Viacom is suing Youtube over copyright violations.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the protection of copyright, though the whole concept of copyright has been completely and deliberately destroyed over the last 60 years or so.  That is the subject of a whole separate article however…

The best part of this lawsuit is that Viacom itself uploaded much of the “stolen” content as part of various marketing schemes.  They took many lengths to ensure that the videos couldn’t be tracked back to them in order to make them seem like authentic “leaks” for it’s programs.

Via the Google Blog…

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Which of course makes this whole lawsuit seem totally ridiculous.  One, as many would argue, people uploading clips of shows more or less only serves as “free advertising”.  Obviously this advertising method works, otherwise why the hell would Viacom go to such a trouble to stage it?  They GET the whole viral style advertising, sort of.

The problem is they apparently also don’t get it.

There’s three reasons I can see why Viacom would argue against the upload of it’s content, though only one is really legitimate and it’s the one that is most likely to be caught by Youtube anyway, so we’ll start with reason number 1…

People upload entire episodes of shows…

I understand why they don’t want this and I support this sort of take down.  Like I said, due to the length of these uploads, these would be the easiest uploads to spot and take down.  Youtube does take measures to prevent this copyright theft and I’m sure this level of content theft is right at the top of the list.  That said, there is something ridiculous like 24 hours of video uploaded to Youtube every minute, it’s difficult to police it all.

People upload clips to criticize a show…

Firstly, I’m pretty sure criticism falls under “Fair Use” in terms of copyright.  The term Fair use is heavily abuse by people who try to support content theft but one of it’s main uses would be criticism since it’s easier to get a point across by using visuals of what you’re talking about.  Viacom would of course dislike this idea since it’s “negative publicity” for them.

Viacom thinks it needs to control all marketing exclusively…

This is the gray area.  Sure, we’ve shown that even Viacom thinks that viral video style marketing works and technically they have the right to control the marketing of their programming.  On the other hand it mostly just makes them appear really douchey by insisting on controlling things to such a needless degree.  Just accept that your “numbers” and “research” of the perfect marketing schemes are complete bull shit pushed by marketing specialists and roll with it here people.  You’re only going to irritate and turn off your customers.

So to wrap things up a bit, Youtube, which is of course owned by the internet juggernaut Google, has more than a leg to stand on in this case.  They have made efforts to police this content, much of which was uploaded by Viacom in the first place.  Still, I’m sure Viacom will try every crummy law trick they can think of to slip in a win.  Obviously they think they have something going on or they wouldn’t have bothered with the lawsuit in the first place.

Just another reason to be careful what you share on your social networking websites.  The government has released a document detailing how they use some of these sites to track people.

http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/03/17/17readwriteweb-how-us-government-spies-use-facebook-53046.html

The DoJ presentation describes Facebook as much more co-operative with law enforcement requests for user information than Twitter and MySpace are. It also explains to officers what the advantages of going undercover on social networking sites are. The EFF posted IRS training documents for using various internet tools as well, including Google Street View, but those were much tamer than the Justice file.

Of course is there really that much to be alarmed about?  Firstly, chances are, anything that could be discovered via Facebook, the government already knows.  at least as far as personal information goes.

Secondly, if you happen to actually be a criminal and on Facebook, I would really hope you’re not stupid enough to post secret details of your plans on your Facebook page, even if you’ve set things to be “private” or “friends only”.  Additionally, hypothetically, you’re using Facebook to get together with your gang buddies and you’re planning some sort of spree or even just maybe a Sweet 16 party for your daughter or something, I really hope you’re not ALSO stupid enough to friend RANDOM PEOPLE.

I can see the conversation now…

Gang Boss: “The cops have discovered our secret plot!  Who let them into the secret Facebook page!”

Gansta: “Sorry, my bad, SexyBitch14 said she would give us nuddie pics if i let her join.”

Anyway, this brings up a better point.  Which is, what is the point?  Do we really think that these people are going to be posting their secret criminal plans online in this manner?  Of course, some of the people who pull this sort of crazy crap are pretty idiotic to begin with so who knows,  It just might work.

