Archive

Posts Tagged ‘YouTube Bad Acts’

YouTube’s Five Lies Redux: Here is a Sixth

June 21, 2016 Comments off

We are grateful to eagle eyed MTP reader asdfasdfasdf who posted this comment that I thought was important and warranted its own post.  (asdfasdfasdf is known to us for you MTP comment policy mavens, so don’t start with me.)  This would qualify as Lie #6 or at least #5A.

Independent artists can *not* use Content ID via companies like Tunecore or Audiam:

The vast majority of all recording artists today use commercially cleared and 100% legitimate, but non-exclusive samples from common keyboards, synthesizers, drum kits and commercial sample libraries such as Kontakt or BFD.

And that kind of cleared, legitimate content is a no-no for aggregators like Audiam.

How do I know that?

I asked all these companies (Audiam, Tunecore and CDBaby) about their policies on
cleared samples – and they all have the same rules.

Here’s what Tunecore said:

“You cannot submit tracks to YouTube for revenue collection that
Contain any audio library samples, sound effects, or production loops
(such as GarageBand loops) -Contain any third party content that you
do not have exclusively licensed (such as samples you do not have
exclusively licensed)”

I also asked Audiam if they had the same rules as Tunecore:

”Yes, you must exclusively control the rights to the
content you submit. These rules are not set by Tunecore or Audiam, but
by Youtube.”

[Audiam’s reply was not correct, however: YouTube does indeed allow artists to monetize tracks that include the type of non-exclusive legitimate samples I mention here, but content owners need to sign up with Content ID directly, as opposed to using a middle man, and most indies can’t do that so we’re back to square one.]

And CD Baby has similar rules:

“As far as YouTube goes you would have to monetize the content on your
own as we can not monetize this type of content [i.e. legitimate and
cleared but non-exclusive samples] as it is often disputed or
removed.”

Google Distributing Another Terrorist Propaganda Video

March 26, 2015 Comments off

Right on cue, Google’s YouTube video monopoly platform is distributing yet another terrorist propaganda video:

According to The Long War Journal:

The Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, has released another video showing its fighters using American-made TOW missiles. As The Long War Journal reported earlier this week, Al Nusrah released a video featuring a TOW missile attack in the early hours of the jihadists’ newly-launched offensive against Syrian regime forces in the city of Idlib.

Al Nusrah continues to use the weapons against Bashar al Assad’s forces. Earlier today, Al Nusrah released the video shown above on one of its official Twitter feeds.

These guys know who they can count on to distribute their aspirational jihad videos, the “catch me if you can” video network being pumped right into your house right now.

“ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube…”

March 3, 2015 3 comments

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid it down today in his speech to a joint meeting of Congress:

“ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube…”

This will come as no surprise to MTP readers as we have been hammering this issue for a long, long time.  And of course YouTube has gotten away with it so far, just like Google has with so many of its bad acts. Thanks to sharp reporting by Laurie Segall at CNN Money this story got on their air:

Jennifer Aniston lauds the benefits of Aveeno, Bud Light shows off beer at a concert, and Secret sells its freshly scented deodorant.

Pretty standard commercials, but what’s different is the content that comes after. In this case, they’re all followed by ISIS and jihadi videos.

Terrorism analyst Mubin Shaikh said one video is part of an ongoing propaganda series that ISIS produces and another is a jihadi-themed video.

Video sites like YouTube sell ad time to companies, and the ads get automatically inserted before the videos play. Advertisers don’t directly control where their ads are placed although they can specify the demographics they’d like to target.

“From a contract perspective, these corporations that are paying lots of money to get YouTube clicks may not be that pleased when they find out that their video is placed right before an ISIS recruitment video,” legal analyst Danny Cevallos said.

Though some videos may not violate YouTube’s policy against inciting violence, they might not be appropriate for advertising.

It’s almost impossible to know how many companies’ ads have run before videos like this, but at least two companies were unhappy with the content pairing.

“We were unaware that one of our ads ran in conjunction with this video,” a vice president of consumer connections at Anheuser-Busch (AHBIF) told CNNMoney after reviewing one of the videos that played one of its ads. “We have strict guidelines with our media partners that govern when and how our ads appear. We are working with YouTube and our media buying agency, Mediacom, to understand and rectify the matter.”

“Our ads should not have appeared and we’re working with YouTube to understand how it happened and to avoid it happening again,” said Paul Fox, director of corporate communications at Procter & Gamble (PG).

Really.  “Avoid it happening again”?  Exactly how does P&G intend to do that?  Not letting the advertiser control where their ad shows up is YouTube’s business model.  It’s not a design defect, it’s a feature.

This is what you call a duped advertiser–you know–someone like this:

Obama

But aren’t duped advertisers exactly the kind of person that is protected by most states’ unfair business practices and consumer protection laws.  Oh right–Google is suing a state attorney general to stop exactly this kind of investigation.  Why?

Because they’re on the Internet.  They’re special.

%d bloggers like this: