In any case, your opportunity to watch “The Godfather” for free on YouTube is now over. For some reason, the movie popped up on the site yesterday, via a Sony Pictures UK channel. But after a flurry of press coverage about the movie, both the video and that Sony channel have now disappeared.

The YouTube error message where the Sony UK channel used to be may or may not be instructive: “This account has been suspended due to a violation of YouTube’s policy prohibiting content designed to impersonate another person or user.”

Did Sony UK actually have the right to put the movie up? The film, famously, is a Paramount production, though it’s possible the Viacom unit may have sold off international and/or streaming rights.

On one hand, earlier this afternoon, there were ads running alongside the movie, which would indicate that the film had been “claimed” by YouTube’s ContentID program, which allows content owners to yank down clips that shouldn’t be there and run ads against the ones it was okay with.

And it’s not completely unheard of for YouTube to feature free, full-length feature movies. But that’s often part of a promotion that YouTube would have signed off on and/or promoted itself. Two years ago, for instance, YouTube and Sony teamed up to dust off “Ghostbusters” and advertised the movie on the site’s home page.

On the other hand, the movie’s now gone. I have queries into YouTube and Sony.

In the meantime — seriously. Take the cannoli, and go rent “The Godfather.”

UPDATE: Sony says the account was indeed bogus. Here’s their statement:

On Wednesday, August 24 reports surfaced alleging that Sony Pictures UK had posted a copy of The Godfather movie to a YouTube account “SonyPicturesUK.” The YouTube handle in question is, in fact, not a Sony Pictures account and is in violation of Sony Pictures’ rights. Upon discovering the existence of this fraudulent account, Sony Pictures Entertainment worked with YouTube and the account was deactivated. Sony Pictures is investigating the violation.

Tonight is Larry King’s last show on CNN, which did this retrospective from some key interviews on “Larry King Live” over his 25 years at the cable news network.

Personally, BoomTown likes when he forgets things, but the Marlon Brando smooch is still pretty good television.

And here is the actual goodbye:

The increasingly entertaining online content site, The Daily Beast, edited by Tina Brown, is getting very good at putting together juicy collections.

Besides one on “Seven Great Talk-Show Trainwrecks” recently, it has cued up a nice group of videos of past Oscar speeches in anticipation of the 81st annual awards show this weekend, analyzing what works and what does not.

The piece, by Dale Hrabi, includes a range of stars in action and inaction, with some good tips for those who are about to receive the hallowed little golden naked man.

It boils down to: Shut up and show some humility (neither of which is a Hollywood character trait).

Here are my two faves, one a do (Audrey Hepburn in 1954 with a classy and short thank you for Best Actress in “Roman Holiday”) and, of course, a big don’t (“Sacheen Littlefeather,” actually named Maria Cruz, not accepting the Oscar in 1973 for Marlon Brando for Best Actor in “The Godfather”).

Audrey Hepburn:

Sacheen Littlefeather:

British lawmakers voted Monday to allow the use of human-animal embryos for research after an attempt to ban the technique was overwhelmingly rejected. At issue is a bill that permits scientists to blend human and animal DNA to make “chimeric” embryos from which stem cells can be extracted.

Scientists say the technique could aid the understanding of genetic defects and diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. But critics, who’ve taken a more hysterical view of the mingling of human and animal DNA, call it a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life. To them so-called “human-admixed embryos” recall the creatures of Marlon Brando’s fey, muumuu-wearing Dr. Moreau and his fantastical island.

Said MP Edward Leigh: “In embryos you do have the genetic makeup of a complete human being, and you cannot splice together a human and an animal. I’m not sure even my greatest political enemies would say that I was 30% a daffodil and 80% a mouse. I don’t believe in my soul or my brain I’m 80% a mouse or 30% a daffodil. But I do think that we are special and, therefore, as the human race is special, it is different from the animal race. And I think that we should take this very seriously.”

Thirty percent daffodil? Eighty percent mouse? Oh, you’re special all right, Leigh. Sure you read the right bill?

Anyway, as New Scientist’s Linda Geddes points out, this is all much ado about nothing. These “human-admixed embryos” aren’t really any more monstrous than you or I. “These embryos contain 99.9% human DNA, and 0.01% animal DNA,” writes Geddes. “Arguably I’m less than 99.9% human myself. Once you consider the billions of bacteria living in my gut and on my skin, the parasitic worms which may or may not be colonizing my intestines, and the fungi causing the itch between my toes, I’m a walking menagerie. In fact, some scientists have estimated that the total number of microbial genes in the human body outnumber human genes by up to 1,000 to 1.”