[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I like that you use the word fiefdom. > > I actually think we're in the digital dark age, just as Brewster > Mckale of archive.org said. > > Litterally what's going on here is we have a huge open cyberspace with > not enough roads and some very scary space inbetween a bunch of closed > castles like youtube and 300 other social networking sites. yeah, wrong. what's stopping you from using bit torrent? digital has never been more free. just because some corporate gatekeeper is publishing a yellow pages doesnt mean you have to use their yellow pages. all someone needs to do is mesh the stats for popular bit torrents and you've got a bit-torrent-tube. oh wait, that's done already... (the public doesnt want that anyway. they'd just use it to pirate stuff.)
RE: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
So, so true. Very well said. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Meiser Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:54 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?! On 2/13/07, Kent Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right that's exactly the problem. > > We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that is built on these > crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own site, you're still at > the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. > > Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to corporate structure > that hosts it. > > Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, staking your little > claim on the net and building traffic, etc. > > Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are the value. > YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the value came from the > people there. Same with MySpace. > > But the legal structures and way of thinking have not caught up to > this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. And your rights are > different each site you go to. I like that you use the word fiefdom. I actually think we're in the digital dark age, just as Brewster Mckale of archive.org said. Litterally what's going on here is we have a huge open cyberspace with not enough roads and some very scary space inbetween a bunch of closed castles like youtube and 300 other social networking sites. What we need is a tremendous amount of infrastructure to ensure mobility, communication, and security for those that would stake out a home and start a farm in open cyberspace. In short the roads must come to your front door. Meanwhile we have the high priests of the old media religion waging a freaking crusade against new ideas and the new digital culture with their damn witch hunts and inqusitions for anyone who dares share their media online. P2P is the devil to modern day religion of media oligopy. Ramble, ramble. BTW, We've been hitting these issues of interoperability pretty hard lately on the mefeedia blog. http://mefeedia.com/blog/ It really is your friends and your media, so why should it also be your network? Who the f*ck needs youtube anyway? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that govern this new user > generated reality that gives we the users basic rights wherever we go. > > That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and it will take a > lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we don't tackle this > area, the door for new voices that has been opened a crack will get > slammed shut by the media monopolies. > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of action, but I think the > > arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an internet-wide problem. To > > cover themselves, just about every hosting service Ive ever seen has > > terms and conditions about what content is acceptable, and many of the > > terms are vague. > > > > People certainly should draw attention to services which are > > trigger-happy about removing stuff without good cause. Youtube are > > likely to show up as an offender a lot because of their sheer size, > > and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to save themselves > > from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way that also removes some > > legitimate content, and this is not good or nice to their users for > > them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein called for a boycott > > on youtube because he was banned and though it was due to being gay or > > hosting gay content, whereas after some research I thought it was more > > likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots of naked breasts, > > and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts for profit but the > > mainstream has a nipple phobia. > > > > So anyway theoretically most services are flawed in the sense that > > almost anybody could find their content falling foul of the terms & > > conditions, even if their content is innocent enough, and as far as I > > know the services dont even have an obligation to contact people who > > are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal issues will stop > > terms & conditions from changing that much, so the best we can hope > > for is that in practice many services are careful, think of their > > users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of material before > > hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the reasons behind > > youtubes removal of the content in this case, its ce
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
