METROBLOG: Inappropriate advert placements in newspapers: yay or nay?

PLEASE NOTE: The author does not wish to make light of recent events surrounding the death of April Jones and has the deepest sympathy for her parents.

Okay, you can sling the word “tasteless” at me all you want but if the Metro can fuck up and be sort of accidentally tasteless, I can use a news article advert placement fuckup to illustrate a point.

scan0002

“Oh my God, how will I deal with this horrible tragedy?” “Weeeeell a Starbucks might help”

Seriously, its like ad placements in the metro are done by computer. It immediately just associates something with something else without actually taking context into account. “A depressing article about a tragedy………how about an advert showing people what they should buy to calm down”. I mean you wouldn’t go up to this woman at a funeral holding up a sign saying “DON’T BE SAD!! HAVE A STARBUCKS AND YOU’LL FEEL BETTER!” There is a time and a place to sell stuff, and better articles to put that advert right next to.

I mean yes these companies have to sell stuff but when you’ve got a story about something as horrible as this, it feels a bit insensitive to immediately try and sell you something riiiiiiiiiight the fuck next to it.

I mean it may provide a rather morbid chuckle at how a newspaper editor could be so fucking stupid not to realize that maybe the layout says something in an insensitive way and hell, however morbid, chuckles are a good thing to get from it. That’s what a morning newspaper should do I guess, a little light hearted wake me up but…yeah I don’t think people that have lost their children would really appreciate their story alongside an ad for Starbucks immediately going “BE HAPPY NOW!! BUY STARBUCKS!!.

If you still don’t get where I’m coming from here’s a couple of examples:

dogeatspeople

advert2

Dear Youtube: Claim dispute process…needs reviewing guys

Okay so this video’s had two seperate copyright disputes lodged against it. The second one happened today and was revoked a few hours later after I sent back a dispute message along the lines of the phrase “what the shit guys?”

Anyone unaware, when you upload a video to youtube, it gets put through this automatic software that tries to detect a match to content in youtube’s library of copyright holders in order to determine if someone’s used third party content without permission. Youtube and a bunch of people working for youtube do this because they don’t want to get their butts sued by any multinational media corporations such as in this case the BBC. Depending on how much of an annoyance or a threat to youtube livelihood the video is in punishing the whole for actions of a few which if SOPA said anything, dickheads that don’t really “get” the internet are fully willing to do and could potentially happen if youtube’s used for straight up piracy. The video will get restricted presence because of this.

You can choose to acknowledge the claim and just let the penalties go or dispute it if you don’t think it should have penalties against it for a set list of reasons (that for some reason you can only choose one of) and sometimes it will be let go, most of the time they’ll just leave it for a bit and reinstate it.

The penalties vary. The video could be blocked in some countries like this one I uploaded mid-last year:

If you can see it good, if you can’t…well it wasn’t one of my better ones so it probably doesn’t matter. In some countries they can see it because the copyright laws work differently inside the EU and in the US and in Asia, there’s a minefield of differences to consider in blocking a video in a certain country. The above video review of awful eighties ET ripoff “Mac and Me” (the irony of being claimed to rip something off in a video review of a movie that openly was a ripoff is hilarious) and was blocked because I used the song “The Fast Food Song” by the Fast Food Rockers……I don’t even think the record label would care if someone used “The Fast Food Song” by the Fast Food Rockers in a video, let alone sue youtube over it. But I had to click acknowledge the claim letting it go because yes, I used that song to make my video seem a bit more professional and in keeping with the theme I was using so technically I was in the wrong.

The best thing you can hope for if you match third party content is the video is still available but now your account isn’t viable for advertising revenue that some get and an advert offering viewers to buy a song or TV show or movie featured will be placed by the video. So this penalty is pretty much harmless and mutually recognizes the video’s respect for its third party content included in it and was what happened to my review of the Doctor Who episode “Closing Time” before I disputed it on the grounds of fair use.

Fair use is the main get out of jail free card used in online video and is the main reason you see so many people posting video reviews of movies, TV, music etc as opposed to their own stuff. Cause hell, I’m one man with a camera, I can’t make much in the way of professional video or pay people, and I like talking about movies and stuff, and so reviewing was where I decided to go with online video and where most people do when trying to get people to listen to them without being called theives.

