An innocent 8-year old kid horribly wronged by "YouTube"

[Johto-Master]

Please, read the entire post before you click away. It is not often that I open up my soft-side but this is very, very important.

Lukeywes1234- an innocent 8-year old kid who wanted nothing more than 50 subscribers for his channel about his home made "Super Luigi Super Show", had gotten 200 in the first day and 14,000 in the first week.

He did nothing wrong, just made videos about his Luigi toys and his "Ghost-Hunter" Videos, and after getting his subscribers, he excitedly declared that he would make more Super Luigi and another Ghost-Hunters video, although he never had the chance. The popular Video Website, Youtube, with its motto "Broadcast Yourself" has suspended poor Luke's account because he is under the age of 13.

So, please, if you have a heart,or even if you don't, sign this petition, and help undo this wrong. Youtube crushed a poor kid's dreams, who was just like us when we were his age: kids. He didn't deserve this, but it happened, and I need your help, Luke needs your help. C'mon, look at those cheeks.

The petition can be found here, please sign, we both thank you.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/bring-back-youtube-king-lukeywes1234

 

[Teapot]

The thing is, though... YouTube /have/ to suspend his account by law. As they're based in America, they're governed by the COPPA laws - which prevent a site from taking any information from a person under 13 without parental permission - including an e-mail address, which is required to have an account. So, as well-intentioned as this petition is, it won't help. At all.

The only thing this kid could do is to get his parents to contact YouTube and basically give them written permission to hold his details. And as YouTube is a multi-million corporation, I doubt they'd be terribly interested in quibbling over the details for one child's account.

Also, to be perfectly fair, YouTube make it VERY clear that the age limit is there, and do require the user to say that they are over 13 - and they are perfectly entitled to enforce their rules. As much as the kid enjoyed making the videos and whatnot, and I do have sympathy for him, I honestly believe your post antagonises them massively for something that they have to do by law - and even disregarding that, they are perfectly within their rights to do what they like.

 

[Xatu]

I'm going to have to agree with Database on this one.

[quote author=Youtube Terms of Service]12. Ability to Accept Terms of Service

You affirm that you are either more than the age of majority in your jurisdiction of residence, or an emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions, obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in these Terms of Service, and to abide by and comply with these Terms of Service. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as the YouTube Website is not intended for children under 13. If you are under 13 years of age, then please do not use the YouTube Website—there are lots of other great web sites for you. Talk to your parents about what sites are appropriate for you. [/quote]

Also,

YouTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User's access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion.

It is pretty straight forward. Most sites work this way, and the best thing he can do is keep making videos to show to friends and family, then post it all up in 5 years. If he has potential, he shouldn't let it go to waste, but at the same time, rules are rules.

 

[Johto-Master]

yes but he had his granma's concent, as she filmed most of his videos knowing they were going on youtube.

 

[Teapot]

Let's see that in writing, on COPPA forms, and mailed to YouTube. I doubt that happened.

Regardless, mine and Xatu's points still stand - and he even quoted the ToS for me (thank you, kind sir). YouTube have the right to terminate accounts for any reason they see fit - and they have put it in very clear words that people under 13 aren't allowed to use the site. They're within the rights to do whatever they like with his account, fair or not. Xatu's right - he should keep filming the videos for his friends, and come back when he's 13.

Besides, on a remarkably different note, the internet is a big, scary place. YouTube especially. Should an 8-year-old really be bombing around there?

 

[Johto-Master]

i see your points, i just feel realy really bad, as i used youtube before i was 13, millions of people did, and he just got caught because he was actually successful.

 

[Blisk]

yes but he had his granma's concent, as she filmed most of his videos knowing they were going on youtube.

Even if she was filming, he was the one technically using the site. So, technically, Youtube is fully entitled to removing the video. I'm not saying that I don't have sympathy for him, but rules are rules. Just like how the mods and admins on here enforce the rules of Charms. It's kinda playing favorites when you let certain people slide but others are punished. All have to be treated to the same to be fair.

