Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,688
|
Post by Dave on Apr 20, 2007 3:24:24 GMT
Hi Jon,
Leaving aside copyright, it's quite simple really. YouTube is apparently aimed at the whole family, therefore its entire content should be suitable for family viewing. The same should apply to all other similar sites including MySpace.
If the owners do not have the resources to police it, they should either create the necessary resources (at whatever cost) or restrict access to adults only.
Regarding copyright, well this is a grey area because most sources merely want credit for their work accompanied, in most cases, by a link to the source. YouTube should be forced to encourage that and to make it easy for uploaders to comply. They should also make it easy for others to add to or correct what the uploader has said (or has not said)... much as Amazon do for their CD descriptions.
It's all so obvious that I am amazed that it's taking so long to make it happen.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 20, 2007 3:42:59 GMT
The problem with that Dave is that for the most part any kids on there (lets say under the age of 13) are not buying things. Since You Tube is sponsor driven - while children may indeed have easy access to it, I dont think it is logical to say it is directed at the "whole family". It is directed at young adults - who are at least old enough to have expendable income. If you did make it that plain vanilla , few advertisers would be willing to sponsor it because it would simply be too boring for the average young adult to be interested. One more point - if the issue of what is suitable for children to watch is so easy, why are the acceptable standards of televison different in the Netherlands, the UK and the US? Isnt this because different cultures have different standards for this? Google is an American corporation - in general the policy of the American government is to control business as little as it possibly can. We actually have greater control over broadcast television than most Western countries do - but even then the standards are hardly "kid friendly". The presumption in America is that parents should monitor their childrens activites -we dislike the government doing anything - especially if it costs money  Jon |
|
|
|
Post by toronado on Apr 20, 2007 3:57:15 GMT
I agree with you Jon. Those kinds of decisions should be left up to the individual. It's not at all difficult to keep yourself and your children off of YouTube if you find it offensive. As for fair use, it does need to be enforced better, but I believe YouTube is looking for feasible solutions in good faith. In my experience, they have responded very quickly to DMCA notices.
|
|
Ed
Junior Member 
Posts: 87
|
Post by Ed on Apr 20, 2007 3:59:12 GMT
I rarely visit YouTube, and then only when a link to something that has interested me takes me there, such as Martin's above. On occassion I find something that I find offensive, so I terminate my connection.
The trend since the '60s has been to push the envelope as to what is or is not acceptable, particularly among young people. The fact is that sex sells. Advertisers are much more likely to buy space there if they know that the material being shown is laden with sex because they are intelligent enough to know that the site will attract more viewers and consequently more potential customers.
I think it the parents' responsibility to oversee what their children watch, be it in the movies, on TV (the telly), or on the internet.
By the way, thank you Dave for posting that performance and Martin for posting the link thereto. I'm rarely moved by 'The Star Spangled Banner' as I was by Hayley's performance of 'God Save the Queen' and 'God Defend New Zealand.'
Ed
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,688
|
Post by Dave on Apr 20, 2007 4:07:01 GMT
The problem with that Dave is that for the most part any kids on there (lets say under the age of 13) are not buying things. Since You Tube is sponsor driven - while children may indeed have easy access to it, I dont think it is logical to say it is directed at the "whole family". It is directed at young adults - who are at least old enough to have expendable income. If you did make it that plain vanilla , few advertisers would be willing to sponsor it because it would simply be too boring for the average young adult to be interested. One more point - if the issue of what is suitable for children to watch is so easy, why are the acceptable standards of televison different in the Netherlands, the UK and the US? Isnt this because different cultures have different standards for this? Jon Well Jon, The first one is easy... I don't care about YouTube's ability or inability to make money... that should be irrelevant. If they don't like restricting access or moderating their content, they can shut down for all that I (and most parents of young children) would care. It doesn't matter who it's directed at... what matters is who can see the content. If young kids can, that needs to be stopped or at least, they need to be made to try. Just as it would be stopped if broadcast on UK US or Netherlands TV. We know where YouTube is based - the laws and media regulations of that country would make a good starting point. I don't know of any cultures in the "Civilised World" who allow pornography and extreme violence to be readily accessible to young children. If YouTube wants to allow this stuff on their site, fine. But then, they should be made to introduce a form of membership that at least attempts to limit itself to "adults" and this is already done by many websites for one reason or another (including music download sites). I stand by my earlier comments about music videos. Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 20, 2007 4:16:09 GMT
Heh
I will only say this. It would amaze me if there was any specific attempt to "censor" You Tube on the part of the US government beyond what can be shown in an "R" rated movie. Whether that is "pornographic or extreme violence" at that point is largely subjective. It just wont happen because the internet is simply not perceived in America to be the same thing as network television. It is considered to be more like cable television - where "R rated" movies are shown all the time. In both cases, a person has a choice as to whether or not to bring it into his home. When he makes that choice, he is responsible for whether or not his kids see it - or parts thereof. That is why "V chips" are optional here and why providers like AOL have easily used "parental controls".
The bottom line is that it isnt that easy Dave. What you think is suitable for children to see is probably different from the choice I would make. The choice I make is likely quite diferent than the choice my neighbor might make. This is quite possibly a uniquely "American" way of looking at things I guess. We run a free market ecomony unless there is a general public outcry against something - which simply isnt likely to happen here over this issue. One thing we will not do lightly is allow the government to make such a decision for us.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help" - Ronald Reagan
Jon
Edit - I should rephrase one thing - it is actually likely that efforts might be made to censor YouTube. There is a fair sized minority here which would agree more or less with Dave's position. What I should have said is that it is extremely unlikely that such efforts would succeed. American laws and regulations actually are being followed - you might find it notable that the FCC - which does control broadcast television - has no mandate in its charter at all regarding cable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dori on Apr 20, 2007 5:11:00 GMT
It's quite funny how this thread started as a Universal video, and this discussion has become a cencorship debate!! It's so funny! It reminds of university....
Dori
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 20, 2007 6:02:50 GMT
Dori I agree.....topic drift is a terrible thing, and whats even worse, it seems to happen in virtually every thread I ever post in.. Jon - who is now a "full member" and wonders exactly what he is perceived to be full of.... |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,688
|
Post by Dave on Apr 20, 2007 14:42:52 GMT
If we want to continue to discuss YouTube, MySpace etc. and their (absence of) policies on video copyright etc, someone needs to start a thread about it in the Miscellaneous board (if it's about Hayley videos) or Off Topic (if it's about YouTube videos in general). I've said quite enough about it  (but I stand by it all). Back (more or less) on topic, The Hayley - London NZ Memorial video was originally posted in this HWI thread here, where you will find links to two versions of it, one of which is high quality broadband. I must remember to stick 'em up on the main HWI site, thanks for reminding me guys (and YouTube!  ) Cheers, Dave |
|
)