SEC Did It Again
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
I'm apologizing in advance for being a little whiny, but I'm going to answer a question before it gets asked...<div>
</div><div>The reason you can't see the latest MSU football video is because (again) the SEC took it down. I haven't been told why other than it's a "copyright infringement", but it comes from XOS Technologies (which is the SEC). Four of the videos from last year, including the Nick Bell tribute, were taken down last year as well. The odd thing is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency on what video constituted the violation ESPECIALLY since 95% was shot BY ME. </div><div>
</div><div>What REALLY gets to me about all of this is the fact that there are THOUSANDS of videos (Mississippi State-related or not) that have illegal video and haven't been taken down. Which leads me to believe I'm being targeted. I know that sounds a little "black helicopter-ish", but it seems to make sense at the moment. </div><div>
</div><div>I'm not depriving the SEC of money, hurting people's jobs, etc. I'm doing it for free for your enjoyment and (admittedly) kinda get my name out there and maybe wrangle a job somewhere. It got me the job at EMCC in a roundabout way. </div><div>
</div><div>Rant over. </div>
</div><div>The reason you can't see the latest MSU football video is because (again) the SEC took it down. I haven't been told why other than it's a "copyright infringement", but it comes from XOS Technologies (which is the SEC). Four of the videos from last year, including the Nick Bell tribute, were taken down last year as well. The odd thing is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency on what video constituted the violation ESPECIALLY since 95% was shot BY ME. </div><div>
</div><div>What REALLY gets to me about all of this is the fact that there are THOUSANDS of videos (Mississippi State-related or not) that have illegal video and haven't been taken down. Which leads me to believe I'm being targeted. I know that sounds a little "black helicopter-ish", but it seems to make sense at the moment. </div><div>
</div><div>I'm not depriving the SEC of money, hurting people's jobs, etc. I'm doing it for free for your enjoyment and (admittedly) kinda get my name out there and maybe wrangle a job somewhere. It got me the job at EMCC in a roundabout way. </div><div>
</div><div>Rant over. </div>
I'm apologizing in advance for being a little whiny, but I'm going to answer a question before it gets asked...<div>
</div><div>The reason you can't see the latest MSU football video is because (again) the SEC took it down. I haven't been told why other than it's a "copyright infringement", but it comes from XOS Technologies (which is the SEC). Four of the videos from last year, including the Nick Bell tribute, were taken down last year as well. The odd thing is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency on what video constituted the violation ESPECIALLY since 95% was shot BY ME. </div><div>
</div><div>What REALLY gets to me about all of this is the fact that there are THOUSANDS of videos (Mississippi State-related or not) that have illegal video and haven't been taken down. Which leads me to believe I'm being targeted. I know that sounds a little "black helicopter-ish", but it seems to make sense at the moment. </div><div>
</div><div>I'm not depriving the SEC of money, hurting people's jobs, etc. I'm doing it for free for your enjoyment and (admittedly) kinda get my name out there and maybe wrangle a job somewhere. It got me the job at EMCC in a roundabout way. </div><div>
</div><div>Rant over. </div>
</div><div>The reason you can't see the latest MSU football video is because (again) the SEC took it down. I haven't been told why other than it's a "copyright infringement", but it comes from XOS Technologies (which is the SEC). Four of the videos from last year, including the Nick Bell tribute, were taken down last year as well. The odd thing is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency on what video constituted the violation ESPECIALLY since 95% was shot BY ME. </div><div>
</div><div>What REALLY gets to me about all of this is the fact that there are THOUSANDS of videos (Mississippi State-related or not) that have illegal video and haven't been taken down. Which leads me to believe I'm being targeted. I know that sounds a little "black helicopter-ish", but it seems to make sense at the moment. </div><div>
