CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘YouTube’ Category

YouTube censors Pat Condell’s latest video | EuropeNews: “YouTube censors Pat Condell’s latest video

October 01 2008

The outspoken English comedian Pat Condell (official web site here) has had his latest video blocked by YouTube. You can watch it here, below the break.

The most urgent message in his video is this: If you live in Britain please sign this petition against the creeping poison of sharia law before October 4th when it closes.”

(more…)

New watchdog to make websites carry ‘cinema-style’ age certificates | Mail Online: “New watchdog to make websites carry ‘cinema-style’ age certificates

By Kirsty Walker, Last updated at 10:00 PM on 29th September 2008″

Video-sharing websites - such as YouTube - could be forced to carry cinema-style guidance ratings, it has emerged.

Ministers are planning to introduce tough new rules to make websites carry age certificates and warning signs on films featuring sex, violence or strong language.

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said that tougher content guidance would help parents monitor their children’s internet use.

The move is in response to growing fears about the internet’s ‘dark side’. An influential group of MPs recently warned that many social networking and video-sharing websites contain material unsuitable for children.

Mr Burnham said he wanted online content to meet the same standards required for television and the cinema. At the moment, there is no overall regulation of the internet.

The Culture Secretary said video clips may soon have to carry ratings such as the ‘U’, ‘PG’, ‘12′ and ‘18′ ones used by cinemas.
(more…)

Technological thoughtcrime: “Technological thoughtcrime

Posted: September 25, 2008: Phil Elmore © 2008

According to an article published last week in Metro.co.uk, the video-sharing site YouTube (owned by the politically left-leaning search engine giant Google) has decided to ‘ban for the UK only’ any video ’showing weapons with the aim of intimidation.’ Citing ‘widespread unease about the increase in knife crime in the country,’ YouTube claims that the ban is not retroactive. It remains to be seen how such a ban will affect the countless videos on YouTube of shooters firing guns at ranges, or knife owners reviewing their latest purchases. Product review videos, in particular, are quite popular on YouTube, and one wonders just how sensitive YouTube’s UK censors will be in deciding what ‘intimidates’ them.

The significance of this act lies in just what is being legislated. Guns and knives are, of course, very tightly restricted in the United Kingdom, and there are regulations covering print advertisements and publications involving these items. Now, however, an Internet site that does not sell these items and whose purpose is not primarily to showcase them specifically is being censored by its owners to prevent users simply from seeing knives and guns being fired, wielded, or discussed.

The censorship of YouTube in the UK is thus tantamount to the voluntary establishment of thoughtcrime. George Orwell predicted a heavily surveilled, thoroughly controlled, brutally policed England in his prescient novel, ‘1984.’ The government of the UK is working very hard to turn Orwell’s vision into reality. It’s not possible, at least not today, actually to police the content of your thoughts themselves. The next best thing, then, is to prevent you from seeing or reading material that includes the thoughts your government doesn’t want you thinking. That is the purpose of a ban on gun- and knife-oriented video content, where the goal is to combat the UK’s skyrocketing violent-crime rates. Bans on guns and knives, as well as a legal climate that effectively forbids self-defense, have not stemmed the tide – but gleeful UK bureaucrats have now witnessed their nanny-state crusade take a giant leap. In capitulating to the climate of fear and oppression the UK government has helped create, YouTube has attempted to prevent certain very specific thoughts among YouTube viewers in the UK. What could be more true to the spirit of Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’?

(Column continues at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76102)”

(Via Techdirt.)

What Does The Internet Have To Do With The Finnish School Shooting?: “The story of the Finnish school shooting that left 11 people (including the shooter) dead is certainly a tragedy, and you can understand why people immediately respond to such things by looking for something to blame, or some law or process that needs to be changed — but at some point you have to admit that it’s going to be impossible to totally prevent such actions. Yet, for some reason, people always want to place some sort of ‘blame’ for these sorts of things on the internet. Witness comments from Finnish Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen, where he talks about various changes to look at, such as with gun laws, but also says:

‘The internet and YouTube forums… are not another planet. This is part of our world and we adults have the responsibility to check what is happening, and create borders and safety there.’

But, the thing is, those channels are being monitored, and they were watched in this case. In fact, as nearly every press report on the shooting mentions, police visited the shooter a day before the shooting, due to a YouTube video he posted where he was heard pointing a gun at the camera and saying ‘you will die next.’ So it’s difficult to see how the internet is even remotely worth calling out here. The internet was used to alert authorities, it’s just that there wasn’t any evidence of a crime or intention to commit a crime at that point. So why bring it up at all?

Gunman kills nine at Finnish school: “Killer dies from self-inflicted gun wounds day after he was questioned by police over YouTube footage”

(Via Latest news, sport, business, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk.)

YouTube treads fine line over Finnish gunman video: “Within a couple of hours of the shootings in Kaujahoki, several videos posted
by the YouTube user Wumpscut86 had been taken down by the site.”

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

Police scour social websites to tackle brutality and boasts of young criminals: “Social networking websites such as Bebo, YouTube and MySpace have been identified by police as having a big influence over gang culture and youth violence.”

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

Kuwait to block Youtube over anti-Muslim videos: “

Scan of the memo. Source: Aljarida.com

The Kuwait Ministry of Communications has issued an order to local ISPs denying access to Youtube due to video content considered offensive to Muslims and Islam. Here is a translation by Reuters:

Since the website displays the Koran in the form of songs sung with the oud (stringed instrument) … and displays disrespectful pictures of the Prophet Mohammad … please proceed with immediate effect in blocking the website www.youtube.com

According to Aljarida.com, Youtube users activities represent 15% of all the internet traffic in Kuwait. The Kuwait Times reports that ‘A search of the word ‘Kuwait’ turned up 59,000 videos [on Youtube], including everything from videos of car crashes on Fahaheel Expressway and Jessica Simpson’s concert for US troops in Kuwait to protests in front of Abdullah Al-Salem hall in the run up to the 2006 parliamentary elections.’

Youtube is being blocked in Tunisia, Turkey and Syria. See our Access Denied Map for more information about web 2.0 censorship and anti-censorships efforts.

“

(Via Global Voices Advocacy.)

Flaws in YouTube gangster video vetting exposed - Times Online

From The Times, September 18, 2008: Flaws in YouTube gangster video vetting exposed

A Times investigation has exposed failures in the video-sharing website’s monitoring system and prompted action to tighten security

Marcus Leroux, Kaya Burgess and Fran Yeoman

YouTube, the world’s largest video-sharing website, this week removed over two dozen videos glorifying gangs and gang violence which had been on its website in some cases for over 18 months.

Following a Times investigation into harmful and inappropriate material on Youtube, the website took down 30 film clips, most shot in grainy video showing hooded youths brandishing illegal weapons such as machetes, hand guns and even sub-machine guns. Google admitted they were clearly in breach of its own user guidelines which had recently been revised to deal with gang videos.

Google’s Head of Communications in Britain, former Newsnight editor Peter Barron, said that as a result of concern about the use of the website by gangs, it had now introduced new guidelines prohibiting users from showing weapons in their videos in order to intimidate people, but that these had only “gone live” on Friday.

He blamed “teething problems” with the new policy for the fact that its own monitors had failed to removed the material after a Times reporter posing as an ordinary user had flagged them up as inappropriate three days after the new policy had been introduced.
(more…)

YouTube is introducing UK specific rules, and the Turkish media is furious that YouTube is not sensitive to Turkey’s sensitivities and concerns with regards to certain types of content available through YouTube. Other countries and governments will also start complaining following this new announcement. It is not easy to get the balance right with regards to what should be permissible or not but YouTube will be pressured to have more of these “customized community guidelines” for accessing its content.

[Note also The Guardian, YouTube bans violent videos, 12.09.2008]

YouTube bans videos which glamorise guns and knives | Technology | The Guardian

· UK-specific rules follow glorification claims
· Website refuses to change way content is checked

Owen Gibson, media correspondent, The Guardian, Thursday September 18 2008

The Google-owned video sharing website YouTube has moved to counter criticism that it helps fuel gang violence by introducing new rules to ban submissions that glamorise guns and knives.

The UK-specific rule will ban videos ’showing weapons with the aim of intimidation’ after criticism that fierce battles were being fuelled by rival members posting videos.

Last summer the Guardian revealed how videos on YouTube displayed the ‘barely concealed culture of violent gangs glorying in crime’ in the area of Liverpool where 11-year-old Rhys Jones was shot dead.

In July the culture, media and sport select committee criticised the website, on to which 10 hours of video are uploaded every minute, for not protecting users enough from the ‘dark side’ of internet content.

A Google spokesman said: ‘There has been particular concern over videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of the areas we are addressing.’

The move comes days after YouTube also introduced new global guidelines to outlaw content that ‘directly incites violence’. In a blog post to users late last week it said: ‘We realise it’s not always obvious where we draw the line on content that’s acceptable to upload. We’ve updated the community guidelines … included in the update are a few new things to steer clear of, like not directly inciting violence.’

Other existing rules relate to the posting of videos that show violence and include ‘hate speech’. But the new rules will not change the internet giant’s stance on the way content is regulated.

It is committed to a policy of user-moderation, arguing it is impractical for it to vet every video before it is posted. Once a video is flagged up as potentially inappropriate YouTube’s staff examine it and remove it if it breaks the guidelines.

The media select committee, chaired by John Whittingdale, the Tory MP for Maldon and East Chelmsford, had called on video sharing sites to undertake a ‘proactive review of content’ to ‘quarantine’ material until it was deemed suitable to be posted.

But Google said such an approach was impractical. ‘YouTube is a community site used by millions of people in very positive ways. Sadly, as with any form of communication, a tiny minority of people will try to break the rules,’ said a spokesman.

‘When users see content they think is inappropriate they can flag it. If the content breaks our terms we aim to remove it quickly and if a user repeatedly breaks the rules we will disable their account.’

The site, bought by Google for $1.65bn (£92m) in 2006 just 18 months after it launched, has faced consistent criticism on both sides of the Atlantic over some of the videos posted by its huge user base.

As well as unsuitable or offensive videos, copyright holders have complained that their material is being posted without their permission. The media giant Viacom and the English Premier League are among those who have launched legal action against what they see as copyright infringement on a grand scale.

Here too, YouTube argues that it takes videos down as soon as they are flagged up by copyright holders.