in seeing live games.

Jeff, who sent this story in, makes the point quite clearly, by noting that he watches poor quality streams of Premier League matches in Canada because the League refuses to make most of their matches available to watch online. Rather than going after the companies that run platforms that enable such things, there's a really simple solution: offer high quality online webcasts yourself, and actually serve the fans. But that seems far beyond the Premier League's strategic thinking.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright Conundrum: Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?

from the it's-in-the-recording... dept

Mark Guertin writes in with an interesting situation that he's dealing with, which I think highlights some of the problems with copyright law today. Guertin put together a YouTube video of some swimming pugs as part of a promotion for a charity he's involved with. Knowing that music on videos is a potential copyright issue, he went to Wikipedia to find some public domain music, and chose Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries to accompany the swimming pugs.

Except... he got blocked. YouTube's content ID system told him that the song was owned by (who else?) Warner Music Group, and thus the soundtrack was muted. Guertin filed a counternotice, and the music was reinstated, but then muted a second time as apparently someone (Google/Warner?) didn't agree with the counternotice. Without knowing the details, my guess is that the situation has to do with the different types of copyright coverage. While the song Ride of the Valkyries is public domain, each individual recording of it is covered by copyright. It seems likely that whatever recording was used is still under copyright.

Guertin is reasonably upset about the situation, especially the whole concept of having the music blocked until WMG has a chance to weigh in on it, noting that "guilt before innocence" seems incredibly unfair.

But the bigger issue may be how this (once again) shows how out of sync copyright law is with what people think is reasonable or fair. If you found out a piece of music was in the public domain, it's natural to assume that a recording of that same piece of music is in the public domain. And to make things more confusing, that's absolutely true (in the US at least) of a photograph of a public domain painting. But making a new recording of a public domain song? Bam. A new monopoly created.

Unfortunately for Guertin, the track he used probably is not in the public domain, even if the music is (yes, that's confusing). That's why, these days, it's probably more reasonable to search out Creative Commons-licensed music than public domain music -- because you can't be as sure whether the PD part covers the recording as well as the music. To some of us, that seems like a problem with current copyright laws, while others appear to view it as a feature.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Musicians Pissed Off Over Their Own Music Videos Being Taken Off YouTube

from the nice-job,-labels... dept

Eric points us to yet another story of yet another artist getting pissed off that his own videos have been pulled from YouTube. The writeup suggests that this is about competing record labels issuing bogus DMCA-style takedowns on artists as a part of their competitive fervor, but I'm not sure that's true in this case. The artist, Calvin Harris, is based in the UK, who is signed to Sony Music. In the UK, due to a royalty dispute, Google has removed all official major label music from the site. So contrary to TechCrunch's reporting, it seems that this may just be collateral damage of the silly royalty dispute, rather than nefarious competitors issuing bogus takedowns. Still, the point remains: this dispute, which the music industry claims is to "help" artists, is actually doing exactly the opposite.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Confused French Indie Labels Sue Google

from the let's-work-on-the-logic-bit dept

It appears that the collection society for indie record labels in France, SPPF, is a bit confused about how the internet works. It's sued Google over videos on YouTube, claiming that while Google had removed a bunch of videos that were using songs covered by SPPF, many of those songs had returned! Of course, that's probably because other people uploaded them. But rather than put the blame where it's due (on the uploaders), SPPF has just decided to sue Google. Even worse, SPPF never bothered to sign up for Google's totally free program that lets artists upload content they want protected so that Google can match the content and either stop it from being uploaded or allow the copyright holder to profit by putting ads on it. So, basically, SPPF is complaining that Google won't do what Google absolutely would do if SPPF only used the tools Google has provided. And, claiming that SPPF shouldn't have to be proactive on this makes no sense either -- because how is Google to know whether the use of the content is authorized or not? This lawsuit seems like folks at SPPF were just too lazy to actually understand how Google/YouTube work and so they sued.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal, YouTube Collaboration To Be Run By Someone Who Sees The Bigger Picture

from the a-good-first-step dept

At the beginning of March, I questioned the wisdom of Universal Music and YouTube teaming up to create a separate site just for Universal Music, called Vevo. While I thought it could be interesting, it really depended on the execution, and the early talk about it seemed to miss the point. That is, it said that YouTube would supply the "technology" and Universal would supply the music. Of course, what that's missing is that much of the value in YouTube isn't in the technology (which many others have replicated), but in the community. So, if Vevo was to get anywhere, it would need to recognize that fact, rather than simply looking at YouTube as a tech vendor.