</div><div>I'm not depriving the SEC of money, hurting people's jobs, etc. I'm doing it for free for your enjoyment and (admittedly) kinda get my name out there and maybe wrangle a job somewhere. It got me the job at EMCC in a roundabout way. </div><div>
</div><div>Rant over. </div>
I'm apologizing in advance for being a little whiny, but I'm going to answer a question before it gets asked...<div>
</div><div>The reason you can't see the latest MSU football video is because (again) the SEC took it down. I haven't been told why other than it's a "copyright infringement", but it comes from XOS Technologies (which is the SEC). Four of the videos from last year, including the Nick Bell tribute, were taken down last year as well. The odd thing is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency on what video constituted the violation ESPECIALLY since 95% was shot BY ME. </div><div>
</div><div>What REALLY gets to me about all of this is the fact that there are THOUSANDS of videos (Mississippi State-related or not) that have illegal video and haven't been taken down. Which leads me to believe I'm being targeted. I know that sounds a little "black helicopter-ish", but it seems to make sense at the moment. </div><div>
</div><div>I'm not depriving the SEC of money, hurting people's jobs, etc. I'm doing it for free for your enjoyment and (admittedly) kinda get my name out there and maybe wrangle a job somewhere. It got me the job at EMCC in a roundabout way. </div><div>
</div><div>Rant over. </div>
</div><div>The reason you can't see the latest MSU football video is because (again) the SEC took it down. I haven't been told why other than it's a "copyright infringement", but it comes from XOS Technologies (which is the SEC). Four of the videos from last year, including the Nick Bell tribute, were taken down last year as well. The odd thing is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency on what video constituted the violation ESPECIALLY since 95% was shot BY ME. </div><div>
</div><div>What REALLY gets to me about all of this is the fact that there are THOUSANDS of videos (Mississippi State-related or not) that have illegal video and haven't been taken down. Which leads me to believe I'm being targeted. I know that sounds a little "black helicopter-ish", but it seems to make sense at the moment. </div><div>
</div><div>I'm not depriving the SEC of money, hurting people's jobs, etc. I'm doing it for free for your enjoyment and (admittedly) kinda get my name out there and maybe wrangle a job somewhere. It got me the job at EMCC in a roundabout way. </div><div>
</div><div>Rant over. </div>
Wow- I was going to post this video. I JUST saw it this morning- like an hour ago.
I think that's the video you're talking about, anyway. If it was- GREAT job, that's one of the better ones I've seen- for anyone. You really captured everything quite nicely. I was going to send it to LaDarius Perkins, too (I went to HS with him). He would have loved that. Stupid.
I think that's the video you're talking about, anyway. If it was- GREAT job, that's one of the better ones I've seen- for anyone. You really captured everything quite nicely. I was going to send it to LaDarius Perkins, too (I went to HS with him). He would have loved that. Stupid.
I'm a little surprised, because half of the videos from last year stood... and they're all made up of the same content, which 95% of shot myself. <div>
</div><div>My biggest point is the fact that there are numerous other videos that use solely "illegal" video and they haven't been touched yet. Someone is turning me in.</div>
</div><div>My biggest point is the fact that there are numerous other videos that use solely "illegal" video and they haven't been touched yet. Someone is turning me in.</div>
We wouldn't want uncalled-for excitement about the upcoming football season of an SEC school to be created. You could get us rednecks in a tizzy and cause another great football game experience. Then we'd have total chaos if the team started winning and everything. The SEC would be in danger of looking bad then. How would it look for the SEC if poor little MSU started rocking, getting great national exposure, and contending for the spotlight over LSU, Bama, UF, or UT??? You gotta realize what you're doing to the SEC, son.
I worked for a company's productions company for 6 years. And during that time, I also worked closely withtheirlicensing department as well. So I have a pretty good clue on what's happening.<div>
</div><div>You cannot reproduce the likeness of an SEC event without theirconsent. Now with that being said, they are going after you because your product has a professional look and COULD be passed off as "official". And the SEC does not want YOUR work representing what could be THEIR'S. </div><div>They are NOT going to go after some ultra-compressed, roodypoo video some flapjack made in Windows Movie Maker. Why? Because viewers know the video is crappy and disassociate it from an "official SEC production".</div><div>
</div><div>As for someone turning you in, that could be the case. But either way, you are in the wrong. I'm not trying to be an ***, because I absolutely love gettingwoollywith your videos. I'm just telling you how the cookie crumbles.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>You cannot reproduce the likeness of an SEC event without theirconsent. Now with that being said, they are going after you because your product has a professional look and COULD be passed off as "official". And the SEC does not want YOUR work representing what could be THEIR'S. </div><div>They are NOT going to go after some ultra-compressed, roodypoo video some flapjack made in Windows Movie Maker. Why? Because viewers know the video is crappy and disassociate it from an "official SEC production".</div><div>
</div><div>As for someone turning you in, that could be the case. But either way, you are in the wrong. I'm not trying to be an ***, because I absolutely love gettingwoollywith your videos. I'm just telling you how the cookie crumbles.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
My old boss there was very impressed by the links that I sent him of Derek's work, but reported that they were "too late" and that EMCC had hired him. But he called him "very creative."<div>
</div><div>Yes, I'm biased because I know the people there. But ratting out somebody for copyright violations isn't their style.
<div>
</div><div>I'd look more toward people who are bothered by State fans getting excited in general. Every one of Derek's videos have been linked here, and the response, here, has been overwhelmingly positive for every one.</div><div>
</div><div>If all it takes it an anonymous tip to some SEC licensing office, why assume it's the TV Center and not somebody who resents State wooliness itself?</div> </div>
</div><div>Yes, I'm biased because I know the people there. But ratting out somebody for copyright violations isn't their style.
<div>
</div><div>I'd look more toward people who are bothered by State fans getting excited in general. Every one of Derek's videos have been linked here, and the response, here, has been overwhelmingly positive for every one.</div><div>
</div><div>If all it takes it an anonymous tip to some SEC licensing office, why assume it's the TV Center and not somebody who resents State wooliness itself?</div> </div>
I guess in the most strict legal sense, I am in the wrong on this... but it's the consistency that bothers me... there are other videos on my account that have the SAME video that haven't been taken down, so why this specific one? Of the now 5 that have been removed, 4 of them have the most views for any video on my channel... that's the part I don't understand, they're being selective... I'm either fully wrong, or I'm not at all, does that make sense?<div>aTotal360 said:
</div><div>The other part is, I really don't understand what I'm hurting by trying to get people excited about MSU football... which is why I'm fairly certain MSU wasn't behind it. It would go against everything they're trying to do by attacking someone who is getting people excited for THEIR football team. If you're mad I'm doing something better than yours, do something about it. Get more creative, hire someone else, do whatever, just don't be vindictive.
</div>
But as I said yesterday, that was going to be my last MSU video anyway... I'm not at the station anymore, which means I won't be able to shoot the video or have access to it...<div>
</div><div>I just hate it for everyone else, because it seems to cause some excitement and people like them... I've got all the original videos, but no one else can see them... it sucks.</div>
</div><div>I just hate it for everyone else, because it seems to cause some excitement and people like them... I've got all the original videos, but no one else can see them... it sucks.</div>
using film produced by that individual? Can you have a copyright in a live event? It's not the actual football game that's copyrighted is it? Isn't it therecordings of it?I think the ticket is basically a licensing agreement that includes a provision where you agree not to record the game, but I'm not sure howthat would give them a copyright that would allow them to force youtube to take down the video. If 5% of the video came from somebody else, that would be enough to givethe copyright owner of that 5% a right to get it taken down. But could they actually stop user created content (that does not capture copyrighted material such as a song) from posting?aTotal360 said:
Are they removing just the videos with footage that wasn't shot by you? That would make sense.<div>
</div><div>I know for a fact the SEC's media department has people (interns) who's job is to just look for people that are notlicensedto usetheirlikeness. Meaningthere are people that wake up everyday looking for videos andunlicensedhats in convenientstores.</div><div>
</div><div>And now that the SEC hashttp://www.secdigitalnetwork.com, they are trying even harder to protecttheirproduct. You are showing bits and pieces of video they are wanting people to pay for.</div>
</div><div>I know for a fact the SEC's media department has people (interns) who's job is to just look for people that are notlicensedto usetheirlikeness. Meaningthere are people that wake up everyday looking for videos andunlicensedhats in convenientstores.</div><div>
</div><div>And now that the SEC hashttp://www.secdigitalnetwork.com, they are trying even harder to protecttheirproduct. You are showing bits and pieces of video they are wanting people to pay for.</div>
A football game is a live performance. The one presenting the live performance automatically owns a copyright in all images produced from that live performance. In this case, the SEC, MSU and the opposing school own the copyright. The person shooting the images also has copyright in their own specific images, but they need the permission of the SEC and MSU to reproduce those images.
