This video brings up several current issues with the Viacom v. Google (YouTube) lawsuit. I don't know if the facts are entirely accurate, but still entertaining.
Provided By:
Stroopinator
This video is more on the angry side than the previous, but still brings up some interesting points about YouTube content availability.
By: sincerelyraven
Another angry video. This one calls for a boycott of Viacom and its television channels. This is basically the hard rock version of the previous video.
Provided By:
smilingzebra
This video was apparently uploaded by Viacom's CEO.
From SumnerRedstone
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Some Research for the Love Letter
An interesting article by Daniel Fierman (Entertainment Weekly) about the Tom Cruise/Paramount split and Sumner Redstone's comment on the matter.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1333805,00.html
But the split became public when Sumner Redstone — CEO of Viacom, Paramount's parent company — told The Wall Street Journal that the studio's long-standing pact with Cruise/Wagner Productions had been terminated due to the superstar's erratic behavior. ''As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal,'' he was quoted as saying. ''His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount.'
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1333805,00.html
Mustaches Make Everything Legal
According to the comedian Demetri Martin, making minor changes to videos (adding a mustache to a person) means they can be reposted on youtube without the threat of copyright infringement or lawsuit. He goes over the current Viacom v. Google lawsuit and techniques for sidestepping any legal responsibility here: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2835488
*Note that the video is hosted on ifilm.com, owned by Viacom (parent company to Comedy Central).
This is a video posted by user "DMCAisCRAP" on youtube, and claims to be a 100% legal version of the original clip linked above. Please keep an eye out for the mustachioed gentlemen.
Viacom Vs. Youtube
*Note that the video is hosted on ifilm.com, owned by Viacom (parent company to Comedy Central).
This is a video posted by user "DMCAisCRAP" on youtube, and claims to be a 100% legal version of the original clip linked above. Please keep an eye out for the mustachioed gentlemen.
Viacom Vs. Youtube
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Adjusted Work Flow Schedule
4/18 - Upload copyrighted Viacom movie to youtube.com, finish work on "Love Letter to Sumner Redstone"-->Titanic and upload to youtube, post video elsewhere.
4/19 - Begin political 'statement' video. Drum up more hits for 'Love Letter'.
4/20-4/23 - Continue 'statement' video work.
4/24 - Present findings to studio, review 'statement' video.
4/26 - Present findings to studio, continue work on 'statement' video.
4/27 - Finalize 'statement' video.
4/28-4/30 - Organize findings, write document, create presentation.
4/19 - Begin political 'statement' video. Drum up more hits for 'Love Letter'.
4/20-4/23 - Continue 'statement' video work.
4/24 - Present findings to studio, review 'statement' video.
4/26 - Present findings to studio, continue work on 'statement' video.
4/27 - Finalize 'statement' video.
4/28-4/30 - Organize findings, write document, create presentation.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Goals...
1. Cause a sensation in the public (not just YouTube comments).
2. Get a video pulled from YouTube.
3. Make a lasting statement in video.
2. Get a video pulled from YouTube.
3. Make a lasting statement in video.
More Notes
I will use the mini-thesis assignment as an opportunity to explore the possibilities of creating a narrative video work based on issues related to media in the 21st century. Specifically, I would attempt to deconstruct youtube.com from a socio-political aspect and respond with original video work.
One avenue of approach is to explore the possibilities of parody and propaganda using figures that currently have a hand in shaping how media is viewed online and whatever future manifestation it will take (e.g.-Sumner Redstone, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Chad Hurley and Steven Chen of YouTube, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google). My initial inspiration for this was the video "Vote Different" posted by ParkRidge47 on YouTube. Taking the original Apple Macintosh ad and putting a political spin on it got a large reaction from a simple premise ("On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like '1984'."). For the remainder of the semester I will continue to probe and question the potential of internet media and how it's influence affects the world, and attempt to do the same myself. Another example of this influence was that of the parody video of the Thai King, reported on April 4, 2007 By Nopporn Wong-Anan (REUTERS). The Thai ministry released statement read in part:
"YouTube, which has dominated the user-generated on-line video market since it was founded in February last year, carried a 44-second clip ridiculing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest reigning monarch, who is revered by all 63 million Thais."
