 If you're listening to this on YouTube, this episode is one week delayed. Up to date, tech show but friendly episodes are on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Google Podcasts. This is Tech Show But Friendly, hardware sugars podcast, and I'm your host Anton. And today, we won't be talking about tech news, we'll be talking about sadly yet another not great look for local tech YouTubers and then just jumping right into it. A local tech YouTuber has been accused of using the data of another publication of another tech outlet in his own review. So we'll be talking about the details of that, how we found out my thoughts on it. And lastly, why does it matter? We're a culture that doesn't like to dwell on mistakes. And if you point out other people's mistakes, it looks unfavorably on you as if we're trying to capitalize or gain something from those mistakes. That's why the last part was talked about in a little bit why we do talk about these things, why it's important to talk about them and takeaways, productive thoughts perhaps, so that while it was a negative experience, maybe something can be learned moving forward. So one of my acquaintances who is also a tech journalist, a local tech journalist posted recently on his Facebook that he noticed that the review of a palette 4060 by another tech journalist, I don't actually want to use names here. I was going back and forth actually whether I wanted to name them because as a reader or as someone also when I'm reading or hearing about these kind of things, the natural tendency is you want to know. And when somebody withholds the name, you're like, ah, you know, Kornina Man, why withhold the name? But I thought maybe names would ultimately detract from the tail itself. I think the tail has value even if we don't attach names to it. So I have an acquaintance. He's tech journalist number one. I don't really know him. I only know him because of hardware sugar. He's often at the same events as we are. So we've gotten to the hey, hi, how's it going? A normal acquaintance these days. So tech journalist number one posted on his Facebook that he noticed that tech journalist number two, who comes from a completely different publication, yeah, tech journalist number two has his own outlets. And he has a sizable following. 206,000 subscribers on YouTube, 26,000 followers on Facebook. So tech journalist number two published a video reviewing the palette 4060. Tech journalist number one, my acquaintance, noticed that the data that he used, some of the data that he used, a portion of that video, the data reported was lifted from another tech outlet. This one, tech creator, a Malaysian tech outlet. So tech journalist number two got the data of tech creator, used it in his own video review, and didn't attribute it. He didn't say, oh, etong numbers na to etong data na to, hindi galing sa akin, galing dito kai tech creator. There was none of that. Very clear for that part of the video, those particular benchmarks were not from tech journalist number two, they were from tech creator. In the original video, the use of the data was uncredited. There was no acknowledgement that it came from somewhere else, from another source. So the natural thought of a viewer would be, ah, this must be data generated by tech journalist number two. Siya mismo nag benchmark nito, ito yung mga results niya. So when my acquaintance tech journalist number one posted publicly about it, well, that's when things went downhill. At first, tech journalist number two cropped the video to remove the part where he shows data from tech creator. I also remember seeing, I forget where, whether it was in a YouTube comment or on his Facebook where he did acknowledge that yes, that is not from me, that's not my data, but that he attributed it. And then eventually he asked tech creators permission, which was denied. So tech creators said, no, no, we don't want you, we don't give you permission to use our data. And then from there, I guess it spiraled down some more because now the video is not even up. Yung yanung, when the issue came to light, at first the video was still up but redacted, edited out yung portion na walaing data ni tech creator. Eventually, tech creator refused permission to use that data and eventually even the redacted or the edited video was eventually taken down. As of the time of this recording, July 27, I am unable to find it on the site on YouTube anymore. Tech journalist number two has not publicly acknowledged the entire thing except for he did post, I honestly, I can't remember who posted what, but I do know, I saw the replies of tech creator where tech creator was like, no, you can't use, we don't want you using our data. Certainly, there's nothing on the Facebook page of tech journalist number two or his YouTube page to show that yes, you know, this was a thing, the data that I presented as my own because that would be the natural interpretation of someone who looks at the data tapas walaing na ka lagay na this data I sourced from or data collected by or referencing any kind of reference at all, any citation at all to tech creator. So a very conspicuous lack of public acknowledgement from tech journalist I actually wish I could use names, I could stop using the very cumbersome. Tech journalist one, tech journalist two, but anyway, boiled down to a nutshell. I mean, it's the same old, right? And I come from an academic background a little bit. I was a teacher before we started Hardware Sugar. I am a teacher now. I do lecture again at my university, my alma mater. In particular, I was a lit major before I became a lawyer. And as a professor and as a student, you know, you're always very particular about citing your sources. And so this is we'll jump into unpopular thoughts. So my unpopular thoughts, if you go through the Facebook post of tech journalist number one, a lot of the who's who of the local tech scene have, you know, they have comments and they they have emojis because I can I can see the post. And the sentiment is that you need to ask permission to use data. But for me, that's not true. And that's not even accurate. That's not accurate from a legal point of view, and from an academic point of view, because there are the facts and there are the presentation of facts. Facts are not copyrightable. And that's the hallmark of protection. That's what you look for when you say cannot be cannot be used. Why can an author, a journalist, a publication say that you can't use my work that refusal to let other people quote, quote, use the work is based on copyright. The authors writes stemming from his publication of that piece. But facts are not copyrightable. Jose Rizal was born June 19 1861. He is our national hero. Both of those nuggets of information, his birthday and the fact that he is the Philippine national hero, are facts and they're not copyrightable. Anyone can use them. Similarly, the data of Tech Creator are also facts. The information that he posted that, okay, I ran the 4060 and on this game it got, for example, 100 FPS, that particular unit of information, 100 FPS for this game after whatever X amount of time on Y amount of settings, that's a fact. You don't need the author's permission to reference a fact. So you don't need to ask for permission to use that data. But what should have been done is that you cite, you reference, you tell your audience that this data comes from a source. I did not generate this data. So while anybody is free to report that data, there should be proper citation. And again, as I've taught English before at the university level, it's always maddening to me why students, you're expected to cite when you're making an argumentative essay, when you're coming up with your own thesis, you're always supposed to cite your sources. So this whole thing about, and if you don't, that's plagiarism, that is intellectual dishonesty. It never, it always drives me nuts why this is even still an issue because it's just so easy to cite. You don't even need permission from the author to be citing the data from that author. You just need to say to your audience, to your reader, to your viewers that this data is not from me. I got it from this source. Citation, referencing, so easy to do. And yet we have these kind of cases where it's just not done. The critics would say, well, of course, he doesn't want to cite because he wants to release the work he's done. These benchmarks came from him. That's a whole different kind of worms. And we'll talk about that in the next part of this podcast. But just for now, bare facts are not copyrightable. They're not protected. You don't need the permission of the author to publish facts. But you do need to cite your source. Now, facts themselves are different from presentation of facts. And that's copyrightable. So we mentioned Rizal who was born June 19, 1861, that he is the national hero of the Philippines. Other facts, he went to Ateneo for his high school and grade school equivalent. He went to UST for his MD. He was an ophthalmologist. All of these are facts. But if I put them together in a book, if I expound on them, if I put my own spin, my own thoughts, my own arguments using, constructing my arguments with these facts, then the presentation of facts, that book that I would come out with, is protected. That is under copyright. And people do need my permission, the author's permission to reproduce that work, to use that work. So it might seem like a technicality, a legal distinction, but hey, again, that's what we're here for. I'm also a lawyer. So I find these cases super interesting because I can draw from my academic background, my professional background, and also my background as someone who also makes YouTube tech reviews. So these kind of things really kind of hit a lot of my boxes. And it seems like a technical distinction, but it's really not. It's super useful. You don't want facts to be copyrightable. On the other hand, you do want the arguments made from those facts, the books, the essays, the publications, the videos, whatever. It's important for those to be copyrightable because the author has marshaled facts. He's put them together and given them more value by adding his spin on it. That's why society gives authors, creators copyright. Because society, through the law, acknowledges that these things have value. You've put in your effort, you've put in your time, you've made your arguments, and we feel that you should benefit from that. And even with this distinction, facts, not copyrightable, not protected, you can use them whenever, as long as with proper citation, versus presentation of facts, which is copyrightable, which is protected. A bit like Tech Journalist 2. Because Tech Journalist 1 was nice enough to post a side-by-side comparison of the actual video, I didn't upload the unedited video of Tech Journalist 2. When I finally got around to checking it, I edited it. And then, when I checked it again later, I didn't have the complete video. But the one that I did see with my own eyes, I can personally attest, was that I edited it out. I didn't see the part where he used the data of Tech Critter. But based on the screenshot of Tech Journalist 1, their side-by-side, it's the same. They just pasted the graphs of Tech Critter, using that image on Tech Journalist 2's video. And there it is. That's the presentation of facts. He got data, but he presented it in such a way. The graph, the image, the way that the colors used and everything, that is copyrightable. So that's what Tech Journalist 2 did, and that one, you need permission. So let's say, just to deepen the example some more, if I say on air in a video, in a recording that, well, you know, Linus benchmarked this, and for Cyberpunk 2077, he got X, Y, and Z numbers. If I'm just reporting it, those are the facts, then I don't need Linus's permission. But if I get a section of his video, I stick it into my own video, it's arguable that I would need his permission because that work is copyrighted under him, under Linus, under the creator. And that includes images, just like the image of Tech Critter with the graphs reporting the data, presenting the facts that he discovered or that he created on his own, his findings regarding that particular graphics card. So on the facts, so Medjus Oblai, even looking at it through sort of like a legal perspective, Medjus Oblai is really Tech Journalist 2. If he was just reporting the facts, then Oblai, because he didn't acknowledge that it wasn't him. There was no citation, there was no reference. And if he was showing the presentation of facts, which he seems to have done because it's just a copy, like a save image as he took the graph from Tech Critter, he had the image, and then that's what he displayed in his YouTube review. Oblai then, because then you're infringing the copyright of Tech Critter. So not a great look for local Tech Journalism. And well, perhaps he didn't want to cite because he wanted to give the impression that I did this job because when you are sent a card to review, naturally, both your audience and the supplier or the brand expect you to, I don't know, maybe review the card. Like actually take the time to use the card to try to see if it's any good. And that's a whole point of running benchmarks. It's not an abstract academic exercise. The whole point is that I try this graphics card in these games so I can get an idea. I can get a sense of whether the card is good or not. It flows into our last particular chapter for this episode. Why does it matter? I don't enjoy reporting these foibles of other local Tech Journalists or other Tech Journalists in general. It's not so that, you know, sometimes you get the criticism that, you know, we like pointing out other people's mistakes so that we look better. Not at all. I don't subscribe to that notion at all. But I think it does matter. It's important to talk about these things for two main points. One, it's really important to cite, to tell people that this is my reference, this is my citation, this is my source. Because the whole point of research, whether it's academic, whether it's journalism, whether it's just a simple tech review, but we look at other tech reviews because we're standing on the shoulders of giants. We have our own work, but that work is based on the findings of others. We build each other up. It's better for the audience that way, even just for a simple tech review. If I look into the other reviews of other reviewers, then I can see that, oh, my data is typical. Then perhaps this is something that can be expected for a wide variety of users, whether it's a graphics card, a cell phone, a camera. If my experience is correct, then we have a high degree of certainty that okay, for the average user, that's what they can expect. But what if my data doesn't jive with others' data? Is there something wrong with my methodology or did I discover something uncommon? Did I stumble across something that's a special use case that people should know about? That's why it's important to look at other people's data. Even to cite that data, we've done that ourselves. One of our most recent videos was the reviews of the 4060 are really different between video tech YouTubers and publication tech journalists, and we cited some data from the reviews of Linus, Gamers Nexus, as well as other tech YouTubers versus those of print tech journalism. And that's why, again, citation sources references are so important because you're building on other people's work to make it better for everybody, to make your own arguments clearer, and to present something of value to your audience. So there's nothing illegal. There's nothing improper about using other people's facts, the data that other people have worked on, but you need to cite. I think, you know, it's both for adults, whatever your profession, tech YouTuber, writer, or even something completely different like sales. When you report on something that was done by somebody else, you don't take credit for that. You don't say, oh, Tomas yong sales natin by 12%, that's it. Tomas by 12% because actually itong guy sa district 2 natin sobrang umikot siya and Tomas yong sales natin, you always attribute facts to the proper source, the proper reference, that makes your own argument better, that makes it easier for your audience, your reader, your viewer to get your point, to get more value out of what you yourself are creating. That's why I always emphasize to my students, even to my own staff, when we're doing the YouTube videos is that always reference where did this come from? I ran our editor knows this. Sometimes I ask her, don't let's not use this. Let's change it because even I am uncomfortable even just showing clips from other tech YouTubers. Even though a lot of people do that just for simple b-roll, I try to shy away from that and definitely if there is some kind of data generated, we're always citing our sources. Again, because that's my background. I'm an English major. I had to do a thesis to complete that degree. I'm a law, I'm a jurist doctor, so that was my law degree. I had to complete another thesis for that law degree. Both times citation, reference source, super important. As a professor, same banana. I always tell my students, I want to know where this came from. It's so super easy to cite, footnote, text on the bottom, if it's a video. I mean, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to cite. And just as a very real world example, Kraft Computing, a foreign tech YouTube channel, had a great video recently on why the coverage of the 4060 is missing the point. And so he references other videos by all of the other larger tech YouTubers. But his argument was that it misses the point. And then he had another video where he talks to Hardware Unboxed and they kind of debate in a very civilized manner the point of Kraft Computing. Kung may kataturan ba yung sinna sabi ni Kraft Computing, or if Hardware Unboxed thinks that, well, you know, I think our testing methodology is accurate. And again, that's a great thing about citations. When you can build on the work of others, new dialogue, new discourse, interesting ways of looking at the problem, different approaches appear. And that's why references citations are super important. And I think, yeah, I've really gotta belabor that point home. But yeah, facts, you can cite facts. But again, you have to cite where they came from. And the last point, why I decided to devote a podcast to this is that I hope that it gives more focus to the issue. My acquaintance tech journalist one, you can really feel I'm imparting my own interpretation to it, but I can really feel his anger that he's a very careful guy, he does the benchmarks. So yung da ting sa kanya, itong si tech journalist two, again, trying to pass off somebody's work, you know, most of us do the work. And yet there are some members of the community that are kind of frivolous about the work that other people do are maybe not as careful in citing that they're using that work. That's damaging to everybody in the community, not just the people who make the reviews, but also the audience, because it will bring up the perennial question in everybody's minds. Can I trust this guy? And moreover, can I trust local tech journalists? You know, they're really, I really kind of feel for these, for the tech journalists dita sa atin yung talaga yung full time job nya. You know, hardware sugar, we're a tech channel, but our main avenue of revenue is really the shop. We cover tech sort of like as a happy accident to our workings in the shop, but we don't rely on the channel and social media for the bread that we eat kung baga. But for others, this can be their full time job, and they devote like 100% their heart, their soul, their passion to it. And it can really be aggravating when you see other people not taking it as seriously. And it undermines everyone's credibility. If you can trust any local tech journalist, and I hate to bring it up again, but what comes to mind is the Yuga Tech fiasco with the phone. So they were reviewing a phone before, and in the b-roll of the video, they showed the user playing a game on the phone, but he wasn't actually playing. He was just playing a video, but the way it was cut seemed to imply to the viewer that they were actually playing instead of just watching a video. Obviously, the performance of the phone is miles different whether it's actually playing the game versus just playing a video of that game. So cases like that, cases like this really bring into question that you have these reviewers telling you that, yes, I think this phone is great. If I were you, I would buy it. Yes, I think this CPU is the best ever for games. And if I were you, I would buy it. But how can you trust their recommendations if they don't actually do the work if they don't actually try out the products that they say they are trying with us? We actually take a very long time to review and I do feel kind of bad for the brand sometimes that kind of have to follow up. They don't need to follow up like we will send out we will we will make the review. But a lot of the time because YouTube is not 100% our focus, it does take time for us to do the benchmarks, come up with a video and actually release the video. Like the lead time is