This has been an interesting thread. We've actually been using YouTube for a client project right now http://www.inkisit.com for Kodak. I actually tried on their behalf to investigate a more direct relationship with them but to no avail. In particular didn't want to find ourselves up a creek one day if they took us down for any variety of reasons. We've been posting the video to all the broadband video sharing sites as a back up method but trying to consolidate things via YouTube. At the same time I have a feeling that the corporate use of these sites is what is probably making it harder for small guys in a way. On a separate note, this same client was thinking of expanding it's outreach efforts to bloggers, podcasters, etc. and involve them in this "Ink Is It" talk show, mainly around issues of printing and the high cost of ink. Your show/blog doesn't even need to focus on these issues or even on technology - mainly they want to show how the problem has impacted everybody and doesn't discriminate. Kodak is coming out with a new line of inkjet printers in March that hopes to dirupt the model. So I'm in the midst of a hunt for folks that are open to working with advertisers in different ways, but the hunt is kind of a slog right now. Is it a direct person to person effort (which is what we've been conducting) or is there a clearinghouse of sorts to present the pitch of how we'd like to work with folks and see if there is interest? I figured in some ways this message list might be the best forum to start the conversation since a lot of the more vocal folks are right here. Thanks, Michael http://www.animaxent.com http://www.arnoldspeaks.com http://www.inkisit.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Right that's exactly the problem. > > We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that is built on these > crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own site, you're still at > the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. > > Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to corporate structure > that hosts it. > > Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, staking your little > claim on the net and building traffic, etc. > > Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are the value. > YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the value came from the > people there. Same with MySpace. > > But the legal structures and way of thinking have not caught up to > this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. And your rights are > different each site you go to. > > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that govern this new user > generated reality that gives we the users basic rights wherever we go. > > That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and it will take a > lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we don't tackle this > area, the door for new voices that has been opened a crack will get > slammed shut by the media monopolies. > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" wrote: > > > > Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of action, but I think the > > arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an internet-wide problem. To > > cover themselves, just about every hosting service Ive ever seen has > > terms and conditions about what content is acceptable, and many of the > > terms are vague. > > > > People certainly should draw attention to services which are > > trigger-happy about removing stuff without good cause. Youtube are > > likely to show up as an offender a lot because of their sheer size, > > and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to save themselves > > from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way that also removes some > > legitimate content, and this is not good or nice to their users for > > them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein called for a boycott > > on youtube because he was banned and though it was due to being gay or > > hosting gay content, whereas after some research I thought it was more > > likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots of naked breasts, > > and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts for profit but the > > mainstream has a nipple phobia. > > > > So anyway theoretically most services are flawed in the sense that > > almost anybody could find their content falling foul of the terms & > > conditions, even if their content is innocent enough, and as far as I > > know the services dont even have an obligation to contact people who > > are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal issues will stop > > terms & conditions from changing that much, so the best we can hope > > for is that in practice many services are careful, think of their > > users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of material before > > hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the reasons behind > > youtubes removal of the content in this case, its certainly sloppy and > > shows no sense of responsibility to us
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
On 2/13/07, Kent Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right that's exactly the problem. > > We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that is built on these > crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own site, you're still at > the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. > > Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to corporate structure > that hosts it. > > Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, staking your little > claim on the net and building traffic, etc. > > Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are the value. > YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the value came from the > people there. Same with MySpace. > > But the legal structures and way of thinking have not caught up to > this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. And your rights are > different each site you go to. I like that you use the word fiefdom. I actually think we're in the digital dark age, just as Brewster Mckale of archive.org said. Litterally what's going on here is we have a huge open cyberspace with not enough roads and some very scary space inbetween a bunch of closed castles like youtube and 300 other social networking sites. What we need is a tremendous amount of infrastructure to ensure mobility, communication, and security for those that would stake out a home and start a farm in open cyberspace. In short the roads must come to your front door. Meanwhile we have the high priests of the old media religion waging a freaking crusade against new ideas and the new digital culture with their damn witch hunts and inqusitions for anyone who dares share their media online. P2P is the devil to modern day religion of media oligopy. Ramble, ramble. BTW, We've been hitting these issues of interoperability pretty hard lately on the mefeedia blog. http://mefeedia.com/blog/ It really is your friends and your media, so why should it also be your network? Who the f*ck needs youtube anyway? -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that govern this new user > generated reality that gives we the users basic rights wherever we go. > > That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and it will take a > lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we don't tackle this > area, the door for new voices that has been opened a crack will get > slammed shut by the media monopolies. > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of action, but I think the > > arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an internet-wide problem. To > > cover themselves, just about every hosting service Ive ever seen has > > terms and conditions about what content is acceptable, and many of the > > terms are vague. > > > > People certainly should draw attention to services which are > > trigger-happy about removing stuff without good cause. Youtube are > > likely to show up as an offender a lot because of their sheer size, > > and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to save themselves > > from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way that also removes some > > legitimate content, and this is not good or nice to their users for > > them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein called for a boycott > > on youtube because he was banned and though it was due to being gay or > > hosting gay content, whereas after some research I thought it was more > > likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots of naked breasts, > > and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts for profit but the > > mainstream has a nipple phobia. > > > > So anyway theoretically most services are flawed in the sense that > > almost anybody could find their content falling foul of the terms & > > conditions, even if their content is innocent enough, and as far as I > > know the services dont even have an obligation to contact people who > > are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal issues will stop > > terms & conditions from changing that much, so the best we can hope > > for is that in practice many services are careful, think of their > > users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of material before > > hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the reasons behind > > youtubes removal of the content in this case, its certainly sloppy and > > shows no sense of responsibility to users who upload legitimate videos. > > > > As for the grey area where content might actually be deemed offensive > > or innapropriate, offends certain people, causes a stink and gets > > banned, I guess those involved in any way with sex or porn side of > > video have experience of this sort of thing. Even companies that > > appear to have enlightened attitude towards such things, may change > > policy at any time and suddenly crackdown on such content. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" wrote: > > > > > > In light of You
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
I've been encouraging people to use youtube just as ruthlessly as youtube is using them. Basically a lot of people like the pan are using it as an advertising platform. Putting up short 30 seconds or less teasers of an intriguing or viral nature to push their domain and their brang for their "real vlog". There are going to be many different angles to this whole youtube thing. But it'll be interesting to see of youtube tries to stop it's own users from cashing in on it. I notice more and more large advertising and coportate accounts on youtube pushing fortune 500 brands and advertisements... is youtube going to start killing it's users accounts for treating youtube the same way youtube treats them? Or will youtube mearly bury their acocunts while pushing more huge ad agency content. Regardless I think some sort of mass exedos and even backlash is inevitable at some point in the coming year or two. -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 2/13/07, Kent Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That really sucks man. > > I think the stuff we're working on with MySpace ties in directly with > situations like this -- site proclaming to be open and community > based, but are just fronts for corporate interests. > > And if you cross one of their arbitrary lines set fourth in their > constantly evolving Terms of Use they can cancel you, or filter you out. > > I think that's the next fight -- establishing what is public space and > who "owns" it and what users rights are in this new user generated > reality. > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Rosenzweig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I tried to log on to our YouTube account today and got the message "Your > > account has now been permanently disabled." > > > > It was our Daily Vlog account, which is a 5-minute-per-day vlog from the > > office. Pure vlog -- just us talking about various topics. Couldn't > possibly > > be anything there they want to shut down, we don't even deal with > sensitive > > issues. Usually we talk about our lives, or what's going on in > entertainment > > or tech. And there certainly can't be any intellectual property issues, > > unless someone patented "having a conversation on a sofa" and I am > not aware > > of it. > > > > You can see for yourself what the daily vlog is about by checking it > out at > > http://thedailyvlog.com. You can see there is no reason why YouTube > would > > want it removed. > > > > Anyone else had this happen to them? I'm certainly glad we don't rely on > > their as our main means of distribution. In fact, I may pull down > our other > > accounts. No point building an audience there just to have them > carelessly > > destroy it. > > -- > > Gary Rosenzweig > > CleverMedia TV > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
