# Youtube - reference instead of link?



## DieuEtMonDroit

Would it be ok to explain how to reach a clip on youtube for further discussion?

E.g. "go to youtube, search for 'spider man 2' and click the third clip in list"


----------



## MkRoz

DieuEtMonDroit said:


> Would it be ok to explain how to reach a clip on youtube for further discussion?
> 
> E.g. "go to youtube, search for 'spider man 2' and click the third clip in list"


 

*What do you mean with your question??*


----------



## DieuEtMonDroit

Well, since it's against the rules to post a link to a youtube clip, my question is whether it would be ok to describe to the readers of the thread how to reach a certain clip.


----------



## MkRoz

*Reeeally ?* I didn´t know that!!

What i saw in some threads is that they are using links, but i have to check again which ones i saw because i don´t remember if they were Youtube Links.. *Maybe there is a reason for not letting members to use Youtube.*

Cheers,
MK


----------



## DieuEtMonDroit

Well, there is such a rule, and even if some of us may not agree with it it still has to be followed.

The reason presented by the administrator and the moderators is that it might be a copyright infringement to link to youtube clips.

So I wonder if we can go round it by doing as I proposed in the first post in this thread.

Let's hope some moderator comes round to answer.


----------



## fenixpollo

Depends on what you mean "for further discussion". If you post a link to another site as a *reference *to support your translation (for example, to wikipedia, urbandictionary, etymonline, etc.) then that's OK.  Likewise, if you refer us to one of these sites, or to Google, and say, "go look it up yourself, if you want", then that's OK.  Therefore, I think it would be acceptable to say, "you can youtube a video on this subject, using the keyword XXXXX", only if it was optional for us to do so. If we could respond to the question _without_ having to see the video, then in my personal opinion, that would be OK. 

However, if you refer us to another site (youtube, your blog, wikipedia, etc.) and you ask us, "please read what's on this site and then discuss the translation/meaning", that's probably not OK. We have limits (which vary from forum to forum) on how much proofreading we will do.  If you refer us to an audio file or video on another site and ask "what does this person say?", then that's a form of proofreading. In other words, if your question required us to watch the video in order to respond to the question, then that would probably _not_ be acceptable. 

We're not a free translation service: so proofreading someone's blog, or transcribing their audio file, or interpreting their video, are generally outside the scope of the forum. Remember that our proofreading guidelines vary from forum to forum, so make sure to ask the moderators of the forum where you want to post about what is acceptable in that forum.


----------



## JamesM

Please keep in mind that the general rules for all forums include these statements in Rule #4:

No audio or video files or links may be inserted without prior moderator approval. No links to YouTube are permitted.


If you are intending to post an audio or video link, contact a moderator for approval first.


----------



## DieuEtMonDroit

I'm aware of the rule that states that we cannot link to youtube.

But my question is still unanwered; is it okay to describe how to reach a youtube clip?


----------



## ewie

Fenixpollo answered your question in post #6.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

fenixpollo said:


> Depends on what you mean "for further discussion". If you post a link to another site as a *reference *to support your translation (for example, to wikipedia, urbandictionary, etymonline, etc.) then that's OK.  Likewise, if you refer us to one of these sites, or to Google, and say, "go look it up yourself, if you want", then that's OK.  Therefore, I think it would be acceptable to say, "you can youtube a video on this subject, using the keyword XXXXX", only if it was optional for us to do so. *If we could respond to the question without having to see the video, then in my personal opinion, that would be OK. *
> 
> However, if you refer us to another site (youtube, your blog, wikipedia, etc.) and you ask us, "please read what's on this site and then discuss the translation/meaning", that's probably not OK. We have limits (which vary from forum to forum) on how much proofreading we will do.  If you refer us to an audio file or video on another site and ask "what does this person say?", then that's a form of proofreading. In other words, *if your question required us to watch the video in order to respond to the question, then that would probably not be acceptable. *
> 
> We're not a free translation service: so proofreading someone's blog, or transcribing their audio file, or interpreting their video, are generally outside the scope of the forum. Remember that our proofreading guidelines vary from forum to forum, so make sure to ask the moderators of the forum where you want to post about what is acceptable in that forum.