Something else of note…

As social networks go, LinkedIn’s “use for criminal communications appears limited” the document says. You don’t say. LinkedIn can be useful in finding expert witnesses, however.

LinkedIn seems to be more of an online resume than a social network.  So what, you skim looking for profiles with things like ‘

Skills: Sniper Rifle, 500 yards, throat slitting, drug running…

Previous Employers: 1998-2005: The Mafia, 2005-2007: McDonald’s, 2007-Current: Yakuza

Give me a break….

Via Geeksugar…

Be sure to tell your family and friends, Congress is doing it’s best to piss all over the constitutional law making progress and the voice of the people in general.

Basically, the house is trying to put up some blatant smoke and mirrors to vote on the Senate Healthcare Bill without actually voting on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.

Basically they vote of if it passed or not.  Not to pass it, but if it passed.  The main reason for this is that the bill itself will never pass.  It’s extremely unpopular all around.  No one wants to have their name down for a yes vote because they all have the sense to know that the thing is a train wreck in the making.  Meanwhile there is excessive pressure from those in charge to pass SOMETHING.

I’m still not sure why there is such a rush to ramrod this thing through.  The only thing I can figure is that the longer they wait, the more people will realize that the whole plan is going to cost everyone a ton of money in taxes and whatnot without actually solving the inherent problems with the healthcare system as a whole (insurance companies and pharmacy companies scamming people with price gouging on over priced drugs).

There is also the part where Obama has promised this package constantly and even with a guaranteed win all around with Democrat control everywhere in the government, they still managed to screw up passing this Bill.  Essentially Obama NEEDS this to pass in order to help save face.  Especially after that previous blatant lie that everyone was talking about a few months ago.

So, since they know they can’t pass this bill with normal procedures, they will circumvent the rules and requirements, making up procedure as they go to fake pass a bill that, while good in idea, is so full of BS and hidden agenda that it’ll be terrible for all those involved.

Toddler Dies After Mistaking Gun for Wii Controller

Cheyenne’s mother told police officers that the child was used to playing a shooting game with the Nintendo Wii video game console and likely confused the real gun with the realistic-looking black toy gun, the sheriff said.

There’s just so many things that seem wrong in this story.  Wrong as in “why” not so much wrong as in inaccurate.

Primarily, why the hell is your toddler playing Wii games involving shooting things in the first place?  I guess the parents had enough sense not to take the kid out to practice shooting the real thing so they figure the simulated Wii would be good enough.  The fact that these people keep a loaded handgun on the dining room table and go to the trouble of getting the more realistic Wii gun accessory (as opposed to the goofy white one Nintendo puts out).

Secondly, who leaves a gun laying around with a kid hanging around at all in the first place?  Haven’t we had enough gun control style education to let people know that it’s a bad idea to leave a loaded weapon sitting out in the open around your house?  Especially if you’ve got a toddler running around?  Hell kids will try to eat anything they find laying around, and apparently a bullet isn’t an exception to this rule.

The article says no criminal charges are being filed though you can bet this one will work for several hidden agendas.  It’s an obvious argument point for both gun control and video game violence.  It’s too bad it was involving the Wii which has many less violent video games than either of it’s two competitors.  I’m sure it’ll be supported by inaccurate arguments of Doom and Grand Theft Auto being involved.

Both the democratic and republican debates for the US Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut took place this week at the University of Hartford in Connecticut. The republican debate was held between Rob Simmons, a career politician, Peter Schiff, a successful business man and economics author with grassroots support, rallied by regular YouTube postings, and Linda McMahon a titan of [the World Wrestling] industry.

While following up on a question about what she would do about the threat posed by Iran she made a poor word choice. While she clumsily plods through it almost sounds as if she’s supporting the current regime.

To make matters worse, earlier in the debate she mentioned that the current Iranian government, headed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seeks to rule the country by military dictatorship. This, taken with the fact that the term regime is most often used to mean the ruling group in a government, makes it sound as if she’s supporting Ahmadinejad.

