Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

xxvaderxx wrote:It does not matter who pays, if you claim to be free and open (like all Google products claim to be), then censorship is censorship, do they have the right to do it? that is a different issue, but it is still censorship.

I think it's less a case of censorship (as that implies a conscious decision to block/remove something) and more a case of Youtube just being very reactive and knee-jerk-y. They remove anything at the slightest hint that a hat might drop sometime in the future, without any real thought to what they're removing. That's what happend with the Channel Awesome stuff, and if someone was to complain about copyright violations on, say, justsomerandomguy's Marvel/DC parodies tomorrow you can bet good money that Youtube would take it all down without ever investigating it.

Maybe they should talk to Chapterhouse - I hear they found good representation...

They mentioned us, haha, that's awesome.

That makes us celebrities, right?

I defended their right to be called Journalists. Glad they noticed. lol

I am so ridiculously pumped Mantic is directly challenging GW and 40k. This can only be good for the hobby.

Now Mantic just needs to upgrade their website..

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!



Really, you and whatever his name is in the video both never did get the actual point. It's rather tiring to have to repeat myself just because some others have reading comprehension issues and go on and on arguing additional technical trivialities that weren't even a problem in the first place.

"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

But here is the catch: anybody with a camera and Youtube gets to be a journalist. Party time!

Do you honestly still not see what is wrong with that situation?

There was no argument about whether or not specific parts of the law apply, but about the quality of that law and whether or not it should apply and which exact name should apply to which puppet.
If you make an exception, but everybody gets to be that exception whenever they choose, then why even bother having this legislation in the first place. It doesn't apply to anybody anyway. Needless to say this is a lacking, flawed and outdated steaming pile of nonsense (somebody else also explained this earlier on).

Any legislation related to this should be adjusted accordingly. So that is why I said to limit the official use of the term "journalistic endeavour" or "journalist" to people with actual acceptable credentials, whatever those would then be determined to be.

And yes, that is an opinion as it has been all the way through.

Something else that is funny: on one hand I've seen many on here getting all riled up because it's soo dishonest to take a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, but on the other hand they are perfectly fine with any random Cheetofingers taking a camera to show & spoil some company's yet unreleased hard work of many months.
Because the letter of the law says that should be their opinion, and nobody wants to be a bad boy/girl? I don't know, but this sure appears to be a case of some very fine sheeple right there!

Anywayz, right now my grandmother can sit in a chair wearing an unwashed t-shirt, drinking beer wit a couple of buddies and ramble about miniatures & whatever. Put it on the internet and she becomes a journalist! Even though that would be so incredibly cool it would obviously also be a bity of a joke really.

But at least she would make backups of all her broadcasts, because you know, that is what any professional journalists would do

So who gets to regulate who is or is not a journalist?

To me, it's clear that this is a journalistic endeavour, albeit a small-scale one.

Also, I find their rebuttal of your position in their video most entertaining, even if you don't

Let me get this right, the BoW guys have no right to call themselves journos because they have unwashed T-shirts.
This automatically gives Youtube the right to shut them dowm with no prior warning.

Don't know TBD
For starters the BoW presenters' T-shirts look clean to me.
Can't speak for your Grandmother. Sounds like she is being neglected.

Opinion as to the quality or otherwise of the videos is subjective as you rightly imply. But you really lost the plot.

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!



Really, you and whatever his name is in the video both never did get the actual point. It's rather tiring to have to repeat myself just because some others have reading comprehension issues and go on and on arguing additional technical trivialities that weren't even a problem in the first place.

"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

But here is the catch: anybody with a camera and Youtube gets to be a journalist. Party time!

Do you honestly still not see what is wrong with that situation?

There was no argument about whether or not specific parts of the law apply, but about the quality of that law and whether or not it should apply and which exact name should apply to which puppet.
If you make an exception, but everybody gets to be that exception whenever they choose, then why even bother having this legislation in the first place. It doesn't apply to anybody anyway. Needless to say this is a lacking, flawed and outdated steaming pile of nonsense (somebody else also explained this earlier on).

Any legislation related to this should be adjusted accordingly. So that is why I said to limit the official use of the term "journalistic endeavour" or "journalist" to people with actual acceptable credentials, whatever those would then be determined to be.

And yes, that is an opinion as it has been all the way through.

Something else that is funny: on one hand I've seen many on here getting all riled up because it's soo dishonest to take a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, but on the other hand they are perfectly fine with any random Cheetofingers taking a camera to show & spoil some company's yet unreleased hard work of many months.
Because the letter of the law says that should be their opinion, and nobody wants to be a bad boy/girl? I don't know, but this sure appears to be a case of some very fine sheeple right there!

Anywayz, right now my grandmother can sit in a chair wearing an unwashed t-shirt, drinking beer wit a couple of buddies and ramble about miniatures & whatever. Put it on the internet and she becomes a journalist! Even though that would be so incredibly cool it would obviously also be a bity of a joke really.

But at least she would make backups of all her broadcasts, because you know, that is what any professional journalists would do

OK, please stop!

Slinky wrote:So who gets to regulate who is or is not a journalist?

To me, it's clear that this is a journalistic endeavour, albeit a small-scale one.

Also, I find their rebuttal of your position in their video most entertaining, even if you don't

Quite

What do they do?

Bring news of latest releases and events
Review gaming products and services

This looks suspiciously like providing information which is what journalism is supposed to do afaik

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Let me get this right, the BoW guys have no right to call themselves journos because they have unwashed T-shirts.

That is not what it says at all now is it?

Also this whole discussion isn't particularly about BoW or the enjoyability of their videos, as I've already clearly said before. It's the whole current legal situation that is whack.

So how does that work with the amateur video footage that gets used by the mainstream media? If Joe Blogs films something that would be classed as intrusion, due to not being a journo, how does it then become legit when used in mainstream news?

Unless I'm missing something here?!

So, just to be sure, the lot of you would consider this guy a journalist too:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbGfENA-jHc

TBD wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Let me get this right, the BoW guys have no right to call themselves journos because they have unwashed T-shirts.

That is not what it says at all now is it?

Also this whole discussion isn't particularly about BoW or the enjoyability of their videos, as I've already clearly said before. It's the whole current legal situation that is whack.

The legal situation is quite clear.

Anyone who wants to and has the technical capability can publish comment, opinion, criticism and/or review of products.

Modern publishing is so easy that anyone can do it via blogs, You Tube and so on.

The "Fair Dealing" provisions in modern copyright law allow people to do this with other people's products.

There is no legal requirement to be a journalist to get on the Internet, or to publish a newspaper, or to use "Fair Dealing" in the preparation of reviews.

There are various legal statutes that publishers and broadcasters have to follow. For example, a publisher of a magazine on paper in the UK must file two copies of every issue with the British Library. You may not make radio or TV broadcasts in the UK on particular frequencies without a licence. This isn't to do with journalism, it is to do with preventing interference of the spectrum.

If all the above enable some bunch of Irish guys to ruin GW from their secret garage lair, then GW are fethed, because that is the way it is.

All the above also allows some bunch of other Irish guys to power GW's shares to the moon, if they can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You Tube are in a difficult legal situation since it is not clear if they are a common carrier or a broadcaster. They have come down on the side of being a broadcaster, and they 'curate' their site and remove videos that infringe IP.

They invite public participation and make money from the advertising gained by the visitors attracted by the content provided by the public. This gives them an ethical obligation to properly examine claims of IP Infringement.

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!

Mr. gorilla marine is not amused? I imagined you had a bit of sense of humor... this thing of teasing online goes both way you know? Just enjoy the ride.

The certificate is 100% legit man and good sport of them to report that, a good piece of journalism with humour right there To funny.

Anyone who wants to and has the technical capability can publish comment, opinion, criticism and/or review of products.

The "Fair Dealing" provisions in modern copyright law allow people to do this with other people's products.

There is no legal requirement to be a journalist to get on the Internet, or to publish a newspaper, or to use "Fair Dealing" in the preparation of reviews.

Yes, it's clear that the legal situation is clear.

However that doesn't mean this clear situation can't be considered whacky, aka wrong/inadequate/outdated/flawed/lacking/etc, and that it shouldn't be changed, which I am sure it will at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet. In the meantime the double standard on/in(?) ethics* can continue because people can justify it by pointing to said whacky law and use that as a way to comfort themselves that they aren't doing anything wrong.

Hence the chaos that is Youtube. The impression I have right now is that Youtube can get into trouble for allowing certain infringements, and therefor remove stuff to prevent trouble, but can't be held accountable if people want to force them to put their removed video back online when they disagree about the validity of the removal. They simply impose their own rules in an unclear situation, to which I say "good for them !".

Interesting discussion nevertheless, Imo.



(* note that these aren't necessarily my standards/ethics)

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!



Really, you and whatever his name is in the video both never did get the actual point. It's rather tiring to have to repeat myself just because some others have reading comprehension issues and go on and on arguing additional technical trivialities that weren't even a problem in the first place.

"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

But here is the catch: anybody with a camera and Youtube gets to be a journalist. Party time!

Do you honestly still not see what is wrong with that situation?

There was no argument about whether or not specific parts of the law apply, but about the quality of that law and whether or not it should apply and which exact name should apply to which puppet.
If you make an exception, but everybody gets to be that exception whenever they choose, then why even bother having this legislation in the first place. It doesn't apply to anybody anyway. Needless to say this is a lacking, flawed and outdated steaming pile of nonsense (somebody else also explained this earlier on).

Any legislation related to this should be adjusted accordingly. So that is why I said to limit the official use of the term "journalistic endeavour" or "journalist" to people with actual acceptable credentials, whatever those would then be determined to be.

And yes, that is an opinion as it has been all the way through.

Something else that is funny: on one hand I've seen many on here getting all riled up because it's soo dishonest to take a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, but on the other hand they are perfectly fine with any random Cheetofingers taking a camera to show & spoil some company's yet unreleased hard work of many months.
Because the letter of the law says that should be their opinion, and nobody wants to be a bad boy/girl? I don't know, but this sure appears to be a case of some very fine sheeple right there!

Anywayz, right now my grandmother can sit in a chair wearing an unwashed t-shirt, drinking beer wit a couple of buddies and ramble about miniatures & whatever. Put it on the internet and she becomes a journalist! Even though that would be so incredibly cool it would obviously also be a bity of a joke really.

But at least she would make backups of all her broadcasts, because you know, that is what any professional journalists would do

Ape face you need to get down of your high horse and chill out.
Now stop monkeying about and let it go

NAVARRO wrote:
Mr. gorilla marine is not amused? I imagined you had a bit of sense of humor... this thing of teasing online goes both way you know? Just enjoy the ride.

I guess there is humor and then there is humor...

The attempt this BoW fella made is the kind of funny that usually ends in one of these awkward silences where nobody laughs. This just wasn't good enough, sorry!

Judging by the look on his face he wasn't entirely sure about himself either.

Maybe if he reads this they can think of something better for next week and I can make Dakka a permanent feature on their show



Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:Ape face you need to get down of your high horse and chill out.
Now stop monkeying about and let it go

But I am bored at work, and you have to admit this is more entertaining than reading the complaining about bubblecast in the other threads

TBD wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Mr. gorilla marine is not amused? I imagined you had a bit of sense of humor... this thing of teasing online goes both way you know? Just enjoy the ride.

I guess there is humor and then there is humor...

The attempt this BoW fella made is the kind of funny that usually ends in one of these awkward silences where nobody laughs. This just wasn't good enough, sorry!

Judging by the look on his face he wasn't entirely sure about himself either.

Maybe if he reads this they can think of something better for next week and I can make Dakka a permanent feature on their show



Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:Ape face you need to get down of your high horse and chill out.
Now stop monkeying about and let it go

But I am bored at work, and you have to admit this is more entertaining than reading the complaining about bubblecast in the other threads

The question has to be asked of armchair critics like yourself, who can find nothing constructive to say about a group of people who invest their own time and money to bring us entertaining news and features about our hobby....what have YOU done to bring the community anything near what these guys bring us?.....I'll be honest, and I really don't want to clash with rule number one, but your prattling on about qualifications and the such like, makes me sick.....who the hell are you to judge anyway? If you don't like what they do, then don't watch.....but why do you feel the need to dregde up these weak ass justifications aimed purely at persuading others to agree with your assessment of the show or it's legal standing? Why?

I don't have many Dakkites on Ignore, but you sir are probably more deserving of that status than most.

Too oppressive a definition of "Journalist" limits the freedom of information to move. If only the "official recognise journo" gets to say anything, we run the risk of a Volkischer Beobachter situation, where the only news we ever see is controlled by whoever decides what a "journo" is.

Anyone can be a journalist these days...not everyone can be a professional journalist

Aduro wrote:

TBD wrote:
I can race a car, but that doesn't make me a legit racecar driver. I can also make myself dinner, but that doesn't make me an official cook. Etc.

If you can drive a race car, then you're a race car driver.

And your name might just be Jerry. In which case, you need to get a friend names Wynona and start a Primus themed family.

If you can cook, then youre a chef. It just doesnt mean your a successful ormeven nessisarily good one.

False. The term "Chef" is actually awarded upon completion of an actual culinary education. A "chef" without an education in the (ever so tasty) gastronomic arts is just a cook, unfortunately.

You bring up big names and seem to equate official journalists as being successful journalists.

The job title "Journalist" is kind of like the job title "Writer", "Photographer", "Bouncer" or "Professional bum". These describe the function, not the quality of the work, whereas "Doctor" refers to someone with a Doctorate degree in any field, and "Lawyer" refers to someone who has passed the bar exam in their state.

That being said, BoW isn't a bad source, but I find that MWG is a more amusing pace for me, and BTP, on most days, is just alot more fun. Kinda curious, tho. Any word from them, yet?

Delephont wrote:Words of angryness

Why so angry

Nobody is having an angry conversation and you are being angry. Anger leads to the Dark side and causes health issues like headaches and impotence, so it would be better to not be angry.

TBD wrote:

But I am bored at work, and you have to admit this is more entertaining than reading the complaining about bubblecast in the other threads

OK This is true

Bubblecast sounds a bit like me in the bath

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!

Unfortunately I can't see the first picture at work, and there isn't any argument to win or lose since we are talking about opinions here, but I'll give you an A for effort anyway

Btw what actually is a little bit funny is that the faces in the grapes look like the face of the BoW dude. Very nice find indeed!

TBD wrote:Unfortunately I can't see the first picture at work, and there isn't any argument to win or lose since we are talking about opinions here, but I'll give you an A for effort anyway

Aww... that's so sweet that you think enough of me to leave a condescending remark like that. Truly, an honor.

Be sure to let us all know how your job at a cross dressing night club dressed as "The Queen Of De Nile" works out for you.

The reason that BOW was taken down was because it did not have the alotted number of cat shots in the films. The man behind the grassy knoll took the shot that knocked out the receiver, and the antenna fell and hit someone, hence added a lawsuit that fell into the artistic integrity realm that qualified them as journalists.

You Tube didn't know how to deal with infringing on BOW's journalistic integrity, so they did the only thing they could do. Pull the plug.

This roving reporter went on the quest for the truth and found this discovery, bringing the story to you at great risk to life and limb! I have a legion of angery samoans after me now for breaching the super secret You Tube HQ on Greyskull Mountain in the Dr Evil Lair.


Now the moral of the story is.... SHOW MORE CATS IN YOUR YOU TUBE VIDEOS!