Re: [videoblogging] Re: Porn on mefeedia??

[Randolfe Wicker]

"> On 12/2/05, Frank Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it would work leaving the categorizing to the submitter. > > I can imagine plenty of reasons why someone might (deliberately or > > accidentally) mis-categorize something."   I suspect we are going to soon have questions of "legal responsibility" arising with those who host free posting sites.   Are they responsible for libelous, obscene or criminal material published on thier site?  Would stated guidelines (i.e"Those using our services are expected to obey and respect all laws.") be a defense?  Or would they be responsible for removing something only after a complaint was filed and it was brought to their attention?   I think "leaving categorizing to the submitter" would work if guidelines said "works considered to be adult in nature" should be so labeled.  Works containing overt sexuality and/or nudity should also be labeled, etc.   I've seen sites where you have to declare you are over eighteen years of age to enter and view.  Wouldn't such techniques work with saucy vlogs? Randolfe (Randy) Wicker   Videographer, Writer, Activist Advisor: The Immortality Institute Hoboken, NJ http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ 201-656-3280     ----- Original Message ----- From: Wong Teck Jung To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Porn on mefeedia?? we should have an authority to rate a vlog. just like netiba On 12/2/05, Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 12/2/05, Frank Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it would work leaving the categorizing to the submitter. > > I can imagine plenty of reasons why someone might (deliberately or > > accidentally) mis-categorize something. > >  Yes, of course, but... I don't think that any of the sites which purport to > review everything before allowing it to be posted have set themselves a > reasonable task. As video on the Internet explodes exponentially, no single > group or company (except maybe Google) can afford the human resources to > review that much footage. > >  I'm assuming that the rest of your post advocates "reactive" tagging, where > something would be reviewed only if flagged as nasty by someone. Which does > seem the only sensible approach, as long as you don't get mischief-makers > randomly tagging everything as rotten just to keep you busy. > > best regards, > Deirdré Straughan > > www.beginningwithi.com (personal) > www.tvblob.com (work) > >  ________________________________ >  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > >  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. > >  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >  [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > >  ________________________________ > -- http://duller.blogspot.com YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.