While it’s clear what is meant by this, the gaffe is at very least humorous. However, this pales in comparison to her later remark that she may have to “set up a ring” and lay the “smackdown” on Congress to get her way.

There have been several PSAs running on TV and of course Radio about the “Performance Tax”.  Most specifically, they are against it.  The claim is that the tax would put an unneeded strain on the radio stations and more money into the pockets of the record labels (IE the RIAA).

I have no idea of the status of viability of this tax but I do find the whole situation rather hilarious.  The RIAA simply has no clue.

They have already been screwing over the artists themselves for years.  Cruddy contracts that more or less penalize the artists and load them with debt and fees to help keep them in the pocket of the label forever.  Several artists such as Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, David Bowie, and Lily Allen have taken the liberty of shedding their labels and now sell directly to fans through means such as the internet or have started their own label with the needs of the performers in mind.

This doesn’t include the thousands, probably tens of thousands of independent artists who use places like Myspace or MusicAlley to distribute their own work.  No, they aren’t “living the high life” of trashed hotel rooms with zillions of dollars and fans but many are making their own way, free of the mess that is the Recording Industry.

Then the RIAA went and screwed over the customers themselves.  The random scare tactics of suing soccer moms, dead people, 12 year olds, and college students into welfare with enormous unjustified fees has done nothing for the image of the RIAA in the eyes of the people.

It’s no wonder no one wants to buy music anymore.  who wants to support an industry that aimlessly bullies everyone it can.

For what?

Money?  The greedy need to support a pointless middleman?  If there’s one thing the internet has done for the world it’s killed the needless middleman.  Content creators can easily distribute their creations, be it music or video, news or opinion, there’s a way to get your own personal message out there, often at little or no cost.

So with the opinion of it’s practices from the public at an all time high, the RIAA decides to come up with a new scheme to screw even more people.  They want to charge new high fees for radio stations playing the music they own.  Let’s be clear, most radio stations exists mostly as a vehicle to promote music.  Music that gets later sold by the Recording industry.  So it certainly makes sense that the Recording Industry would want to charge these stations fees and put many of them out of business.

And putting them out of business isn’t a glamour opinion to drum up support, it’s a fact.  Itunes, Youtube, Podcasts, streaming internet radio, these are all putting a huge hurt on the radio station industry.  This coupled with the ease of flipping channels during commercials means many of these stations don’t make hardly anything and are already struggling to keep afloat as it is.  This is an industry that is already failing fast, now you want to inject it with a lethal dose of poison.

Despite the problems radio faces, it’s still a viable source for the promotion of music.  How did i choose which music to buy the other day from Amazon?  I’d heard the songs on the radio first.

Of course, maybe it is the plan of the RIAA to kill off many local stations.  If these stations go under they can snatch them up cheap and push out a repeated signal all over the nation.  This would give them more control over what people hear.  Who needs those “90s at Noon” blocks when we need to push more of the current hits?

Here’s a solution.  Let the RIAA have it’s tax.  If it’s a Recording industry based initiative, then it shouldn’t apply to independent sources.  Instead of playing the Top 40 Countdown with Ryan Seacrest, play the music of local independent artists.  College Radio stations are notorious for doing this and I often hunt out those stations for that reason.  Lots of fun new sounds can be heard on these stations.

Also, extend out to Podcasters to fill larger blocks of time.  I’m sure you could syndicate a few popular shows for a nominal fee, especially next to the fees the recording industry wants to charge for it’s songs.  The point is, let the RIAA have it’s fees, just stop using the RIAA’s content as a result.

Hey, it worked for Radiohead.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/22600154/detail.html\

The [Ohio] man used a bulldozer two weeks ago to level the home he’d built, and the sprawling country home is now rubble, buried under a coating of snow.

“As far as what the bank is going to get, I plan on giving them back what was on this hill exactly (as) it was,” Hoskins said. “I brought it out of the ground and I plan on putting it back in the ground.”

I can almost guarantee this guys is a fan of Atlas Shrugged considering this was a “solution” used by several prominent characters in the book.  I’m a bit torn on which side to take here actually.  On one hand, i feel the desire to support the home owner with a “Heck yeah, STICK IT TO THE MAN”.

