The Best Comments From The Worst Video: The Internet Vs. The NSA's Charm Offensive

from the patented-internet-'Preparation-H8'-does-nothing-for-agency-asshurt dept

The NSA continues to battle for hearts and minds, mostly aiming for those that matter (elected officials), but occasionally stepping down to street level to tell everyday Americans how they've got the spy agency all wrong.

To that end, the Dept. of Defense produced an incredibly awkward video featuring Captain James Tiberius Kirk General Keith Alexander answering a series of questions from a supposed interviewer (although her voice is never actually heard). It's all shot in a "look how open we are!" sort of way, which means seeing glimpses of the recording crew, extension cords, the back of the "interviewer's" head and, most surprisingly, Alexander without a tie.

In a thirty-minute version of the Official Talking Points, Alexander talks about how spy people are the best people and compares the Section 215 program to being forced to take a bath. He invites a discussion on how to better surveil the world while also recommending journalists publishing leaked documents be "stopped." Sadly, he doesn't invite too much discussion on this topic, although he does use the royal "we" when detailing who should be preventing journalists from performing journalism.

"We ought to come up with a way of stopping it. I don't know how to do that. That's more of the courts and the policymakers but, from my perspective, it's wrong to allow this to go on."

The strained informality of the video isn't fooling anyone. Currently, it sports a gaudy "dislike" ratio of 57:1 (280 "likes," 15,381 "dislikes").


There are also more than 4,000 comments on the video, almost every single one of them disparaging. The comments range to-the-point "screw the NSA" variations to longer, unhinged spiels tying the NSA leaks to the commenter's pet conspiracy theory. One commenter was moved to give the NSA frontman both barrels of his (presumably British) derision.


Between the expected flow of vitriol (mostly deserved), all-caps screeds/Illuminati rantings (because this is the internet) and ways to earn money at home, there are a few hidden gems.


That faux-openness? Fooling nobody. But it's amazing what a single unbuttoned button does for someone's public persona. Sure, you might feel you could have a drink with the Chief Spook, but I imagine you'd take your wallet, phone or purse to the restroom with you when nature called.

Another commenter feels the removal of the necktie doesn't go quite far enough towards making General Alexander a man of the people.


And the music (ffs!). Motherboard calls the video out for its pseudo-NOVA episode feel, asking simply "Why?" in its one word critique of the soundtrack. Alphaville refers to the music as "narco-ambient." A (misspelled?) Alex Vance gives credit where credit is due, however.


But maybe there's more to the music than simply being the first track off the first library music album grabbed by the DoD's producers.


Beyond critiquing the video's look and soundtrack, some commenters offered their impressions of Alexander himself...


as well as Alexander's preferred nickname…


and the sort of reaction the queasy music and queasier talking points recitation has on the average viewer.


I, for one, am looking forward to more awkward openness from intelligence officials in the coming months. The power of social media should be harnessed by the NSA and others (but from the outside, like the rest of us), if for no other reason than it provides immediate feedback on the credibility of the talking points. Sure, the NSA may learn nothing from this experience, but if it thought the country was fairly evenly split on the merits of intrusive surveillance, it can look to its 57:1 dislike ratio for further guidance. Even Texas Governor Rick Perry's atrocious presidential campaign video only sports a dislike ratio of 29:1, and that video criticizes gays in the military and complains about the separation of church and state.

Perhaps the next video could be Clapper, Comey, Alexander, Michael Hayden and Stewart Baker "casually" discussing the merits of broad surveillance programs while playing poker, sitting on lawn furniture, taking a nature hike or closing a field office. Maybe some "citizens" could be on tap to ask "natural-sounding" softballs about how 9/11 was caused by civil liberties groups or how basement-dwelling losers shouldn't expect to be allowed into "adult" discussions on intelligence policies -- you know, whatever it takes to turn public opinion around.