My Closing Time review had a second complaint lodged this morning a few weeks after the first one which was the next level of complaint penalty, effectively blocking the video from youtube. This appeared random, as it had been available and online for a while and the dispute had been resolved beforehand, and now it had gone to red alert. The dispute’s been dropped now so I have no visual evidence, but it claimed I was using footage from Doctor Who entitled “season 6 episode 5 The Rebel Flesh part 1 of 3” from BBC worldwide……I immediately lodged a complaint saying the obvious “no I didn’t” because I didn’t and won and we’re back online and viewable again.

See this is the problem when you use automated software to do copyright checks and don’t actually bother watching the videos, you’re going to stumble across the issue of what is and what isn’t fair use and what does and doesn’t look like piracy. I mean I fucking stated outright in the first ten seconds of that video I owned none of the rights to the footage and was using it for criticism and review covered under fair use and put it in the description, this is all I needed to do and yet still this video got shit on twice. I am more than entitled to say what the fuck to that. My other videos are a different matter as whether I’ve done some legal or illegal in the ones with account penalties next to them is a grey area.

When you’re utilizing footage to make a point about that footage or using it to demonstrate a separate point you’re trying to make, then its okay but when it comes to just using the footage or music to make a work better or seem more professional, then we call copyright into question…or do we? ….yeah who knows, but I have some quibbles with how this is applied to the youtube claim/dispute system.

Copyright literally means, the right to copy that work for commercial gains. IE. when an author has a book published by a publisher, they sign the right to copy that work to the publisher to print the book so technically the publisher is now the owner of that work. Its okay if you are aware that say Trent Reznor or anyone else open minded about online incorporation of their work into new work and thinks its okay, the publishers hold the cards and all the publishers care about is money, so it isn’t. The artist’s opinion doesn’t hold much water when we come to intellectual property law unless the artist is the one with all the copyrights.

Problem is, when copyright is handled by a multitude of greedy people, we get flimsy definitions of copyright pandered around in the bid to call people “thieves” which I think have quite a lot of holes in. When people like me use third party content on youtube, we are not claiming we made it, and this has nothing to do with copyright and has only been pulled out of thin air because you want to make people sound worse than they actually are. Because for some reason no one stops and thinks “hang on…that’s the dumbest piece of shit insult against people using third party content ever. A toddler could see why this accusation of claiming its yours doesn’t make the slightest ounce of sense and yet the claims system is set up in favour of this baffling reason.

Internet culture allows for parody, review and all that shit but unlike a lot of mediums, it also allows for third party use because we are not profiting from it and have no desire to call it our own work. If the automated software thought I was calling an episode of doctor who my own work then that is why the system needs reviewing because no real person anywhere EVER would think that I, a long haired childish yeti man who lives in some shithole in England with some office job, barely any friends and barely any money, personally made a rather expensive production with the words “DOCTOR WHO” and “OWNED BY THE BBC” on it. You would have to be completely fucking retarded to think I am calling the footage used my own work, especially since it contains the words “this is not my own work” and is a review of the work it contains footage of. I’m using the platform of reviews because I’m legally covered and also because I like making videos about stuff I find interesting, in this case TV, books and movies. And unless you hadn’t noticed, I’m not exactly getting a whole lot of attention for it that could be attention given to the creative work and publisher providing them business. If a video that uses footage or a song has about thirty views, I don’t think you need to worry that maybe people won’t buy your shit now that someone’s re-purposed it here. I’m not a serious threat and a pirate, I’m someone with an internet account and a hobby.

This is creative extrovertism, an exercise in time wasting no different in that respect to watching a movie, going to a pub, doing something outside that regular people do. This isn’t a business, its a hobby. Granted some people use the platform of videos for business but I’m not. I’m not getting any money from it and trying to resort to fair use as it means this shit won’t happen as much because software isn’t programmed with definitions of copyright law. I am not a business and I know there’s barely any chance of many people watching my work and liking it but its something to do and so that’s why I do it. Not because I’m claiming a bit of something I found and used in my work is mine or because I want people to watch me instead of buying the original work. I’m making and uploading videos and saying “watch this if you want to” on a budget of zero and including a list of where I got the stuff that isn’t mine from. I am no threat to your business. I’m not uploading full movies or TV episodes like a lot of youtubers, I’m making videos with bits of other people’s work in them because its something to do, not because I want to steal, there is a difference and this is the reason copyright claims and disputes of random arseholes like me on the internet does not work.

