Mary Katherine Ham blogs about conservatives getting their YouTube videos deleted here, and Michelle Malkin blogged about it here,
I don't know how YouTube can possibly screen all the videos that get uploaded, let alone have any consistency about what gets rejected. I suspect they mostly depend on people complaining, and we know how quick the oh-so-tolerant left is to try to shut up conservatives.
But I did notice that the one time I video captured a 30 second clip of footage from the second world war and posted about it here, YouTube deleted it the next day. I find it hard to understand what terms of theirs a 30 second clip of documentary war footage would violate, so I have to assume they were responding to a whining lefty.
Michelle Malkin has a video up on YouTube that actually takes them on regarding their censorship. It seems that Michelle put up a 3 minute video about jihadists that was removed by YouTube. YouTube notified her that she violated their code of conduct but when she questioned what the violation was exactly, she recieved no response. Hence, the new video. Check it out, she gives them hell...
As usual, so called Conservatives (and I'm definitely one, a largely libertarian) can't conceive that your 30-second documentary clip may have been pulled... because it was someone else's intellectual property.
Example:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/stephentaylor/649/#223454
Christoph, the two-hour documentary that was broadcast on TV was certainly someone else's intellectual property. A 30 second clip that only included footage from the army's photographer is not a copyright violation. Short excerpts for the purpose of commentary are perfectly legitimate under the fair use terms, and that particular piece came out of the US archives anyway.
I do not believe they considered it a copyright violation.
Kevin, you are right.
Apples and oranges and I was commenting on oranges.
The example I quoted was different, it was a complete article, lock, stock, barrel, and formatting, purchased for $1 behind a subscriber firewall and posted by Stephen Taylor for the world to read - free.
However, in your case, you are entirely correct.
I dont hardly even watch main-stream TV its too damn liberal and too left-wing for me
Hey, we're tolerant, I read your blog almost every day!
Christoph said:
As usual, so called Conservatives (and I'm definitely one, a largely libertarian) can't conceive that your 30-second documentary clip may have been pulled... because it was someone else's intellectual property.
That would make sense except if you search for just about anything on TV past or present it'll pull in multitudes of entries, and I strongly suspect the networks didn't give permission for their intellectual property to be distributed on YouTube like that.
More likely it's a very ridgid (perhaps automated?) policy of pulling videos when complaints are received, and due to the sheer volume complaints they probably receive (since some have very thin skin) its easier for them to pull the video than to review for objectionable content or being in violation of their "terms of use". This is just speculation on my part.
To me it would seem like a rather poor and lazy policy, but what can ya do? (Aside from posting articles on blogs to get their attention, or starting a new service to compete with them for their share of that market.)
I suspect CanForce 101 is right.
The litmus test would be to pick some sucky teenagers video showing, i don't know something vulgar and complaining en masse and see what happens. What do you think?
Well said by a right whiner, get it, 'right' 'whiner'
YouTube is, as I understand it, a private concern, ergo, they are (or should be) free to allow or not whatever they want when it's being funded on their dime.
On the other hand, their reputation will depend on their behaviour, and if it turns our over time that they become legitimately known as biased (which is their right), then we will simply take that into account as we would the trustworthness of any other product on the free open market.
The other options are to have private concerns fund all commers, and I'm not willing to support that, or to have the commons, that is, the state, fund everything, and based on Stalinism and the CBC I'm not in favour of that either.
And let's fact it, if you're going to YouTube for political insight, you're already beyond hope. Better to try www.hoover.org/publications/digest
So I say, read, learn, and leave YouTube alone. In all likelyhood, they are going to be felled by copyright violations anyway, and I don't mind that (it's patents that have become completely corrupt, not copyright). Though, I've been wrong before.
By the way, my favourite YouTube videos are available for your delectation at: sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2006/08/youtubular.html - From Mae West to Nina Hagen. Note that the 1980 version of Tom Wait's "Step Right Up" is better than the 1977 version (in my opinion, of course ;-)
Vitruvius - I agree they are free to implement any policy they like, and I certainly didn't complain to them, it being a free service and all.
But if they are implementing a biased policy, or, more likely, whining lefties are gaming their system it's an interesting topic to debate.
Perhaps YouTube knowing it won't last forever, is deciding to go down swinging at what it perceives as Fox News wannabes publishing trash? Since MySpace is claimed by Rupert Murdoch, I'd guess that YouTube is positioning themselves to be snapped up by a competitor to the right wing spin media.
Perhaps. On the other hand, perhaps it's just the ebb and flow of people trying to do things that people want, as Grace Jones sings, in "Slave to the Rhythm", at tinyurl.com/ku9em
Damn those people with the right to choose what they allow on their private commercial service! How DARE they?
Now, quit whining and go start your own video posting service that allows what YOU want.
Anything to do with media has always been anti-right wing due to the fear of extreme right-wing fanaticism by that small by powerful cultish elite.
It is not the case that anything to do with media has always been anti-right wing.
pro-war != conservative!
Bobs comments at the best of times = sophistry.
how about this one
The leftists mindset = danger to freedom loving people..
Free yourself Bob..get your nose out of that Karl Marx for kids and join the real discussion (you know , the one not in your head..)
kael marx was a charlatan and the only reason he turned out the hefty volumes kommunist manifesto and das kapital wuz sose he could spend lots of time in a warm library on someone else's expense account.
I however seem to have acquired the mantle somehow despite a seething disgust at their track record.
regarding youtube, I predicted recently the media barons were going to clamp down on the whole internet information / blog sources / etc thing.
I didnt think the censorship would come in the form of 'votes' protesting the content of specific postings.
sign of the times !!!
The better the Conservative Government performs the more of this we will see. "Sign of the times" for sure.
For examples of pure desperation we need only watch Question Period in the House of "Comics".
Michelle Malkin...
What an annoying anal pore. Sorry ET I don't have the facitity to back up that statement just a personal opinion.
YouTube probably deleted her because of that trailer park panelling in the background and stupid over-sized baseball hat that accurately describes her Woody Woodpecker style of delivery.
The media for the most part has been co-opted by the left.
It is important for those on the right to assert themselves and ensure that in the new forms of media emerging we have a voice. To speak aloud on the censorship is needed. To tell us about "private companies", "private commercial services" yada yada is just shouting us down. The free market works this way, being influenced by educated consumer choices.
YouTube is just another company. If they make it difficult to post, consumers go elsewhere. Would you lefties prefer another solutions such as legislation? That is the left way not the conservative way.
enough
WSJ: Google In Talks To Buy YouTube For $1.6 Billion - Source
Dow Jones News Service (excerpt) ^ | October 6, 2006 | Kevin J. Delaney
Excerpt - SAN FRANCISCO -(Dow Jones)- Google Inc. (GOOG) is in talks to acquire online video company YouTube Inc. for roughly $1.6 billion, according to a person familiar with the matter. The discussions are still at a sensitive stage and could well break off, this person says. Rumors of such talks were reported on the TechCrunch blog. (This report and related background material will be available on The Wall Street Journal's Web site, WSJ.com.). ...-
free republic
Well if you're really concerned about video's being blocked and there being a prevention of free speech. The simplest way to circumvent the attempts would be to get a few bloggers together and create a seed of the video and use a torrent.
Michelle Malkin? Is that the same Michelle Malkin as the one who recently wrote a book approving of the wartime internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians? Obviously, a real believer in civil liberties!
Moot point since Google will own them shortly!
Just another version of MSM 'shaping' public perception!
Budd Campbell government employee blogging on the taxpayers dime?
Budd a civil servant? Not likely as the last post of his is at 3:10 on a Friday afternoon and before a long weekend to boot. There isn't a government chair in all of Canada that is occupied after lunch on a friday ;-)
"kael marx was a charlatan and the only reason he turned out the hefty volumes kommunist manifesto and das kapital wuz sose he could spend lots of time in a warm library on someone else's expense account."
If you think The Communist Manifesto is a heafty volume, you obviously haven't read it :-) And if you haven't read something so basic to marxism, you're really in no position to comment on it.
"kael marx was a charlatan and the only reason he turned out the hefty volumes kommunist manifesto and das kapital wuz sose he could spend lots of time in a warm library on someone else's expense account."
If you think The Communist Manifesto is a hefty volume, you obviously haven't read it :-) And if you haven't read something so basic to marxism, you're really in no position to comment on it.
Sorry about the double post. I was trying to correct a spelling mistake.