The real question is why you appear to be singled out in this. If the SEC is truly being selective in its enforcement, then it could lose its copyright protection. I presume the SEC would claim they are going after every video they have knowledge of, but if that's true then they aren't looking very hard.
The real question is why you appear to be singled out in this. If the SEC is truly being selective in its enforcement, then it could lose its copyright protection. I presume the SEC would claim they are going after every video they have knowledge of, but if that's true then they aren't looking very hard.
This is dead on. <div>Dawgzilla said:
</div><div>I will take the fall if I did something wrong. I probably did screw up and didn't pay attention to every single line of fine print out there, and that's fine. But if you're going to enforce it, then enforce it EVERYWHERE. Or at least, when I ask, tell me what it was I did wrong so I can either A) not do it again or B) figure out your rules in the first place. I have tried contacting people who would be able to answer my questions, but have NEVER gotten a response.</div><div>
</div><div>A couple of things that are interesting to me in this case though: 1) The "True Maroon" video I did for MSU for the spring game is still live on YouTube. It contains a lot of the same video I used in some others that were taken down. Not implying at all that MSU is behind it, but it is interesting. 2) The videos started being taken down last January after Joe Galbraith told me he "made the SEC aware of them". Again, not blaming anyone specifically, but the timing and consistency (or lack thereof) on all of this is so strange. </div><div>
</div><div>I may be very paranoid and grasping at straws, but even if I was in the wrong (which I will admit if I am), it's not being handled consistently.</div>
I have seen his discussions before of copyright issues and like what he says or not, he is usually right.
I know you won't have access to this material anymore but I would like to suggest you contact the TV center and actually talk with them about doing some projects with the school's blessings from time to time.
Yeah, you probably won't get paid for it but it will look good on your reel and give you some strong word of mouth in the business if they say yes, which is worth it's weight in gold in the production world.
I know you won't have access to this material anymore but I would like to suggest you contact the TV center and actually talk with them about doing some projects with the school's blessings from time to time.
Yeah, you probably won't get paid for it but it will look good on your reel and give you some strong word of mouth in the business if they say yes, which is worth it's weight in gold in the production world.
because I think the SEC would lose. Fair use allows for "transformative" use of copyright material. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a pre-season highlight video is not attempting to recreate a television broadcast of a football game. The video used small snippets of what? Maybe 3 minutes of total play from the year? The SEC has no right to the "likeness" of football. They have a right to their logos and to the broadcast but fair use has always allowed people to use material under copyright for other purposes. Now, would the court agree with me that a highlight video is different enough from a live television broadcast of a football game to meet the standards for fair use? Who knows. But I would love to see that play out.Dawgzilla said:
Maybe someday if I win the lottery I'll just spend my money fighting cases like this to set precedent. (Power Ball is up to $220 million, so this could be my day!)
They were from last year's Auburn game. One clip had the audio and a little bit of video of the 'More Cowbell' skit. The other was just straight up stadium atmosphere and not a bit of footage from the play on the field. All of my other clips from other games have not been touched. I agree they are inconsistent, but maybe they target the videos that gather the most hits?