You can submit a DMCA counter notice for the media to put back up at the service provider. ChillingEffects.org has a web counter notice builder: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, El Destiny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > YouTube -- and now Flickr. (Which is owned by > Yahoo...) A bogus DMCA threat scared Yahoo! into > removing images from Flickr. > > http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/02/13/is-yahoo-flickr-dmca-policy-censorship/ > > Even though the uploader notified Flickr that the > image was wrongfully removed, Flickr never restored > it. And they also permanently deleted all the > comments users had left. > > > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that > > govern this new user generated reality... > > Corporations are powerful. I think the services don't > feel they'll experience the same level of pressure > from their users. (And corporations also don't fear > any organized user backlash.) > > I'm just putting this out there: is there an easy way > to organize online users to send a simple, clear, and > direct message to hosting services (and the > corporations that threaten them)? > > > > > > --- Kent Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Right that's exactly the problem. > > > > We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that > > is built on these > > crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own > > site, you're still at > > the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. > > > > Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to > > corporate structure > > that hosts it. > > > > Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, > > staking your little > > claim on the net and building traffic, etc. > > > > Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are > > the value. > > YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the > > value came from the > > people there. Same with MySpace. > > > > But the legal structures and way of thinking have > > not caught up to > > this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. > > And your rights are > > different each site you go to. > > > > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that > > govern this new user > > generated reality that gives we the users basic > > rights wherever we go. > > > > That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and > > it will take a > > lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we > > don't tackle this > > area, the door for new voices that has been opened a > > crack will get > > slammed shut by the media monopolies. > > > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve > > Watkins" wrote: > > > > > > Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of > > action, but I think the > > > arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an > > internet-wide problem. To > > > cover themselves, just about every hosting service > > Ive ever seen has > > > terms and conditions about what content is > > acceptable, and many of the > > > terms are vague. > > > > > > People certainly should draw attention to services > > which are > > > trigger-happy about removing stuff without good > > cause. Youtube are > > > likely to show up as an offender a lot because of > > their sheer size, > > > and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to > > save themselves > > > from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way > > that also removes some > > > legitimate content, and this is not good or nice > > to their users for > > > them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein > > called for a boycott > > > on youtube because he was banned and though it was > > due to being gay or > > > hosting gay content, whereas after some research I > > thought it was more > > > likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots > > of naked breasts, > > > and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts > > for profit but the > > > mainstream has a nipple phobia. > > > > > > So anyway theoretically most services are flawed > > in the sense that > > > almost anybody could find their content falling > > foul of the terms & > > > conditions, even if their content is innocent > > enough, and as far as I > > > know the services dont even have an obligation to > > contact people who > > > are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal > > issues will stop > > > terms & conditions from changing that much, so the > > best we can hope > > > for is that in practice many services are careful, > > think of their > > > users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of > > material before > > > hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the > > reasons behind > > > youtubes removal of the content in this case, its > > certainly sloppy and > > > shows no sense of responsibility to users who > > upload legitimate videos. > > > > > > As for the grey area where content might actually > > be deemed offensive > > > or innapropriate, offends certain people, causes a > > stink and gets > > > banned, I guess those involved in any wa
Re: [videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
YouTube -- and now Flickr. (Which is owned by Yahoo...) A bogus DMCA threat scared Yahoo! into removing images from Flickr. http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/02/13/is-yahoo-flickr-dmca-policy-censorship/ Even though the uploader notified Flickr that the image was wrongfully removed, Flickr never restored it. And they also permanently deleted all the comments users had left. > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that > govern this new user generated reality... Corporations are powerful. I think the services don't feel they'll experience the same level of pressure from their users. (And corporations also don't fear any organized user backlash.) I'm just putting this out there: is there an easy way to organize online users to send a simple, clear, and direct message to hosting services (and the corporations that threaten them)? --- Kent Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right that's exactly the problem. > > We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that > is built on these > crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own > site, you're still at > the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. > > Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to > corporate structure > that hosts it. > > Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, > staking your little > claim on the net and building traffic, etc. > > Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are > the value. > YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the > value came from the > people there. Same with MySpace. > > But the legal structures and way of thinking have > not caught up to > this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. > And your rights are > different each site you go to. > > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that > govern this new user > generated reality that gives we the users basic > rights wherever we go. > > That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and > it will take a > lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we > don't tackle this > area, the door for new voices that has been opened a > crack will get > slammed shut by the media monopolies. > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve > Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of > action, but I think the > > arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an > internet-wide problem. To > > cover themselves, just about every hosting service > Ive ever seen has > > terms and conditions about what content is > acceptable, and many of the > > terms are vague. > > > > People certainly should draw attention to services > which are > > trigger-happy about removing stuff without good > cause. Youtube are > > likely to show up as an offender a lot because of > their sheer size, > > and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to > save themselves > > from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way > that also removes some > > legitimate content, and this is not good or nice > to their users for > > them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein > called for a boycott > > on youtube because he was banned and though it was > due to being gay or > > hosting gay content, whereas after some research I > thought it was more > > likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots > of naked breasts, > > and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts > for profit but the > > mainstream has a nipple phobia. > > > > So anyway theoretically most services are flawed > in the sense that > > almost anybody could find their content falling > foul of the terms & > > conditions, even if their content is innocent > enough, and as far as I > > know the services dont even have an obligation to > contact people who > > are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal > issues will stop > > terms & conditions from changing that much, so the > best we can hope > > for is that in practice many services are careful, > think of their > > users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of > material before > > hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the > reasons behind > > youtubes removal of the content in this case, its > certainly sloppy and > > shows no sense of responsibility to users who > upload legitimate videos. > > > > As for the grey area where content might actually > be deemed offensive > > or innapropriate, offends certain people, causes a > stink and gets > > banned, I guess those involved in any way with sex > or porn side of > > video have experience of this sort of thing. Even > companies that > > appear to have enlightened attitude towards such > things, may change > > policy at any time and suddenly crackdown on such > content. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" > wrote: > > > > > > In light of YouTube/Google's treatment of Nick > Gisburne I've removed > > > all my videos on YouTube and also am in the > process of removing my > > > blogger page. To hell with YouTube and G
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
Right that's exactly the problem. We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that is built on these crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own site, you're still at the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to corporate structure that hosts it. Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, staking your little claim on the net and building traffic, etc. Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are the value. YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the value came from the people there. Same with MySpace. But the legal structures and way of thinking have not caught up to this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. And your rights are different each site you go to. What I'd love to see is a set of principles that govern this new user generated reality that gives we the users basic rights wherever we go. That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and it will take a lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we don't tackle this area, the door for new voices that has been opened a crack will get slammed shut by the media monopolies. -Kent, askaninja.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of action, but I think the > arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an internet-wide problem. To > cover themselves, just about every hosting service Ive ever seen has > terms and conditions about what content is acceptable, and many of the > terms are vague. > > People certainly should draw attention to services which are > trigger-happy about removing stuff without good cause. Youtube are > likely to show up as an offender a lot because of their sheer size, > and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to save themselves > from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way that also removes some > legitimate content, and this is not good or nice to their users for > them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein called for a boycott > on youtube because he was banned and though it was due to being gay or > hosting gay content, whereas after some research I thought it was more > likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots of naked breasts, > and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts for profit but the > mainstream has a nipple phobia. > > So anyway theoretically most services are flawed in the sense that > almost anybody could find their content falling foul of the terms & > conditions, even if their content is innocent enough, and as far as I > know the services dont even have an obligation to contact people who > are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal issues will stop > terms & conditions from changing that much, so the best we can hope > for is that in practice many services are careful, think of their > users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of material before > hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the reasons behind > youtubes removal of the content in this case, its certainly sloppy and > shows no sense of responsibility to users who upload legitimate videos. > > As for the grey area where content might actually be deemed offensive > or innapropriate, offends certain people, causes a stink and gets > banned, I guess those involved in any way with sex or porn side of > video have experience of this sort of thing. Even companies that > appear to have enlightened attitude towards such things, may change > policy at any time and suddenly crackdown on such content. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" wrote: > > > > In light of YouTube/Google's treatment of Nick Gisburne I've removed > > all my videos on YouTube and also am in the process of removing my > > blogger page. To hell with YouTube and Google and their arbitrary > > acceptable use policies. > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Nichols" > > wrote: > > > > > > That really sucks man. > > > > > > I think the stuff we're working on with MySpace ties in directly with > > > situations like this -- site proclaming to be open and community > > > based, but are just fronts for corporate interests. > > > > > > And if you cross one of their arbitrary lines set fourth in their > > > constantly evolving Terms of Use they can cancel you, or filter > you out. > > > > > > I think that's the next fight -- establishing what is public space and > > > who "owns" it and what users rights are in this new user generated > > > reality. > > > > > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Rosenzweig" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I tried to log on to our YouTube account today and got the message > > "Your > > > > account has now been permanently disabled." > > > > > > > > It was our Daily Vlog account, which is a 5-minute-per-day vlog > > from the > > > > office. Pure vlog -- just us talking about various topics. Couldn't > > > possibly > > > > be a
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of action, but I think the arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an internet-wide problem. To cover themselves, just about every hosting service Ive ever seen has terms and conditions about what content is acceptable, and many of the terms are vague. People certainly should draw attention to services which are trigger-happy about removing stuff without good cause. Youtube are likely to show up as an offender a lot because of their sheer size, and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to save themselves from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way that also removes some legitimate content, and this is not good or nice to their users for them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein called for a boycott on youtube because he was banned and though it was due to being gay or hosting gay content, whereas after some research I thought it was more likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots of naked breasts, and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts for profit but the mainstream has a nipple phobia. So anyway theoretically most services are flawed in the sense that almost anybody could find their content falling foul of the terms & conditions, even if their content is innocent enough, and as far as I know the services dont even have an obligation to contact people who are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal issues will stop terms & conditions from changing that much, so the best we can hope for is that in practice many services are careful, think of their users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of material before hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the reasons behind youtubes removal of the content in this case, its certainly sloppy and shows no sense of responsibility to users who upload legitimate videos. As for the grey area where content might actually be deemed offensive or innapropriate, offends certain people, causes a stink and gets banned, I guess those involved in any way with sex or porn side of video have experience of this sort of thing. Even companies that appear to have enlightened attitude towards such things, may change policy at any time and suddenly crackdown on such content. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In light of YouTube/Google's treatment of Nick Gisburne I've removed > all my videos on YouTube and also am in the process of removing my > blogger page. To hell with YouTube and Google and their arbitrary > acceptable use policies. > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Nichols" > wrote: > > > > That really sucks man. > > > > I think the stuff we're working on with MySpace ties in directly with > > situations like this -- site proclaming to be open and community > > based, but are just fronts for corporate interests. > > > > And if you cross one of their arbitrary lines set fourth in their > > constantly evolving Terms of Use they can cancel you, or filter you out. > > > > I think that's the next fight -- establishing what is public space and > > who "owns" it and what users rights are in this new user generated > > reality. > > > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Rosenzweig" > > wrote: > > > > > > I tried to log on to our YouTube account today and got the message > "Your > > > account has now been permanently disabled." > > > > > > It was our Daily Vlog account, which is a 5-minute-per-day vlog > from the > > > office. Pure vlog -- just us talking about various topics. Couldn't > > possibly > > > be anything there they want to shut down, we don't even deal with > > sensitive > > > issues. Usually we talk about our lives, or what's going on in > > entertainment > > > or tech. And there certainly can't be any intellectual property > issues, > > > unless someone patented "having a conversation on a sofa" and I am > > not aware > > > of it. > > > > > > You can see for yourself what the daily vlog is about by checking it > > out at > > > http://thedailyvlog.com. You can see there is no reason why YouTube > > would > > > want it removed. > > > > > > Anyone else had this happen to them? I'm certainly glad we don't > rely on > > > their as our main means of distribution. In fact, I may pull down > > our other > > > accounts. No point building an audience there just to have them > > carelessly > > > destroy it. > > > -- > > > Gary Rosenzweig > > > CleverMedia TV > > > rosenz@ > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