I agree with Data and Xatu. The kid should post these videos either in a few years or on other sites. Also, if his family supported him so much, he can be given his own site to publish these videos.

[quote author=Johto-Master link=topic=7160.msg129176#msg129176 date=1262903528]
i see your points, i just feel realy really bad, as i used youtube before i was 13, millions of people did, and he just got caught because he was actually successful.
[/quote]

And to this, tons of people break the rules, but not everyone gets caught. Do you think everyone that downloads a pirated CD will get caught and fined? It may be illegal, but actions can only be taken when the recipient of these punishments is caught.

 

[Johto-Master]

hah... :'(
court adjourned

 

[Secad MS]

My views echo those of Database. He may have made funny videos, but he is too young.

As a random note, the Luigi hat suits him.

 

[Doctor Oak]

He did nothing wrong, just made videos about his Luigi toys and his "Ghost-Hunter" Videos

That's what he did wrong. Just because it's physically possible for someone to make videos and put them online because of YouTube, doesn't mean they should. Almost all non-licensed/illegally uploaded videos on YouTube are awful abominations of the medium and should be cast into the fires of hell.

 

[Teapot]

hah... :'(
court adjourned

Thank you for that, by the way. There's no need to flounce ad attempt to end the topic because we don't agree with you. It says quite clearly that this board can be used for debates - and by posting here, you've allowed us the chance to begin one

Anyway, this thread is far from dead. Other people are still welcome to voice their own opinions - is this move fair or unfair? Should the kid have been on the Internet - possibly supervised, possibly not - at all?

 

[Johto-Master]

[quote author=Johto-Master link=topic=7160.msg129179#msg129179 date=1262904293]
hah... :'(
court adjourned

Thank you for that, by the way. There's no need to flounce ad attempt to end the topic because we don't agree with you. It says quite clearly that this board can be used for debates - and by posting here, you've allowed us the chance to begin one

Anyway, this thread is far from dead. Other people are still welcome to voice their own opinions - is this move fair or unfair? Should the kid have been on the Internet - possibly supervised, possibly not - at all?
[/quote]

thank you for the kind words, and imo his granma should have the account and say: my grandsons luigi show or something, because his friend who he was competing for subscribers with is still on, and i think he might have flagged him out of jelousy, but theres no telling. (Luke: 14,000 subs. His friend: still 200, and all people are doing is asking for luke's email.

 

[Tatile]

Anyway, this thread is far from dead. Other people are still welcome to voice their own opinions - is this move fair or unfair? Should the kid have been on the Internet - possibly supervised, possibly not - at all?

Knowledge is a right, Youtube (for the most part, that is) is a privilege (I ignore here the Iranian's who use YouTube to convery their side of the political strife there, and other such acts, but that's more a discussion on the rights and resopnsibilites of a populace and private company). The Internet is a curious mixture of both, the right to learning but the privilege of accessing it through this medium.

That aside, I believe a child should be surpervised and educated until such time as they can show to be mature and able to make decisions - this obviously comes at the supervisor's discretion, no age limit can really be pegged to maturity (though we do try). Of course part of maturity is realising that age limits are there and for reason - Youtube has child-unfriendly content (and no I don't mean porn, anything can be 'child-unfriendly' should be the least bit scary - Marylin Manson and Micheal Jackson, just for starters) - and not attempting to bypass them. Flip side there is SHOULD you bypass them (I did when I was younger, but then I was raised not to be an idiot, not everyone was) you don't then let your age be known, 12 going 20 etc.

The move is not unfair. Rules are there, they must be used. Retrospectivly they may be discussed and examined (as here), but here have we Deontological-Utilitarianism (oxymoronic? Not quite): the development of a law which either promotes the greatest amount of happiness or the least amount of suffering which is used from there on - should the law be seen to fail in its goals it might be ammended. It would be unfair if they did not ban the account on grounds of its supporters - the precendent is set that if you have a mob behind you, you are right, no matter what.

Not least, YouTube/Google are following United States and International law with regards to Contracts (Which you must read and agree to) and child safety. What right have they to flaunt these when other companies cannot? Why should they jeopordise their businesses - which serve billions of people - over a few thousand?

 

[Blisk]

Not least, YouTube/Google are following United States and International law with regards to Contracts (Which you must read and agree to) and child safety. What right have they to flaunt these when other companies cannot? Why should they jeopordise their businesses - which serve billions of people - over a few thousand?

That's exactly as I was trying to say. You said it in a much better way in my opinion.

 

[Johto-Master]

So, as well-intentioned as this petition is, it won't help. At all.

well it could be used to show him just how many fans he had, he never got a chance to see past his 200 subscribers before he was deleted, but they went up to 14,000. maybe it can convince him to have his own website or post them on a kid-friendly website. the petitions already past 200, so i'm sure he'll be happy, as he was near hyper-ventilating in his video thanking his subbers.

 

[charmander91]

Hmmm while youtube does have a right to take down/suspend whatever on there sites doesn't mean that they have to be dicks about it. Like if I bought a C.D then decided to upload the song on youtube should they go and take it down because I didn't make it. When nowhere did I claim I created the song and the song was for recreational purposes only

 

[Blisk]

Hmmm while youtube does have a right to take down/suspend whatever on there sites doesn't mean that they have to be dicks about it. Like if I bought a C.D then decided to upload the song on youtube should they go and take it down because I didn't make it. When nowhere did I claim I created the song and the song was for recreational purposes only

That's beside the point. They caught the kid. And by copyright laws, Youtube should take down your uploaded song. But the issue with this kid is that he was caught being under the age limit in their contract. By law, Youtube has to take down that channel.

Also, the song being uploaded isn't really similar to this issue. I only mentioned music because I was using the punishment part, not the actual act.

Finally, Youtube/Google is not being a "dick" by following through with their punishments. As Xatu posted

12. Ability to Accept Terms of Service

You affirm that you are either more than the age of majority in your jurisdiction of residence, or an emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions, obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in these Terms of Service, and to abide by and comply with these Terms of Service. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as the YouTube Website is not intended for children under 13. If you are under 13 years of age, then please do not use the YouTube Website—there are lots of other great web sites for you. Talk to your parents about what sites are appropriate for you.

and

stated[/b] enforcement of these rules, then it wouldn't be fair. That's like our mods not enforcing the Charms' rules. What's the point of the rules if they aren't enforced?

And also in the Youtube Terms of Service, it does say it's punishable to post stuff that isn't yours.

You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service.

 

[Tatile]

Hmmm while youtube does have a right to take down/suspend whatever on there sites doesn't mean that they have to be dicks about it. Like if I bought a C.D then decided to upload the song on youtube should they go and take it down because I didn't make it. When nowhere did I claim I created the song and the song was for recreational purposes only

You misunderstand - Youtube is obliged to remove music that is not put up with express permission, the fact that people continue to re-upload removed music does not make the uploaders right. Pirate Bay is obliged by law to remove all links to copyright material (discussion on acutal points of torrents being copyright material is not for here) - much like the Yellow Pages would be obliged to remove listings for Pimps - tha fact that Pirate Bay does not, does not make them legally right (morally is questionable, but then morals are a grey area).

It's like with DVD films. I am not, by law, allowed to display Che Part One and Two in, say, my shop without paying appropriate licence fees to the owning company. I would be allowed to show it to a select few staff in a 'private' manner (after store has shut, in the back etc.). Youtube is in the public domain. It would HAVE to pay for each and every single production and adaptation of every single song (as laws on parody no doubt differ between all countries) and piece of film and art that has been uploaded and then subsequently when they are watched.

If I remember correctly, Youtube has several terrabytes of storage - several billion hits a day. The money simply does not exist.