After the clip was uploaded and viewed ~16,000 times, the Thai government banned youtube within Thailand and both the video and user account had been removed. Aside from these instances of politically charged videos, there is also the issue of intellectual property, trademark violation, and lawsuits (most notably Viacom suing Google). The "18 Reasons why Google and YouTube are Guilty of Copyright Infringement" will be used as a reference throughout my creative process.
My proposed process will go something like this:
Research the ideas stated above by looking at YouTube videos that pertain specifically to the issues with Google and Viacom, as well as, the political influence of certain YouTube posts. Extract basic elements that can be reused or remixed into new videos that challenge or provoke these ideas to be posted on to YouTube. Maintain data of view count, comments, and links about these videos.
One avenue of approach is to explore the possibilities of parody and propaganda using figures that currently have a hand in shaping how media is viewed online and whatever future manifestation it will take (e.g.-Sumner Redstone, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Chad Hurley and Steven Chen of YouTube, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google). My initial inspiration for this was the video "Vote Different" posted by ParkRidge47 on YouTube. Taking the original Apple Macintosh ad and putting a political spin on it got a large reaction from a simple premise ("On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like '1984'."). For the remainder of the semester I will continue to probe and question the potential of internet media and how it's influence affects the world, and attempt to do the same myself. Another example of this influence was that of the parody video of the Thai King, reported on April 4, 2007 By Nopporn Wong-Anan (REUTERS). The Thai ministry released statement read in part:
"YouTube, which has dominated the user-generated on-line video market since it was founded in February last year, carried a 44-second clip ridiculing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest reigning monarch, who is revered by all 63 million Thais."
After the clip was uploaded and viewed ~16,000 times, the Thai government banned youtube within Thailand and both the video and user account had been removed. Aside from these instances of politically charged videos, there is also the issue of intellectual property, trademark violation, and lawsuits (most notably Viacom suing Google). The "18 Reasons why Google and YouTube are Guilty of Copyright Infringement" will be used as a reference throughout my creative process.
My proposed process will go something like this:
Research the ideas stated above by looking at YouTube videos that pertain specifically to the issues with Google and Viacom, as well as, the political influence of certain YouTube posts. Extract basic elements that can be reused or remixed into new videos that challenge or provoke these ideas to be posted on to YouTube. Maintain data of view count, comments, and links about these videos.
Various Videos
Master Plan - About the power of Google
http://masterplanthemovie.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zKXCQpUnMg
by: Ozan Halici and Jurgen Mayer
~3:00 minute video discussing the power of Google's information collection, not only of websites searched and viewed but also of people's personal information (Gmail). This video states that a former CIA agent has stated that Google is "cooperating under cover with the us government and the CIA". Also, Google is apparently involved in research in molecular biology and genetics. Which, the directors assert, could be used to create in-depth dossiers on people around the globe for nefarious purposes.
Google Behind the Screen (5 part series on youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pil5zsy9yqI
More in-depth documentary, discussing everything from the beginnings and the mechanisms of Google, to the potential for misuse of information.
Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us (FInal Version)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g
"Web 2.0" in just under 5 minutes
By: Michael Wesch, Asst. Professor of Cultural Anthropology, Kansas State University
"Digital Ethnography"
mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg
This video goes over the basic understanding of "web2.0", but also brings up some issues near the end, stating that "we'll have to rethink a few things...copyright, authorship, information, ideas, commerce, etc." These last tidbits of information are what I am attempting to address with this mini-Thesis as opposed to simply studying the culture of youtube (vlogs and such).
A Tribute to Sumner Redstone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2VrAFVyFI
Video of still images of Sumner Redstone spliced with photographs of rundown theaters. Not as scathing as the Thai King video, but one of the few Redstone videos on youtube.
