Slashdot Mirror
Adverts Mysteriously Appended to YouTube Clips
hey0you0guy writes "For the past few months copyrighted clips of shows have been edited to include advertisements for Gawker Media. These clips have been uploaded to the video sharing site YouTube by a user going by the handle Belowtheradar. These clips are then being linked to by Gawker itself: 'Gawker.com, for example, on Thursday featured a YouTube clip from ABC's talk show The View. At the beginning of the video, there is an ad for Gawker. On Wednesday, Valleywag posted a link to a video of television satirist Stephen Colbert talking about Wikipedia. At the beginning of that video there is an ad for Valleywag, a blog dedicated to Silicon Valley gossip.' CNet contacted the copyright holders for the videos (which range from NBC to Apple), and mostly received responses of 'we're looking into it.' At least two groups did confirm they did not give permission for this kind of advertisement."
n/m
A "Ilikebees" kind of stealth advertising.
I always knew that advertisers wanted eyeballs, but wouldnt think they'd gunk up a free vid site. Guess thats just high bandwidth spammers.
Corporations stoop to cheap, possible illegal advertizing gimics.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
We all know they have to come up with an interesting way to pay for all of the copyright lawsuits that are forthcoming.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
i wonder how they got there. i wonder if anyone will ever know. maybe leonard nimoy will do a show about it.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The problem will only get worse as (a) YouTube starts paying users to upload content (b) users keep uploading unauthorized copies of shows and (c) YouTube starts needing to generate profits and adds more advertisements such as pre- and post-stream ads.
Why is this a problem? Now, instead of simply a DMCA takedown notice, YouTube is far more liable for damages because they made a direct profit off of the usage of unauthorized content. The users are more liable, too, since they will make a profit from YouTube.
They didn't cause a bomb scare.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
I know people (if that's what you can call them) have been spamming for years, even before the internet - with telemarketers, junk mail and people handing out leaflets. But isn't this the first instance of someone advertising on ANOTHER person's content? With TV ads, the money advertisers give the station is given (in part) to the content providers.. junk mailers pay for their own paper, and even spam doesn't piggyback on legitimate emails (for the most part). IMHO, this is one of the lowest things they've done to date - they are completely destroying the already shaky advertising process by not themselves contributing towards their advertising costs (ie not paying content), ignoring the very minimal video editing and uploading costs). This isn't just another spam scam..
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
I really hope this is not going to be come common practice on Youtube. One of the reasons why Youtube is so great (and also probably why it is so successful) is because there are no pre-video ads. I hope that pre-video ads are only played if the user who is submitting the video chooses them to be played as part of some revenue sharing program that has been thrown around lately.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
I'm in ur tube... advertizing ur vid3oz
Playing Devil's advocate I'd say this is a smaller scale version of what YouTube itself did. YouTube advertised itself with "borrowed" content to become famous and increase net value.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I bet there's no way for an uploader to declare their content advert-free.
No one saw this coming? Free is not a business model.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I assume a lot of people just click through the terms and conditions, but as a perpetual cynic (and coming from a family of legal folk), I generally have a quick read through. Here's an interesting excerpt from youtube terms
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business,
So, big surprise ! They've got a derievative work with an ad all over it. And I asked a lawyer. She said that that's pretty standard boilerplate, except hardly anyone modifies your content to include ads. The delivery of ads has been traditionally out of band of the content stream, but this makes sense.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
1) Where's the "mysterious" part? Someone's putting ads into the clip before uploading them. Nothing "mysterious."
2) Appending means they're being tacked onto the end. If they're being added at the beginning, they're being prepended. Next time save the embarrassment and just say "added."
rooooar
A lot of the mp3's I've downloaded lately have been tagged at the beginning of the song with a blurb for a particular website.. rhythmbox just loaded a Lupee Fiasco track (Kick & Push) and at the beginning there is some ridiculous advertisement for ******game.com (I will not advertise anymore for those cocksucking fucking bastards.) Capitalism is a beautiful thing but it sometimes brings out the sleaziest aspects of people. I suggest violent drive-by murder as an answer to this problem, some people only understand Force.. Taxi Driver .357 magnum crazy ass cracker kind of Brutal Force. America needs more of it.
RUN!
Best Slashdot Co
The knee-jerk reaction is obviously to sue and see what happens.
So we all just wait until a network sues, then see what happens.
The government can't save you.
Need I say more?
The clock is ticking down to the collapse of YouTube and similar sites, or the transformation of these sites into something quite different. The main problem here again is the fact that stuff gets posted without any real humans looking at it ahead of time. They can build all of the filters they want, we've already seen this with the old Napster. Unless postings are moderated before appearing, copyright abuses will continue to happen. Appended ads are just the latest twist. Eventually the courts are going to force YouTube to put the brakes on and humanly review all posted content, which, of course, will take a lot of time and change the way people use YouTube.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
How youtube is going to pay contributors...