Filed Under: dod, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance, propaganda, youtube

Copyright As Censorship Again: Game Developer Takes Down Scathing YouTube Review

from the and-all-hell-breaks-loose dept

All weekend long folks have been submitting variations on this story of how a company called Wild Games Studio had issued a copyright takedown on an apparently scathing review of one of its games, called Day One: Garry's Incident, done on YouTube by popular gaming reviewer TotalBiscuit (whose name is apparently John Bain in real life). A bunch of articles have been written about this, but the best, by far, is the video explanation Total Biscuit put up himself about the situation. It's about 14 minutes long (7 minutes if you use HTML 5 and speed things up), but well worth it: This video is great on so many levels. First, it explains the basics of the situation and why it's a pure abuse of copyright law. Second, it shows how the head of Wild Games Studio, named "Stephane," both gave him permission (giving him a code for the game, as well as stating publicly that people are free to "make YouTubes" of the game) and then lied about it all, by claiming the takedown was "because Total Biscuit has no right to make advertising revenues with our license." That's legally wrong on so many levels. First of all, not only did Stephane pretty clearly give permission for all this to happen, fair use is pretty clear here as well. The use was for reporting and criticism. Furthermore, TotalBiscuit highlights a bunch of other monetized videos involving the same game that Wild Games Studio did not take down.

But, from there, TotalBiscuit's video gets even more impressive. He doesn't just Streisand Effect Wild Games Studio, calling more attention to the content that the company tried to censor, but he digs into a bunch of other shady practices by the company, including (badly) astroturfing reviews, and accusations that they tried to pump up their Kickstarter campaign (for the same game) by (1) having the CEO of the company pledge $10,000 upfront, and (2) having others pledge high amounts and withdraw them later (suggesting that it was just to make it look like there was momentum for the campaign).

TotalBiscuit doesn't stop there. Next up he calls out YouTube for having a system like this, where censorship can occur so easily based on wholly bogus copyright claims. He points out that YouTube needs to do more to not allow these kinds of things to happen. Of course, YouTube is in a tough spot, seeing as they're also getting slammed by the legacy entertainment industry for not making it even easier to block content on the site.

Finally, he promises that any ad revenue earned from both the video above and the original one that was taken down, will be donated to the EFF, because the EFF remains awesome and continues to fight against such abuse.

After all of this, Wild Games Studio's "Stephane" says that "after seeing all the negative impact today we decided to withdraw our complaint to YouTube." That's an incredibly weak response. It's the equivalent of "if you were offended, I apologize." It's not taking responsibility for the blatant censorship or other abusive behaviors.

And yet there are still some people out there who insist that copyright is never used to censor.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, fair use, review, streisand effect, totalbiscuit, youtube
Companies: wild games studio

YouTube Kills Livestream Of Convention When Audience Starts Singing 'Happy Birthday'

from the more-territorial-pissing-from-warner-music dept

Nothing kills an event hosted by YouTube (and other streaming services) quicker than a spontaneous rendition of the song everyone sings when it's someone's birthday, but yet somehow "belongs" solely to Warner Music. Granted, this didn't actually kill CitizenCon 2013, an event put together by RSI (Roberts Space Industries), the company behind persistent MMO Star Citizen (which is still in development), for its fans.

Wesha sends in a short note pointing out that YouTube killed the stream a little over an hour in because the crowd sang Happy Birthday to one of the team members. ("Infringement" begins at approximately 1:02:00.)

The recording of the event has been uploaded with the offending tune removed, a tune that should be in the public domain by this point. RSI learned via YouTube's content bot patrol that the song clearly isn't public domain, at least as far as Warner Music and YouTube are concerned, even if there are strong legal challenges to the song's copyright status.

The uploaded video contains a short note about the suddenly-disappearing stream and has replaced the familiar birthday tune with something even more forgettable -- a light-jazz guitar piece that sounds like a rejected cut from the latest "Now That's What I Call NPR Bumper Music!" compilation.

So, Warner Music and YouTube safely prevented anyone viewing the stream from hearing an unlicensed version of a song familiar to millions and sung by the "original" artists almost never.

But should Warner Music be happy with this swift response? I assume it is. There's really nothing to be gained from the song at this point but ill-gotten licensing fees. If it lets one unlicensed use slip by, everyone else will be looking for the same treatment. There's no market to expand here and no new fans of the Hill sisters "work" (even though it's pretty clear that it wasn't written by the Hill sisters) to be gained.

On the other hand, overly-zealous bot patrols could very easily damage a future market. Tim K sends in this story of an eight-year-old Kanye West track climbing the charts thanks to a viral video featuring his song "Gone."

Kanye West debuts on the Hot 100 this week with a song that's eight years old. "Gone" (featuring Cam'ron and Consequence), from West's 2005 sophomore album "Late Registration," starts at No. 18 after a YouTube clip featuring the song as a backing track went viral…

The song's revival started when Marina Shifrin, a writer and comedian, quit her job as a video editor by creating a video for her boss in which she dances around her deserted office (at 4:30 a.m.) to the appropriately-themed "Gone."

The video racked up 15 million views and West's track climbed into the top 20 (of the Hot 100 chart), nearly a decade after its release. Had the bots been as aggressively "trained" as Warner's birthday patrol, West's track would have remained where it was -- an eight-year-old track with a very limited market.


Sure, this isn't quite as heartwarming as a small indie artist hitting it big thanks to internet virality, but it does go to show that aggressive responses to infringement can damage future sales. If nothing else, it further lines West's pockets, possibly moving him closer to his dream of speedily delivered croissants.

Filed Under: citizencon, content id, copyright, happy birthday, livestream, youtube
Companies: roberts space industries, warner music, youtube

YouTube Tells User He Can Directly Resolve Copyright Claim By Contacting Himself

from the bots-also-observed-running-low-level-snipe-hunts dept

When bots handle copyright enforcement, things are sometimes going to get screwed up. YouTube's various algorithms do a lot of heavy lifting, sorting through the thousands of hours of video being uploaded every minute. Sooner or later, the bots hit a snag, as any automated process will during multiple iterations. But Hugh Atkin's video, which utilizes John William's instantly-recognizable opening theme from Star Wars, triggered a copyright claim from SME (Sony Music Entertainment)... and a conundrum. (h/t to Nate Hoffelder)

Here's what he received for resolution advice from the YouTube helper bots.

Hello,

Thank you for your message.

The claimant has reviewed your dispute and reaffirmed its claim to your video. Specifics of the policy applied to your video are in the Copyright Notices section of your YouTube account.

You may click the underlined link to the right of the video's Edit menu to learn more about this claim.

If you are certain this claim was made in error, you may be able to appeal the claimant’s decision. Eligible users will see an “I want to appeal a disputed claim” link. Please note that an appeal may result in a copyright strike and the removal of your video.

Alternately, you may resolve this issue directly with the claimant at [MY EMAIL ADDRESS]@gmail.com

Please note that YouTube does not mediate copyright disputes.

Regards,
The YouTube Copyright Team

That's right. The dispute notices are coming from inside the house!

Whatever glitched in the dispute process managed to make Atkin's both the master of his own destiny and the victim of his own copyright dispute. The problem can't be resolved as it stands, at least not to Atkin's satisfaction. SME has reaffirmed its claim and lobbed the ball back into Atkin's court, apparently permanently.

Atkin has since fired off a reply to YouTube pointing out the error and asking for contact info he doesn't already possess (in every definition of the word), but so far has heard nothing back.

Now, Atkin could turn this over to YouTube via the appeals process, but that's largely automated and would result in a ruling in SME's favor (Sony Music distributes John William's Star Wars soundtrack work). Sony seems to have a valid claim as far as the use of William's track. Running this through YouTube's appeal process is almost guaranteed to earn Atkin a "strike."

Atkin appears to want to work around this automation (since it doesn't seem to be working properly) by attempting direct communication, but Sony's response team will probably be even less "human" about the alleged infringement than YouTube's bot swarm (both those scanning for infringement and those "manning" the help lines).

