+The_Incredibles_ Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) I like your videos. They've given me alot of ideas. However...I think you should restrict the videos to those of your caches OR caches where you've got permission from the cache owners. ESPECIALLY if the cache owners in question have complained, you should do the respectful thing and remove the videos in question. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, these are THEIR caches and you should respect their wishes. Plus it is not wise of you to annoy the locals when you are placing caches of your own...think about it...they are going to get MUGGLED. Given the popularity of your channel, I bet there are lots of cache owners who would love their caches to be featured on your channel. Heck, I can videotape some of my caches and send them to you. I put alot of effort into each cache and am proud of them. Edited August 30, 2011 by The_Incredibles_ Link to comment
+Sven. Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 I like your videos. They've given me alot of ideas. ESPECIALLY if the cache owners in question have complained, you should do the respectful thing and remove the videos in question. Heck, I can videotape some of my caches and send them to you. I put alot of effort into each cache and am proud of them. Thanks. There are no videos of geocaches on my channel of any caches where the CO has complained. You're more than welcome to video the caches and send them to me, the email address is listed on the channel main page. I've only had one video sent to me which i uploaded recently. Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I like your videos. They've given me alot of ideas. ESPECIALLY if the cache owners in question have complained, you should do the respectful thing and remove the videos in question. Heck, I can videotape some of my caches and send them to you. I put alot of effort into each cache and am proud of them. Thanks. There are no videos of geocaches on my channel of any caches where the CO has complained. You're more than welcome to video the caches and send them to me, the email address is listed on the channel main page. I've only had one video sent to me which i uploaded recently. How many of those cache owners even know you have posted spoilers to their caches? Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 the TOS for posting links /without permission/. I have permission for everything I've posted. <snip> Having read the guidelines I cannot find any violations I've committed? *shrug* Unless you have the cache owners' permission to post the spoilers, then linking to them is a violation of the TOS. Link to comment
+Sven. Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) the TOS for posting links /without permission/. I have permission for everything I've posted. <snip> Having read the guidelines I cannot find any violations I've committed? *shrug* Unless you have the cache owners' permission to post the spoilers, then linking to them is a violation of the TOS. I have permission to post all the videos I've linked. Edited August 30, 2011 by Sven&Cup Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) IANAL, but to me, section 4.(m) seems to refer to spoilers published "in any form of media". Regardless, the whole controversy could be resolved in a very straightforward way: Get permission from the cache owner(s) to publish the video spoilers on YouTube. IMHO, permission should have been obtained prior to publication, but better late than never. And if permission is refused by any owner(s), then you know which video(s) you need to remove. Why would the video maker needs to get permission from the CO to post the video? Do you think the CO has any ownership of the area the cache was hidden in? Was the video maker filming anything the CO owns? If a person creates something, publicly announces its location and asks people to come see it, does he still have the right to complain when people show pictures or videos of it? I'm not saying all spoiler videos are good/right. I'm just trying to present another point of view that is being overlook/ignored. While a majority of us would agree the videos are spoilers and take some of the fun out of the game. That doesn't mean that people can't still create them and post them. They just can't do it on the GS site since they agreed to the TOU. You don't see game makers going after the sites that post spoilers or guides. I'm also trying to clear up the misconceptions about the TOU and how far GS's reach in these kinds of situation actually extends. They do not have the right to control what you post or publish on other sites or other media concerning Geocaching. No matter how you want to look at or translate the TOU. Unless it involves some copyrighted or trademark material GS owns. In which case they have legal rights to have the material removed and the violator prosecuted as they see fit. The point at which all of this gets a little sketchy is where the CO's rights are. In most cases they do not own the property the cache is hidden on. Thus permission is required to place the cache. The location is a matter of public record. Only the exact method of the hide is left a mystery for others to sort out. Do we say the CO owns the method of the hide? He certainly owns the container and its contents. So does that mean the CO has a legal right to keep said container out of a public video or image gallery? But if the CO didn't want the container to be seen publicly then why post its location on a public site? Its these sorts of questions that are hard to answer. Where do the rights of the CO end and the rights of the average individual begin? Should we ask the CO permission before giving another cacher a hint? What about in the field where you've just finished finding a cache and run across a fellow cacher who is struggling to find it? Do you offer a "spoiler" if asked? Its the same concept with the video. So far this thread has been full of lively discussion. I've enjoyed the back and forth about the issues and playing a bit of devil's advocate. I hope it continues to stay that way and not spin off into a flame war. I think in this situation no one is right or wrong here. It comes down to weather one party is willing to fulfill the request of another. In the end no one party can force the other to do anything. Sure it would be nice if the videos would be taken down upon request but they don't have to be taken down. Edited August 30, 2011 by mpilchfamily Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I have permission to post all the videos I've linked. Seeing as you are the owner of said channel one would hope you gave yourself permission to link to your videos. But unless the owner or the handrail cache gave permission to spoil his cache, you violated the TOS by linking to it. Besides the spoiling issue, I suspect the channel could be viewed as a commercial venture, thus running afoul of the commercial rule in the forums. Link to comment