YouTube vs Viacom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBHi-lScSuc
Mac vs. PC style video with YouTube and Viacom personified as two hipsters discussing the lawsuit.
http://masterplanthemovie.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zKXCQpUnMg
by: Ozan Halici and Jurgen Mayer
~3:00 minute video discussing the power of Google's information collection, not only of websites searched and viewed but also of people's personal information (Gmail). This video states that a former CIA agent has stated that Google is "cooperating under cover with the us government and the CIA". Also, Google is apparently involved in research in molecular biology and genetics. Which, the directors assert, could be used to create in-depth dossiers on people around the globe for nefarious purposes.
Google Behind the Screen (5 part series on youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pil5zsy9yqI
More in-depth documentary, discussing everything from the beginnings and the mechanisms of Google, to the potential for misuse of information.
Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us (FInal Version)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g
"Web 2.0" in just under 5 minutes
By: Michael Wesch, Asst. Professor of Cultural Anthropology, Kansas State University
"Digital Ethnography"
mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg
This video goes over the basic understanding of "web2.0", but also brings up some issues near the end, stating that "we'll have to rethink a few things...copyright, authorship, information, ideas, commerce, etc." These last tidbits of information are what I am attempting to address with this mini-Thesis as opposed to simply studying the culture of youtube (vlogs and such).
A Tribute to Sumner Redstone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2VrAFVyFI
Video of still images of Sumner Redstone spliced with photographs of rundown theaters. Not as scathing as the Thai King video, but one of the few Redstone videos on youtube.
YouTube vs Viacom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBHi-lScSuc
Mac vs. PC style video with YouTube and Viacom personified as two hipsters discussing the lawsuit.
Google's Master Plan...?
Master Plan - About the power of Google
http://masterplanthemovie.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zKXCQpUnMg
by: Ozan Halici and Jurgen Mayer
~3:00 minute video discussing the power of Google's information collection, not only of websites searched and viewed but also of people's personal information (Gmail). This video states that a former CIA agent has stated that Google is "cooperating under cover with the US government and the CIA". Also, Google is apparently involved in research in molecular biology and genetics. Which, the directors assert, could be used to create in-depth dossiers on people around the globe for nefarious purposes.
http://masterplanthemovie.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zKXCQpUnMg
by: Ozan Halici and Jurgen Mayer
~3:00 minute video discussing the power of Google's information collection, not only of websites searched and viewed but also of people's personal information (Gmail). This video states that a former CIA agent has stated that Google is "cooperating under cover with the US government and the CIA". Also, Google is apparently involved in research in molecular biology and genetics. Which, the directors assert, could be used to create in-depth dossiers on people around the globe for nefarious purposes.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The 18 Reasons
FYI 18 reasons: Viacom, Google and YouTube
For Educational Use only
Reprinted from GoogleWatch.com
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:59 AM/EST
18 Reasons why Google and YouTube are Guilty of Copyright Infringement
Below, Viacom's argument as presented in their official complaint, filed in New York federal district court. I've taken the liberty of editing the language a bit and consolidating a few points, since they would be repetitive for anyone who follows Google or YouTube news. But I've also included direct quotes. If something's not clear, let me know in the comments and I'll fix.
1. YouTube's value is largely based on infringing works.
2. Google maintains control over YouTube's business, and contributes to YouTube's infringement by syncing Google Video search with YouTube's library.
3. Although individual users are the ones to upload videos, YouTube copies the videos to its servers, indexes the metadata, and creates thumbnails. YouTube then publicly displays and performs the infringing works. The complaint: "Thus, the YouTube conduct that forms the basis of this Complaint is not simply providing storage space, conduits, or other facilities to users who create their own websites with infringing materials. To the contrary, YouTube itself commits the infringing duplication, public performance, and public display of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and that infringement occurs on YouTube’s own website, which is operated and controlled by Defendants, not users."
* This is an important point, since Google has argued -- as any ISP or file storage provider would argue -- that they are not liable for illegal actions taken by users, as they are not aware of that activity until notified by a third party.
