YouTube Videos

[+Mad H@ter]

But putting to one side whether or not the ToU's have been broken, my understanding of this after having read through this and two other threads, read through the complainants blog and watched the video is:

 

1. Videos have been placed on YouTube of cache locations but do not identify them via their name or GC code or in any other way other than the images themself. This therefore makes it very difficult if not nigh on impossible to identify which cache it is.
   
2. After initially asking for them to be removed the complainant agreed to let them stay, I assume after some discussion and seeing that they are in-fact not spoilers.
   
3. The complainant stated on his blog site that he is only trying to wind people up. He seems to be doing a rather good job of that and sadly it appears that Groundspeak have been sucked into what appears to be a little game for personal amusement.
   However it would appear that he has removed this entry from his blog.
   
4. On the particular cache in question the hide or container isn't even shown or described on the video. How in any way could a video of the general area be conceived in any way as a spoiler?
   

So based on the above evidence I fail to see what has been done wrong unless I have missed something or As has already been suggested there is other information that only a privileged few know about.

On the face of it, it seems like a return to the bad old days of Groundspeak wielding the big stick to control the masses (customers) . It appears to show a serious lack of judgement on Groundspeak's part in a matter they should have stayed well clear of.

[+Cup.]

But by only quoting (m) you're taking it's meaning entirely out of context. a - m relate to things it says in the preceding paragraph that you cannot do on "the site".

 

Indeed a paragraph prior to that reads

 

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.

 

*That's* what the agreement governs, quite rightly it doesn't mention third party websites.

 

Infact according to Sven this was confirmed by Sandy in an email

 

Groundspeak is well aware that we have no recourse to insist or penalize you for posting videos about other people's caches on Youtube.

 

All this is moot anyway, because his videos aren't spoilers. Perhaps GS need to clarify what a spoiler is exactly and define it in their terms.

[+Happy Humphrey]

BTW, Groundspeak has still not removed this bit from the TOU: "You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site."

 

The bolded part restricts the TOU to Groundspeak's servers. They have no right dictating what anyone does on someone else's servers.

The quoted clause in which the words "via the Site" are bolded does not mean, by some form of wordplay, "You are responsible for content which you put on this site, therefore you are somehow not responsible for content which is off this site".

I really don't know how you can infer that meaning from what looks like a very clear statement. All it says is that if I post something on Groundspeak's site then I'm responsible for it, not Groundspeak. That's presumably so they can't be held liable if someone uses a geocache listing to post illegal material (for instance).

 

Underneath, in the same section, there's a list of items that you have to agree to, in order to use Groundspeak's "Publishing Tools and Forums" (this is the heading of the section), which includes not uploading spoilers when using Groundspeak's "Publishing Tools and Forums".

 

Groundspeak can make rules for their own site, and this is what they're doing. It says nothing about any other site and it's impossible from this section of the TOU (at least) to infer what their attitude is to other web sites.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+The HERB5]

This sort of thing flares up from time to time in the forums. It generally comes down to a choice between:

 

/1/ Groundspeak is a really, really stupid and petulant organisation, run by extremely small-minded people with unbelievably thin skins, and bans people whenever they do anything remotely out of line, even if this massively annoys lots of ordinary paying customers.

SimplyPaul got banned for using the wrong avatar last year....

[+Cup.]

This sort of thing flares up from time to time in the forums. It generally comes down to a choice between:

 

/1/ Groundspeak is a really, really stupid and petulant organisation, run by extremely small-minded people with unbelievably thin skins, and bans people whenever they do anything remotely out of line, even if this massively annoys lots of ordinary paying customers.

SimplyPaul got banned for using the wrong avatar last year....

 

ChannelFadge alleges he got banned for trivial reasons in the comments of Sven's youtube video:

 

I got banned off the forums once for questioning the mods, and using the term 'wtf' (just those 3 letters!). Well, I still cache but I never renewed my premium membership.

[+thebruce0]

There have been quite a number of comments from both sides of the fence that seem to confuse the issue...

 

For example:

 

Sandy says:

You are without question in violation of our Terms of Use (section 4m) - as pointed out by several responders to that thread. While I cannot force you to remove the video, as I mentioned previously, I can now impose a period of suspension from Geocaching.com. You are asked to remove that specific spoiler video from YouTube, so that you are not in violation of our Terms of Use, or you will be suspended from Geocaching.com. Please note that if we hear from other cache owners similarly affected, we will be contacting you immediately.

I will await your reply or the removal of the video.

 

"You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via 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.

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

 

Had Sven not linked, at all, to his channel or any video within the forum or via geocaching.com, then GS would have no grounds (aside from an independent, albeit controversial, decision) to ban. Since there were links, they can easily point to that that breach of TOU for the ban. Problem is, wording implies a different - incorrect - reason for the ban. The issue is confused further by vagueness and/or silence in the defense from either side.

 

We don't have the full picture.

This situation is rife with mistake, error, misunderstanding, miscommunication, misrepresentation.

Until there's a clear explanation of what happened and why, we're going around in circles here...