At the end of March, in a totally separate post, I wrote about my surprise at seeing my fellow keynote presenter at the Leadership Music Digital Summit, Rio Caraeff of Universal Music, present a reasonable vision for where the music industry needed to be: getting away from selling "music" and in creating better, more valuable experiences that simply can't be replicated by file sharing. This was in stark contrast to what Universal Music's own CEO had been saying for years. While Caraeff admitted that it was still a struggle to get this message through to everyone at Universal, he believed in it strongly.

That's why it's noteworthy that Caraeff has now been put in charge of the Vevo project. I'm still not convinced it's anything more than a boondoggle that will go nowhere quickly, but putting Caraeff in charge of it immediately makes it a much more interesting project to follow. The real question is what he does with it, and whether the bosses back at Universal Music actually give him enough free reign to let him turn the site into what it needs to be. I wish I could be optimistic, but given the major record labels' track record in dealing with such things, I still think the chances are pretty slim.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

20th Century Fox Sends Takedowns Over Its Own YouTube Mashup Contest

from the nice-one,-guys... dept

We're seeing this all too often these days, but 20th Century Fox is the latest company to force videos offline over copyright infringement claims on something they officially endorsed. In this case, it involved a mashup contest promotion, where Burger King and 20th Century Fox created a promotion asking people to create their own mashups of Seth MacFarlane's online animated series Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy. So that's just what people did... and now at least one has had his account suspended due to copyright infringement claims from... 20th Century Fox. In this case, it was also a guy who had a vast history of using YouTube and all his videos are gone, with YouTube telling him he has no option to have his account reinstated. That'll really get people excited about participating in future contests. Update: Good news! Apparently all of the attention this has gotten has helped the user get his account reinstated. However, it's still quite problematic that it was taken down in the first place... and that it required publicity to get reinstated.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can Anyone Explain Why Any Warner Music Artist Or Website Still Embeds YouTube?

from the do-they-not-know? dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the BoingBoing post about how the various YouTube videos on Warner Music Group subsidiary Sire Records are all broken due to "copyright claims" from WMG. This isn't a new story, as we've been among those covering the YouTube-Warner Music dispute since December when it became public. Plenty of Warner artists have been screwed over by this move, having their official videos pulled down because Warner demands YouTube pay it for the free service of hosting those videos. You would think, with bandwidth costs being what they were, WMG would be thrilled that a company like Google is willing to host them totally free and manage the infrastructure.

So, this particular story isn't new or surprising, and doesn't involve (as the original implies), WMG accusing itself of piracy. However, it does raise a separate question. How backwards are Warner Music and its various sub-labels that they still have taken down YouTube videos embedded on their official sites. After all, it's been more than four months since this dispute began. You would think that whoever is in charge of running these websites would have stopped using YouTube embeds a long time ago. It's really not that difficult to replace a YouTube embed with a locally hosted one. However, the fact that Warner hasn't done so pretty much makes the point, doesn't it: the company apparently doesn't have the tech talent to host its own videos. That's a lot sadder a statement than having just taken the officials videos down in the first place. Update: Ethan from Warner shows up in the comments to say that this was just an honest mistake, and the company had taken YouTube embeds off of all their sites, but somehow missed Sire Records. I'm still not sure how this goes on for four months with no one noticing it... You'd have to think that someone would visit those sites during that time and noticed.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Susan Boyle's YouTube Star Turn Is Helping Revive Interest In Les Mis

from the well-check-that-out dept

As the recording industry continues to freak out about videos on YouTube without compensation, the whole media sensation Susan Boyle phenomenon is showing how such videos on YouTube clearly act as promotion for the music. Paul Kedrosky notes that Boyle's now famous rendition of a song from Les Miserables has shot the Les Mis CD up from a rank of 1,000 to 32 on Amazon's sales charts, while Mathew Ingram notes that tickets for the live performance of Les Mis have also skyrocketed. And the recording industry still claims that Google is somehow "exploiting" music while giving it all this promotion? Rob Hyndman chimes in, wondering just how many DMCA notices prevented similar results elsewhere. Indeed.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright, Investigative Reporting Online... And Domino's Pizza Grossout