4. Embedded videos and e-mailing vidoes from YouTube constitute public performance, too.
5. The embedded videos that attract the most users are copyrighted works, and YouTube displays its brand over them.
6. YouTube doesn't have a license for these works.
7. "Defendants have actual knowledge and clear notice of this massive infringement, which is obvious to even the most casual visitor to the site. The rampant infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights on YouTube is open and notorious and has been the subject of numerous news reports."
* Should this case go to trial, Viacom will have to somehow prove that Google has continuous knowledge of the infringement. Seeing that there are infringing works on the site and seeing that fact in a database that you monitor are two different things.
8. It's not like the infringement is a secret, since keywords pointing to copyrighted works are apparent in the tags, and since the content owners' logos appear in the works.
* Anecdotal? I'm sure Google could argue that they can't possibly police tags and visual clues, especially given that several content companies upload their own material for various reasons.
9. "YouTube derives advertising revenue directly attributable to the infringing works, because advertisers pay YouTube to display banner advertising to users whenever they log on to, search for, and view infringing videos. Through the embed function and in other ways, infringing videos also draw users to YouTube’s site in the first instance, and YouTube then derives additional advertising revenue when those users search for and watch other videos on the site. In either event, there is a direct causal connection between the presence of infringing videos and YouTube’s income from the additional “eyeballs” viewing advertising on the site. The draw of infringing works has also made an enormous contribution to the explosive growth of YouTube, resulting in the remarkable $1.65 billion valuation Google placed on it only a short time after its founding. Thus, infringement of Plaintiffs’ works contributes substantially and directly to the value of YouTube’s business."
10. YouTube has the right and ability to control the videos on its site, and even imposes terms of use on uploaders. YouTube also proactively removes pornography.
* The active policing of pornography is a big point. Google/YouTube is obviously able to apply some content standards, but only when it suits their purposes it would seem. However, Google may be able to argue that the detection of porn -- via filters that monitor skin tones and/or keywords -- is different from detecting the wide variety of copyrighted works that are uploaded.
11. YouTube also sends cease and desist letters to persons and companies that provide services allowing people to copy videos off YouTube's servers. YouTube does this because they can't profit if users don't come to the site. "Thus, when it is in YouTube’s financial interest to do so, it proactively polices conduct it regards as unauthorized, even on other websites."
12. "In stark contrast, because it profits directly from the infringement of Plaintiffs’ works on its website, YouTube has failed to employ reasonable measures that could substantially reduce, or eliminate, the massive amount of copyright infringement on the YouTube site from which YouTube directly profits. Even though Defendants are well aware of the rampant infringement on the YouTube website, and YouTube has the right and ability to control it, YouTube’s intentional strategy has been to take no steps to curtail the infringement from which it profits unless notified of specific infringing videos by copyright owners, thereby shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube’s infringement onto the victims of that infringement."
13. Even if a company issues a takedown notice, the video reappears with only a small part changed. YouTube doesn't block repeat offenders from doing this, and doesn't prevent users who have been kicked off from signing up again.
14. There is an inevitable time lag between when a video appears on the site and when a content owner sends a takedown notice.
15. YouTube is also deliberately interfering with copyright owners' ability to find copyrighted works. YouTube limits searches to returning only 1,000 results, thus limiting an owner from seeing all the infringing works. Even if the owner issues a takedown notice for 1,000 works, another 1,000 will appear.
16. YouTube also allows "friends" on the site to share videos privately, and which can't be seen by copyright holders.
17. Despite all this, YouTube offers protections to companies that sign license agreements. "By limiting copyright protection to business partners who have agreed to grant it licenses, YouTube attempts to coerce copyright owners to grant it a license in order to receive the protection to which they are entitled under the copyright laws."
18. Even if Google eventually provides copyright protection, that won't compensate content owners from the damage already incurred.
For Educational Use only
Reprinted from GoogleWatch.com
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:59 AM/EST
18 Reasons why Google and YouTube are Guilty of Copyright Infringement
Below, Viacom's argument as presented in their official complaint, filed in New York federal district court. I've taken the liberty of editing the language a bit and consolidating a few points, since they would be repetitive for anyone who follows Google or YouTube news. But I've also included direct quotes. If something's not clear, let me know in the comments and I'll fix.