Look at it like taking a video camera into a movietheateror a concert.<div>
</div><div>I agree about only using 3 minutes of footage and it not being a big deal.Problem is they have to draw the line somewhere, whether it's 3 minutes or 3 frames.</div>
</div><div>I agree about only using 3 minutes of footage and it not being a big deal.Problem is they have to draw the line somewhere, whether it's 3 minutes or 3 frames.</div>
legally use snippets from a movie in a transformative work. The courts have upheld the "Hitler Finds Out" theme where people change the subtitles to a scene in Der Untergang. I'm sure you have seen one of them: http://youtu.be/T0PwqvwyG54 I don't think the guy snuck a camera into the game, he was allowed to take that footage. On that note I would like to see court weigh in on a public University not allowing people to take pictures from inside a public owned stadium as well, but that's probably on even shakier legal ground.aTotal360 said:
I still think the SEC would lose if this were to go to court. But I can promise you two things: A) They would throw a ton of money at good lawyers and B) they would settle before they would allow a precedent to be set.
What is the point, he cut the video, some like to call it sampling. Once it is reworked its not the SEC's anymore, see Vanilla Ice and Eminem, they sample all the time. Plus most of this is his video, he recorded.
I say we get the original videos to the MSU marketing guys and have them play them on loop for an hour during warmups.
I say we get the original videos to the MSU marketing guys and have them play them on loop for an hour during warmups.
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="min-width: 0px; ">was the decision upheld or did the producers of Der Untergang drop the case because they realized the spoofing was getting their movie a lot of attention?</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="min-width: 0px; ">
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="min-width: 0px; ">Also, I know "spoofing" is legally protected. Ask Weird Al or Mel Brooks. I'm sure what Derek is doing is not "spoofing", therefore not covered under said ruling. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="min-width: 0px; ">
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="min-width: 0px; ">Once again, I'm not a lawyer.</span></span></div>
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="min-width: 0px; ">Also, I know "spoofing" is legally protected. Ask Weird Al or Mel Brooks. I'm sure what Derek is doing is not "spoofing", therefore not covered under said ruling. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="min-width: 0px; ">
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="min-width: 0px; ">Once again, I'm not a lawyer.</span></span></div>
As I think most people would be pretty bored by it. I never heard that a court ruled on the "Hitler Finds Out" vidoes...if one has I would really appreciate a link (I just did a google search and found nada, and my free Lexis search didn't turn up anything either). In my opinion, those videos were not truly "transformative works" because all the authors were doing was changing the subtitles. That's pretty thin. But I would be very interested if a court said otherwise.
"Spoofing" is not legally protected either, unless you are actually commenting on the art itself. If someone did one of those "Hitler Finds Out" videos, and the topic was the historical inaccuracy of the original film, that might have been legally protected as a parody. But just changing the words to a song to something funny is not protected. For the record, Weird Al always got permission from the original artists.
According to the federal statute, "fair use" must be "for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research." If the video in question were being made to demonstrate how Dan Mullen's offense works, or to provide an example of the improved game atmosphere at MSU, then perhaps it could qualify as "fair use". But, the video is just used for entertainment, and (as admitted by the author) in hopes of providing some type of professional advancement.
I agree that it sucks, but the SEC does need to police this stuff. While this video actually helps the SEC rather than harm it, what if someone else did a similar video intended to make fun of MSU? The SEC wouldn't want that, and if they allow this video to stand they would also have to allow a mocking video to stand.
I'm just curious about how hard the SEC is policing this. If you just watched the video on Youtube, the sidebar with other suggestions is nothing but videos using the SEC's copyrighted material. Do they just ignore that on their computer screens?
"Spoofing" is not legally protected either, unless you are actually commenting on the art itself. If someone did one of those "Hitler Finds Out" videos, and the topic was the historical inaccuracy of the original film, that might have been legally protected as a parody. But just changing the words to a song to something funny is not protected. For the record, Weird Al always got permission from the original artists.
According to the federal statute, "fair use" must be "for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research." If the video in question were being made to demonstrate how Dan Mullen's offense works, or to provide an example of the improved game atmosphere at MSU, then perhaps it could qualify as "fair use". But, the video is just used for entertainment, and (as admitted by the author) in hopes of providing some type of professional advancement.
