It looks like media companies are starting to put the thumbscrews on YouTube. The NHL is yanking or limiting their videos on YouTube:

Hey folks, I just got off the phone with someone at the NHL. Looks like the NHL wants you to see video recaps, but they don’t want anyone to spread the word. I’m not sure exactly when they flipped the switch, but as of right now the NHL is no longer letting anyone embed any of their YouTube videos on any other site.

Can someone explain this to me? Isn’t the whole point of YouTube to get more eyeballs on a video? I really thought that the NHL was doing a smart thing by pushing the envelope and embracing Web 2.0 to get more hockey in front of more people, (other than the once a month NBC game and All-Star game on Versus, of course), but it turns out they just don’t get it.

They’re putting their videos on YouTube, but they don’t understand why they’re putting their videos on YouTube.

The NHL wants control of their content. Expect more companies to follow NHL’s lead, making deals with video sites that give them control, and sending other sites takedown notices.
via RUWT?

Attorneys general of more than 20 states have written to Anheuser-Busch, asking the brewer for better tools to make sure underaged viewers aren’t accessing its new beer-themed video site, Bud.TV.

The site asks for your name, zip code and birthday to verify that you are 21 or over. The attorneys general strongly encourage Anheuser-Busch to use a more effective age-verification tool. They request that, at a minimum, you should have to enter your name and full address, or a driver’s license number, exactly as it appears on a government-issued ID before a person could access the site.

The situation raises questions about the responsibilities of online publishers, and also whether the government should regulate Internet video sites, and if so, how. Thousands of video sites offer content, without age restrictions, that is more adult than anything at Bud.TV.

Tighter restrictions at Internet video sites could reduce the sites’ usability and dramatially reduce their audience.

“Despite the fact that this software has turned away tens of thousands of visitors, we have continued to use it to show that we’re serious about wanting to prevent illegal underage drinking,” saidAnheuser-Busch representative Francine Katz. “Despite these extraordinary efforts, some have urged us to make the age verification process more difficult and even more invasive of people’s privacy.”

The Attorney Generals propose several other possible safeguards, like sending a postcard to the home or making a phone call to check that a legal-aged adult, and not a child below the drinking age, is checking out the site.

via Ad Week

Truth Wins Out, an organization that “counters right wing propaganda” and promotes understanding of gay issues, has announced that it would file a complaint with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood against the Tupelo, Mississippi-based American Family Association for selling a misleading video on its web-site titled, It’s Not Gay. Truth Wins Out urged Hood to expeditiously pull this fraudulent video from the marketplace, require a written apology from the AFA and that refunds be offered to dissatisfied consumers.

“Nowhere does the American Family Association inform potential viewers that Johnston’s ‘cure’ did not endure,” wrote Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen in the letter to Hood. “This organization is undeniably peddling false hope to vulnerable and desperate people and bilking them out of their hard earned money. In doing so, the American Family Association is unscrupulously capitalizing on the sincere and heartfelt religious convictions of its followers and exploiting them for the organization’s financial gain.”

Despite publicly admitting that Johnston had failed in his efforts at heterosexuality, AFA is now selling the specious It’s Not Gay video and portraying Johnston to unsuspecting viewers as a “former homosexual.” (more…)

It looks like mainstream media is picking up on the growing use of YouTube and other Internet video sites to distribute political propaganda.

A recent CBS article looks at Islamic militants using Internet video sites as tools for spreading their ideology:

Anyone with an Internet connection can watch videos of bombings and sniper attacks against U.S. forces - shot and edited by Islamic militants and broadcast on YouTube, the world’s largest video-sharing Web site.

With the global spread of high-speed Internet connections and the relative anonymity afforded by the world’s biggest and busiest sites, extremists have found a new theater to display violence and anti-American propaganda.

Until recently, videos shot by terrorist groups were posted predominantly on specialist Internet forums, which often only those knowing what to look for could find. But more are turning to mainstream sites like YouTube, which draw millions of visitors around the world each day.

“They can always bring down a video, but it’s very easy to create a new one. It’s like an uphill treadmill for YouTube,” said Sajjan Gohel, director of international security at the London-based Asia-Pacific Foundation, a counterterrorism think tank.

Jeremy Curtin, a U.S. State Department official responsible for monitoring Internet propaganda, said authorities were aware of the footage on sites like YouTube but had not made any real headway in tackling the problem.

“It’s new to everybody, we are trying to find out how best to engage with Internet companies,” he said.

With its 100,000 DMCA takedown notices aimed at YouTube users, Viacom is getting a lot of videos mistakenly taken down from YouTube.

Among the 100,000 videos targeted for takedowns was a home movie shot in a BBQ joint, a film trailer by a documentarian, and a music video (previously here) about karaoke in Singapore. None of these contained anything owned by Viacom. Viacom has admitted to “no more than” 60 mistakes so far.

“If they are making these kinds of mistakes, who can tell how many fair uses of Viacom content they also targeted in their 100,000 takedowns?” asks EFF’s Fred von Lohmann. “Hundreds? Thousands?”

If Viacom made a clear mistake and your clip contains no content from Viacom-owned copyrighted works, sending a simple DMCA counter-notice to YouTube may be enough to do the job. But if you’re attempting to make a fair use of Viacom’s works, it may make more sense to go to court to assert your rights. More information about your options is available at the Fair Use Network.

If your video has been removed from YouTube based on a bogus Viacom takedown, EFF wants talk with you - they may be able to help you directly or help find another lawyer who can.

EFF has created a video to explain the situation: