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" > <digitalfilmmaker@> 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" <rosenz@> > > 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] > > > > > >