In light of YouTube/Google's treatment of Nick Gisburne I've removed all my videos on YouTube and also am in the process of removing my blogger page. To hell with YouTube and Google and their arbitrary acceptable use policies. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That really sucks man. > > I think the stuff we're working on with MySpace ties in directly with > situations like this -- site proclaming to be open and community > based, but are just fronts for corporate interests. > > And if you cross one of their arbitrary lines set fourth in their > constantly evolving Terms of Use they can cancel you, or filter you out. > > I think that's the next fight -- establishing what is public space and > who "owns" it and what users rights are in this new user generated > reality. > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Rosenzweig" > wrote: > > > > I tried to log on to our YouTube account today and got the message "Your > > account has now been permanently disabled." > > > > It was our Daily Vlog account, which is a 5-minute-per-day vlog from the > > office. Pure vlog -- just us talking about various topics. Couldn't > possibly > > be anything there they want to shut down, we don't even deal with > sensitive > > issues. Usually we talk about our lives, or what's going on in > entertainment > > or tech. And there certainly can't be any intellectual property issues, > > unless someone patented "having a conversation on a sofa" and I am > not aware > > of it. > > > > You can see for yourself what the daily vlog is about by checking it > out at > > http://thedailyvlog.com. You can see there is no reason why YouTube > would > > want it removed. > > > > Anyone else had this happen to them? I'm certainly glad we don't rely on > > their as our main means of distribution. In fact, I may pull down > our other > > accounts. No point building an audience there just to have them > carelessly > > destroy it. > > -- > > Gary Rosenzweig > > CleverMedia TV > > rosenz@ > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
Heres my complete guess: Viacom negotiations with youtube over legit licensing of their TV shows fell through recently. Demanded that youtube remove all their shows. Is Comedy Central a Viacom property? If so then the Daily Show comes under this. Youtuber dont actually have all the amazing copy-detection technologies in place, so they implement really crude attempts to purge their database of viacom content, and your show is a victim because its got 'The Daily' in the title. Like I said thats just a guess and I may of got all sorts of facts wrong, but the timing means its a possibility? If theres no reason to ban you deliberately, I reckon the above heavyhanded incompetance is a possibility. Cheers and I hope you sort the situation out to your satisfaction Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have had a page there for a month or two. Never came to understand its appeal. > > Now, even less so. > > Have you contacted them to ask for reasons? Told them there's a > videoblogging community beginning to use the space? > > Jan > > On 2/12/07, Gary Rosenzweig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I tried to log on to our YouTube account today and got the message "Your > > account has now been permanently disabled." > > > > It was our Daily Vlog account, which is a 5-minute-per-day vlog from the > > office. Pure vlog -- just us talking about various topics. Couldn't possibly > > be anything there they want to shut down, we don't even deal with sensitive > > issues. Usually we talk about our lives, or what's going on in entertainment > > or tech. And there certainly can't be any intellectual property issues, > > unless someone patented "having a conversation on a sofa" and I am not aware > > of it. > > > > You can see for yourself what the daily vlog is about by checking it out at > > http://thedailyvlog.com. You can see there is no reason why YouTube would > > want it removed. > > > > Anyone else had this happen to them? I'm certainly glad we don't rely on > > their as our main means of distribution. In fact, I may pull down our other > > accounts. No point building an audience there just to have them carelessly > > destroy it. > > -- > > Gary Rosenzweig > > CleverMedia TV > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- > The Faux Press - better than real > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com >
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
That really sucks man. I think the stuff we're working on with MySpace ties in directly with situations like this -- site proclaming to be open and community based, but are just fronts for corporate interests. And if you cross one of their arbitrary lines set fourth in their constantly evolving Terms of Use they can cancel you, or filter you out. I think that's the next fight -- establishing what is public space and who "owns" it and what users rights are in this new user generated reality. -Kent, askaninja.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Rosenzweig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I tried to log on to our YouTube account today and got the message "Your > account has now been permanently disabled." > > It was our Daily Vlog account, which is a 5-minute-per-day vlog from the > office. Pure vlog -- just us talking about various topics. Couldn't possibly > be anything there they want to shut down, we don't even deal with sensitive > issues. Usually we talk about our lives, or what's going on in entertainment > or tech. And there certainly can't be any intellectual property issues, > unless someone patented "having a conversation on a sofa" and I am not aware > of it. > > You can see for yourself what the daily vlog is about by checking it out at > http://thedailyvlog.com. You can see there is no reason why YouTube would > want it removed. > > Anyone else had this happen to them? I'm certainly glad we don't rely on > their as our main means of distribution. In fact, I may pull down our other > accounts. No point building an audience there just to have them carelessly > destroy it. > -- > Gary Rosenzweig > CleverMedia TV > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