+Sven. Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Why would the video maker needs to get permission from the CO to post the video? Do you think the CO has any ownership of the area the cache was hidden in? Was the video maker filming anything the CO owns? If a person creates something, publicly announces its location and asks people to come see it, does he still have the right to complain when people show pictures or videos of it? <snip> In English law there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. You can stand anywhere in a public place and film anyone or anything. Including police, or children....anything you want. People often think you need their permission to video them....That's not the case. This extends to their property also. Not sure how it would work if the cache is placed on private land....Interesting point. Link to comment
+Sven. Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 But unless the owner or the handrail cache gave permission to spoil his cache, you violated the TOS by linking to it. Would it help if I repeated myself a third time? Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) But unless the owner or the handrail cache gave permission to spoil his cache, you violated the TOS by linking to it. Would it help if I repeated myself a third time? Sure, if you want to be an arse about it. You keep saying you have permission to post the video, but haven't said you had permission to spoil cache. You might try that. And still Keystone was justified in removing the link on the basis on the commercial aspect alone. Edited August 30, 2011 by GeoBain Link to comment
+Coldgears Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) I could barely get through half of the first page of this mess. I can't believe that people really think that he spoiled anything. I'm 99.9 percent sure that more people other the geocachers know about that spot. I'm also pretty confident in the fact that other people have probably filmed them going down, and uploaded it to youtube. What I am not so sure about, is the fact that everyone who filmed themselves going down there got these messages. It's like watching someone climb up mount Everest and at the end say, "Oh there's a geocache somewhere at the top hear. But it's pointless to show you" and the video ends there. It would spoil the fun of all those who plan on actually climbing mount Everest by that logic... Ridiculous. Edited August 30, 2011 by Coldgears Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I could barely get through half of the first page of this mess. I can't believe that people really think that he spoiled anything. Read the other half. The op himself said the videos are spoilers. Link to comment
+Sven. Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Sure, if you want to be an arse about it. You keep saying you have permission to post the video, but haven't said you had permission to spoil cache. You might try that. And still Keystone was justified in removing the link on the basis on the commercial aspect alone. Are you for real? The CO has given permission, to spoil the cache. Yes. Four times now. There is nothing commercial in nature? What are you on about? Edited August 30, 2011 by Keystone language toned down by moderator Link to comment
+DanOCan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 My personal opinion has always been the same -- people have no one to blame but themselves if they find spoilers ruining their caching fun. No one makes you read the previous logs of a cache. No one makes you view the gallery of a cache. No one makes you watch a YouTube video of a cache. I watched several videos from the channel. There are some great ideas in there and yes, they are spoilers -- but that shouldn't come as a shock to anyone since they are clearly labeled as such. The only people who are having their fun ruined are the people seeking out locations where spoilers are known to live. If Groundspeak really wanted to put a lid on spoilers they should ban Event caches. I've had more caches spoiled at events by overhearing conversations at the next table than I have from all other sources combined. Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 the TOS for posting links /without permission/. I have permission for everything I've posted. <snip> Having read the guidelines I cannot find any violations I've committed? *shrug* Unless you have the cache owners' permission to post the spoilers, then linking to them is a violation of the TOS. I have permission to post all the videos I've linked. Not quite an answer to the question. Do you have the cache owners permission? If not you are violating the TOU for GC.com. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 There is nothing commercial in nature? What are you on about? You make nothing from your videos? Then you are in the clear. Spoil away. Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 IANAL, but to me, section 4.(m) seems to refer to spoilers published "in any form of media". Regardless, the whole controversy could be resolved in a very straightforward way: Get permission from the cache owner(s) to publish the video spoilers on YouTube. IMHO, permission should have been obtained prior to publication, but better late than never. And if permission is refused by any owner(s), then you know which video(s) you need to remove. Why would the video maker needs to get permission from the CO to post the video? Do you think the CO has any ownership of the area the cache was hidden in? Was the video maker filming anything the CO owns? If a person creates something, publicly announces its location and asks people to come see it, does he still have the right to complain when people show pictures or videos of it? I'm not saying all spoiler videos are good/right. I'm just trying to present another point of view that is being overlook/ignored. While a majority of us would agree the videos are spoilers and take some of the fun out of the game. That doesn't mean that people can't still create them and post them. They just can't do it on the GS site since they agreed to the TOU. You don't see game makers going after the sites that post spoilers or guides. I'm also trying to clear up the misconceptions about the TOU and how far GS's reach in these kinds of situation actually extends. They do not have the right to control what you post or publish on other sites or other media concerning Geocaching. No matter how you want to look at or translate the TOU. Unless it involves some copyrighted or trademark material GS owns. In which case they have legal rights to have the material removed and the violator