Jump to content
 

YouTube changes - COPPA


Robin2
 Share

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Robin2 said:

It would be great if that was true. Can you provide a link to the law on the matter?

 

...R

 

So, man from Chipping Sodbury extradited to the US for uploading a Thomas the tank engine video....

Maybe you can provide the UK law that had been broken ?  Youtube can't fine people and the FTC covers persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Not so long ago there was a case of a British dealer of goods to Iran who was conducting all his business on-line in Britain. This wasn't illegal in the UK but is in the USA. He was sent to the US and is now serving a prison sentence.

US law has a very long arm.

Bearing in mind the number of children seen at model railway shows and obviously enjoying the experience I wonder if any video of railway models could be of interest to enforcers of this law.

 

Nope. The Federal Trade Commission Act is a consumer protection body. It's civil law not criminal as trading with Iran would be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Robin2 said:

That's not nearly as "separate" as I had in mind. I think it would need to have no reference to "youtube".

 

...R

Perhaps everything for adults should be hosted on youpube? :jester:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Youtube channel with various vintage British films and documentaries including some about WW2 that are not for young children. I am not the copyright holder, some are from the BBC, History channel and C4. In all cases the program maker has allowed reuploads and are monetizing and/or data collecting. 

In the advanced settings menu I have selected the not made for children setting for the whole channel. Youtube would be in breach of FTC data mining laws for minors if I had selected the children's content setting. Understandable they would either delete the channel, send out a warning or change the settings automatically. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, maico said:

In the advanced settings menu I have selected the not made for children setting for the whole channel. Youtube would be in breach of FTC data mining laws for minors if I had selected the children's content setting. Understandable they would either delete the channel, send out a warning or change the settings automatically. 

According to my understanding of things - mainly based on YouTube's own video on the subject - you have this backways and mainly (IMHO) because of the question YouTube has presented on their settings menu. In my view they are asking the wrong question. The real issue is whether children will be found to be watching your videos, no matter who they are intended for. If they are in the n-f-c category and data about users is being collected and that user happens to be a child then it breaches the law. It doesn't matter that you had declared it to be n-f-c.

 

On the other hand if you declare your videos as for-children then YouTube will not harvest data - which probably also means you would get no money even when an adult viewed your stuff.

 

The proper solution to this (which YouTube seems to be avoiding) is a system which would prevent children from being able to view n-f-c material. At the moment all they seem to be doing is trying to get users to help YouTube avoid collecting data when children watch videos. I presume "money" is behind their attitude.

 

And I suspect most YouTube viewers (of every age) would prefer if YouTube just stopped collecting data from everyone.

 

...R

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Robin2 said:

According to my understanding of things - mainly based on YouTube's own video on the subject - you have this backways and mainly (IMHO) because of the question YouTube has presented on their settings menu. In my view they are asking the wrong question. The real issue is whether children will be found to be watching your videos, no matter who they are intended for. If they are in the n-f-c category and data about users is being collected and that user happens to be a child then it breaches the law. It doesn't matter that you had declared it to be n-f-c.

 

On the other hand if you declare your videos as for-children then YouTube will not harvest data - which probably also means you would get no money even when an adult viewed your stuff.

 

The proper solution to this (which YouTube seems to be avoiding) is a system which would prevent children from being able to view n-f-c material. At the moment all they seem to be doing is trying to get users to help YouTube avoid collecting data when children watch videos. I presume "money" is behind their attitude.

 

And I suspect most YouTube viewers (of every age) would prefer if YouTube just stopped collecting data from everyone.

 

...R

 

If I make an R-Rated film and children sneak into the cinema to watch it, it's the venue showing it that is at fault not me.

 

Few model railroaders will be making money since monetization (via Google AdSense) changes. Sam's trains is one who does, he has original content, affiliate links and a subscriber base. it's his full time job believe it or not.

 

The situation did need updating. I was getting cheques for content that was owned by film libraries who were to naive to understand what was going on! Eventually I picked up 3 copyright strikes and the channel was deleted. They never asked for the 4 figure sum back though...Youtube continues to evolve

 

Edited by maico
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, maico said:

 

If I make an R-Rated film and children sneak into the cinema to watch it, it's the venue showing it that is at fault not me.

 

That's a very useful analogy. And as far as I can see it is very specifically what YouTube is trying NOT to implement. They seem to want a situation in which there is no watcher at the cinema door and rely on the fact that the content of the n-f-c films will have no interest for the kids so they just won't go into the rooms showing those films. If that sounds like a nonsensical approach then I agree - but it is what YouTube seems to be trying to implement.

 

To be fair to YouTube it's easier to keep youngsters out of cinemas than to stop them viewing stuff on YouTube. Parents and Guardians have to  act as the door-keeper.

 

...R

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

When You Tube altered me to these changes to US law I was given three choices, mark the channel suitable for kids, or not suitable for kids and mark each video as you upload it. I think I went for each video as I up load it. I don't think a 2 minute video of trains running around my railway room is going to be considered not suitable for children. I am not marketing anything, I am not being political and there is no sexual content.  Plus no viewers.

 

As for You Tube collecting information on what I am viewing I would never have found these three angels singing about witches.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 I don't think a 2 minute video of trains running around my railway room is going to be considered not suitable for children.

Of course not. There will be very few railway modelling videos (short or long) that have unsuitable content.

 

But AFAIK marking a video (or a channel) as intended for children means that lots of familar YouTube facilities will no longer be available to it. My understanding is that people won't be able to add comments and I think it will not appear in some (all, many?) searches. If your only purpose is to have a video online so you can give the URL for other people to see that probably won't matter. However many people (including some model railway folk) want people to "subscribe" to their channel and provide feedback.

 

...R

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, maico said:

So, man from Chipping Sodbury extradited to the US for uploading a Thomas the tank engine video....

Maybe you can provide the UK law that had been broken ?  Youtube can't fine people and the FTC covers persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction

 

Not YouTube and COPPA specific, but rather it is interesting times from a legal perspective as many jurisdictions (not just the US - see the EU and GDPR) attempt to enforce laws outside their own borders.

 

As such, I would suggest anytime anything like this comes up give the issue careful consideration and don't just assume because you aren't in a given country that it doesn't apply, and that it won't apply in the future.  The reach of some of these laws, particularly given the multi-nation spread of many of these companies we use, may not be as limited as assumed or there may be other undesirable consequences (such as account deletion - so make sure you have backup copies of everything).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

its a screw over for the many youtubers that rely on the money earn from the videos as their main income, because to avoid the fine they might change their videos as for children but then not get any revenue for it but if you make the videos not for children but then youtube revues it and decides that it is for children, you will get the fine.

 

somewhat related to this but mostly other things, hosting billions of videos everyday for free and paying out the ad revenue to the channels everyday is costing Youtube a lot of money which they dont want to continue so they are doing things to discourage people from becoming a youtubers like the adpocalypse and now this, the potential huge fine would no doubt discourage people

Edited by sir douglas
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, sir douglas said:

its a screw over for the many youtubers that rely on the money earn from the videos as their main income, because to avoid the fine they might change their videos as for children but then not get any revenue for it but if you make the videos not for children but then youtube revues it and decides that it is for children, you will get the fine.

 

somewhat related to this but mostly other things, hosting billions of videos everyday for free and paying out the ad revenue to the channels everyday is costing Youtube a lot of money which they dont want to continue so they are doing things to discourage people from becoming a youtubers like the adpocalypse and now this, the potential huge fine would no doubt discourage people

That is a bit like

Quote

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to, but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle...............Joseph Heller.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do video channels such as Vimeo come into the picture?  I watch Vimeo from time to time and there is a small amount of model railway stuff and railway stuff there (Lewisham Bill).  it appears to me that video posters do not get money from advertisers although I may be way off base here but if one is posting for the collective why ?not use Vimeo

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sir douglas said:

 but if you make the videos not for children but then youtube revues it and decides that it is for children, you will get the fine.

That's just not true. YouTube has no capacity to fine anyone. Fines would only arise if the FTC decided to prosecute. YouTube is just protecting its own ass.

 

Quote

 paying out the ad revenue to the channels everyday is costing Youtube a lot of money which they dont want to continue 

That seems very strange to me. AFAIK YouTube is making lots of money and is doing its best to ensure it can continue to do so without falling foul of COPPA.

 

...R

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45 minutes ago, Theakerr said:

Where do video channels such as Vimeo come into the picture?  I watch Vimeo from time to time and there is a small amount of model railway stuff and railway stuff there (Lewisham Bill).  it appears to me that video posters do not get money from advertisers although I may be way off base here but if one is posting for the collective why ?not use Vimeo

 

there are some who post on YT and other sites but nobody is going see any videos on the other sites because we all go to YT for videos by default and many may have never heard of the others sites. so unless a majority of the world's populatiom move away from YT it wont make a difference, after the adpocalypse  many channels started using a site called Patreon where followers can support the channel by donating money since they cant rely on the ad revenue anymore.

so a vimeo channel could set up a Patreon if they wanted

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, AlexHolt said:

You only get the fine if you set it for kids when its clearly not.

 

I'm not sure I understand that, could you elaborate why that would be please? The other way round yes, but this I don't get.

 

Edit: Ah, because it could contain things they shouldn't see. Alternatively, if you set it for adults you could be accused of trying to bypass the principle that stuff which might appeal to kids has to be specifically identifed as such. What fun.

 

I'm going to go off and worry about more important things.

Edited by Mikkel
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AlexHolt said:

 because they got fined $170 million a few months ago. 

Part of the problem is that YouTube was not fined - they made a voluntary settlement and in the course of that seem to have volunteered to do more than might be legally required.

 

10 hours ago, AlexHolt said:

You only get the fine if you set it for kids when its clearly not.

The fine is not levied because of the way content is labelled. The offense (US spelling) is collecting personal data from kids - it won't matter how the video was labelled. And it would be interesting to be able to afford the legal challenge about whether it is YouTube who is collecting the data or the maker of the video. I suspect in most cases the collected data never gets near the video creator - which is why I suspect YouTube of passing the buck and expecting the creators to solve a problem that is really a YouTube problem.

 

Apart from that this seems to be a sensible summary of the situation. 

 

...R

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a problem with the part of what they define as child friendly such as animation. there is a lot of animated things online that is very innapropriate for children, 2 easy examples would be Family Guy and South Park. there is a lot of japanese animation which is adult content like horror or sexuality, this is the main issue for anime youtubers

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sir douglas said:

. there is a lot of japanese animation which is adult content like horror or sexuality, this is the main issue for anime youtubers

My adult daughter tells me there is a lot of very gory animation under the title of Peppa Pig.

 

However I will leave it to people who are interested in creating animations to pursue their rights on the matter for themselves.

 

...R

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a video recently posted indicating that the FCC did provide a 'family' option that would have resolved pretty well all the issues.  However, in their wisdom  u-tube appears to have ignored this third option.  One can only speculate why.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...