 

ETA: One could interpret the first paragraph from Sandy to say that because he provided a link to an external video, the only way the violation would be moot were if the linked video was no longer considered a spoiler, in YT's case, removed. Otherwise, the ban will take effect. However, elsewhere he was asked apparently to remove all videos (which could, perhaps, be defending by the fact that the channel was linked). Had no links been provided, there would be no grounds. Were he to re-upload the video(s) to (a) different youtube code(s), the original(s) would be invalid, and presumably the violation voided. But now it's getting so nit-picky it's ridiculous. (this is why IANAL )

Edited October 20, 2011 by thebruce0

[+Cup.]

Had Sven not linked, at all, to his channel or any video within the forum or via geocaching.com, then GS would have no grounds [to ban him]

 

Sven made videos private whilst he had the links removed from the Groundspeak forums, either by himself or by the moderators in locked topics.

 

When there were no longer any links on groundspeaks forums Sandy changed her mind/the rules and claimed the TOS say that you cannot have spoilers anywhere, totally contradicting herself.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Cup.

[+thebruce0]

Sven made videos private whilst he had the links removed from the Groundspeak forums, either by himself or by the moderators in locked topics.

 

When there were no longer any links on groundspeaks forums Sandy changed her mind/the rules and claimed the TOS say that you cannot have spoilers anywhere, totally contradicting herself.

Right, but what I'm saying is that because he did break the TOU, they could still hold him to that, even though the links are removed. I don't believe they ever outlined "remove the links or we'll ban you". So technically, they could argue that the act of linking was enough to enforce a ban, and they were being generous by saying 'remove the videos' to avoid the ban.

It's certainly a slippery slope which I don't agree with (especially if it can be confirmed that every video has CO permission before the links were provided), I'm just sayin'...

Again, speaking for myself I don't know who's acted properly or not, but I don't think I have the whole story so I'm just looking at the facts provided in these threads.

Edited October 20, 2011 by thebruce0

[+sTeamTraen]

When there were no longer any links on groundspeaks forums Sandy changed her mind/the rules and claimed the TOS say that you cannot have spoilers anywhere, totally contradicting herself.

 

4(m) clearly says that you can't post spoilers without the cache owner's consent "in any form of media". That means in a magazine, on your blog, on YouTube, etc. Linking from the forums might or might make the matter more serious, and perhaps forum links might be the first thing that someone who was trying to correct the issue would focus on, but if for some reason the exact list of ToU violations was not precisely enumerated in the absolute first communication, that doesn't suddenly mean that anyone is "totally contradicting" themselves.

 

Now, we don't have access to a complete, unabridged copy of every element of the conversations which took place; and also, the Lackeys (thank goodness) don't start their work on every single one of the tens of thousands of calls which they get each year on the basis that it will end up before the Supreme Court. But the ToU violation seems pretty clear from the moment that the cache owner complained about the spoiler, regardless of where it was posted, and regardless of what links might or might not exist in this or any other forum.

 

Frankly, the nitpicking here seems to be coming pretty much from one direction. The spoiler was posted, the cache owner didn't like it, the author of the spoiler refused to take it down, and now he and his supporters are trying to get him out of the consequences by looking for some form of legal technicality, as if this were the national judicial system. Even if I had never dealt with Groundspeak before, my first reaction would be, why does the author of the spoiler feel entitled to continue to do something which clearly upsets another person, after that person has objected, when taking the high road would cost nothing?

[+Cup.]

4(m) clearly says that you can't post spoilers without the cache owner's consent "in any form of media".

 

It's clearly open to interpretation then. Taken in context, when it talks about what cannot do on the site I figured it meant you cannot post spoilers in any form of media, as in a textual comment, or a spoiler photo etc. Think windows media player.

 

Textual, audio, photo, video....

[+Mad H@ter]

But whether or not the ToUs say you can publish a spoiler in any media in whatever place is probably irrelevant to this discussion as there does not seem to have been any spoilers published.

What perhaps we need to establish first is what constitutes a spoiler (Groundspeak?) and once that has been establish we can then decide if what Sven published is a spoiler.

 

IMHO Sven's biggest mistake was probably miss-naming his video blog site.

[+thebruce0]

sTeamTraen, you're missing a couple of steps again though.

1. Sven said the CO(s) did give permission (though I believe after the links were already posted).

2. Groundspeak encourages bloggers and videographers to document and share finds (presuming CO permission)

3. To force Sven's account to be banned simply because he posted spoiler videos on Youtube (regardless of sharing them here or not) just does not grok, for multiple reasons.

4. To ban Sven's account because he once linked in the forum to a video that at the time may not have had CO permission, to me, is the most viable reason. But still a bully tactic, considering #2.

 

Point being: Groundspeak can't force you to take down a video you posted "in any form of media". But, they can certainly ban an account for whatever reason they see fit. It's splitting hairs, really. Define "force"?

It's like saying "well, I'm going to point this gun at my target board even though your head is in the way, and pull the trigger. I'm not going to force you to move, so you can choose to move away if you want, but if you die, you can't blame me"

But I hate analogies. heh

 

By the TOU, Groundspeak as far as I can tell can defend the ban. Based on our knowledge in this discussion, the defense is thin, hazy, and controversial at best based on what it represents. But I believe it stands, technically speaking.