prosecuted as they see fit. The point at which all of this gets a little sketchy is where the CO's rights are. In most cases they do not own the property the cache is hidden on. Thus permission is required to place the cache. The location is a matter of public record. Only the exact method of the hide is left a mystery for others to sort out. Do we say the CO owns the method of the hide? He certainly owns the container and its contents. So does that mean the CO has a legal right to keep said container out of a public video or image gallery? But if the CO didn't want the container to be seen publicly then why post its location on a public site? Its these sorts of questions that are hard to answer. Where do the rights of the CO end and the rights of the average individual begin? Should we ask the CO permission before giving another cacher a hint? What about in the field where you've just finished finding a cache and run across a fellow cacher who is struggling to find it? Do you offer a "spoiler" if asked? Its the same concept with the video. So far this thread has been full of lively discussion. I've enjoyed the back and forth about the issues and playing a bit of devil's advocate. I hope it continues to stay that way and not spin off into a flame war. I think in this situation no one is right or wrong here. It comes down to weather one party is willing to fulfill the request of another. In the end no one party can force the other to do anything. Sure it would be nice if the videos would be taken down upon request but they don't have to be taken down. You studying at the Taz school of posting? By using GC.com you accept the TOU. The TOU states you can not post spoilers anywhere. So you have agreed to not post spoilers anywhere. TPTB may not be able to take a violator to court over it but they can certainly lock an account. Link to comment
+Sven. Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Not quite an answer to the question. Do you have the cache owners permission? If not you are violating the TOU for GC.com. Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Not quite an answer to the question. Do you have the cache owners permission? If not you are violating the TOU for GC.com. Hey look! I to can post pictures! WEE!!!!!! Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 the TOS for posting links /without permission/. I have permission for everything I've posted. <snip> Having read the guidelines I cannot find any violations I've committed? *shrug* Unless you have the cache owners' permission to post the spoilers, then linking to them is a violation of the TOS. I have permission to post all the videos I've linked. Not quite an answer to the question. Do you have the cache owners permission? If not you are violating the TOU for GC.com. The owner of the Tube site has clearly explained he has permission of the co's - like 4 times or so now. The way the average CO takes care of their caches I say they forfeit any rights to them anyways! Thus saith me! Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) IANAL, but to me, section 4.(m) seems to refer to spoilers published "in any form of media". Regardless, the whole controversy could be resolved in a very straightforward way: Get permission from the cache owner(s) to publish the video spoilers on YouTube. IMHO, permission should have been obtained prior to publication, but better late than never. And if permission is refused by any owner(s), then you know which video(s) you need to remove. Why would the video maker needs to get permission from the CO to post the video? Do you think the CO has any ownership of the area the cache was hidden in? Was the video maker filming anything the CO owns? If a person creates something, publicly announces its location and asks people to come see it, does he still have the right to complain when people show pictures or videos of it? I'm not saying all spoiler videos are good/right. I'm just trying to present another point of view that is being overlook/ignored. While a majority of us would agree the videos are spoilers and take some of the fun out of the game. That doesn't mean that people can't still create them and post them. They just can't do it on the GS site since they agreed to the TOU. You don't see game makers going after the sites that post spoilers or guides. I'm also trying to clear up the misconceptions about the TOU and how far GS's reach in these kinds of situation actually extends. They do not have the right to control what you post or publish on other sites or other media concerning Geocaching. No matter how you want to look at or translate the TOU. Unless it involves some copyrighted or trademark material GS owns. In which case they have legal rights to have the material removed and the violator prosecuted as they see fit. The point at which all of this gets a little sketchy is where the CO's rights are. In most cases they do not own the property the cache is hidden on. Thus permission is required to place the cache. The location is a matter of public record. Only the exact method of the hide is left a mystery for others to sort out. Do we say the CO owns the method of the hide? He certainly owns the container and its contents. So does that mean the CO has a legal right to keep said container out of a public video or image gallery? But if the CO didn't want the container to be seen publicly then why post its location on a public site? Its these sorts of questions that are hard to answer. Where do the rights of the CO end and the rights of the average individual begin? Should we ask the CO permission before giving another cacher a hint? What about in the field where you've just finished finding a cache and run across a fellow cacher who is struggling to find it? Do you offer a "spoiler" if asked? Its the same concept with the video. So far this thread has been full of lively discussion. I've enjoyed the back and forth about the issues and playing a bit of devil's advocate. I hope it continues to stay that way and not spin off into a flame war. I think in this situation no one is right or wrong here. It comes down to weather one party is willing to fulfill the request of another. In the end no one party can force the other to do anything. Sure it would be nice if the videos would be taken down upon request but they don't have to be taken down. You studying at the Taz school of posting? By using GC.com you accept the TOU. The TOU states you can not post spoilers anywhere. So you have agreed to not post spoilers anywhere. TPTB may not be able to take a violator to court over it but they can certainly lock an account. GOF, it does not say that. Edited August 30, 2011 by Frank Broughton Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 GOF, I disagree in regards to the reach of the TOS. It does not say anywhere. I'm typing on my so I can't quote the you again. But all it limits is any media in regards to ga's site tools. I'm pretty sure if it meant anywhere that Sandy's letter would have been worded a bit stronger. Link to comment