1. YouTube's value is largely based on infringing works.
2. Google maintains control over YouTube's business, and contributes to YouTube's infringement by syncing Google Video search with YouTube's library.
3. Although individual users are the ones to upload videos, YouTube copies the videos to its servers, indexes the metadata, and creates thumbnails. YouTube then publicly displays and performs the infringing works. The complaint: "Thus, the YouTube conduct that forms the basis of this Complaint is not simply providing storage space, conduits, or other facilities to users who create their own websites with infringing materials. To the contrary, YouTube itself commits the infringing duplication, public performance, and public display of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and that infringement occurs on YouTube’s own website, which is operated and controlled by Defendants, not users."
* This is an important point, since Google has argued -- as any ISP or file storage provider would argue -- that they are not liable for illegal actions taken by users, as they are not aware of that activity until notified by a third party.
4. Embedded videos and e-mailing vidoes from YouTube constitute public performance, too.
5. The embedded videos that attract the most users are copyrighted works, and YouTube displays its brand over them.
6. YouTube doesn't have a license for these works.
7. "Defendants have actual knowledge and clear notice of this massive infringement, which is obvious to even the most casual visitor to the site. The rampant infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights on YouTube is open and notorious and has been the subject of numerous news reports."
* Should this case go to trial, Viacom will have to somehow prove that Google has continuous knowledge of the infringement. Seeing that there are infringing works on the site and seeing that fact in a database that you monitor are two different things.
8. It's not like the infringement is a secret, since keywords pointing to copyrighted works are apparent in the tags, and since the content owners' logos appear in the works.
* Anecdotal? I'm sure Google could argue that they can't possibly police tags and visual clues, especially given that several content companies upload their own material for various reasons.
9. "YouTube derives advertising revenue directly attributable to the infringing works, because advertisers pay YouTube to display banner advertising to users whenever they log on to, search for, and view infringing videos. Through the embed function and in other ways, infringing videos also draw users to YouTube’s site in the first instance, and YouTube then derives additional advertising revenue when those users search for and watch other videos on the site. In either event, there is a direct causal connection between the presence of infringing videos and YouTube’s income from the additional “eyeballs” viewing advertising on the site. The draw of infringing works has also made an enormous contribution to the explosive growth of YouTube, resulting in the remarkable $1.65 billion valuation Google placed on it only a short time after its founding. Thus, infringement of Plaintiffs’ works contributes substantially and directly to the value of YouTube’s business."
10. YouTube has the right and ability to control the videos on its site, and even imposes terms of use on uploaders. YouTube also proactively removes pornography.
* The active policing of pornography is a big point. Google/YouTube is obviously able to apply some content standards, but only when it suits their purposes it would seem. However, Google may be able to argue that the detection of porn -- via filters that monitor skin tones and/or keywords -- is different from detecting the wide variety of copyrighted works that are uploaded.
11. YouTube also sends cease and desist letters to persons and companies that provide services allowing people to copy videos off YouTube's servers. YouTube does this because they can't profit if users don't come to the site. "Thus, when it is in YouTube’s financial interest to do so, it proactively polices conduct it regards as unauthorized, even on other websites."
12. "In stark contrast, because it profits directly from the infringement of Plaintiffs’ works on its website, YouTube has failed to employ reasonable measures that could substantially reduce, or eliminate, the massive amount of copyright infringement on the YouTube site from which YouTube directly profits. Even though Defendants are well aware of the rampant infringement on the YouTube website, and YouTube has the right and ability to control it, YouTube’s intentional strategy has been to take no steps to curtail the infringement from which it profits unless notified of specific infringing videos by copyright owners, thereby shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube’s infringement onto the victims of that infringement."
13. Even if a company issues a takedown notice, the video reappears with only a small part changed. YouTube doesn't block repeat offenders from doing this, and doesn't prevent users who have been kicked off from signing up again.
14. There is an inevitable time lag between when a video appears on the site and when a content owner sends a takedown notice.