Onto rules, if we may. The exist for a reason, for order. For that very same reason they must be enforced. A rule must never loose its authority. A fine example which you will probably understand is speeding. Speeding is illegal - however, if it is not enforced, that law looses authority - people do not feel the need to follow it, ergo, more speeding. This lack of respect is somewhat insidious, it will spread through a person's belief structure - they will loose respect for more and more laws of society until we are left with a set of words which hold no meaning. A disent in anarchy? Anarchy at least holds ideals, I see a disent into Hobbes' feared State of Nature.

 

[Teapot]

Hmmm while youtube does have a right to take down/suspend whatever on there sites doesn't mean that they have to be dicks about it.

This raises an important point for me, actually. You assert above that "they don't have to be dicks about it" - but why not? Ignoring the morality side of things - which, when it comes to politics and business, only prove to be confusing and irrelevant - what is actually stopping them?

There is a very common misconception on the internet: that one has freedom of speech. You don't. In essence, think of it like going to someone's house: as a guest, you are obliged to follow suitable etiquette - some of it set by culture (take off your shoes indoors, don't touch things that aren't yours), and some of it set by your host. If you break their rules, they have the right to remove you - the rules could be something stupid, like "you have to turn around and whistle a tune every time you enter a room", but because they own their house, they can set the rules any way they like.

Websites are the same. YouTube can do what they like, when they like, as long as it isn't breaking the law. You have no magic rights that mean you can flaunt their rules... just like in real life.

And, well, to sum it up... "it's their party, they can cry if they want to."

 

[Sem]

There really is nothing wrong with what Youtube did. They have the right to enforce their own rules. If they let the kid keep his vids on there then why have rules at all? As Data said nicely, it's their website, they can do what they want.

This is the internet, there is no universal law, there is no fair or just, there is only the internet, which is made by us. We control what goes on in the internet, we control how stuff works on the internet.

It's not like the kid's acting career has been tragically cut short. There are other ways to host vids on the nets - he should look into those.

 

[Tatile]

Not to mention, though Freedom of Speech is set out in the United Nations Human Rights Act, it says that the rights are unalienable only with respect to goverments - on a goverment website sure, say whatever the hell you want (within reason, of course, 'inciting racial hatred' is a good example here) and then you can bitch to the world when they remove your posts.

A private company is constrained differently, and it has different freedoms. Freedom is not anarchy, you have as many duites as you have rights, if not moreso.

It's been actually mentioned here once or twice. This is Alex's (and in some respect, now Katie's) territory - they retain the right to kick you around as much as they please. Sure a few members might leave, but guess what! That's your freedom!

 

[charmander91]

Yeah I see what you mean Everyone needs to get money somehow

 

[Blisk]

Yeah I see what you mean Everyone needs to get money somehow

How is YouTube getting money for closing the channel? Money isn't even remotely related to this unless you are referring to the uploading of copyrighted music.

 

[Tatile]

Blisk, I think Charmader's referring to my post, wherein 'the money does simply not exist' pops up in reference to copyrighted music Parts of this topic have become more a discussion on how Youtube and the internet operate than the closing of the kid's channel (which is pretty much decieded to be Youtube's "right").

 

[charmander91]

Yeah basically like how they got movies and animes on the site but you have to watch commercials during the show

 

[Blisk]

Oh, I knew that.

I also wish Google didn't have commercials on the videos now. It's annoying. But it is their right as a company to do it. That's how Google makes more money.

 

[Nim]

I dont think he should be allowed to use youtube because of the simple reason that he broke a big rule. He should have known that eventually something like would have happened and youtube have done nothing wrong by inforcing a rule and punishing those who broke it. Simple.

 

[Blisk]

I dont think he should be allowed to use youtube because of the simple reason that he broke a big rule. He should have known that eventually something like would have happened and youtube have done nothing wrong by inforcing a rule and punishing those who broke it. Simple.

It's obviously not that simple because there's an issue. Also, he's eight so he would not necessarily known that considering his age. His parents or grandmother or whoever created it for him should have known it would happen. Now he has his own channel through legal adults so he can't be shut down again because the account is under someone else.