What's The Deal With YouTube?

[Weekend_Warrior]

So I got home tonight and checked the news. I heard that the band Band Cheap Trick had been playing on stage at the Ottawa Bluesfest and had the top of the stage collapse after a strong gust of wind. But thankfully, there were no severe injuries, just one person with a broken leg.

Naturally, I start searching YouTube to see all the raw video captures of this incident, and then I start getting TONS of YouTube notices that read "This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated."

Ok. I can understand if someone were trying to post a copyrighted recording of their local news station or CNN. I could also understand if this had been some really catastrophic event like maybe 9/11 or the Japan Earthquake where many innocent lives were lost and certain people didn't want the videos shown. I get that. But there were no lives lost. In fact, it's actually a miracle nobody was severely injured or killed.

Anyway, the real problem I'm having with this is that these were most likely all privately shot videos. Shouldn't the person have the right (or any right at all) to post a video if it's something that they shot themselves as long as it doesn't contain nudity or anything unlawful? Also, how about a warning? I don't like the idea of all these user accounts being terminated just because an outside party doesn't agree that these videos should be made public?

As far as I'm concerned, this is censorship. Wouldn't "freedom of press" cover this??

From Wiki:
"Freedom of the press is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections."

"In May 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama signed legislation intended to promote a free press around the world, a bipartisan measure inspired by the murder in Pakistan of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The legislation, called the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, requires the United States Department of State to expand its scrutiny of news media restrictions and intimidation as part of its annual review of human rights in each country."

[Xeogred]

I hate to break it to you but this has been going on for the last several years. Youtube was cool when it first started up (and I still like it a lot), but I see videos and favorites of mine get taken down all the time thesedays. They've cracked down a lot. Sometimes it's not them though and rather, parent companies of whatever property is in some videos just being assholes.

[Weekend_Warrior]

Well, I'm fully aware of them cracking down on copyrighted materials such as licensed music and video games. But I've never heard of them terminating accounts over videos like this. That's totally unjustified.

[J T]

I made a graduation video when my wife got her PhD and put it up on youtube for friends and family. They cut the audio track because I used a recording of the graduation song to sync my pictures and video to. Lame.

[o.pwuaioc]

The Bill of Rights only applies to the government. You have no "freedom of speech/press" when it comes to private businesses or individuals.

[Hobie-wan]

The venue likely has a no videotaping policy in the facility and/or the band has one in their contract with the facility. The venue or the band is trying to prevent piracy of the show and also trying to avoid any bad press from the incident by suppressing videos of people going "OMG" and "what idiot didn't make sure that was secured properly" etc. I'm not surprised at all.

[AppleQueso]

bootleg recordings of concerts have always been something of a legal gray area anyhow

[wakeup]

I made a graduation video when my wife got her PhD and put it up on youtube for friends and family. They cut the audio track because I used a recording of the graduation song to sync my pictures and video to. Lame.

Wow. They actually do that to non-mainstream or "less than thousands of views" videos? Seems costly for youtube to go through so much.

[Segatari2002]

I made a graduation video when my wife got her PhD and put it up on youtube for friends and family. They cut the audio track because I used a recording of the graduation song to sync my pictures and video to. Lame.

Wow. They actually do that to non-mainstream or "less than thousands of views" videos? Seems costly for youtube to go through so much.

It might be costly to do it, sure. But the one time they don't do it and some record label sues them for copyright violation, it's all over. Sad as it is to say, they're doing right by them by making sure they follow all the rules. I'm not saying it's pretty, but it is what they have to do in this day-and-age of lawsuits.

[BRIK]

Still seems a bit much to disable accounts for it.