I think on the one hand, Gawker Media has gotten a *lot* of publicity from this - particularly after being discovered. Every news story on the incident has a link to their web page. But on the other hand, they now face a barrage of legal battles after admitting publicly that the uploader (belowtheradar) is '[their] video guy...'.
I doubt anybody will follow in their footsteps once the courts make an example of them, and that is very likely to happen.
In related news, The halfwit blowhard Amanda Congdon managed to get her little 'quote' of disdain in to the news article above ; so it's official, every worthless media-wh0&e not worth watching has gotten their 15 minutes of fame. Way to push the story.
---
speaking of 15 minutes of fame.
Ace
Do a search for 'Terry Tate' on youtube and you will see actual full length commercials posted.
What's mysterious about "user adds ads to video before uploading" ?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"These clips are then being linked to by Gawker itself: 'Gawker.com, for example, on Thursday featured a YouTube clip from ABC's talk show The View. At the beginning of the video, there is an ad for Gawker."
If they are linking to the videos from the site that the ads are for, wouldn't people obviously already know about the site?!?
Marketing for marketing sake?
99 out of 100 people can be well behaved, but it takes only one asshat to stink up the whole place and make the experience miserable for everyone and ruin a forum's value or attract unwanted attention
newsgroups, email, many news aggregator sites (not slashdot, thankfully): all it takes is 1 or 2 committed asshats to ruin the fun for everyone else. usually advertising and spam. they see their own aggrandizement at the sake of everyone else's misery, and they choose to make everyone else miserable for the sake of something selfish and smammler in importance
it's predictable and inevitable that any utopian scheme that relies on everyone to behave nicely will fail. there's always one a**hole who will act like an a**hole. it's pretty much guaranteed. human nature is what it is. there's no vhanging or getting around it's good, it's bad, and it's ugly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It must have something to do with that "opinion center" on Slashdot. Can somebody Tivo the Internet for me? Thanks.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"' CNet contacted the copyright holders for the videos (which range from NBC to Apple), and mostly received responses of 'we're looking into it.' At least two groups did confirm they did not give permission for this kind of advertisement."
The two groups went on to say "And we are kicking ourselves for not thinking of it first!"
"But this one goes to 11!"
Ahhhmmm, excuse me. Gosh, I just hate to bodder you. But, ahm, you know what really confuses me? The ads are there! YouTube put them there. How about that? Ahhhh well, it's probably nothing. Sorry to have boddered you.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
I hate that nowadays, if something exists, it MUST be advertised on. Hell, they even have trucks that drive around just to display ads. Not to mention the oh so smart people who get ads tatoo'd on themselves. I can understand that advertising can generate revenue, but there is a point where it becomes so obtrusive and annoying that it makes me not want to buy the product.
Then again, people do say 'there is no such thing as bad publicity', and I just hope they are wrong. Let me live my life without advertisements everywhere I look, please.
Have you tried reporting them to the Detroit PD? If you can find blinking lights in any of the videos... :-)
There's actually a very good reason for this. Gawker put the ads in front of the clips to prevent other blogs from using the video without giving Gawker props. Gawker essentially attempted to declare a limited form of ownership. They tried to have their cake and eat it, too: Offloading the video hosting costs to YouTube while trying to say "No one else can use our videos without paying the toll."
This is the reverse of the eBaum's World business strategy. eBaum's just strips copyrights and watermarks from the videos that they steal. I wonder how long it'll take until an enterprising young author gets ripped off and takes them for a few million.
you can never get rid of asocial idiocy, but if you design the system well enough, a la slashdot's comment system and wikipedia in general, you can reduce it to the level of a fart in the wind, rather than a whole love canal sized boondoggle
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you are hosting the file, and distributing it freely, how is it illegal to display an ad just before it? Lots of video sites display banner ads, and many others will display a short advertisement clip before the video itself loads. Are these also illegal?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
What's mysterious about this? Did anyone actually expect people uploading other people's material to YouTube to be ethical?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
You left out this one:
I'm in ur base, killing ur d00dz
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
This user is actually spending time edit, rendering and compressing a video to contain an ad. Is putting an ad in a video illegal?
/user/belowtheradar
0 1bbnnews326.jpeg
Make his life hell.
Remove his account.
Hi my name is belowtheradar I have posted 69 videos 33 with advertisements:
rm -rf
Besides the article said he was uploading copyright videos. That's not necessarilly a crime itself, someone MAY have certain permission to use copyrighted videos. But the details are gonna be tough to know if belowtheradar had such permissions, and by who. Personally the whole thing sounds like belowtheradar is
getting paid by Gawker Media. (Perhaps they are the ones that should be held liable.) It's easier to just remove the account. Nobody wants the ads anyway right? This is why I hate Corporate Media. They don't belong on YouTube.
The other thing that is funny in the article is that ABC, "doesn't have a problem with a fan posting."