Unfortunately, a "strike" may be inevitable. No matter how well Atkin pleads his case to himself, he doesn't have the power to grant himself the permissions he's seeking. And with no contact information forthcoming, the clock will run out before he can extricate himself from this loop.

Filed Under: copyright, takedown, youtube
Companies: sony music

Least Surprising Thing Ever: Manhattan Speedster Afroduck Arrested

from the told-you dept

Well, that didn't take long. Remember that jackwagon that sped around Manhattan in a mega-illegal time-window of just over twenty-four minutes? Remember how he was all: pssh, you can't identify me! Remember how Ray Kelly decided to declare his own personal war on a man named Afroduck, proving that reality is way more insane than anything you can think of from Adult Swim?

Yeah, he got busted, and it only took a day or so.

ABC 7 News was on hand to see Afroduck get taken into custody early this morning at the 25th Precinct in East Harlem. They report that [Christopher Adam] Tang is 30 years old. He gives no comment to the reporters, and he smiles.

The report goes on to say that no details were given on how they found Tang or tied him to the dash cam video he uploaded, but when Ray Kelly boasted that they have license plate cameras for that kind of thing, he wasn't lying. Commenters in the original piece noted that the fact Tang wasn't pulled over as he went about his speed run seemed like a complete lack of police presence, but there's no shortage of license plate and traffic cams.

It will be interesting to see how an arrest based so heavily on evidence from this kind of technology, assuming we don't learn of some other method for the identification of Tang, is used in court. Until then, stop making speed runs in the country's largest city.

Filed Under: afroduck, nypd, ray kelly, speeding, youtube

Dumb Speeding Criminal Decides To Post Manhattan Speed Run Video Online

from the not-going-to-end-well dept

Ray Kelly is the NYPD Commissioner with a heart of gold and a severe case of the flip-flops when it comes to how security technology in his city is used. The potential DHS chief candidate is a huge fan of the complete failure known as "stop and frisk", as well as all the cameras and license plate readers the city has at its disposal, except when that technology is turned towards his officers. It's classic Orwellian thinking, in which LEOs and the government get all the toys while you have to find the blind spots in all the cameras just to write in your journal. That journal these days meaning the internet, which of course doesn't really offer any blind spots.

And that's how we get headlines today about Ray Kelly apparently declaring war on someone going by the handle AfroDuck, which is exactly the comic relief the world needs right now. Who is AfroDuck, you ask? Well, he or she is an idiot who decided to circumnavigate Manhattan, a twenty-six-plus mile trip, in just twenty-four minutes. Then, because idiocy and internet-braggery go hand in hand like spaghetti and meatballs, AfroDuck uploaded a dash-cam video of the feat to the internet.

The anonymous speed demon averaged about 66 mph during the late-night circuit, which was captured on a dramatic dashboard-cam video and posted to YouTube under the username AfroDuckProduction. The drive breaks the previous mark of 26 minutes set in 2010. In both runs, the drivers cut out the top of Manhattan above the Cross Bronx Expressway.

So, let's make this clear up front: this was a stupid thing to do. And, no, I'm not going to listen to anyone tell me about how a good driver can do this safely, or how over-protective we've become as a society. Shut up, you're wrong. This is Manhattan and you shouldn't be making speed runs, period, paragraph, full stop. And, while AfroDuck is getting the headlines for this, it should be noted that this isn't a particularly new concept. A few years ago, Wired covered a driver who was trying to break the cross-country driving record, noting that earlier on, he'd been focused on doing a similar speed shot around Manhattan.

Having said that, AfroDuck may have a serious problem.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly promised to hunt down the dangerous driver, saying, “We now have license-plate readers in the city that will assist in this type of investigation.”

Other reports have officers stating that Ray Kelly has "declared war on AfroDuck" and plans on using all of that shiny awesome tech at his disposal to go after the speed demon. And, if their willingness to use stop and frisk as a law enforcement technique is any indication, I doubt the NYPD will mind terribly utilizing all of those license plate cameras to build at least a reckless driving case against him.

“You frankly can’t identify who I am by just looking at the video,” AfroDuck boasted to the car-geek Web site Jalopnik about his Aug. 26 ride, “and records were meant to be broken.” AfroDuck used a 2006 BMW Z4 for the breakneck drive.

That may be, but the NYPD likely can review all the cameras they have to find the license plate of the Z4 that was barreling through Manhattan sometime in the past few weeks and that plate will point them back to AfroDuck. As I said, this driver is an idiot, but it might be new territory to have the chief of police going after an individual simply for bragging online about a speed run and then using all kinds of new technology to do it. It's a brave new surveillance state world, friends, which means you just can't brag about your dumb crimes online anymore.

Filed Under: afroduck, manhattan, nyc, ray kelly, speeding, videos, youtube

Fake Cable Ad Apparently Hits Too Close To Home; Bogus Defamation Claim Censors Video In Canada

from the what-is-defamatory? dept

Back in March, we had written about an absolutely hilarious fake cable ad by the good folks at Extremely Decent Films. It's funny, and you can watch it again here... if you're not in Canada: Why not in Canada? It appears that YouTube has pulled the video based on a defamation claim. I confirmed this by logging into a Canadian server on my VPN, and got the following: This raises all sorts of questions, none of them good. There's nothing defamatory in the video at all. I don't care how ridiculous Canada's defamation laws are (and they are kind of ridiculous), this video isn't defaming anything. It doesn't name a particular cable company, and it's clearly parody anyway. It makes no statements of fact about any particular cable company anyway. Furthermore, it's clearly focused on the US, not Canada (at 24 seconds it shows a map of the US). So, it seems like an interesting question to know who made the defamation claim against the video? Furthermore, this is the first time I've seen that particular error message on a YouTube video (it's usually a copyright claim). I'm curious as to how carefully YouTube reviews the defamation claims and if the counternotice process is the same as with a copyright claim. Either way, it seems like whoever decided to file such a claim on the video basically decided to censor a video because they don't like what it says... and, of course, that's only going to serve to give it that much more attention (yet again).

Update: YouTube has now reinstated the video, telling us: "Sometimes we make the wrong call. When it's brought to our attention that a video has been removed or blocked mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it." It's still not clear who made the original defamation claim, unfortunately.

Filed Under: cable, canada, censorship, defamation, parody, takedown, youtube

TV Station Issues DMCA Takedowns On Videos Of Its Fake Asian Pilot Names Debacle

from the PLEASE-BRING-PUBLIC-ATTENTION-BACK-TO-OUR-SCREWUP dept

Oh, copyright, you crazy set of mixed-up laws? Is there anything you can't censor?

The DMCA system is at it again, being beaten like a rented mule in order to perform a duty for which it was never intended.

Local San Francisco television news station KTVU has embarked on a novel use of copyright law to cover up embarrassing footage. It has been issuing takedown notices to YouTube for videos showing its anchor literally reading fake names of pilots involved in the recent airline crash at San Francisco International Airport.

While it's true that KTVU owns the rights to the footage of its anchor maintaining a straight face while reading a list of bad jokes, it insists this has nothing to do with flexing its copyright muscle in order to cover up its bad judgment.

While many of the videos of the segment were still live on Google-owned YouTube, the reason why the Fox affiliate has been demanding their removal doesn’t concern copyright.

“The accidental mistake we made was insensitive and offensive. By now, most people have seen it. At this point, continuing to show the video is also insensitive and offensive, especially to the many in our Asian community who were offended. Consistent with our apology, we are carrying through on our responsibility to minimize the thoughtless repetition of the video by others,” the station’s general manager and vice president, Tom Raponi, told Mediabistro today.

First things first. If you're not taking it down for copyright reasons, then why the hell are you using the DMCA takedown system? Noah H. Webster, it's got "COPYRIGHT" right in the frickin' name! Wouldn't a polite note to the YouTube account holders stating the above accomplish the same thing (i.e., a minimal level of compliance)?

As for the arguing it should be removed because "most people have seen it," I don't even know where to go with that. Continuing to show the video isn't "offensive." Only the original act is. Pretending this has something to do with making amends for an earlier error is just kind of sad, especially when the station manager tries to drag viewers into his Shame Circle with "thoughtless repetition of the video by others."

Also: "accidental mistakes" are the best kind. Also, the only kind.

The station manager wants to censor a video while claiming he isn't censoring it, as though yanking it from YouTube with admittedly bogus DCMA takedowns is just part of being a good, sensitive citizen. But by doing this, Raponi is only making it worse. If he just could have left it alone for a few more weeks, something else would have come along to take its place in the publi— OMG! Someone in England had a baby!

But now he's blown it.

This is the internet. No one puts embarrassment in the corner.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, crash, dmca, ktvu, youtube
Companies: asiana

Clueless State AGs Attack Google Over YouTube Videos Instead Of Pursuing The Criminals Who Made Them

from the seriously,-guys? dept

We've been writing a fair bit lately on the incredible anti-innovation, anti-free speech views of various states' attorneys general, who seem to be doing anything they can to get themselves shoved into the headlines by making completely bogus threats against internet companies for things their users do. The latest takes this level of pure cluelessness to new heights. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt win our award for "extremely clueless politicians of the week" for their latest misguided, mis-targeted, harmful and backwards attack on YouTube and Google. Basically because some people somewhere have used YouTube to post videos and these AGs think this will get them into the headlines, they're blaming Google.

After viewing a series of videos promoting dangerous activities such as the sale of illegal drugs, fraudulent passports and sex trafficking on YouTube, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt asked YouTube's parent company, Google, to provide more information on how much the company has profited from videos.

Right. I'm wondering when Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt are going to demand that Ford explain why bank robbers use their cars as escape vehicles, or when Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt are going to demand that AT&T explain why extortionists have used their phone services.

Let's go through this nonsense step by step, because it's really beyond the pale. First off, it takes a special kind of cluelessness for two attorneys general, who are supposed to help their states enforce the law, to be shown videos that disclose crimes being committed and rather than go after those committing the crimes, instead decide to blame the tool that revealed the crimes to them. This is beyond blaming the messenger. This is blaming the manufacturer of a video camera because it was used to tape a crime which the AGs failed to stop. It's beyond a head in the sand approach. It's putting your head in the sand and then blaming the sky for shining light on your ass.

Second, there's an important bit of federal law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides pretty clear safe harbors for service providers such that that they are not liable for actions committed by their users. In other words, there's no legal issue here for the AGs to grandstand about, even as they're hoping to get a personal exception to Section 230 that just applies to state AGs. Threatening companies over things for which they are not legally liable is extreme bullying by politicians who have way too much power.

Third, if the videos themselves are illegal, then there is a clear process by which those who found the videos can seek to get them taken off the site. If the videos are not illegal, as seems likely to be the case, then they're protected by the First Amendment, and these attacks from government officials seeking to stifle free speech really seem to raise serious questions about the competence of these Attorneys General to enforce the law in their own states, when they appear to be somewhat unfamiliar with both Constitutional basics and the federal laws that bind them.

Fourth, as it stands more than 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. If there's some magic way that these politicians think that each and every one of those videos can be pre-vetted to make sure nothing that they don't like gets uploaded, they don't understand basic math. The alternative, of course, is not to have the ability to have any user-generated content exist online at all. In other words, the "solution" is to kill what makes the internet and things like YouTube useful. Way to go, Jon Bruning and Scott Pruitt. I'm sure your constituents will be thrilled to know that your big accomplishment was to make sure that you killed YouTube and all of their ability to make and share their own content.