 

Would Sven have been banned if from the beginning it been disclaimed, for each of the videos, that the respective COs' permissions had been granted? Before posting about them here? That, in my mind, puts his videos on par with any of the other videos and channels Groundspeak has shared and blogged about publicly before.

 

Again, the fact that only his blog review was removed from the Latitude blog entry from among three that were discussed leads me to believe there's far more here than meets the eye.

 

It's not a cut and dry situation.

[+Happy Humphrey]

4(m) clearly says that you can't post spoilers without the cache owner's consent "in any form of media". That means in a magazine, on your blog, on YouTube, etc.

I'm sorry Nick (m'learned friend), that's only partially true. The geocaching.com website or forums need to have been used in some way to publish the spoilers; otherwise the TOU have not been violated.

 

4(m) is in the "Publishing Tools and Forums" section, which begins by limiting the Agreement to Groundspeak's own website and forums. It's as clear as day.

 

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

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.

...

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

...

(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 only point of putting "in any form of media" in there, is to cover the loophole that (for example) you put your puzzle solution in the form of a photo, upload it to a cache log and claim that it's therefore not "published" because you consider "published" to apply to text only.

 

Let's say that my local newspaper publishes an article on geocaching, and includes photos of a cache being retrieved. The reporter signed up for a free account on geocaching.com and copied down the coordinates of a likely-looking local cache, borrowed a GPSr and went out to get the photos. As a non-cacher he never bothered logging the cache, being more interested in getting the article into print before the deadline. The photos give away the hide and name the cache. The cache owner happens to read the newspaper that week and recognises his cache. He registers a complaint to Groundspeak. What can they do about it? Nothing, according to the TOU, because the reporter hasn't used the geocaching.com website to publish this spoiler (in any form of media).

 

Now if Sven used the forum to link to a Youtube video which gave away the location of a named non-traditional cache, or showed the retrieval of a named traditional cache (beyond what you'd see by going to within the normal GPS-indicated distance of the cache), then I'd agree that it was a spoiler and a violation of the TOU. But I'm not convinced that this happened.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+sTeamTraen]

4(m) is in the "Publishing Tools and Forums" section, which begins by limiting the Agreement to Groundspeak's own website and forums. It's as clear as day.

Allow me to wager the price of a pint of the beer of your choice, that Groundspeak's legal department will differ with you on that one.

 

As I mentioned earlier, that paragraph was added specifically to try and prevent people from creating websites full of Mystery cache spoiler info. If you create a site full of spoiler info, you risk having your access to Groundspeak's site and forums suspended. (The specific extension to YouTube videos as opposed to searchable coordinate information is, I trust we can agree, not to the crucial issue.)

 

Now, maybe a lawyer skilled in looking for loopholes might, just, be able to argue that 4(m) should be preceded by wording like "notwithstanding the preamble to this section", or moved to a different section entirely. But even were this to be the case, it doesn't alter the fundamental question of whether what the uploader of the videos did was "right", in some sense which I hope we can agree on without having to join political parties or read particular newspapers. The principal premise of this thread seems to be that the uploader is some kind of martyr who is being done some terrible wrong simply because he posted a video clip which upset nobody but Groundspeak. That doesn't appear to be the case.

[+Mad H@ter]

But even were this to be the case, it doesn't alter the fundamental question of whether what the uploader of the videos did was "right", in some sense which I hope we can agree on without having to join political parties or read particular newspapers.

I think that this would depend whether you consider what was posted as a spoiler.

I belive that they are not, but a definition of a spoiler would probably be of help in making this decision.

[+Cup.]

why does the author of the [channel] feel entitled to continue to do something which clearly upsets another person, after that person has objected

 

The author of the channel has stated he doesn't feel they are spoilers which he has communicated at length in a video (a video which i daren't link to!)

 

Lots of people feel entitled to continue to use PAF networks, which clearly upsets other people, and those people object....and they are ignored.

 

Bottom line is you cannot find the cache from the video.

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

But even were this to be the case, it doesn't alter the fundamental question of whether what the uploader of the videos did was "right", in some sense which I hope we can agree on without having to join political parties or read particular newspapers.

I think that this would depend whether you consider what was posted as a spoiler.

I belive that they are not, but a definition of a spoiler would probably be of help in making this decision.

 

Yep we are going in circles! The vids are not "spoilers" in my interpretation. The CO who complained GAVE permission before he complained (ask GS and Sven to confirm the timeline on that). Oh wait Svens banned and GS can't comment because it would be remiss of them, hey ho! Pedantic yes, pointless no. David and Goliath spring to mind, a difference of opinion and a line in the sand(y) .

 

I would love to stop posting but on this but I can not leave it when I think a injustice has taken place, a friend has taken a stand for the sake of what's right.

[+MartyBartfast]

The author of the channel has stated he doesn't feel they are spoilers

Then why choose the name Geocachospoilers?

[+Happy Humphrey]

As I mentioned earlier, that paragraph was added specifically to try and prevent people from creating websites full of Mystery cache spoiler info. If you create a site full of spoiler info, you risk having your access to Groundspeak's site and forums suspended. (The specific extension to YouTube videos as opposed to searchable coordinate information is, I trust we can agree, not to the crucial issue.)

Well, in that case Groundspeak are remarkably incompetent. The meaning of section 4 is crystal clear and it does not appear to tie in with your interpretation. You've simply taken subsection

4(m)out of its context.