15. YouTube is also deliberately interfering with copyright owners' ability to find copyrighted works. YouTube limits searches to returning only 1,000 results, thus limiting an owner from seeing all the infringing works. Even if the owner issues a takedown notice for 1,000 works, another 1,000 will appear.
16. YouTube also allows "friends" on the site to share videos privately, and which can't be seen by copyright holders.
17. Despite all this, YouTube offers protections to companies that sign license agreements. "By limiting copyright protection to business partners who have agreed to grant it licenses, YouTube attempts to coerce copyright owners to grant it a license in order to receive the protection to which they are entitled under the copyright laws."
18. Even if Google eventually provides copyright protection, that won't compensate content owners from the damage already incurred.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
miniThesis Statement v1.0
I will use the mini-thesis assignment as an opportunity to explore the possibilities of creating a narrative video work based on issues related to media in the 21st century. Specifically, I would attempt to deconstruct youtube.com from a socio-political aspect and respond with original video work.
One avenue of approach is to explore the possibilities of parody and propaganda using figures that currently have a hand in shaping how media is viewed online and whatever future manifestation it will take (e.g.-Sumner Redstone, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Chad Hurley and Steven Chen of YouTube, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google). My initial inspiration for this was the video "Vote Different" posted by ParkRidge47 on YouTube. Taking the original Apple Macintosh ad and putting a political spin on it ("On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like "1984".") got a large reaction from a simple premise. For the remainder of the semester I will continue to probe and question the potential of internet media and how it's influence affects the world, and attempt to do the same myself.
One avenue of approach is to explore the possibilities of parody and propaganda using figures that currently have a hand in shaping how media is viewed online and whatever future manifestation it will take (e.g.-Sumner Redstone, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Chad Hurley and Steven Chen of YouTube, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google). My initial inspiration for this was the video "Vote Different" posted by ParkRidge47 on YouTube. Taking the original Apple Macintosh ad and putting a political spin on it ("On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like "1984".") got a large reaction from a simple premise. For the remainder of the semester I will continue to probe and question the potential of internet media and how it's influence affects the world, and attempt to do the same myself.
Thailand Blocks YouTube, YouTube Removes Video
This was a recent story I found on digg.com detailing the current kerfuffle between YouTube (and its parent company Google) and Thailand's military-appointed government.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/tech/20070404-0421-thailand-youtube.html
By Nopporn Wong-Anan
REUTERS
4:21 a.m. April 4, 2007
BANGKOK – Thailand's military-appointed government blocked access to on-line video-sharing Web site YouTube on Wednesday after its owner, Google Inc., declined to withdraw a video clip mocking the country's revered monarch.
Communications Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom told Reuters he had ordered a block of the entire site, www.youtube.com, from Thailand after the ministry's attempts to get the offending page removed last week failed.
'Since Google has rejected our repeated requests to withdraw the clip, we can't help blocking the entire site in Thailand,' said Sitthichai, a telecoms professor who said he had spent most of his academic life researching eavesdropping devices.
'When they decide to withdraw the clip, we will withdraw the ban,' he said.
YouTube, which has dominated the user-generated on-line video market since it was founded in February last year, carried a 44-second clip ridiculing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest reigning monarch, who is revered by all 63 million Thais.
The sender of the clip, seen more than 16,000 times, was named 'paddidda' and has been rudely attacked by most of 99 comments, according to the Web site.
'The king is the most revered figure in the country; he is untouchable,' said Metha Sakaowrat, president of the Information Technology Press Club – a guild of Thai IT journalists.
Sitthichai said YouTube had told Thai officials it did not find the clip offensive so turned down the request to remove it.
WOMAN'S FEET
Officials at YouTube or Google, which paid $1.65 billion last year for the video-sharing site, were not available for immediate comment on the clip, a series of altered images of the King.
The most offensive to Thai Buddhists was the juxtaposition of a pair of woman's feet, the lowest part of the body, above his head, the highest part of the body.
The blackout is the latest move by the generals who ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup last year against Web sites deemed offensive to either the monarch or the army, or pro-Thaksin.
