Firstly, it is not my intention to offend anyone here but i feel the need to ask this question. Several recent posts have contained links to you tube videos. Some have had the links deleted and the comment "please read the rules on posting videos" added, while others have not. Can we please have a level playing field here. Before the links were deleted i did manage to watch the videos in question and found them to be as entertaining, informative and interesting as any of the not deleted links. I cannot see why some have been deleted while others have been left. Does the member posting the video influence the decision? let us hope not. That would be a little too much like certain other forums. Sorry to bring this up but its fundamentally wrong to delete one persons link with a reminder to read the rules whilst another persons link is left intact
Hi Ian, I did move one thread yesterday from Sound Files to General because it was a link to a YouTube video that was not posted by the thread originator. Is that the one you are referring to? Regards, Charlie
I think you are referring to the video links I removed? I will try to explain my reasons for removing some & leaving others.
As you know Charlie introduced new rules concerning the posting of videos because of the disruption one or two youtube videos have caused in the past.
After chatting to Charlie on this subject & taking note of what has been posted publicly I have tried to act accordingly.
The Rules as posted by Charlie -
The posting of links to sound and video files is allowed only by the member or members that played or sang on them. Special cases can be arranged to allow another member to post links to sound or video files on behalf of the member or members who played on them, at the discretion of Charlie Hall. Exceptions will be made for links to some players (usually famous ones but not necessarily so) who are unlikely to see comments from this site and thus not be subject to possible upset. Even so, personal comments about anyone connected should be avoided.
The only video links I have removed have been links to videos made by individuals, the links that I have not removed have been links of a professional performance. This is why some videos are removed & others are not.
The videos removed were not performed by the poster & it was not posted that permission had been obtained from the performer to post the video here. That is the only reason why they were removed, there was nothing personal about it.
Does that answer your question Ian?
My understanding of Charlie's new rules is that no videos should be posted of an amateur performance unless the poster is the actual performer.
It is Ok to post a video of a professional performance but could be removed at the discretion of Charlie.
It's not an easy job trying to keep a site running smoothly & keep everyone happy, I'm always open to a PM if you feel I need to explain my actions?
We are all friends here, hopefully. That does not mean that we have to agree with each other all the time. There certainly should not be discretion mixed with favouritism by the admin team although I don't think that's the case here.
I can see both sides of the debate. Easy to get confused.
What I would say is that there have to be rules on video's as there has been upset in the past at some of the video link postings. As an extreme end of the spectrum example a certain ex member (now banned) had a habit of posting some pretty severe videos. I remember one such video posted was of a bloke burning a Quadraverb and the video contained both the F word and to my horror the C word. We have lady members !!
I would say if in doubt check with the admin team before posting video links because if it's left as a free for all not just border-line debatable stuff but also dodgy stuff is bound to creep back in.
To be honest I think the rules are for the common good, maybe they should be better laid out by the admin team in a fashion that is more clearly understood. I say that because minor conflict has occurred here due in my opinion to a lack of clarity. Nothing major !!
I am slightly unhappy with the grey area the way the rule is written but I cannot see a way of changing it except to ban all third party video links. If anyone has suggestions I will be happy to see them. Regards, Charlie
i have recently had a few utube videos removed, not rude ones off course but i know now why they where, so this thread has helped me certainly sometimes though you get a bit carried away and tend not to think maybe its cos im over 40years old. Brian
I can understand Ian's confusion because I got confused myself what could and could not be posted, more so when some did get deleted whilst others did not. What I did was to PM Robert and ask. That reason was I had seen an excellent instructional movie on youtube, whoever the guy was that uploaded it clealry put it there to help others, therefore I could not see a problem linking it. Anyone placing a movie on youtube does have the option of not allowing it to be linked or embedded as well as leaving it is private or public. So the situation as I see it now is that it is ok to link the movie, if its a member's, a professional artist or an instructional movie. All movies had to be in someway music related and benefit to the members. Admin would still have the option of deleting any movies if they considered it in breach of the rules. Up to the point that George rightly noted, we never had a problem that I can remember. I am sure this thread has gone someway to clarify youtube movies and it was worth asking the question.
The rule was necessary to avoid the problem of a certain minority posting links to videos that were almost certain to cause problems, which they usually did. For now, the problem is knowing where to draw the line as it causes confusion, as we have already seen in this thread. Regards, Charlie