It doesn't need a lawyer, skilled or otherwise, to see that one cannot separate a subsection from its heading and claim that its out-of-context meaning is the same as the one within its section, viz.:

 

Cranky Car Hire Company (CCHC)

Section 4 - Terms of Use

(all cars hired by the CCHC are governed by this agreement). You agree not to;

(a)...

... (etc.)

(m) race, drive off-road or allow any person unauthorised by the CCHC drive any car.

 

Yes, (m) can be read alone: but would you really expect if you signed that agreement, that if you went home and parked the hire car then let your wife legally drive your own car while you went for an off-road race in your friend's Land Rover that the hire company would then accuse you of breaking their TOU because the wording says "any car"? Or that they'd have a case against you because you went off-road driving and racing in a different vehicle during the term of your hire?

 

No, any schoolboy can see that Subsection 4(m) is (not surprisingly) to be read within the context of Section 4. If that wasn't intended, then it has to be changed. The TOU are supposed to be guidance for the layman, not amateur Rumpoles like me who can afford time to get the real meaning explained via the forum.

 

I'm simply arguing that if there was a breach of the TOU, then it wasn't as a result of merely uploading videos to Youtube without permission from the owner of a nearby cache. If that were the case, hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of geocachers have been breaking the TOU on a regular basis. Including me. But I'm afraid that I'm not going to remove any "offending" photos or videos from their hosting sites; however, I won't link my geocaching.com account in the future to anything that could be remotely regarded as a "spoiler" (whatever that is). So no "self portrait with cache" from me in any cache gallery!

 

To finish, I hereby give permission for anyone to upload a film of any of my caches as long as they follow Sven's self-imposed guideline of not revealing the cache identity. But beware of 4(m) - whatever it's supposed to mean!

Edited October 20, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+thebruce0]

The author of the channel has stated he doesn't feel they are spoilers

Then why choose the name Geocachospoilers?

Once again... define 'spoiler'

* does it require absolute connection to the source cache?

* is it the simple revelation of a hiding style one hasn't yet seen?

* is it sufficient visual documentation of an area that anyone who both sees the media and also visits the location would recognize the cache?

* some might even consider hints spoilers...

* etc...

 

IMO, the channel name is a safe name, a disclaimer to warn visitors that - to whatever degree - some experience of geocaching might get spoiled for them, were they to watch any videos therein. A general area of a cache might be a spoiler to some. It might not be a spoiler to others until the cache container is visible. It might not be a spoiler to others until the cache container and location is connected to a GC code. Far too many factors involved.

[+Cup.]

Once again... define 'spoiler'

* does it require absolute connection to the source cache?

* is it the simple revelation of a hiding style one hasn't yet seen?

* is it sufficient visual documentation of an area that anyone who both sees the media and also visits the location would recognize the cache?

* some might even consider hints spoilers...

* etc...

 

IMO, the channel name is a safe name, a disclaimer to warn visitors that - to whatever degree - some experience of geocaching might get spoiled for them, were they to watch any videos therein. A general area of a cache might be a spoiler to some. It might not be a spoiler to others until the cache container is visible. It might not be a spoiler to others until the cache container and location is connected to a GC code. Far too many factors involved.

 

Fantastic post.

 

Remember: Sandy categorically said that Sven's Nuclear bunker geocache video WAS a spoiler, yet it didn't show where the container was located - all it showed was....a bunker. AND the CO had said in his cache description that the container was.....in a nuclear bunker. So what was spoilt?

 

Again I would link to the content I am speaking of but I wouldn't want to be banned!

[+GeoBain]

But by only quoting (m) you're taking it's meaning entirely out of context. a - m relate to things it says in the preceding paragraph that you cannot do on "the site".

 

Indeed a paragraph prior to that reads

 

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.

 

*That's* what the agreement governs, quite rightly it doesn't mention third party websites.

 

Infact according to Sven this was confirmed by Sandy in an email

 

Groundspeak is well aware that we have no recourse to insist or penalize you for posting videos about other people's caches on Youtube.

 

All this is moot anyway' date=' because his videos aren't spoilers. Perhaps GS need to clarify what a spoiler is exactly and define it in their terms.

[/quote']

 

It's all moot simply because it's Groundspeak's playground and they've shown that they will do what they want regardless of what their own TOU states.

 

I've made it clear that I don't particular like Sven's videos. I think when he uploads his videos he should send the CO a courtesy email letting them know the URL and asking if they're ok with the video being up. Not only would that be the polite thing to do but it would also give him the email response to use should anyone question permission.

 

But even without permission and even if the videos are the worst spoilers ever with all info, GC # and URL to the cache listing given in the video, Groundspeak has no right to dictate what someone does on someone else's servers, period.

[+Happy Humphrey]

If this post is correct, the change to the TOU was made because of complaints from some Dutch cachers. Groundspeak were concerned about organised mystery-cache spoiler sites and decided to act. In my view, they made a mistake when updating the TOU and haven't actually covered the situation they are trying to guard against, whilst "criminalising" a lot of innocent photo and video sharers.