I agree that it sucks, but the SEC does need to police this stuff. While this video actually helps the SEC rather than harm it, what if someone else did a similar video intended to make fun of MSU? The SEC wouldn't want that, and if they allow this video to stand they would also have to allow a mocking video to stand.
I'm just curious about how hard the SEC is policing this. If you just watched the video on Youtube, the sidebar with other suggestions is nothing but videos using the SEC's copyrighted material. Do they just ignore that on their computer screens?
Youtube doesn't want any trouble, so they will take down anything that might possibly infringe a valid copyright. They clearly don't do any type of independent analysis. I've never had a client ask me to contact Youtube for them, so I don't even know what Youtube requires from someone claiming copyright infringement, but its not much.
So, even if the SEC is way off base in claiming copyright infringement, Youtube is still going to do what they ask.
So, even if the SEC is way off base in claiming copyright infringement, Youtube is still going to do what they ask.
<span>I filed a complaint (or whatever), and it was eventually reinstated.? See below.
The video was pre-game shenanigans from before the Florida home game two years ago.? It was before the television coverage, so no one saw it.? I put it on youtube so those who weren't there could see?the pregame?smacktalk that?people were talking about.?
I got an e-mail from YouTube, saying that XOS Technologies claimed that the content was copyrighted.? Immediately, I was incensed, knowing that fair use covers publishing for public review and commentary (basically, like the news).? YouTube does a lot to protect copyright interests, which is good for them, because otherwise they'd probably be run out of business.? Therefore, when YouTube gets a notification of copyright, they instantly block the video.? If the poster doesn't file a complaint to argue, the video remains blocked.? But there's a catch to filing a complaint - when you do, the copyright claimant (here, XOS) has the opportunity to review your complaint, in which you state why you feel that the material is not copyright protected.? If they again insist that it is copyrighted, you either lose or have to take them to court.? The catch is that if you take them to court, according to YouTube's terms and conditions, YOU have to pay the attorney's fees for the claimant, should you lose.?
Luckily for me, XOS didn't argue my assuredly well-written and intimidating complaint, and the video was reinstated.? However, I would be a little leery of the complaint if I were the GuyBehindtheGuy, if for no other reason than his stuff if good and they may REALLY want to keep it from being on the YouTube.
/wow - I'm up to 17,000 views...
<embed height="349" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BQKBn81mguk?version=3&hl=en_US" allowScriptAccess="never" ></embed> </span>
The video was pre-game shenanigans from before the Florida home game two years ago.? It was before the television coverage, so no one saw it.? I put it on youtube so those who weren't there could see?the pregame?smacktalk that?people were talking about.?
I got an e-mail from YouTube, saying that XOS Technologies claimed that the content was copyrighted.? Immediately, I was incensed, knowing that fair use covers publishing for public review and commentary (basically, like the news).? YouTube does a lot to protect copyright interests, which is good for them, because otherwise they'd probably be run out of business.? Therefore, when YouTube gets a notification of copyright, they instantly block the video.? If the poster doesn't file a complaint to argue, the video remains blocked.? But there's a catch to filing a complaint - when you do, the copyright claimant (here, XOS) has the opportunity to review your complaint, in which you state why you feel that the material is not copyright protected.? If they again insist that it is copyrighted, you either lose or have to take them to court.? The catch is that if you take them to court, according to YouTube's terms and conditions, YOU have to pay the attorney's fees for the claimant, should you lose.?
Luckily for me, XOS didn't argue my assuredly well-written and intimidating complaint, and the video was reinstated.? However, I would be a little leery of the complaint if I were the GuyBehindtheGuy, if for no other reason than his stuff if good and they may REALLY want to keep it from being on the YouTube.
/wow - I'm up to 17,000 views...
<embed height="349" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BQKBn81mguk?version=3&hl=en_US" allowScriptAccess="never" ></embed> </span>