This is an excellent explanation! We cannot post questions or answers that are based solely on YouTube content, but may refer to YouTube as secondary source/resource within the parameters stated above.

/Wilma


----------



## dec-sev

fenixpollo said:


> ...If you refer us to an audio file or video on another site and ask "what does this person say?", then that's a form of proofreading. In other words, if your question required us to watch the video in order to respond to the question, then that would probably _not_ be acceptable.


Could you please take a look at this thread. In this case one must  watch the video in order to answer the question. When I read post No 5, namely "Post the link here..." my first reaction was to report the post. On the second thoughts I decided to wait. As you may see no action from the part of the moderator followed. So, could you please specify "would *probably* _not_ be acceptable". *Is* it acceptable or *not*!
I know that the rules may differ slightly from forum to forum but this one is supposed to be enforced the same way, I guess.


----------



## Nunty

The WordReference Forum rules about audio and video clips are the same for all the language forums. 





> No audio or  video files or links may be inserted without prior moderator approval. No   links to YouTube are permitted.


 (Rule 4)

The thread you cite asks about an audio link. The procedure would be to ask a moderator of that forum for approval _before_ posting it.


----------



## dec-sev

Nunty said:


> The thread you cite asks about an audio link.


No, it's about a _video_ link. A link to youtube to be more precise. Take a look at post No 7 on that thread. A good by-pass route


----------



## Nunty

Well in that case, it's easy. No links to YouTube are allowed. See rule 4. Sorry. A post like #7 in that thread would be deleted as soon as a moderator of that forum sees it. 

(I was looking at post 5 that talked about audio.)


----------



## kajitox

After getting a post modified by a moderator, I find it somewhat necessary to bring this thread back from the dead in hopes to challenge this silly rule. I understand why it is there: it gives a very simple, quick way for a moderator to weed out people listening to Italian music videos on YouTube and then asking the board to translate it. This makes sense as there are hundreds of posts on a single board per day and moderating becomes a process rather quickly. However there are clearly other rules that prevent this from happening, for instance that WR is not your personal translator.

To give more background on my situation, I referred a user to a YouTube video in which I knew the word iPod would be said frequently. This was to give the user an appropriate idea of how the word is said by a true Italian (and the user commented back saying how helpful the link was, before it was deleted, by the way). This, to me, does not seem like an inappropriate usage of a YouTube link. However since it is stated in the rules that none are allowed it was taken down by (IMO) an overzealous moderator.

Why are such YouTube links not allowed? Why must the board have such an all-encompassing rule like that one, preventing a legitimate resource from being used? I hear someone say something about copyright, but that argument doesn't make much sense to me; if it is copyright infringement to link to a YouTube video, I don't quite see the legality of YouTube as a whole.

A rule like this seems arcane. There are plenty of other reasons by which moderators can weed out those who seek word by word translations. Instead this rule seems to restrict our ability to clarify language differences, which seems to be the overarching point of this website.

I'm certainly not angry at the moderator - he's simply enforcing the rules. However I wanted to take my confusion to hopefully continue a dialogue. Perhaps there are better reasons to disallow YouTube? Could some experienced users enlighten me?

PS: I have also heard the argument that I should have contacted a moderator to approve the video before posting, however my experience with moderators responding within acceptable time is limited. Again this is because the boards are so popular, which is certainly a good thing; however it somewhat nullifies the idea of contacting a mod first.


----------



## miguel89

I agree with you. I can see why this rule makes sense in big forums such as Spanish-English, but in other not-so-active forums it would not be very hard to keep everything under control. There are threads that deal with pronunciation which span for many pages only because everybody is trying to explain a sound in layman's terms without success.


----------



## DearPrudence

Hello, Kajitox, Miguel and future users 

Actually, this thread states the rule but doesn't really explain it.
So here is why we don't allow YouTube links.

There are two reasons behind our rules. 
The first is that we do not have the resources to evaluate potential  copyright issues, and do not want to be held responsible for A/V content  that is posted in violation of copyright laws. 
The second reason, which is really more important, is that we are not  really an audio-visual forum. Actually, WordReference is organized like  an interactive dictionary: each thread is an entry, indexed under the  keyword in the thread title and in which we discuss that single word or  phrase. This structure is not well-adpated to A/V content. All threads  become part of our searchable archives... and indeed many users are able  to find answers to their questions in the archives without ever having  to open a thread. If the content and discussion in a thread depends on a  link to some outside audio-visual file that we do not control, the  thread becomes useless if the file is ever taken offline or moved to  another location.