 

So, in hastily applying this sledgehammer, they found that they also had to act against any collection of photos or videos that seems to be focussed on cache spoilers (whether that's actually what it is or not). So, say I were to upload a set of videos to Youtube, or photos to Flickr, and call them "cache spoilers" because they show a few unnamed traditional caches being found; and someone who doesn't like me registers a complaint to Groundspeak I can expect a ban. The fact that this is not really what they intended, and I haven't actually broken the TOU seems irrelevant in the hurry to close down any "spoiler" sites.

 

That's my take on it, anyway, and I accept that it's speculation based on hearsay (but if we are kept in the dark then hearsay is bound to be all we can use!).

 

Personally, if one of my many mystery caches was "spoilered" I'd be slightly disappointed in a way, but wouldn't complain. Why would I? I know that puzzles are cracked all the time by team effort and the results shared. All that happens is you get a few more finds, some more favourite points, and a few people who wouldn't have found the cache otherwise kid themselves that they solved it. Whilst having an enjoyable time caching. Who loses?

[I!]

Remember: Sandy categorically said that Sven's Nuclear bunker geocache video WAS a spoiler, yet it didn't show where the container was located - all it showed was....a bunker. AND the CO had said in his cache description that the container was.....in a nuclear bunker. So what was spoilt?

 

Again I would link to the content I am speaking of but I wouldn't want to be banned!

I can't see how linking to that video would get you banned. That would be bizarre.

 

"Nuclear Bunker Geocache!" (the spoiler video in question).

[+Amberel]

This comment is not about any individual case, and especially not about this individual case, which I believe has so many unknowns as to make speculation pointless, and very possibly has roots that preceded the incident itself.

 

I believe it is not unreasonable for Groundspeak to include in their terms, for the greater good, a clause requiring you not to post spoilers on other sites without the explicit prior agreement of the cache owner. And whether such a term exists or not, I believe it is a matter of respect for other cachers that you should not do so. I believe the cache owner is generally the person best placed to decide what level of spoiler is appropriate to their cache.

 

I understand that this doesn't solve the problem of "what is a spoiler", but in case of doubt I would tend to follow the cache owner's view. This means if a "spoiler" was posted in good faith but the cache owner disagreed, it would be removed.

 

It doesn't address whether such a term would be enforcable in law, but that really is irrelevant as it is so unlikely to come to law. If such a term exists and you agreed to it, then you should abide by it.

 

It doesn't address how such a term can be enforced. It's not ideal, but I can't see any option for persistent contravention of the term other than banning or termination of contract, which does not enforce the term but possibly might act "pour encourager les autres".

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Mad H@ter]

Just out of curiosity would anyone consider any of the pictures here spoilers.

[+redsox_mark]

Just out of curiosity would anyone consider any of the pictures here spoilers.

 

I do not consider any of those to be spoilers.

 

The photos do give an indication of what the caching experience is like - but then again I think most photos attached to cache logs do that. They don't show you the cache or where it is.

[cezanne]

How can the newbie avoid falling fowl of the big stick?

Take care not to associate your Youtube account with your geocaching account or reveal your identity in your videos. Then there ain't squat they can do since they don't know who owns the Youtube account.

 

An effected cache owner may well find out in other ways who has uploaded a set of spoiler videos, e.g. if all dates of issued videos correspond to the dates of found it logs for the corresponding caches.

 

Note that it is not Groundspeak who is watching out for spoiler videos, but other cachers finding them and complaining to Groundspeak. As an effected cache owner my first attempt would be to write to the person providing spoilers for my caches and asking him/he for removal. If no reaction or reactions of the type "I do whatever I like" come in, my next step certainly would be to write to Groundspeak and ask them for help. The next step then is that Groundspeak contacts the person offering spoilers and asks him/her to remove the spoilers. If still nothing happens, then a ban seems to be appropriate to me. This type of procedure does not include any danger at all for newbies as they have enough chances to react before anything happens.

 

The ToU have been changed based on an initiative that started in the Netherlands some time ago where some cachers suffered enormously from external spoiler sites. The intent of the new version of the ToU was not mainly to try to keep spoilers away from gc.com, but rather to communicate to cachers that spoilering caches without permission by the effected owners is seen as bad practice and is not welcomed by Groundspeak. Banning cachers from gc.com which are not willing to conform to this chapter of geocaching ethics about spoilers is the only action Groundspeak can take and I think it is a reasonable one as a last recourse if no other solution can be found.

 

Cezanne

[+Legochugglers]

Sandy has replied on behalf of GS on the petition thread. Interesting reading so I guess the ball is now back in Sven (Cups) court.

 

Stands back and to reserve judgement.

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

There is a lot more than has been presented for view. Think Iceberg, visible above the seas surface, but the majority of it hidden.

 

Where's the Iceberg?

 

[+GeoBain]

How can the newbie avoid falling fowl of the big stick?

Take care not to associate your Youtube account with your geocaching account or reveal your identity in your videos. Then there ain't squat they can do since they don't know who owns the Youtube account.

 

An effected cache owner may well find out in other ways who has uploaded a set of spoiler videos, e.g. if all dates of issued videos correspond to the dates of found it logs for the corresponding caches.

 

We have a lot of amateur detectives around here. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes they are wrong. If Groundspeak starts banning accounts based on speculation rather than proof, then we've got a much larger problem than spoilers.

