# No links to YouTube permitted



## Loob

Has the absolute prohibition on links to YouTube always been part of the Rules since last October's revision?

I'm ashamed to say I've only just noticed it


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Affirmative 
It wasn't part of the previous version of the rules, however.


----------



## Loob

Thanks for the confirmation, Paul.

It's funny how you can read something and see only what you expect to see - that must be what I did last October....

I guess the moral of the story is 'Regularly Review the Rules'


----------



## ewie

I accidentally posted one such link myself a few weeks back, Mrs.L ~ before being gently reminded by colleagues that they were not allowed.
And I was actually _there_ when the new rule was being discussed.  (Presumably).


----------



## fenixpollo

It's been forum _policy_ since July of 2008 to restrict any video links, although the it wasn't a forum _rule_ until October. And yes, it was there, as ewie said, when the rules were updated.  

The restriction's purpose mostly to avoid copyright violations and links to objectionable content. The prohibition has the added benefit of limiting out-of-scope questions, since this forum is no longer a place where we will interpret or transcribe any audio or video file that people want us to listen to. It's just an extension of our limits on proofreading requests, since we aren't a free translation service.


----------



## A-class-act

There's a reason for that,isn't ?


----------



## DieuEtMonDroit

May I ask why one is not allowed to post youtube clips?
If you ask me this forum is being regulated too much. There's no need!


----------



## TimLA

DieuEtMonDroit said:


> May I ask why one is not allowed to post youtube clips?
> This was debated 1-2 years ago, and there were, and apparently still are, concerns regarding copyright laws.
> The server sits on US soil, and is therefore subject to US law on copyright, and I believe that Mike does not wish to subject the site to potential legal proceedings.
> 
> If you ask me this forum is being regulated too much. There's no need!
> Why on earth would you say "too much"?
> The purpose of the forum is to allow Person A help Person B learn a new language.
> Why on earth would Person A want to talk about "Y" when the goals of a particular thread or forum are "Q"?
> If someone thinks that this forum is over-regulated (a "socialist" forum - interesting idea) then why on earth wouldn't someone move to a different forum?


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Will the YouTube link prohibition be applied retroactively? 

What I mean is, the forums are still full of YouTube links, although I suspect most of them were posted before the new rules came into force. Will you delete those old links, too, or just the ones posted in or after October 2008?

/Wilma


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Several of us have been deleting them as we come across them, but I don't believe that anybody is seeking them out at the moment.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Several of us have been deleting them as we come across them, but I don't believe that anybody is seeking them out at the moment.


Right, OK, I take this to mean yes, you'd rather get rid of all YouTube links, but will focus on deleting new ones...

/Wilma


----------



## Nunty

I think that rather than focus on deleting new YouTube links, we'd much prefer that people didn't post them in the first place.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Nunty said:


> I think that rather than focus on deleting new YouTube links, we'd much prefer that people didn't post them in the first place.


And pigs might fly... Sadly, I suspect most users won't learn until they've had a YT link (or indeed an entire post or thread) deleted...

I was asking about any retroactive deletions because I suspect that users who find old YT links might get confused, thinking that this rule is not always being in force. Therefore, it might be a good idea to add a link in the forum rules to a more detailed explanation, such as the excellent one given by Fenixpollo in the other recent thread about YT links, perhaps adding that the rule is effective from October 2008, which would explain why any old ones are still out there. This might also avoid further questions and having to explain over and over to users who still complain over deleted YT links...

/Wilma


----------