KiwiTek Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Hello community. I'm rather confused. I've received this email from a "community relations" at Groundspeak. Regarding my youtube channel. I'm confused for a few reasons. I have received overwhelming positive response from these videos, I have without a doubt introduced hundreds of people to this sport. You can for yourself view the positive feedback in the comments on the videos, indeed I could provide hundreds of private messages where people thanked me for introducing them to the sport. Surely videos that highlight the very best of our sport is a good thing? They are labelled spoilers....If you don't like it don't watch them? The "community relations" say I am providing "help" so people can find these caches, this is absurd. I do not provide a location or indeed a GC code. Besides my british accent nobody would have any idea where the geocache is geographically. Even when asked in comments or privately I don't give this information away. I'll gladly provide the community relations team with evidence of overwhelming support from the community. There has been to date one negative ninny who doesn't like my videos because I videod his cache.....Well actually I didn't even video his cache and he's not happy! What do you think? There's only a billion other youtube videos out there detailing caches, are they getting emails from Groundspeak too? Or are they just picking on me? I'm basically being asked to delete hours, no days of my life! A lot of hard work has gone into this. What does the community think? Delete or keep? I feel a bit indignant to the whole situation to be honest.... I've just watched a couple of your videos.... 1. Your name is "geocachespoilers" 2. Your actually show the caches hiding place! I can see GS' point. Edited August 30, 2011 by Keystone link to spoiler site removed by moderator Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) the TOS for posting links /without permission/. I have permission for everything I've posted. <snip> Having read the guidelines I cannot find any violations I've committed? *shrug* Unless you have the cache owners' permission to post the spoilers, then linking to them is a violation of the TOS. I have permission to post all the videos I've linked. Not quite an answer to the question. Do you have the cache owners permission? If not you are violating the TOU for GC.com. The owner of the Tube site has clearly explained he has permission of the co's - like 4 times or so now. The way the average CO takes care of their caches I say they forfeit any rights to them anyways! Thus saith me! No he hasn't. He has said a number of times that no one has complained but if they did he would remove the individual video. That is quite different from having permission. I guess because that seems to fly as adequate permission for most hides that he feels it is adequate for his videos as well. Edited August 30, 2011 by GeoBain Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 IANAL, but to me, section 4.(m) seems to refer to spoilers published "in any form of media". Regardless, the whole controversy could be resolved in a very straightforward way: Get permission from the cache owner(s) to publish the video spoilers on YouTube. IMHO, permission should have been obtained prior to publication, but better late than never. And if permission is refused by any owner(s), then you know which video(s) you need to remove. Why would the video maker needs to get permission from the CO to post the video? Do you think the CO has any ownership of the area the cache was hidden in? Was the video maker filming anything the CO owns? If a person creates something, publicly announces its location and asks people to come see it, does he still have the right to complain when people show pictures or videos of it? I'm not saying all spoiler videos are good/right. I'm just trying to present another point of view that is being overlook/ignored. While a majority of us would agree the videos are spoilers and take some of the fun out of the game. That doesn't mean that people can't still create them and post them. They just can't do it on the GS site since they agreed to the TOU. You don't see game makers going after the sites that post spoilers or guides. I'm also trying to clear up the misconceptions about the TOU and how far GS's reach in these kinds of situation actually extends. They do not have the right to control what you post or publish on other sites or other media concerning Geocaching. No matter how you want to look at or translate the TOU. Unless it involves some copyrighted or trademark material GS owns. In which case they have legal rights to have the material removed and the violator prosecuted as they see fit. The point at which all of this gets a little sketchy is where the CO's rights are. In most cases they do not own the property the cache is hidden on. Thus permission is required to place the cache. The location is a matter of public record. Only the exact method of the hide is left a mystery for others to sort out. Do we say the CO owns the method of the hide? He certainly owns the container and its contents. So does that mean the CO has a legal right to keep said container out of a public video or image gallery? But if the CO didn't want the container to be seen publicly then why post its location on a public site? Its these sorts of questions that are hard to answer. Where do the rights of the CO end and the rights of the average individual begin? Should we ask the CO permission before giving another cacher a hint? What about in the field where you've just finished finding a cache and run across a fellow cacher who is struggling to find it? Do you offer a "spoiler" if asked? Its the same concept with the video. So far this thread has been full of lively discussion. I've enjoyed the back and forth about the issues and playing a bit of devil's advocate. I hope it continues to stay that way and not spin off into a flame war. I think in this situation no one is right or wrong here. It comes down to weather one party is willing to fulfill the request of another. In the end no one party can force the other to do anything. Sure it would be nice if the videos would be taken down upon request but they don't have to be taken down. You studying at the Taz school of posting? By using GC.com you accept the TOU. The TOU states you can not post spoilers anywhere. So you have agreed to not post spoilers anywhere. TPTB may not be able to take a violator to court over it but they can certainly lock an account. As its been mentioned many