 

The ToU have been changed based on an initiative that started in the Netherlands some time ago where some cachers suffered enormously from external spoiler sites. The intent of the new version of the ToU was not mainly to try to keep spoilers away from gc.com, but rather to communicate to cachers that spoilering caches without permission by the effected owners is seen as bad practice and is not welcomed by Groundspeak. Banning cachers from gc.com which are not willing to conform to this chapter of geocaching ethics about spoilers is the only action Groundspeak can take and I think it is a reasonable one as a last recourse if no other solution can be found.

 

You've posted that a number of times. And I continue to say if that was their intention they did a very poor job of updating the TOU. Rather than just tack a clause onto the end of section 4 of the TOU, they should have updated the section heading and introductory paragraphs to reflect the expansion beyond Groundspeak's publishing tools and forums or created a separate section in order to address other sites.

 

As written, the TOU do NOT apply to servers other than Groundspeak's servers.

 

Just to reiterate my position once more, I believe Sven's videos ARE spoilers and that as a matter of courtesy, he should have notified COs of the videos and given them an opportunity to request removal of any videos of their caches.

 

But that does not mean Groundspeak has the right to control what happens elsewhere on the internet. Nor does it mean that their TOU, in their current form, cover such control of other sites.

[+eusty]

There are lots of is it a spoiler/isn't it, does/doesn't it break the TOU etc etc

 

But it all boils down to the fact that it's 'their game' (i.e they control the listings) so they can say who plays..like it or not

 

[+thebruce0]

But that does not mean Groundspeak has the right to control what happens elsewhere on the internet. Nor does it mean that their TOU, in their current form, cover such control of other sites.

Completely agreed.

But it does give them complete control over account access here

Edited October 21, 2011 by thebruce0

[+GeoBain]

There are lots of is it a spoiler/isn't it, does/doesn't it break the TOU etc etc

 

But it all boils down to the fact that it's 'their game' (i.e they control the listings) so they can say who plays..like it or not

 

BINGO!

 

So why even have the TOU?

[+dfx]

There are lots of is it a spoiler/isn't it, does/doesn't it break the TOU etc etc

 

But it all boils down to the fact that it's 'their game' (i.e they control the listings) so they can say who plays..like it or not

 

BINGO!

 

So why even have the TOU?

 

Makes for good forum threads

[+thebruce0]

BINGO!

 

So why even have the TOU?

Makes for good forum threads

And magor drama!

[+GeoBain]

There are lots of is it a spoiler/isn't it, does/doesn't it break the TOU etc etc

 

But it all boils down to the fact that it's 'their game' (i.e they control the listings) so they can say who plays..like it or not

 

BINGO!

 

So why even have the TOU?

 

Makes for good forum threads

 

True. And having the same conversation in 2 different sections is like a carnival ride.

[+sTeamTraen]

But that does not mean Groundspeak has the right to control what happens elsewhere on the internet. Nor does it mean that their TOU, in their current form, cover such control of other sites.

Completely agreed.

But it does give them complete control over account access here

It's not a question of "control of other sites". It's a question of whom they allow to use their site, and the standards which they use to determine who is welcome here. This is a private site, and like a private club, people can be excluded for pretty much any behaviour which is deemed undesirable, whether or not that behaviour takes place on this site or not. Groundspeak can't force the uploader to take down their spoilers, but they can determine that this means that they don't want him around here any more. They are completely entitled to say that "people who post spoilers on other sites can't use our site". (I remember how, back in the days of amateur Rugby Union, clubs used to say "people who play Rugby League may not play Rugby Union" - or even, in many cases, "enter our ground".)

Edited October 22, 2011 by sTeamTraen

[+GeoBain]

They are completely entitled to say that "people who post spoilers on other sites can't use our site".

 

Yes they are and they'd have a lot more support if that was in the TOU. (at least as far as this ban goes)

[+thebruce0]

They are completely entitled to say that "people who post spoilers on other sites can't use our site". (I remember how, back in the days of amateur Rugby Union, clubs used to say "people who play Rugby League may not play Rugby Union" - or even, in many cases, "enter our ground".)

That's...exactly what I'm saying

[+Legochugglers]

Groundspeak has rarely responded to threads of this nature. However, we will take this opportunity to explain recent events that led to this site suspension.

 

This user has drawn many people to geocaching through his YouTube channel. This is one of the reasons that Groundspeak featured Sven. in one of our Blog (Latitude 47) posts (unfortunately removed due to recent events).

 

However, our Terms of Use state that a user may not, "Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner." (Section 4m).

 

With cache owner permission, videos can be created and posted on other forms of media. Groundspeak has never requested that this user remove all the videos he has posted on YouTube. Rather, two months ago we were contacted by the cache owner of a featured cache, who asked that we intervene in having the video of his cache removed from YouTube.

 

This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his YouTube channel. We then explained that not complying with the Terms of Use would result in site suspension, and Sven. complied, removing the video from YouTube.

 

At that time, we thanked him for his cooperation, and explained that other cache owners may come forward, meaning we would need to follow up on any subsequent complaints.