I hope you understand the why of the rule now 

Regards,
DearPrudence


----------



## kajitox

DearPrudence said:


> If the content and discussion in a thread depends on a  link to some outside audio-visual file that we do not control, the  thread becomes useless if the file is ever taken offline or moved to  another location.



Definitely the most logical reason I have heard so far, but I don't see why the dictionary couldn't also include audio samples... although thats absolutely another discussion. Hahahaha.


----------



## Nunty

kajitox said:


> Definitely the most logical reason I have heard so far, but I don't see why the dictionary couldn't also include audio samples... although thats absolutely another discussion. Hahahaha.



Which dictionary? The English definitions dictionary, for example, does include links to audio samples.


----------



## kajitox

Nunty said:


> Which dictionary? The English definitions dictionary, for example, does include links to audio samples.



My point is: "why not?"

Sounds like a great idea to me, honestly.


----------



## JamesM

Why not what?


----------



## kajitox

JamesM said:


> Why not what?



Why not include audio pronunciation guides a la some Wikipedia articles. I don't want to dive too far into this as it is an entirely different conversation.


----------



## JamesM

Where are you expecting to see it and not seeing it?  As Nunty said, the English dictionary has audio files of word pronunciations.  Is there a dictionary you're using on the site that doesn't have them?


----------



## kajitox

Honest to god this is something I have never noticed on the Italian dictionary. Mind-blowing, JamesM (and quite embarrassing, if I might add).


----------



## Nunty

kajitox said:


> My point is: "why not?"
> 
> Sounds like a great idea to me, honestly.



I see it's all straightened out now. As a wise man once said, "Close reading is a wonderful thing..."


----------



## stella_maris_74

JamesM said:


> the English dictionary has audio files of word pronunciations.



On top of that, we have compiled lists of useful external resources about pronunciation.

For example, the Italian/English one is here:
*All about pronunciation *and other *resources*

(links included in the "Read before posting" sticky of the ITA/ENG forum )


----------



## KHS

I agree that the blanket rule about links to audio/video/YouTube is excessive.  

The reasoning behind copyright doesn't hold, as links to content on other sites is not the same as hosting the content yourself.  Many people link to copyrighted textual (non-audio/video) material in their comments on WordReference.

If someone appears to have misused the linking action, then remove the post (as is the case when a comment is inappropriate for other reasons).   After all, someone could just as easily post a link to textual (non-audio) material and ask for a translation.  It just gets deleted.  The same could happen with audio/video links.

While the forums and dictionaries may originally have been organized around print content only, the fact is that more and more people are making use of audio and video materials in language learning.  As someone has already mentioned, at least one dictionary on WR has links to audio.  To have as the default rule that audio and video have no place in WordReference is essentially creating a mechanism for Word Reference to become increasingly outmoded as a reference, something I doubt anyone wants.

Here is a discussion in which the link was not provided (as against forum rules), and in which several participants went and Googled to find the link.  It would have been so much easier if the person posting the question could have provided the link initially:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2871590&p=14517128#post14517128

By the way, how do you know who is moderating a particular forum at the time you want to post an audio/video link, so that you can get immediate feedback on whether it will be permitted or not?


----------



## Kelly B

KHS said:


> By the way, how do you know who is moderating a particular forum at the time you want to post an audio/video link, so that you can get immediate feedback on whether it will be permitted or not?


On the bar near the top of the page, click Quick Links and select View Forum Moderators in the drop down menu. The moderators are listed alphabetically, with lists of the forums they are responsible for. Green circles next to their names indicate the ones who are present on the forum right now.


----------



## 涼宮

I'm resurrecting this old thread as I have some doubts about this myself, I've read the reasons to not allow YouTube links but still...

1) The rule: No audio or video files or links may be inserted without prior moderator approval. No links to YouTube are permitted. 

Does this mean YouTube links *are allowed* _as long as_ the moderator approves of it? If so, what's the point in worrying about copyright? 