around four weeks to five weeks. So sometimes it's over a month from us getting the product to actually releasing the video on the product because we really try out the product. The numbers that we show if we're using other people's data, we will cite. But for the most part, the numbers that we generate from testing the CPU coolers, testing the GPUs, I mean all of those things, that is usually from our own experience because we do take the time to do it. We might be a bit slower, we're not going to scoop anymore. This is the latest graphics card and these are the benchmarks. We won't be like that ever, but we do take the time to do the job, right? Even just the word review. It means I took a look at it already. I viewed it before. Now the review is me taking a look back. What did I like about that product? What did I not like about that product? But review implies that you viewed it before that you put in the work to try to figure out is this a good product? So we do talk about these things when they come up from the local community because it's something good for everyone to know. I hope that distinction between facts and presentation of facts is useful to someone, whether you're a creator or someone who just has a sort of legal interest in copyright. And ultimately, it's a reminder for all of us to do better. I can understand where the desire or where the impetus for using video instead of an actual game footage or using someone or getting data from someone else and then putting it in your YouTube video. I know where it came from. I understand YouTube is a grind. I understand that it takes a lot of effort to make content. It's not noticeable when you're just watching. You have your favorite creators, your favorite tech YouTubers, and you watch their content. It seems effortless. Linus has a video every freaking day. I mean, that is insane. And he has other things besides. It seems so effortless for them to pump out content plus the brand-send them stuff. How hard can it be? But we're not even a full-time YouTube channel, but it can be quite a grind and it can be quite a struggle also to make sure not to take shortcuts. I'm fortunate that while I'm usually the face of Hardware Sugar, I do a lot of the videos. Behind me is a team that can do the benchmarking. We have guys who are just all too happy. I don't know. Personally, for me, I'm not even that big of a benchmark fan. I will not super obsessively test something until it dies because I also don't think that's a very helpful approach to product review. But we do have guys who are super happy, who are all too happy to, yeah, let's benchmark this sucker until, you know, boomie guys. And I'm fortunate that we have a team, that I have a team like that in place so that they can be the ones to gather the data. And then we'll talk about it. I often ask them, oh, any experience, assembling this rig, for example, if it's like a full build or the CPU cooler, is there anything out of the blue? Because news flash, again, it's not me. It's not me who does a lot of the grunt work for the videos. Although I do do a lot of the work also. But for the data gathering part, a lot of the time, it's the guys at the shop. And so I do know the amount of work that goes in. I understand the desire, the appeal, the temptation to shortcut. But episodes like this should be an indicator that if we do that, ultimately, we're just short changing ourselves and short changing our audience. We cite, if your reference, we stand on the shoulders of giants. We can do better by examining the works of others and letting people know this work is from someone else, but I'm building on it. I'm adding to it. And hopefully, if we keep having episodes or we keep having instances like this, and we have brave people like that journalist one who pointed out, then hopefully, we can kind of stamp it out that it won't happen to us, because it's super easy to cite. And once we start doing the basic steps like, okay, this data is from somebody else, what can we do? We can have better content with that data. What can we do with that data now available? All right. So we do fully intend to get back to tech news next week, unless there is some other local halbaloo in the tech, in the local tech YouTube community, but local tech journalist community. And yeah, I do really hope that moving forward, I hope I don't, you know, if this is not a high horse, we're not on a high horse, hard resugar can make mistakes. We have made mistakes many times. But if you do make mistakes, you know, best to acknowledge it. And before a mistake is even made, best to cite your sources. Best to do the grunt work so that you can honestly face the viewers, your readers, your audience, and tell them that this is what I think based on what I actually experienced with the product. Thanks for lending me your ear. Full service PC store and hardware sugar. We sold PC components. We also sold fully assembled rigs. We cleaned computers. Our excellent cable management and CPU cooler repasting in cleaning. We also clean and repaste GPUs. In our physical store, and you can also buy from our site, www.hwsugar.ph, which is 100% up-to-date inventory. If our items are in stock, that's available on the site. We also ship nationwide. Thanks for watching and maybe one of these days, we'll see you at the shop.