 

Another cache owner came forward about three videos that featured his caches. He wanted them removed. When we contacted Sven. he failed to respond for some time. When pressed about removing the videos, he refused, knowing that the consequence was site suspension from Geocaching.com.

 

Importantly, Sven. did not seek permission from the cache owners who requested that Groundspeak intervene. As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos - again without obtaining permission.

 

Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use. He has also had the opportunity to partner more closely with Groundspeak, but has chosen instead to dig in his heels. Groundspeak cannot partner with someone who openly and actively ignores our Terms of Site use. We consider this unfortunate, as we see how a partnership could benefit the game - under better circumstances. However, the decision has been Sven.'s, not ours.

 

Give some latitude.

[+Legochugglers]

Groundspeak has rarely responded to threads of this nature. However, we will take this opportunity to explain recent events that led to this site suspension.

 

This user has drawn many people to geocaching through his YouTube channel. This is one of the reasons that Groundspeak featured Sven. in one of our Blog (Latitude 47) posts (unfortunately removed due to recent events).

 

However, our Terms of Use state that a user may not, "Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner." (Section 4m).

 

With cache owner permission, videos can be created and posted on other forms of media. Groundspeak has never requested that this user remove all the videos he has posted on YouTube. Rather, two months ago we were contacted by the cache owner of a featured cache, who asked that we intervene in having the video of his cache removed from YouTube.

 

This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his YouTube channel. We then explained that not complying with the Terms of Use would result in site suspension, and Sven. complied, removing the video from YouTube.

 

At that time, we thanked him for his cooperation, and explained that other cache owners may come forward, meaning we would need to follow up on any subsequent complaints.

 

Another cache owner came forward about three videos that featured his caches. He wanted them removed. When we contacted Sven. he failed to respond for some time. When pressed about removing the videos, he refused, knowing that the consequence was site suspension from Geocaching.com.

 

Importantly, Sven. did not seek permission from the cache owners who requested that Groundspeak intervene. As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos - again without obtaining permission.

 

Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use. He has also had the opportunity to partner more closely with Groundspeak, but has chosen instead to dig in his heels. Groundspeak cannot partner with someone who openly and actively ignores our Terms of Site use. We consider this unfortunate, as we see how a partnership could benefit the game - under better circumstances. However, the decision has been Sven.'s, not ours.

 

Give some latitude.

 

As the iceberg is revealed I would like to understand why the subsequent CO asked for his Caches to be removed from the channel and what the complaint was.

[+MartyBartfast]

As the iceberg is revealed I would like to understand why the subsequent CO asked for his Caches to be removed from the channel and what the complaint was.

 

Well that's not likely to happen as I can't see the CO involved sticking their head above the parapet so that everyone on here can split into factions to either lambast them for making the complaint or defend their choice to do so.

 

So we have a cache owner who clearly is inventive in his cache creation, and has had 3 of his caches featured, then a fourth, I can understand how he might feel that every inventive cache he creates might end up being posted on the channel and he might be a bit miffed about it. This somewhat answers the point that it's not possible to track down the caches from the videos. for if a local cacher finds one of Fred (the inventive cache owner)'s caches and sees it on the channel, they may quickly come to realise that when looking for another one of Fred's tricky hides it would be worth having a browse of the channel first and see if you recognise the GZ when you get there, and suddenly all his good hides become cache-n-dashes for those in the know.

 

Sven should have removed the videos when requested, and avoided posting further videos of caches owned by those two cachers, and none of this would have happened.

[+Happy Humphrey]

As the iceberg is revealed I would like to understand why the subsequent CO asked for his Caches to be removed from the channel and what the complaint was.

 

Well that's not likely to happen as I can't see the CO involved sticking their head above the parapet so that everyone on here can split into factions to either lambast them for making the complaint or defend their choice to do so.

 

So we have a cache owner who clearly is inventive in his cache creation, and has had 3 of his caches featured, then a fourth, I can understand how he might feel that every inventive cache he creates might end up being posted on the channel and he might be a bit miffed about it. This somewhat answers the point that it's not possible to track down the caches from the videos. for if a local cacher finds one of Fred (the inventive cache owner)'s caches and sees it on the channel, they may quickly come to realise that when looking for another one of Fred's tricky hides it would be worth having a browse of the channel first and see if you recognise the GZ when you get there, and suddenly all his good hides become cache-n-dashes for those in the know.

 

Sven should have removed the videos when requested, and avoided posting further videos of caches owned by those two cachers, and none of this would have happened.

I thought I'd have a look at the new videos to check whether they are spoilers and to identify the complaining cache owner. Unfortunately I've not yet figured out which caches they are, even though they are probably in my area. The latest one seems to have been contributed by the person who owns the cache, but he still doesn't mention where it is. Inconsiderate, if you ask me. Poor spoilers indeed if you can't tell which cache they belong to. Perhaps I'll complain to Sven that his "spoilers" aren't doing their job.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

I thought I'd have a look at the new videos to check whether they are spoilers and to identify the complaining cache owner. Unfortunately I've not yet figured out which caches they are, even though they are probably in my area. The latest one seems to have been contributed by the person who owns the cache, but he still doesn't mention where it is. Inconsiderate, if you ask me. Poor spoilers indeed if you can't tell which cache they belong to. Perhaps I'll complain to Sven that his "spoilers" aren't doing their job.