One site blocked last week was running a signature campaign against the king's top adviser, General Prem Tinsulanonda, whom anti-coup activists accuse of agitating for the putsch against Thaksin.
The coup leaders and the appointed government deny muzzling free speech.
Criticising or offending royalty is a crime in Thailand. Those guilty of lese majeste can be jailed for up to 15 years.
Last week, a Swiss man was sentenced to 10 years in jail for defacing images of the king, a rare prison term for a foreigner.
Oliver Rudolf Jufer, 57, received 20 years for five acts of lese majeste, but the judge reduced the term to take into account Jufer's guilty plea. He had faced a maximum of 75 years in jail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a video (titled "I Love thai King") I came across on YouTube after reading this article...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/tech/20070404-0421-thailand-youtube.html
By Nopporn Wong-Anan
REUTERS
4:21 a.m. April 4, 2007
BANGKOK – Thailand's military-appointed government blocked access to on-line video-sharing Web site YouTube on Wednesday after its owner, Google Inc., declined to withdraw a video clip mocking the country's revered monarch.
Communications Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom told Reuters he had ordered a block of the entire site, www.youtube.com, from Thailand after the ministry's attempts to get the offending page removed last week failed.
'Since Google has rejected our repeated requests to withdraw the clip, we can't help blocking the entire site in Thailand,' said Sitthichai, a telecoms professor who said he had spent most of his academic life researching eavesdropping devices.
'When they decide to withdraw the clip, we will withdraw the ban,' he said.
YouTube, which has dominated the user-generated on-line video market since it was founded in February last year, carried a 44-second clip ridiculing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest reigning monarch, who is revered by all 63 million Thais.
The sender of the clip, seen more than 16,000 times, was named 'paddidda' and has been rudely attacked by most of 99 comments, according to the Web site.
'The king is the most revered figure in the country; he is untouchable,' said Metha Sakaowrat, president of the Information Technology Press Club – a guild of Thai IT journalists.
Sitthichai said YouTube had told Thai officials it did not find the clip offensive so turned down the request to remove it.
WOMAN'S FEET
Officials at YouTube or Google, which paid $1.65 billion last year for the video-sharing site, were not available for immediate comment on the clip, a series of altered images of the King.
The most offensive to Thai Buddhists was the juxtaposition of a pair of woman's feet, the lowest part of the body, above his head, the highest part of the body.
The blackout is the latest move by the generals who ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup last year against Web sites deemed offensive to either the monarch or the army, or pro-Thaksin.
One site blocked last week was running a signature campaign against the king's top adviser, General Prem Tinsulanonda, whom anti-coup activists accuse of agitating for the putsch against Thaksin.
The coup leaders and the appointed government deny muzzling free speech.
Criticising or offending royalty is a crime in Thailand. Those guilty of lese majeste can be jailed for up to 15 years.
Last week, a Swiss man was sentenced to 10 years in jail for defacing images of the king, a rare prison term for a foreigner.
Oliver Rudolf Jufer, 57, received 20 years for five acts of lese majeste, but the judge reduced the term to take into account Jufer's guilty plea. He had faced a maximum of 75 years in jail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a video (titled "I Love thai King") I came across on YouTube after reading this article...
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Mini-Thesis notes
De-construct youtube...
discuss issues with google, viacom, rank, advertising, intellectual property rights, channels of distribution...
targeted youtube videos-->sumner redstone, bill gates, steve jobs, various politicians, advertising (online and television based)
culture of media re-represented through video (academic and creative process)-->create video responses based on academic research
"examination of the 21st century culture, rewritten as a film script, based on academic research"
This video is what peaked my interest in this subject. A simple political spin on a very famous ad for the first macintosh computer that got a large reaction from pundits and politicos.
discuss issues with google, viacom, rank, advertising, intellectual property rights, channels of distribution...
targeted youtube videos-->sumner redstone, bill gates, steve jobs, various politicians, advertising (online and television based)
culture of media re-represented through video (academic and creative process)-->create video responses based on academic research
"examination of the 21st century culture, rewritten as a film script, based on academic research"
This video is what peaked my interest in this subject. A simple political spin on a very famous ad for the first macintosh computer that got a large reaction from pundits and politicos.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Response 3
I was struck by how weird it is that the same people that implied that this guy had something to do with Anna Nicole's son's death are now the ones that are showing his "break down". It isn't exactly weird itself, just that these people do this kind of stuff for a living. I thought it would be interesting to sort of 'mash-up' these two instances and see what comes out.