If it means that *any other kind* of audio or video file _is allowed_ with prior approval *as long as it is not* YouTube, again, what's the point in worrying about copyright? If I can't post a YouTube link because it's YT but can post the same material from another website, why is there any worry if it's being approved?

2) I read that one of the reasons is that looking for audio/video destroys the traditional dictionary fashion of the forum, it's also hard to look up using the search option, and that the audio or video may be dead in the future and therefore will make the thread confusing (the same happens with images but we don't see any complaints against it), I can understand that logic and I can agree with it, however, _why_ are links allowed with no worries in culture café and cultural discussion *if there is such a big concern* about copyright or other issues? I cannot understand the big fear there seems to be about copyright considering the fact we're not claiming the material to be ours nor are we selling it or anything. What's even more, if we can't ask a language question regarding audio or video in the language forums but we can do it in the additional forums, what is the point of prohibiting such material at all? That makes no sense to me. If I'd like to know what somebody said in a particular minute we can do it in the additional forums, it's still a language question and it's still WordReference, so...

2.1) As if was pointed out by someone else, audio and video are very important to learn languages and are very common a source, and since in this forum we want to help learn languages, is there any way or will there be any way this will change in the future? Otherwise we run the risk of becoming somewhat obsolete, only working with written material. I guess Mike could shed a better light on this one.


3) Couldn't we do something about all this? The only reason why I see you could worry about getting in trouble with copyright is if a troll decides to complain, this is a language forum, we help, I can't understand why someone would feel bad or offended about their material being used on a forum aimed at helping people learn languages and culture. 

Couldn't the YouTube rule be modified a little bit to allow exceptions? If copyright is the Jack the Ripper of moderators and Mike could the rule not add some special clause that allows the upload of public domain material? Like classical music, audio or videos belonging to no one or books* as old as the hills because nobody can claim anything? 

*books in the form of video or audio, audiobook to be more precise. 

Thanks in advance for answering!


----------



## JamesM

涼宮 said:


> I'm resurrecting this old thread as I have some doubts about this myself, I've read the reasons to not allow YouTube links but still...
> 
> 1) The rule: No audio or video files or links may be inserted without prior moderator approval. No links to YouTube are permitted.
> 
> Does this mean YouTube links *are allowed* _as long as_ the moderator approves of it? If so, what's the point in worrying about copyright?



No, it means no links to YouTube are permitted under any circumstances.



> If it means that *any other kind* of audio or video file _is allowed_ with prior approval *as long as it is not* YouTube, again, what's the point in worrying about copyright? If I can't post a YouTube link because it's YT but can post the same material from another website, why is there any worry if it's being approved?



The reasoning behind this part is that some links are from sites that clearly own the content.  Also, many links are not approved because ownership is not clear or there is some other problem with the link.  



> 2) I read that one of the reasons is that looking for audio/video destroys the traditional dictionary fashion of the forum, it's also hard to look up using the search option, and that the audio or video may be dead in the future and therefore will make the thread confusing (the same happens with images but we don't see any complaints against it), I can understand that logic and I can agree with it, however, _why_ are links allowed with no worries in culture café and cultural discussion *if there is such a big concern* about copyright or other issues? I cannot understand the big fear there seems to be about copyright considering the fact we're not claiming the material to be ours nor are we selling it or anything. What's even more, if we can't ask a language question regarding audio or video in the language forums but we can do it in the additional forums, what is the point of prohibiting such material at all? That makes no sense to me. If I'd like to know what somebody said in a particular minute we can do it in the additional forums, it's still a language question and it's still WordReference, so...



Culture Café and Cultural Discussions are, by design, much looser.  Also, they are not linked to the dictionaries, so the issues with many links goes away.  



> 2.1) As if was pointed out by someone else, audio and video are very important to learn languages and are very common a source, and since in this forum we want to help learn languages, is there any way or will there be any way this will change in the future? Otherwise we run the risk of becoming somewhat obsolete, only working with written material. I guess Mike could shed a better light on this one.
> 
> 
> 3) Couldn't we do something about all this? The only reason why I see you could worry about getting in trouble with copyright is if a troll decides to complain, this is a language forum, we help, I can't understand why someone would feel bad or offended about their material being used on a forum aimed at helping people learn languages and culture.
> 
> Couldn't the YouTube rule be modified a little bit to allow exceptions? If copyright is the Jack the Ripper of moderators and Mike could the rule not add some special clause that allows the upload of public domain material? Like classical music, audio or videos belonging to no one or books* as old as the hills because nobody can claim anything?
> 
> *books in the form of video or audio, audiobook to be more precise.