 

Well I had a quick look at some of them when this all kicked off (so over a week ago); the Alphabet one is obvious 'cos the GCcode is plastered all over it, so although that isn't a particularly difficult hide it's a definite cache-n-dash if you've seen the video; I reckon anyone who had watched the video of the gas/water elbow pipe one would soon recognise it if they found themselves in the GZ and what could have been a half hour hunt with a DNF would turn into a driveby cache-n-dash, indeed anyone who knows the area would probably recognise the location from the pub frontage. I also think the one with the insert into a corner fence post might be a spoiler if you found yourself at that spot and had seen the video.

 

But I think all that's pretty irrelevant, if the CO didn't want the video posted then they have a right to object, and it would be courteous to take them down; if that had been done then we wouldn't be where we are today.

[+Stuey]

..... why does the author of the spoiler feel entitled to continue to do something which clearly upsets another person, after that person has objected, when taking the high road would cost nothing?

 

Exactly! It would be so much easier to just respect the wishes of the cache owner and Groundspeak, delete the video and move on, thus avoiding a site ban and all this ridiculous discussion about what is and isn't allowed. It's supposed to be fun.

[+Hawkins2.5]

Hmm, this new information changes my opinion slightly. While it was the nuclear bunker 'spoiler' that seemed to be an issue I felt it was very unfair as the video showed no more about the cache than other people's photos on the cache page - as was pointed out by an earlier poster who linked to the photos. This seemed to be making one rule for one person and another rule for everyone else. Knowing that more than one cache owner complained, I think that Groundspeak didn't really have much choice but to be seen to take action, they found themselves in a no win situation as there would have been complaints about their actions whatever decision they made.

 

I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong but it now seems to make more sense to me.

[+MartyBartfast]

I thought I'd have a look at the new videos to check whether they are spoilers and to identify the complaining cache owner. Unfortunately I've not yet figured out which caches they are, even though they are probably in my area.

 

I also think the one with the insert into a corner fence post might be a spoiler if you found yourself at that spot and had seen the video.

 

I watched this video again to make sure it wasn't one of Sven's own caches, then 5 minutes (literally) research looking at Sven's favourites list and I know which cache this is, and I've never cached in that part of the country. I could walk up to it and get it in 2 seconds, which isn't bad for a cache with a 4 difficulty!

 

I reckon most of the caches he thinks are good enough to record on his blog will also get a favourite point, so it's probably not that difficult to track them down. IIRC there was also a video featuring a phone box, I reckon I stumbled across that cache too while looking for the above but I didn't follow that up to be certain 'cos I'm off caching now .

 

Edit to add: And you haven't found it HH, fancy a quick & easy D4 find?

Edited October 22, 2011 by MartyBartfast

[+Happy Humphrey]

A lot of the older videos I recognise because I've already found them. No doubt I could work out what the fence post one is now that you've suggested checking Sven's profile (how can you check which ones he favourited though?).

 

It's just that Sandy mentioned that there was a complaint about one of the latest ones and that Sven definitely doesn't have permission to post it. So I was trying to deduce which caches they were, so that I could work out who'd complained. Not to have a go at them, but just in case this fills in the picture better.

[+Cup.]

It's just that Sandy mentioned that there was a complaint about one of the latest ones and that Sven definitely doesn't have permission to post it.

 

Not everything Sandy said is correct. Not that I think she's deliberately lying I just think she's confused with so much going on.

 

This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his Youtube channel.

 

Sven argued that the Nuclear bunker geocache video wasn't a spoiler. He didn't include the container and ONLY videod the actual bunker (to comply with the CO's request in the listing).

 

Sven had NEVER refused to remove the video to the CO, the CO in the end sent an email

 

From: Daryl

Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:19 PM

To: Sven

Subject: hi

 

Hiya again,

 

On second thoughts, sorry about the hassle I have been giving you. Just leave it [the video] up if you like.

 

Cheers,

 

Daryl

 

This was the last communication that Sven has ever had from the CO

 

Sandy persisted in her quest

 

We then explained that not complying with the Terms of Use would result in site suspension, and Sven. complied.

 

Sven only complied by making the video in question private whilst he deleted the links from the forum, to comply with section 4(m) (at least his and Sandy's interpretation of them at the time)

 

Another cache owner came forward about three videos that featured his caches. He wanted them removed. When we contacted Sven. he failed to respond for some time. When pressed about removing the videos, he refused, knowing that the consequence was site suspension from Geocaching.com.

 

But Sandy had said to me I wouldn't/couldn't be banned....

 

As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos.

 

That's simply not true. Not sure what that's about at all.

 

Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use.

 

Sven is complying with the terms of use as HE reads them. (Seems to me the majority agree)

 

We consider this unfortunate, as we see how a partnership could benefit geocaching. However, the decision has been Sven.'s, not ours.

 

As does Sven, seems rather daft to alienate their biggest free advert. If what folks said in the comments of his "i got banned video" he has introduced a LOT of people to the sport.

 

The decision is theirs, not Sven's, Sandy changed her interpretation of the terms.

 

Sven would love to work more closely, perhaps as his channel grows Groundspeak might extend a sensible line of communication which Sven says he would welcome.