from the putting-it-all-together dept

People have been submitting various versions of the infamous Domino's Pizza employee grossout video of two employees doing... er... bad things to food, that's been the talk of the social media world all week, but there really didn't seem to be that much of real interest to talk about here -- or at least nothing that hadn't really been discussed to death elsewhere. As plenty of folks have pointed out, the whole event and Domino's reaction (who knows how successful it will eventually be) will certainly become a regular case study concerning "social media" and how companies can and should respond to certain events. On the whole, I think Domino's has made the best of a really awful situation which has no really good response.

That said, there were two interesting side stories involved in all of this that haven't received much additional attention, but both seem to fit into themes we discuss here on a regular basis. The first is that, in the NY Times' coverage of the story, it notes that the woman involved, Kristy Hammonds, eventually used a copyright claim to get the video taken down from YouTube -- though, of course, they're now available in many more places. It seems like an odd sort of thing to try to pull down via a copyright claim. After all, she had put the video up on YouTube in the first place, even if she later came to regret it. And, by this point, the video is clearly part of a larger news story, so it's not clear if there's really a legitimate DMCA takedown to be issued over the video... Of course, in the end, it's really a meaningless gesture. The video is spread so far and wide that no takedown is going to make it disappear.

The second issue of relevance is the fact that it was folks online at the always excellent Consumerist website who were able to take the original video and track down the actual location of the Domino's franchise in question, and to alert Domino's corporate execs. While we keep hearing old school journalists whine about how no investigative reporting gets done without newspapers, this situation shows exactly how a group of motivated, interested folks, can do plenty of sleuthing and exposing of malfeasance themselves. That's not to say, of course, that this is "the model" for investigative journalism -- but to show that the whole space is changing these days, and it no longer requires a classically trained journalist in every situation. If an investigation needs to happen, there are ways to make it happen.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Press Rediscovers That Mexican Gangs Use YouTube

from the what-goes-around,-comes-around dept

Mexican drug-related violence has been in the news a lot in the last month, so perhaps it's no surprise that USA Today is running a big article about how Mexican gangs and drug cartels use YouTube to communicate and spread messages of intimidation. Of course, two years ago, a bunch of similar stories made the news. The good news, though, is that rather than freaking out about it and demanding YouTube remove the videos, both Mexican and American officials are monitoring the videos to try to pick up clues to gang activities.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Songwriter Claims He Was Exploited By Google... But A Few Seconds Of Logical Thinking Disproves That

from the ok,-let's-work-this-through dept

A bunch of folks have sent in the latest PR attempt by some musicians in the recording industry to force Google to pay unsustainable rates to keep their music on YouTube. Pete Waterman, who apparently co-wrote the Rick Astley "Rick Roll" song Never Gonna Give You Up has come out saying that Google "exploited" him, because he earned a grand total of £11 last year, even while the video was a hit on YouTube.

There are probably more details here, because no one actually says how much Google paid overall. For example, part of the problem may simply be the deal that Waterman himself signed concerning his royalties. But, more to the point, it's not Google that's doing any exploiting at all. Here's the simple logic process to run through (which Waterman and all the folks supporting this PR stunt failed to do):

• How much attention did Waterman's song get last year thanks to YouTube?
• Fine, take away YouTube. How much attention would Waterman and his song have received last year

Yup. No one would be talking about Waterman or his song at all in the absence of YouTube and the rickrolling phenomenon. The only "exploiting" being done is now, by Waterman, because he got totally lucky in that a bunch of internet jokesters happened to pick his song (mainly for how bad it is) to use as part of an internet joke. He deserves to get paid for that? It could have just as easily been any other ridiculous pop hit in the 80s. And, if it had been, then no one would be talking or caring about Waterman at all.

Furthermore, it was never YouTube making use of the music, but it was all these people on the internet, adopting the meme. YouTube was just the platform they used for it. So, no, Waterman wasn't exploited by YouTube in the slightest, though he seems to have no trouble at all trying to exploit the fact that he got lucky and whine about it -- even though it's the only reason his name is now in the news again.

59 Comments | Leave a Comment..