So dear people in charge of youtube copyright dispute system. You can easily differentiate a hobbyist from a pirate with one simple test:

WATCH THE VIDEOS BEFORE CRYING ABOUT THEM

Stu

ZoneOneRadio – #ZoneOneDigest – Community Radio Streetwalker – Presented by @5tuartHardy @z1radio

 Stuart Hardy presents #ZoneOneDigest – ZoneOneRadio’s weekly “Best of..” show.Download from from iTunes – boos/1415093 – or listen online…
listen to ‘#ZoneOneDigest with @5tuarthardy – Community Radio Streetwalker — @z1radio’ on Audioboo

//

Stuart Hardy Presents the best of the week on Zone one Radio, as long as you don’t feed him after midnight…

Since his listening figures aren’t up to scratch, host of the best of the week on Zone One Radio, Stuart Hardy, has been sent out onto the streets to flog his show to innocent passers by. He isn’t very good at this. While he does that, this week he presents a few lovely titbits from the week:

#LondonLife chat to sketch comedy troupe the Boom Jennies before their gig for homelessness at the Union Chapel

#LondonGigGuide with radio hipster Tom Du Croz chats to Icelandic Hafdis Huld

#IntoTheMix chat to remixer Whyel about bunnyrabbits

And we welcome the new Russian show Hовая Pадиопрограмма to Zone One Radio and enlighten any non-Russian speakers as to what its about.

Enjoy!

www.twitter.com/5tuarthardy and www.twitter.com/z1radio

www.ZoneOneRadio.com

www.facebook.com/Stubagful and www.facebook.com/ZoneOneRadio

An Illustrated Review of Fifty Shades of Grey: Chapter 17

A very sensual, sexual chapter, all about ana and Christian bitching over email and car resale….are you as turned on as I am? So erotic.

https://stubagful.wordpress.com/

STUFF THAT’S NOT MINE:
The plot (if you can call it that) of Fifty Shades of Grey – Random House
Tubular Bells – Mike Oldfield (Mercury)
The Shining music (Warner Bros)
Theme from this is your life – Laurie Johnson (BBC/ITV/Lots of people)

He Who Moans: Doctor Who: The Rings of Akhaten

FOOTAGE OWNED BY THE BBC, DOCTOR WHO IS A TRADEMARK OF THE BBC
ALL IMAGE SOURCES OWNED BY RESPECTIVE OWNERS

This episode was okay, fairly average with one line that completely overshadows everything else.

Tomatoes are a fruit, not a vegetable says Dave from Kent: The newspaper and your opinion

I’ve avoided talking about the “your opinions” page in the Metro before because opinion pages in newspapers often leave me jawless with rage at how stupid the general populace is, but I really couldn’t resist in this instance.

scan0002

…if you didn’t see this next one coming, you seriously need your head checked

SKY IS BLUE

Duh, I fink that politicians are all the same really and that butter is made out of milk.

I have a suggestion for a topic for the Metro talk page: “Do other people’s opinions on important topics actually matter or is it just people stating the fucking obvious in a positive or negative tone depending on what the paper’s editors think with the occasional opposite point to give some illusion of presenting both sides of the argument?”

crimetalk

None of this bollocks is actually based on anything. Christine Blamange does not have any knowledge on how crime and punishment works in order to offer an informed opinion as far as I’m aware. She might be a lawyer or a crime philosopher, but the strong chances are she isn’t because I made her up and I think she’s a chip shop worker who fights Ninjas in her spare time, so her opinion on anything matters about as much as mine in the grand scheme of things.