I predict we’ll see more and more of these acts of desperation as things slide down even more.  Chances are we won’t even hear about many of them as they won’t all be as glamorous as a plane crash.

On the other, a 350,000 dollar home seems really extravagant and considering he was being foreclosed on it almost seems as if he’s been living a bit beyond his means.  the fact that his brother was once buddies enough to be a business partner as well but is now suing him over said partnership suggests that he’s also either a bit of a poor business man or he’s somewhat of a scam artist.  I’d say likely the latter since making poor business choices an ending up with a failed venture is something brothers would probably shrug off.  One brother screwing the other out of his share is something that could cause a feud.

That’s all just speculation though.

The real point behind this posting is that this action reminds me of another recent act of desperation that is much more predominant in the news.

The media and Washington seem to be pushing the idea that the economy is getting somehow better.  As I look around and see actions such as this from people with nowhere else to go and I continually see small businesses close in the surrounding communities, I don’t see a recovering economy.

California Residence to Pay for 911 Calls

Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 9-1-1 for a medical emergency.
But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year which allows them to call 9-1-1 as many times as necessary.
Or, there’s the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead, they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.

What a scam we have here.  Sure, most people technically pay for 911 service through taxes, and these residents of California probably pay taxes on top of these fees for the service.  But when you are giving people a “choice” such as the one above, mow much choice is there?

I’m reminded of the strange practice done by phone companies with “overage” charges, where suddenly a minute is worth 5-6 times as much because you didn’t pay for it in advance.

Now, I will give it to you that most people probably never call 911, so opting to simply not pay for the service seems like a viable options.  In fact, I have never dialed 911 in my life.

But you know this money making scam will be accompanied by PSAs and stories along the lines of “Don’t be left with a high bill in an emergency, sign up today”.  Not to mention the businesses that will be more or less forced to sign up for liability reasons.

Finally, does this fee cover any phone you call from?  If a person signs up and then calls 911 from a neighbor’s home or from their cell phone is that covered or does the neighbor get a huge honking bill when someone decides to mess with him and calls the police a dozen times while he’s away on vacation as a way of getting revenge in some suburban quarrel?

Filed under Climategate.  Who needs the approval of the Senate (aka “the people”) when you’re trying to make money on carbon trading?

While the Cap & Trade Bill sits in the senate, Obama is gearing up to use Executive Orders to put the EPA in charge of regulating Carbon emissions and the trading thereof.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html

Well why shouldn’t he?

The senate has wasted months of valuable carbon producing time on not passing this bill without which companies can’t have an excuse to trade credits and make themselves (and Al Gore) rich.

You know, I’m all for being environmentally minded and “green” but if these guys were really serious there would not be a Cap & Trade bill, there would be a Cap bill.  Cap carbon emissions at X and tell companies that every year the cap will drop by say, 5% for the next ten years.  This would give companies time to green up.  The current system doesn’t give any real incentive for being green since companies can simply buy the credits they need.

Go Pollution!

Airport Tells child to Remove Leg Braces

Four-year-old Ryan Thomas was flying from Philadelphia to Disney World in Orlando with his parents Bob and Leona when the incident occurred.

At the time Ryan, born 16 weeks prematurely with malformed ankles and low muscle tone in his legs, had only just begun to walk.

His parents wheeled his stroller to the security checkpoint then broke it down and put it on the conveyor belt.

They then walked Ryan through the metal detector. The alarm went off and the screener told them to take off the boy’s braces.

“I told them he can’t walk without them on his own,”

Really?

A Four year old crippled kid?

But it’s ok folks.  We all FEEL SAFER if we let the TSA to bull shit like this.  Because when the terrorists see that kids with leg braces are allowed through the security checkpoint then we’ll have 4 year old Taliban kids show up all over with explosives strapped to their shoes and crotches.

Maybe they should have made the Crotch Bomber take off his leg braces…. oh wait….

You know, I used to tell people that I never fly because it’s too expensive (which it is).  Thanks to the TSA for giving me an excuse that’s less whiney.