Response 2
This is my response to the most viewed video on youtube for Monday February 12th. I chose this video not only for the obvious thematic similarities but also because of the nostalgic imagery of which it reminded me. Like many television programs I grew up with, this clip represents a small piece of my childhood.
Response 1
This is my video response to the 'Evolution of Dance' video on youtube. All of the images and sound were previously composited for one of my 5 Obstructions movies. I recomposed them here while thinking of the entire process as an evolution in itself, hence my response to the 'Evolution of Dance'.
Video Inspiration 1
This is currently the most viewed video on youtube.com (as of 2.12.07), and is the first video to be viewed as inspiration for our first response.
The Premise and Viral Obstructions v1.0
The Premise
Use youtube.com as a tool for creating an online self-portrait through video.
A) Explore the relationship between the creators and the viewers of youtube video content by “doing”, along with research and extensive journal logs.
B) Explore the idea that the youtube videos viewed are just as important as the video posts when creating a self-portrait.
The Viral Obstructions
1. Each team member views the most viewed video on youtube.com as a starting point. In our case it is “The Evolution of Dance” in the video section.
2. Each member makes a video using the original video as inspiration.
3. Each member’s video must be uploaded to youtube before 6am the following day of each weekday. Videos must be posted as video responses to the previous day’s chosen video.
4. The previous day's "most viewed" video on youtube in the video section is used as inspiration for the next day's videos.
5. The group must meet twice a week to discuss the week’s videos.
6. No communication between group members outside of meetings.
7. Videos must be less than 10 minutes in length.
8. A diary must be kept daily, outlining line of thought, concept, process and videos chosen. Research containing reasons for choosing video, reasons for creating video, a log of videos watched, and pertinent personal information should also be included.
9. Techniques that must be used at least once during the experience:
A) Original content (video blog, art work, poems, etc)
B)Appropriated content (movie clips, tv show clips, etc.)
C)Mash-up/remix
D)Talent exhibition (physical feat, magic trick, etc)
10. All final video work and written material must be compiled into a single presentation/film/performance/installation for group viewing.
Use youtube.com as a tool for creating an online self-portrait through video.
A) Explore the relationship between the creators and the viewers of youtube video content by “doing”, along with research and extensive journal logs.
B) Explore the idea that the youtube videos viewed are just as important as the video posts when creating a self-portrait.
The Viral Obstructions
1. Each team member views the most viewed video on youtube.com as a starting point. In our case it is “The Evolution of Dance” in the video section.
2. Each member makes a video using the original video as inspiration.
3. Each member’s video must be uploaded to youtube before 6am the following day of each weekday. Videos must be posted as video responses to the previous day’s chosen video.
4. In alphabetical order a team member chooses one of the previous days videos to
use as inspiration for the next days videos.---OR---a video is chosen from youtube.com by that team member.
use as inspiration for the next days videos.---OR---a video is chosen from youtube.com by that team member.
4. The previous day's "most viewed" video on youtube in the video section is used as inspiration for the next day's videos.
5. The group must meet twice a week to discuss the week’s videos.
6. No communication between group members outside of meetings.
7. Videos must be less than 10 minutes in length.
8. A diary must be kept daily, outlining line of thought, concept, process and videos chosen. Research containing reasons for choosing video, reasons for creating video, a log of videos watched, and pertinent personal information should also be included.
9. Techniques that must be used at least once during the experience:
A) Original content (video blog, art work, poems, etc)
B)Appropriated content (movie clips, tv show clips, etc.)
C)Mash-up/remix
D)Talent exhibition (physical feat, magic trick, etc)
10. All final video work and written material must be compiled into a single presentation/film/performance/installation for group viewing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)