These people writing about how MPs are out of touch to expect a £20,000 pay rise are just reverberating the opinion the paper is already offering. This is not an issue, its a statement based on a limited amount of knowledge disconnected from the issue. No one saying this actually knows what goes on in the corridors of power and are only offering this opinion because we keep being told we all need to tighten our belts and this has leaked without any of the reasoning behind it. Yes, I agree with you, MPs expecting a £20,000 pay rise are out of touch, but that’s an opinion I’ve formed based on an obvious oversevation any bastard could make because they don’t actually have any involvement in it or any knowledge of the justification for it and so it is in that sense exactly the same as proclaiming from the rooftops “I’M TELLING YOU!! THE SKY IS BLUE! BELIEVE ME!”. All newspaper talk pages do is invite opinions from people with the same limited amount of knowledge and understanding surrounding an issue as the reader. These people don’t matter more than you, they’re just extroverted enough to think anyone cares what they think that they’re able to offer it to be printed by something that seems more official than a man in a street.

I once heard a phone in show talking about government benefits either being too high or too easy to cheat and it was literally one caller says “its too easy, I know this bloke who’s cheated the system and gets away with it” the next person calls in and says “its too hard for people who need benefits to claim it, I know this one bloke with cystic fibrosis and can’t get benefits cause its too difficult”. Yes, I have one person to back up my opinion, one example out of how many people that live in this country? Over 50 million, you don’t have a statistic, you have a case study, and most case studies include more than one subject in order to reach a conclusion, all you’re basing your opinion on is one personal example.

None of you are looking at the bigger picture, none of you have statistics or more than one first hand account to back yourselves up, you don’t have complete empathetic knowledge of every situation involved in order to have an informed enough opinion across the board, so why the hell should I take any of this seriously? All you’re basing your opinion on is the vague newspaper headlines which have been tailored to meet the general political persuasion of the paper that will only print the opinions that conform to the popular viewpoints formed because of what they’ve said in the first place. It’s an infinite feedback loop of pointless opinions based on nothing. It just gets printed to feed people’s egos when they see someone printed it so maybe their opinion means something and the paper’s idea that people agree with them and what they think their paper should be saying. These are not real informed opinions given by people and they don’t matter or back up anything to do with a real important issue or indicate anything, this is publicity for the paper making it clear that the paper has power over people that believe the paper’s viewpoint. If it really was about opinion clash and offering an open public forum and presenting a two sided argument, then the people’s points column would look like this:

writeto

I have an idea, how about we all send our opinions to blogs.metro.co.uk concerning a random opinion that none of us hold just to see if they’ll publish it because its popular and they want to prove they really understand people so you’ll keep reading. But in this case, they didn’t tell us what to think which shows that we are the ones in control of the news here, not these random editors we don’t know who have just as reliable opinions as we do:

TALKAGGA1

TALKAGGA2

Send all praises of Agga Doo and encouragement to get The Metro to print a tribute to it to webmaster@ukmetro.co.uk or send tweets to http://www.twitter.com/MetroUK or their facebook account: http://www.facebook.com/MetroUK

Yes there is a point, by doing this we can prove that newspapers do not have power over us, we are in charge of what they write because we are the readers, we own them, they don’t own us.

ZoneOneRadio – #ZoneOneDigest – The Clipshow that won’t Behave – Presented by @5tuartHardy @z1radio

Stuart Hardy presents #ZoneOneDigest – ZoneOneRadio’s weekly “Best of..” show.

Download from from iTunes – boos/1401717 – or listen online…

//

Stuart Hardy Presents the best of the week on Zone one Radio, as long as you don’t feed him after midnight…

This week, Stuart Hardy was kidnapped and made to host the show in a polite and complimentary manner under threat of torture from his kidnapper…naturally this doesn’t go according to plan.

This week:

#InGoodTaste chat to host of the Pink Lady food photography awards Jay Rayner.

#LondonGigGuide present some more of the best from upcoming indie bands.

#Generation3 with Empress Susan Vickers and Lord James Levett have a cheese string party.

And #La Nueva Armada…do something…I don’t know what but it sounds fun.

Enjoy!

www.twitter.com/5tuarthardy and www.twitter.com/z1radio

www.ZoneOneRadio.com

www.facebook.com/Stubagful and www.facebook.com/ZoneOneRadio