There are different types of copyright.  Any performance has its own copyright.  An audiobook is also copyrighted even if the book it is based on is in the public domain.  The same is true for the performance of a Beethoven symphony, for example.   The issue is not only legal but ethical.



> Thanks in advance for answering!



The issue is periodically reviewed by the moderators.  There is a forum nearly as active as the language forums where moderators discuss all sorts of things, this rule being one of them.    I think the primary issues are that WordReference forums are not really set up as a discussion site for audio and video links, being an adjunct to the dictionaries, and that we don't wish to encourage copyright violations.  

Another side issue is that WordReference moderators are volunteers, often putting in slices of time from work environments where audio and video links are blocked, which makes it impossible to review the links.  This is more of a pragmatic problem than an issue of principle but it does enter into it.

I hope that helps.  I know that many will still disagree with the rule.  As long as it is the rule we are required as moderators to enforce it.


----------



## Egmont

涼宮 said:


> ... I cannot understand the big fear there seems to be about copyright considering the fact we're not claiming the material to be ours nor are we selling it or anything. ...


Unfortunately, U.S. law permits anyone to sue almost anyone else over almost anything. WRF could be sued for copyright violations even when no such violations exist. If the case went to trial WRF would eventually win, but only after a great deal of time, trouble and expense. As a result, it is a wise policy for WRF to stay away from anything that might possibly cause someone to file such a suit, even if we know that the suit could be fought successfully.

This may be unfortunate, but it is reality. Since the legal provisions that permit easy lawsuits are beneficial overall, despite this side effect, they are unlikely to go away.


----------



## 涼宮

Thanks a lot, James!



JamesM said:


> Culture Café and Cultural Discussions are, by design, much looser.  Also, they are not linked to the dictionaries, so the issues with many links goes away.



This isn't clear, I understand the part about dictionaries and links. But if you're concerned about copyright why aren't additional forums an issue? It's not like copyright magically disappears there. So, I'd like to know why videos are no problem on these particular forums leaving aside the dictionary reason. 



> There are different types of copyright.  Any performance has its own copyright.  An audiobook is also copyrighted even if the book it is based on is in the public domain.  The same is true for the performance of a Beethoven symphony, for example.   The issue is not only legal but ethical.



Even if we were to ask about something uploaded by a random guy just expressing himself about some random topic? Without a doubt 99% of people who upload such videos don't care in the slightest if somebody posts their videos somewhere else, even if the guy has the right to complain, we know almost no one will (plus it's not like they'll find out about WR anyway).



Egmont said:


> *Unfortunately, U.S. law permits anyone to sue almost anyone else over almost anything*.  This may be unfortunate, but it is reality. Since the legal provisions that permit easy lawsuits are beneficial overall, despite this side effect, they are unlikely to go away.



That sounds like hell. I guess that if WR could be moved to a server that's not on American soil it'd be heaven. But I guess moving all this would require lots of money and there might be some trouble like potential data loss which is a no-no, as this place is fraught with treasures and we wouldn't want something like the entire etymology forum disappearing!


----------



## Vanda

> This isn't clear, I understand the part about dictionaries and links.  But if you're concerned about copyright why aren't additional forums an  issue? It's not like copyright magically disappears there. So, I'd like  to know why videos are no problem on these particular forums leaving  aside the dictionary reason.



Because Culture Café, for example, is not open to the public. Only we have acces to it.


----------



## JamesM

涼宮 said:


> This isn't clear, I understand the part about dictionaries and links. But if you're concerned about copyright why aren't additional forums an issue? It's not like copyright magically disappears there. So, I'd like to know why videos are no problem on these particular forums leaving aside the dictionary reason.



