Why did scream video cost so much?


The scream video cost $100,000, in part because of a legal settlement with the U.S. Copyright Office. Since the video was originally shared on BitTorrent, a site that allows individuals to share large files without uploading them to an Internet service provider like AOL or Yahoo, the court said, the public’s expectation of privacy was violated.

Why does the video appeal to the younger people who download it?

“It’s just another step in the right direction, and is very much appreciated by both older and younger children today,” said Andrew Ross Sorkin, the chief creative officer at Maker Studios.

Will there be a repeat performance?

Yes. A year and a half after its initial launch, the clip still ranks as the fifth most viewed YouTube video, according to the data.

“It’s really interesting to see what the future may hold,” said Justin Eisner, an audience research engineer from Vimeo. “It’s something fun to watch, but also really informative and moving to everyone, especially kids.”

The video is posted at www.youtube.com/youditytory.

A few weeks ago, news broke about how the FDA refused to release data from a study of the safety of e-cigarettes, saying the results were too unimportant to publish.

Now, the FDA is being sued by a coalition of industry interests—including the New York State Tobacco Merchants Association—who argue the agency is attempting to stifle the free press at the expense of public health. “The American public must know the results of the study that scientists have conducted on the safety of e-cigarettes,” says David Michaels, president of the National Institute on Tobacco and Health. “It might be one of the least controversial safety studies conducted in decades.”

The FDA hasn’t had to prove that e-cigarettes’ safety is in question before, but the latest lawsuit cites the failure to release e-cigarette data despite “knowing that publication of such information would have a significant adverse impact on the public’s perception” of e-cigarettes. Michaels argues that the agency’s position is “a dangerous precedent and the antithesis of the fundamental mission of the FDA to protect public health through science.”

The case was filed Friday by a coalition that includes tobacco manufacturers, e-cigarette companies, and anti-smoking advocates. The plaintiffs argue that the FDA failed to consider its responsibility to protect public health when it refused to provide the data needed to evaluate an alternative-to