In other words, this is an extremely misguided move by two state politicians who are making themselves look incredibly foolish, because someone spread some moral panic FUD about "drugs and sex on YouTube!" And who's responsible for that? Ah, yes, an astroturfing group out of Washington, DC designed to create moral panics around Google:

Digital Citizens Alliance Executive Director Tom Galvin, who presented a detailed report to the National Association of Attorneys General on YouTube last month, made the following remarks after the letter was released:

"Google has allowed thousands of videos to exist on YouTube that offer drugs, prostitution, forged passports, counterfeits and content theft. Worse, they have profited from them by running ads in conjunction with these videos. Hopefully, the attorneys general will be able to get answers others have failed to get. Namely why such an important, otherwise great company is putting profit over the safety of Internet users. When Google finally takes steps to ensure these dangerous videos are gone for good from YouTube, the Internet will be a safer place."

Okay, well, here's the obvious response: Digital Citizens Alliance Executive Director Tom Galvin has allowed bogus, censorious, anti-innovation screeds to be sent by states' attorneys general. Worse, they have promoted this FUD-filled exercise with PR spam blasts to reporters trying to generate bogus faux-moral panics to promote their own anti-innovation agenda. Hopefully, the public and reporters will be able to get answers that others have failed to get. Namely, why such an obvious bullshit astroturfing group is putting anti-innovation, anti-free speech policies into the mouths of states attorneys general, and doing so in a manner that only leads to it being more difficult for law enforcement to track down actual criminals. When the Digital Citizens Alliance finally takes steps to ensure that it stops these bogus moral panics in targeting third parties and driving the actual crimes further underground, the internet will be a safer place.

As you can see from the full letter that these guys sent, they're demanding answers to various questions, almost all of which appear to be based on flat-out ignorance of both how the technology of offering a platform for user-generated content works, as well as the automatic nature of internet advertising. Attacking a company by showing your own ignorance of the very basic technology, enjoyed by millions of people, doesn't seem like a particularly wise strategic political move by these attorneys general.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, jon bruning, scott pruitt, secondary liability, section 230, tom galvin, youtube
Companies: digital citizens alliance, google, youtube

How Important Are YouTube Game Videos To Game Companies?

from the really-freaking-important dept

While it hasn't been a crescendo, there's been some noise recently about how accepting video game publishers and related industries are in allowing YouTube videos that feature their content. Granted, most publishers seem perfectly fine in allowing such videos, but there have been reports of take down notices going out as well. Of course, there was also a recent dust up between let's-play-ers and Nintendo, which opted into YouTube's ContentID platform. With all of the resulting hand-wringing over who is greedy, who is a thief, and whether all of this is heavy handed, the question that hasn't really been asked is: are YouTube videos of this nature good for gaming companies?

To answer that question, Google recently did a study dissecting how gamers use YouTube. The results, summarized by Kotaku, indicate that game publishers might not want to slaughter this cash cow. Some of the results are mildly impressive, such as the revelation that 95% of gamers watch YouTube videos about games. More interesting findings are that a full 47% of game videos were let's-play videos, while 50% of views were of videos released directly by the publishers. However, the most important bits are these two:

• The most popular clips on YouTube aren't announcement trailers; they're reviews.
• A staggering 1 in 3 views for gaming clips took place on a mobile device, Google hypothesizing that much of these were "second screen" views, done while gaming on a TV or PC for things like FAQs.

In other words, YouTube videos play two key roles for gamers. First, they are used to help potential customers decide whether to buy or not. Intuitive, yes, but consider what would happen if publishers insisted on the removal of these reviews and let's-plays. No videos and lost customers, because gamers would flock instead to those games that did have those videos available. Second, gamers use YouTube videos as tools once they've bought the game. This is the classic case of someone else making use of your content in a way that makes your content instantly more valuable. Were I to present the average gamer with two choices, first being a game in which you could find help on YouTube if you get stuck, and second, a game in which you could not find such help, I think it's pretty clear which route most gamers would go, everything else being equal.

The lesson here is less that YouTube game videos are awesome (though they are) and more about how important it is for content creators to just let go. Not only are these gaming videos not doing you any harm, they're helping you in ways you may not have considered.

Filed Under: game videos, let's play, youtube