I got an idea, BAN Gawker Media *.* from Google, YouTube and ABC. How hard it be to find the IPS.
Let the fans rip the ABC crap! The lesson here is, "Don't put no ads in your uploaded copyrighted shit. It might draw attention to you."
The article failed to mention the email for ABC's video promotion, so we all can get permission to use ABC's shit.
Aamnda Congdon works for Gawker Media. Not ABC. right? Although she seems to have a thing for ABC eh? Citizen Journalist?
she's all over Rocketboom, HBO, etc. Someone must have had it in for poor old amanda. I wonder who's toes she stepped on. Probably something man. Taser guns? Rosie vs. Trumph, Big Oil?
I bet if you dig a little deeper, theres something there. Does she work for ABC or not?
ILLEGALLY JAILED VIDEO JOURNALISTS IN THE US AND MEXICO.
Ahh FOUND IT!
There it is!!!
http://www.betterbadnews.tv/
Flux Rostrum was attacked by police and had part of his video camera confiscated for covering an important demonstration in New York City.
Amanda Congdon has alerted her ABC news audiences to these events by showing video clips of police suppression of video bloggers submitted to her by individual citizen journalists.
Is this Amanda? http://blip.tv/uploadedFiles/Betterbadnews-122906
Damn girl. Lookin good!
The video clips Amanda Congdon has shown to date would probably not have been seen on a major network news outlet without her being there.
Well can't argue with that, The Article is all bullshit imo.
So is Amada affiliated with belowtheradar and or Gawker or what the fuck. I guess they'll just have to get sued and find out.
MEANWHILE, nobody is talking about how Fuckwad Bush tried to run down a press core with a bulldozer!
one thing is for sure the Bush Corporation doesn't like journalism.
The identification added (they're not the only ones to do this by far) is usually done to discourage others from linking to the video and stealing bandwidth. In this case it appears that adding tags has become a habit.
I don't see how one could complain about using YouTube this way - they DO offer free video hosting. What's more questionable is taking someone else's copyrighted work and altering it by adding a trailer, or embedding a logo in the JPEG, or a watermark, or whatever. That's not even close to ethical or legal...
I've seen lots of these videos while reading Gawker Media sites like Wonkette or Fleshbot. Here's the deal--the editors at Wonkette get a video they want to share with their readership. They use YouTube as the file host, then embed the video link on Wonkette's page. Then they slap an ad on the front of the stream so if people browsing YouTube find the video without knowing about Wonkette, it promotes the site. They'll also post embedded links to YouTube videos not uploaded by themselves, and these ones don't contain the Gawker media splash animation.
Because the video is being used as a discussion point in their blog (e.g. "ha ha, that reporter is a doofus, look!"), they've got a fair use argument for posting it. What's so mysterious or outrageous about any of this?
Is there a viable technology for blocking such ads? Something like OCR spam filtering?
I think, therefore you are.
Gawker media (who owns sites like lifehacker, gizmodo, valleywag, kotaku and others) is putting the ads in front of it. Go to Gizmodo and look at their videos - the Gizmodo produced ones will have Gizmodo ads on it.
I believe it's Gawker media policy to do that for all Gawker-media originated (i.e., wasn't off some other (non-Gawker) blog) videos to put the ads in the front.
I'm surprised it's come up now - Gizmodo has been doing this for a few months now...
Kinda like "prepone"? - a term made up by Indian speakers in India to match a Hindi word... since they only talk amongst themselves, nobody says anything until they start using it when talking to Americans or the British...
maybe not by Gawker, but some sleazebag, they embed URL's into the videos, add a picture of a nearly naked whore at the begining of a video (which is nothing related to whores, or nakedness).. this has been going on for a while now.. it really pisses me off.
Would be interesting if Youtube offered a low-cost premium service to have an ad-free service on the page, and also no clutter in the pre-/post- rolls for the clips. I'm finding all the ad-litter on pages tiresome. Ad-blocker on firefox is great for this, but the video rolls are insidious.
New Media Blogger wrote an article on this topic last month called The race of the marketers: the time value of content - rather then force you to read the article, I'll copy and paste its conclusions:
Conclusion #1 - As the creator of content, a greater effort must now be made to be the first to post your content to the popular Web 2.0 sites, and emphasis must be given to the titling and tagging of your content to avoid others from doing a better job of marketing your own content.
Conclusion #2 - If the content is not yours, you can still benefit from the initial wave of people searching for it by getting in early on the "breaking rush". As shown by the second Kramer video, roughly 100,000 page views or ~ $200 of online advertising (assuming $2 / CPM) was achieved for free. I am not condoning stealing content, but rather pointing out the realities of the time value of content.
Conclusion #3 - By adding value to the original content quickly enough, you can "ride the wave" with the original. The star wars kid video is a good example of others adding value quick enough to ride the wave.