times a small snip of the TOU implies you can't post spoilers anywhere. But that is taking the line out of context. It is a small sub section of section 4 in the TOU. You need to read section 4 in its entirety. The sub sections do not stand as independent claims. They reference your use of GS's sites only and have no athority of your use of other sites. So as long as you don't post the spoiler here or on any of GS's site you are not violating the TOU. All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian. You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to: (a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity. ( Impersonate any person or entity, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity. © Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationship. (d) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual property or proprietary rights of any person, including without limitation under any privacy or publicity rights. (e) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation. (f) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that contains viruses or any other computer code, files or programs which interrupt, destroy, limit the functionality of, or cause damage to the Site or any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment. (g) Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges. (h) Interfere with or disrupt the Site or servers or networks connected to the Site, or fail to comply with any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Site. (i) Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law. (j) "Stalk," harass, or otherwise harm another Site user. (k) Collect or store personal data about other Site users. (l) Promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual. (m) Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner. The GS rep even admitted to the OP that they have no recourse in this matter. So GS is admitting that there has been no violation of the TOU since the spoiler was not posted on the site. Groundspeak is well aware that we have no recourse to insist or penalize you for posting videos about other people's caches on Youtube, which is why my initial email was a request and presented the cache owner's perspective. Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Hello community. I'm rather confused. I've received this email from a "community relations" at Groundspeak. Regarding my youtube channel. I'm confused for a few reasons. I have received overwhelming positive response from these videos, I have without a doubt introduced hundreds of people to this sport. You can for yourself view the positive feedback in the comments on the videos, indeed I could provide hundreds of private messages where people thanked me for introducing them to the sport. Surely videos that highlight the very best of our sport is a good thing? They are labelled spoilers....If you don't like it don't watch them? The "community relations" say I am providing "help" so people can find these caches, this is absurd. I do not provide a location or indeed a GC code. Besides my british accent nobody would have any idea where the geocache is geographically. Even when asked in comments or privately I don't give this information away. I'll gladly provide the community relations team with evidence of overwhelming support from the community. There has been to date one negative ninny who doesn't like my videos because I videod his cache.....Well actually I didn't even video his cache and he's not happy! What do you think? There's only a billion other youtube videos out there detailing caches, are they getting emails from Groundspeak too? Or are they just picking on me? I'm basically being asked to delete hours, no days of my life! A lot of hard work has gone into this. What does the community think? Delete or keep? I feel a bit indignant to the whole situation to be honest.... I've just watched a couple of your videos.... 1. Your name is "geocachespoilers" 2. Your actually show the caches hiding place! **link omitted** I can see GS' point. Now this is a violation of the TOU posting a link to a spoiler video on the forums. A link like this was posted earliert and removed by moderators because it violated the TOU. Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) I've just watched a couple of your videos.... 1. Your name is "geocachespoilers" 2. Your actually show the caches hiding place! I can see GS' point. I watched the video you linked to. From the info in that video please tell me what cache that is. If you can't then it's not a spoiler. At worst if you find yourself hunting a cache and that location looks familiar you might remember having seen a video of that place, but that's the only way it could spoil anything. You cannot watch that video, identify the cache and go find it. Groundspeak made a request, and assured him that they had no recourse. They did not threaten to close his account or take any other action. Lots of hype in this thread, not many facts, despite the Groundspeak request and follow up being posted here for anyone interested in the truth to read. Edited August 30, 2011 by Keystone link to spoiler site removed by moderator Link to comment
+Too Tall John Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I've just watched a couple of your videos.... 1. Your name is "geocachespoilers" 2. Your actually show the caches hiding place! Here's something fun to read I can see GS' point. I watched the video you linked to. From the info in that video please tell me what cache that is. If you can't then it's not a spoiler. At worst if you find yourself hunting a cache and that location looks familiar you might remember having seen a video of that place, but that's the only way it could spoil anything. You cannot watch that video, identify the cache and go find it. Groundspeak made a request, and assured him that they had no recourse. They did not threaten to close his account or take any other action. Lots of hype in this thread, not many facts, despite the Groundspeak request and follow up being posted here for anyone interested in the truth to read. Funny thing, that video. He could post the GC# for that one and be fine, it's one of his own caches. Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Groundspeak needs to learn something about the Internet. They do not own it. People use various website and tools to share information. Groundspeak can remove spoilers from their sites, but trying to control what someone puts on Facebook or YouTube seem to exceed not only their capabilities but also any sensibility of what their responsibility is. I realize that sometimes people use the Internet to do things that may be against the law in one country or another. But I think it's best to let law enforcement handle this. I've nothing against reporting something to law enforcement if you think it's against the law. But as far as I know there is no law against posting spoilers to geocaches. This is the way I see it too. Groundspeak is not a publicly traded company yet I do feel like I have some stock in the company as a cache owner, frequent event host, and as a mostly positive voice in support of geocaching. As with all forum threads, I'm sure there is more to the story. I don't like to hear that they are overstepping their bounds. I disturbes me that they would try to bully a user in such a way if this is true. WTH. Edited August 30, 2011 by Snoogans Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I don't like to hear that they are overstepping their bounds. I disturbes me that they would try to bully a user in such a way if this is true. WTH. It was far from bullying. It was a very polite request. I wouldn't even say it overstepped their bounds. Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Groundspeak needs to learn something about the Internet. They do not own it. People use various website and tools to share information. Groundspeak can remove spoilers from their sites, but trying to control what someone puts on Facebook or YouTube seem to exceed not only their capabilities but also any sensibility of what their responsibility is. I realize that sometimes people use the Internet to do things that may be against the law in one country or another. But I think it's best to let law enforcement handle this. I've nothing against reporting something to law enforcement if you think it's against the law. But as far as I know there is no law against posting spoilers to geocaches. This is the way I see it too. Groundspeak is not a publicly traded company yet I do feel like I have some stock in the company as a cache owner, frequent event host, and as a mostly positive voice in support of geocaching. As with all forum threads, I'm sure there is more to the story. I don't like to hear that they are overstepping their bounds. I disturbes me that they would try to bully a user in such a way if this is true. WTH. GS knows what they are doing. The TOU does not overstep there authority and does not suggest that they have any authority over your action on other sites. There has been way to much misinformation, speculation, and statements being taken out of context on this subject. GS received a complaint about a video. They ask that the video(s) be removed. They then came back to make themselves more clear that it was a request and that they had no authority to take any action against the OP. I don't know why people keep overlooking these facts. Why are so many working so hard to keep this misinformation alive? Read section 4 of the TOU and keep in mind that sub sections (a) thru (m) are in reference to your use of the GS site and Forums. Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) GOF, I disagree in regards to the reach of the TOS. It does not say anywhere. I'm typing on my so I can't quote the you again. But all it limits is any media in regards to ga's site tools. I'm pretty sure if it meant anywhere that Sandy's letter would have been worded a bit stronger. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that you can't link to spoilers from a cache page or from Groundspeak's forum? Or does it mean that you can't post spoilers anywhere, if you used Groundspeak's database or search engine to locate them? Speculation had it that the guideline in question was a direct response to a website that was posting giveaways to geocache puzzles. If that speculation is correct, then Youtube would be an equivilent situation. [Edit:] Actually, I think that mpilchfamily did a very good job of getting me to take a fresh look at the entire section, and I do now have to agree that the TOU is clearly referring to posting on cache pages and in the Groundspeak forums, and that the links to the Youtube videos in the forums were the only violations. The only issue I see here, and I think the real one that most are jumping on, is the OP's apparent attitude and stubbornness about this. However, he obviously feels that he is in the right, and has a right to stubbornly resist what he feels is wrong, so I guess I can't find fault there really, either. I know that I would be extremely upset if I found a spoiler to one of my harder caches on Youtube, and I hope that the OP is sensitive to that. But we are not talking about copyright or patent violations here... just geocaches. Edited August 30, 2011 by knowschad Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 GOF, I disagree in regards to the reach of the TOS. It does not say anywhere. I'm typing on my so I can't quote the you again. But all it limits is any media in regards to ga's site tools. I'm pretty sure if it meant anywhere that Sandy's letter would have been worded a bit stronger. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that you can't link to spoilers from a cache page or from Groundspeak's forum? Or does it mean that you can't post spoilers anywhere, if you used Groundspeak's database or search engine to locate them? Speculation had it that the guideline in question was a direct response to a website that was posting giveaways to geocache puzzles. If that speculation is correct, then Youtube would be an equivilent situation. To put it simply the TOU is saying you can't post any media on there site that shows spoilers. While the video posted to Youtube isn't against the TOU. Posting a link to the video in the forums or on the cache page is a violation. You can post any spoilers you want anywhere on the web but you can't do it on the sites GS runs. Its there site and there rules. You agreed to the TOU giving them the right to take any action they see fit (within reason) if you violate the terms of use for there sites. The only way Youtube would be in trouble is if the video used GS' logo without consent. GS can then take legal action against Youtube if the video wasn't removed. This is a constant battle Youtube has to fight with the Record and Movie industry over use of there copyrighted material in people's videos. Link to comment
+Team_Searchgeo Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Edited August 30, 2011 by Team_Searchgeo Link to comment
+Semper Questio Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I don't see it as a matter of legality or implied permissions. i see it as a matter of respect and courtesy for your fellow cachers. If you want to shoot and post video on your own caches, that's fine. Knock yourself out. But if you want to post video of anyone else's the owner of those caches should be shown the courtesy of being contacted and let them review the video first. Then, if they would prefer it be edited prior to posting or not posted at all, their wishes should be respected. Just because something may be legal, that doesn't make it right. Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 GOF, I disagree in regards to the reach of the TOS. It does not say anywhere. I'm typing on my so I can't quote the you again. But all it limits is any media in regards to ga's site tools. I'm pretty sure if it meant anywhere that Sandy's letter would have been worded a bit stronger. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that you can't link to spoilers from a cache page or from Groundspeak's forum? Or does it mean that you can't post spoilers anywhere, if you used Groundspeak's database or search engine to locate them? Speculation had it that the guideline in question was a direct response to a website that was posting giveaways to geocache puzzles. If that speculation is correct, then Youtube would be an equivilent situation. To put it simply the TOU is saying you can't post any media on there site that shows spoilers.<snip> Looks like you just missed my most recent edits to that post. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 GOF, I disagree in regards to the reach of the TOS. It does not say anywhere. I'm typing on my so I can't quote the you again. But all it limits is any media in regards to ga's site tools. I'm pretty sure if it meant anywhere that Sandy's letter would have been worded a bit stronger. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that you can't link to spoilers from a cache page or from Groundspeak's forum? Or does it mean that you can't post spoilers anywhere, if you used Groundspeak's database or search engine to locate them? Speculation had it that the guideline in question was a direct response to a website that was posting giveaways to geocache puzzles. If that speculation is correct, then Youtube would be an equivilent situation. If I were to speculate, I would say it was meant primarily for the forums, where it has been pretty effective. I see nothing in there about use of the database. That is covered elsewhere and since I'm not at my PC I can't look it up. But I believe it's the same place that prohibits sharing your PQs. Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 GOF, I disagree in regards to the reach of the TOS. It does not say anywhere. I'm typing on my so I can't quote the you again. But all it limits is any media in regards to ga's site tools. I'm pretty sure if it meant anywhere that Sandy's letter would have been worded a bit stronger. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that you can't link to spoilers from a cache page or from Groundspeak's forum? Or does it mean that you can't post spoilers anywhere, if you used Groundspeak's database or search engine to locate them? Speculation had it that the guideline in question was a direct response to a website that was posting giveaways to geocache puzzles. If that speculation is correct, then Youtube would be an equivilent situation. To put it simply the TOU is saying you can't post any media on there site that shows spoilers.<snip> Looks like you just missed my most recent edits to that post. Sure did! I take to long in sorting my thoughts and wording things some time. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I don't see it as a matter of legality or implied permissions. i see it as a matter of respect and courtesy for your fellow cachers. If you want to shoot and post video on your own caches, that's fine. Knock yourself out. But if you want to post video of anyone else's the owner of those caches should be shown the courtesy of being contacted and let them review the video first. Then, if they would prefer it be edited prior to posting or not posted at all, their wishes should be respected. Just because something may be legal, that doesn't make it right. That's a pretty good summation of the issues at hand. I personally would say go ahead if the op asked if he could post one of my caches. But to find out after the fact? I'd change the hide to make the spoiler a wild goose chase. Link to comment
Luckless Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Speaking solely for myself as a cache owner I try to make each of my caches unique and different. Some I have worked on for a couple of years. I wouldn't want to see any of my caches on youtube that show exactly where the cache is located or see any solutions to the clues that lead to the cache. Part of the hiding process that I enjoy most is creating that wow factor when the person is finally able to figure out how to locate it. For that reason many of my caches have been favorited. I want every person to be able to experience that "hey this is a cool hide feeling". Being shown answers to the clues for locating the cache on a video or being shown the cache's exact location that anyone familar with the area would be able to identify and therefore bypass all the stages I created that lead up to the cache would be disappointing to me. It sounds like this was what Sandy was trying to convey to you when she suggested you consider it. Of course I have not viewed your videos so I do not know if they indeed do these things. As was mentioned earlier, by removing videos with spoilers you are not destroying your memories- only keeping them to yourself. Perhaps you can edit them. Even a single picture can undo a hider's hard work to create a truly challenging hide. I find that taking pictures so they don't give away anything can be a fun challenge in themselves. Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 GOF, I disagree in regards to the reach of the TOS. It does not say anywhere. I'm typing on my so I can't quote the you again. But all it limits is any media in regards to ga's site tools. I'm pretty sure if it meant anywhere that Sandy's letter would have been worded a bit stronger. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that you can't link to spoilers from a cache page or from Groundspeak's forum? Or does it mean that you can't post spoilers anywhere, if you used Groundspeak's database or search engine to locate them? Speculation had it that the guideline in question was a direct response to a website that was posting giveaways to geocache puzzles. If that speculation is correct, then Youtube would be an equivilent situation. If I were to speculate, I would say it was meant primarily for the forums, where it has been pretty effective. I see nothing in there about use of the database. That is covered elsewhere and since I'm not at my PC I can't look it up. But I believe it's the same place that prohibits sharing your PQs. Looks like you also missed my back-peddling. Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I don't see it as a matter of legality or implied permissions. i see it as a matter of respect and courtesy for your fellow cachers. If you want to shoot and post video on your own caches, that's fine. Knock yourself out. But if you want to post video of anyone else's the owner of those caches should be shown the courtesy of being contacted and let them review the video first. Then, if they would prefer it be edited prior to posting or not posted at all, their wishes should be respected. Just because something may be legal, that doesn't make it right. That is a very honorable position to take and i commend you for it. However it is a bit unrealistic. Sure you want to respect your fellow cachers but where do you draw the line? Where does there idea of respect start to impede on you and your right to sharing your adventure? Ok leave the cache name out. Just refer to it as in interesting hide. But those who want to find the spoilers will and those who don't want to ruin there cache experience should avoid the spoilers. Most videos that contain spoilers say so. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 GOF, I disagree in regards to the reach of the TOS. It does not say anywhere. I'm typing on my so I can't quote the you again. But all it limits is any media in regards to ga's site tools. I'm pretty sure if it meant anywhere that Sandy's letter would have been worded a bit stronger. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that you can't link to spoilers from a cache page or from Groundspeak's forum? Or does it mean that you can't post spoilers anywhere, if you used Groundspeak's database or search engine to locate them? Speculation had it that the guideline in question was a direct response to a website that was posting giveaways to geocache puzzles. If that speculation is correct, then Youtube would be an equivilent situation. If I were to speculate, I would say it was meant primarily for the forums, where it has been pretty effective. I see nothing in there about use of the database. That is covered elsewhere and since I'm not at my PC I can't look it up. But I believe it's the same place that prohibits sharing your PQs. Looks like you also missed my back-peddling. I caught it after the fact. I didn't know an edit was coming later. Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Hi Sven! I think your best course of action would be to get the cache owners permission prior to revealing exactly where and how their cache is hidden. While someone on my side of the pond would not be able to glean any useful information from your videos, making them simple and funny entertainment, it is conceivable that someone local to you could pull some secrets out of your videos. Labeling your videos as spoilers really doesn't get you past the Terms of Use. If you ever make it to America, feel free to video any of my caches. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I don't see it as a matter of legality or implied permissions. i see it as a matter of respect and courtesy for your fellow cachers. If you want to shoot and post video on your own caches, that's fine. Knock yourself out. But if you want to post video of anyone else's the owner of those caches should be shown the courtesy of being contacted and let them review the video first. Then, if they would prefer it be edited prior to posting or not posted at all, their wishes should be respected. Just because something may be legal, that doesn't make it right. That is a very honorable position to take and i commend you for it. However it is a bit unrealistic. Sure you want to respect your fellow cachers but where do you draw the line? Where does there idea of respect start to impede on you and your right to sharing your adventure? Ok leave the cache name out. Just refer to it as in interesting hide. But those who want to find the spoilers will and those who don't want to ruin there cache experience should avoid the spoilers. Most videos that contain spoilers say so. Just ask up front. It's a matter of respect. To answer someone earlier, if it were 1 or 2 videos among other caching adventures no one would be making an issue of it. But this channel's primary purpose is spoilers. Link to comment
+BaylorGrad Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 This thread is an embarrassment to the Geocaching community. Most of you should be ashamed of yourselves--not because of your opinions, but because of the way you express them. I am in complete agreement with the OP in every way. Keep the videos there. If you have permission from the CO (which you have clearly stated numerous times that you do) and people like your videos, keep them there. I would ignore the request to remove them. Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Can we get the topic description changed to reflect that this is not a TOU issue. Guess the OP would have to request that. But i think we have already established where this and the TOU stand. Any further comment regarding Youtube videos and GS' TOU is ill informed and the commenter needs to go back and read thru the thread again/ for the first time. No need to continue an argument that has already been settled. Heck maybe its time to close the thread. Any other discussion will be opinions on weather they like the video or not or if the video maker should do the courteous thing and talk to the CO before posting the video. I'm sure more ideas for trying to make everyone happy will be presented as well. But we can't make everyone happy now can we? Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) I don't like to hear that they are overstepping their bounds. I disturbes me that they would try to bully a user in such a way if this is true. WTH. It was far from bullying. It was a very polite request. I wouldn't even say it overstepped their bounds. I made pretty sure not to judge based on this thread. I have formed an opinion that runs parallel to TOZ's. I made sure that I qualified my words. As with all forum threads, I'm sure there is more to the story. .....if this is true. Time will tell. I'm not expecting rumor control or a press release. IMO the "request" was beneath Groundspeak's image in my mind. Perhaps I have put Groundspeak on too high a pedistal buying into the recent hype from Outdoor Magazine and LinkedIn. Edited August 30, 2011 by Snoogans Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Hi Sven! I think your best course of action would be to get the cache owners permission prior to revealing exactly where and how their cache is hidden. While someone on my side of the pond would not be able to glean any useful information from your videos, making them simple and funny entertainment, it is conceivable that someone local to you could pull some secrets out of your videos. Labeling your videos as spoilers really doesn't get you past the Terms of Use. If you ever make it to America, feel free to video any of my caches. Heeheeheee!!! CAUTION: SPOILERS BELOW! Link to comment
Recommended Posts