Robin2

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

The impression I have is that videos marked as suitable for kids won't be able to receive comments which may remove a lot of the purpose for creating a series of model railway videos. I think there will be other restrictions as well which would make the video harder to find. But I'm certainly not the expert. I knew nothing of this before yesterday. The YouTube video that I linked to defines two categories of videos - those "for for kids" and "not for kids" but I think their classification misses the point (perhaps deliberately) that the distinction is between "attractive to kids" and "not attractive to kids". And in that scenario there needs to be a 3rd category for videos that are "attractive to kids but not intended for kids" and which can be treated as "adult" by preventing kids from viewing them. ...R

I'm well aware of that. But I am not one of them - which I why I made my comment in the area that I was familiar with. Let's move on from that and see if ALL Forum members can be made aware of this problem. Maybe you could arrange for a STICKY to appear at the top of each section of the Forum from now until the end of January? (Or something equivalent). ...R

It does not seem to be so simple. As I understand it if you mark something as "not for kids" YouTube could change that rating if it considered that kids would actually watch your video. And even if they did not change it it does not mean that your original assessment is valid. This is all tied in with how YouTube, and YouTube users make money. They want to be able to harvest data about users, but they are not allowed to do so if a child is the user. Consequently there is an incentive for people who do want to monetize stuff that is really intended for kids to pretend that it is not. To my mind YouTube should have a separate KidsTube with a totally separate URL so that parents and guardians could block access to the regular YouTube for the children in their care. There may also be an interesting question whether an offence is committed by the video owner if s/he is not collecting kids' data and is not getting paid in any way by reason of the video being on YouTube. A lot of this may be an attempt by YouTube to get users to solve a problem that is really YouTube's problem. Scope for more research ... ...R

I agree with that. Perhaps there is some means by which you could ensure that this issue is brought to the attention of as many Forum readers as possible. My concern is that people may use the Forum regularly without ever looking at the Websites section. ...R

I started a new Topic in this section about changes to YouTube that people with "toys" in their videos should be aware of, even if the video is not intended for children. However for some reason my Topic was moved here. I suggest that anyone who has uploaded content to YouTube should take a quick look at it. ...R

I see that this Topic has been moved to this "Website" section from the Radio Control section in which I started it. The reason I posted it in the Radio Control section is that a number of people using that section have uploaded videos of their projects to YouTube and may not be aware of the impending legal changes My concern is that people who use the Radio Control section will not see it here in the Website section. ...R

I wonder if people here have seen this Video that has been prepared by YouTube https://youtu.be/-JzXiSkoFKw It seems that videos that have content that would appeal to children have to be specially identified even though the video is intended for adults. Also this seems to have little or nothing to do with appropriateness of the content but rather about the fact that YouTube harvests data from viewers and must ensure that it does not do so from child viewers. There seems to be a risk of a $42,000 fine per video for people who breach the USA "COPPA" law. There are also a number of YouTube videos from model railway folk who are concerned about this. ...R

Perhaps. Or maybe the demo periods could be signposted for a specific 15 minute period in every hour. I saw the action (impressive) in one of the YouTube videos about the Warley show. However I couldn't see what info was available to viewers at the show - would they have known that @Pikey had made them? The manufacture of these things interests me far more than the driving of them when complete. Their creation is far more impressive than the countless layouts with Bachmann, Dapol or Hornby models racing around. ...R

I am very impressed by these models but this seems to me a major downside. I think I would lose interest as an operator after 5 minutes. ...R

I had hoped I had anticipated that possibility by beginning my Reply with "If you are interested in computer programming" I do appreciate that most people who use this Forum have little interest in computers, and even see their model trains as an escape from them. One pays a considerable premium for that certification and I wanted you to be aware that people with an enthusiasm for DIY can avoid a lot of that cost. ...R

That seems just a little bit extreme. If you are referring to the risk of a LiPo battery exploding then that risk exists with every system that uses LiPo cells. I would never use or charge them unattended in any RC system. And their use in model trains puts much less strain on the battery compared to model airplanes because the currents used in model trains are so much lower. ...R

If you are interested in computer programming as well as battery powered radio control then you should be able to make the RC equipment for a loco for under £20 using an Arduino-type microprocessor (£2) and an nRF24L01+ 2.4GHz transceiver (£2) and a motor driver chip (< £6) plus a battery (< £4) and (perhaps) a voltage step-up (£2) module. A transmitter would just need a microprocessor and nRF24 module plus 2 x AA alkaline cells and some switches. If you want a fancy case then that will be the expensive bit. ...R

My comment was not intended to refer to vehicles in permanent rakes. But suppose one wished to model the activity where a coach needed to be taken out of service due to a fault. That would require breaking up the train and replacing the coach with a spare which may or may not be facing in the same orientation as the rest of the rake. ...R PS ... there used to be numbers on replies so one could easily indicate which one was being referred to.

Doesn't it happen every time a train comes back from wherever it went to - instead of unrealistically coming from "London" every time you see it. Also, it's not uncommon for layouts to have train turntables as fiddle-yards. I can't understand why people make a huge fuss about rivets and then they don't care about a huge mechanical blooper. ...R

I'm not aware of any books but then I have not been looking for them. However I suspect that it is more likely you will find advice on the internet, including on YouTube. These days you can learn most things on YouTube. You may also like to look at a website called Freerails that has a large section on radio control. ...R

Sorry. I got the impression from your "Tight *rse" comment that you were looking down on those who are reluctant to pay high prices for things ...R

Any PC program that can communicate over a Serial port (i.e. 99% of them) can send messages to an Arduino to tell it what to do. However writing a GUI program is not trivial if you have no experience. And if the only purpose is for a one-off adjustment of settings I suspect it would take more time to develop the GUI program than it to adjust the settings using the Arduino Serial Monitor to enter values. ...R

I agree. I am always intrigued by the willingness of railway modellers to empty their wallets for every new trinket. The working parts for an Arduino and nRF24 wireless controller pair (Tx and Rx) would cost about £20 - less if you are prepared to buy parts from China. In the controllers I made the biggest part of the cost was the fancy plastic case (which is not included in the £20) ...R

The nRF24L01+ is also very convenient for indoor use. This Simple nRF24L01+ Tutorial may be of interest. ...R