I agree that it's confusing and I raised that point in discussions before they were allowed in Culture Café.  The argument for allowing them there is that it is a private forum that requires time and posts in order to earn access and therefore is more limited in scope and exposure.  It also makes it easier to moderate (theoretically, although I don't envy the job the Culture Café moderators have -- they are brave souls.  )


> Even if we were to ask about something uploaded by a random guy just expressing himself about some random topic? Without a doubt 99% of people who upload such videos don't care in the slightest if somebody posts their videos somewhere else, even if the guy has the right to complain, we know almost no one will (plus it's not like they'll find out about WR anyway).



From YouTube's page on copyright:



> For example, if your friend filmed a conversation between the two of you, she would own the copyright to that video recording.



Copyright exists the moment something is recorded in a fixed form.  Whether or not anyone wants to press the issue, they have copyright immediately.  The risk is all on WordReference's part for allowing the link, so it's easy to shrug it off unless you are one who has to foot the bill for that 1% that complain.

As for not knowing about WordReference, it may seem like our little corner of the world, but WordReference is ranked 227th of all internet sites _in the world_ for popularity, according to Alexa, an internet traffic tracking site.  This means the WordReference site is more popular than Pandora, UPS or Ikea.  This site receives a massive amount of traffic, mainly to the dictionaries but often into the forums as people do further research on a word or phrase.  

Non-members and casual users and posters do not have access to Culture Café so WordReference can be less strict about these issues.


----------



## 涼宮

Thanks!

I was sure that even if it's a private forum it can still show up on Google yet I didn't find some café threads on Google. Glad to know we've got some safety, they might as well make the entire forum private to allow videos . But, if somebody suspects WR is allowing copyrighted material it'd be easy for them to register and ask somebody to verify the data because nobody will bother to register + wait 6 months + have tons of posts just to verify the content and sue WR. We should stick and plot together and lie to those lil' moles that may show up .


----------



## Nino83

涼宮 said:


> Does this mean YouTube links *are allowed* _as long as_ the moderator approves of it? If so, what's the point in worrying about copyright?



In my experience I can say that in some forums youtube links are allowed if there aren't problems of copyright. 

For example, many times I've been allowed (without any preventive request) to do it when the topic was about pronunciation and the video was made by teachers of English with them own youtube channel (I think this assures that the link won't be dead for a long period of time). 
In other cases, when, for example I needed a video to show how the Italians pronounce words like "sport" (with a word-final voiceless stop), I downloaded the video from youtube, selected the part which interested me (few seconds), then I converted it in mp3 and uploaded it (using the "attachments" function). All in a few minutes. 
Doing like this, there wasn't any problem of copyright/dead link. 
So there are a lot of ways to attach an audio/video file.


----------



## Thomas1

JamesM said:


> I agree that it's confusing and I raised that  point in discussions before they were allowed in Culture Café.  The  argument for allowing them there is that it is a private forum that  requires time and posts in order to earn access and therefore is more  limited in scope and exposure.  It also makes it easier to moderate  (theoretically, although I don't envy the job the Culture Café  moderators have -- they are brave souls.  )
> 
> [...]
> 
> Non-members and casual users and posters do not have access to Culture  Café so WordReference can be less strict about these issues.



I  learn a few languages and like to listen to them. Audio or viedo clips come from  various sources, including Youtube. It sometimes happens that I can't  understand something (for instance, a word or a phrase) due to the fact  that I'm unable to decipher what word is used by the speaker (because he  spoke too fast or the accent wasn't clear to me) and there's no  transciption. I've only just experienced that listening to news by  Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Youtube. This is the point where everything fails, because, if I don't know the spelling of a word, I can't look it  up in a dictionary and consequently learn it or, sometimes, understand what is said. So I've been wondering whether the  question of discussing audio/video clips on language forums could be  solved in any way and if so how? 

I don't participate in the Cultural  Café much, and what I read in this thread is pretty much all I know  about the rules enforced there, but, I've been thinking, could threads  discussing audio or video clips on language forums be arranged in a  similar way to the way Cultural Café is? I mean making discussions that  contain links to audio or video clips private in their respective  language forums. No links to the dictionaries. Access only to members  meeting certain conditions. 

If not, is there any way I could ask in WR forums about the word in AFP's news bulletin I mentioned earlier.


----------

