NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Complaining to me already about YouTube "unlisted" videos
Well. That didn't take long. I'm already getting people sending me
notes with their speculative concerns about the newly announced
YouTube "unlisted" videos -- a video sharing option that I think is
a great idea (I've definitely missed having it several times in the
past).
Complaints I've received so far:
- Unlisted videos will only stay "unlisted" if their URLs are not
placed on public Web pages where they may be spidered by search
engines.
Answer: So? Just like an unlisted phone number. Ever notice how
you give them to one company and suddenly all sorts of people end
up with them? Unlisted "anythings" only stay unlisted if you use
care where you share them. Google *explicitly* and clearly notes
this issue in details of the "Learn More" links associated with
the option.
- Unlisted videos will be used for immoral or illegal purposes
Answer: You still need a Google or YouTube account to create and
upload videos. Users accessing "unlisted" videos will presumably
be leaving behind the same IP address information as they would
when accessing public videos. Cases of abuse can still be dealt
with appropriately.
If the concern is that unlisted videos make it harder for
unaffiliated third parties to browse around looking for
"offending" materials (e.g. among YouTube public videos), this may
be true, but the same could be said of any of the vast number of
publicly accessible file sharing sites. The benefits of unlisted
YouTube videos (and open file sharing in general) for legitimate
purposes far outweigh the risks in a free society that cherishes
civil liberties. That's us, right?
- Unlisted videos will not be subject to normal YouTube copyright checks
Answer: I have no evidence at this time to support the assertion
that YouTube's standard "fingerprinting" system for content owners
will not apply to unlisted videos. Given how easily an "unlisted"
URL could become a very public URL either accidentally or
purposely -- and could be viewed by vast numbers of persons who
know the URL in any case -- applying the same content rules would
seem to be the logical path. If I learn anything to contradict
my assumption on this score I'll pass it along of course.
Keep in mind that in reality, unlisted videos can be viewed as a
convenient extension of the long existing "private video" function in
YouTube, which has generally not been controversial. While private
videos require a Google/YouTube login to access, and only allow a
limited number of accounts to access any given private video, anyone
could easily create account(s) specifically for the purpose of sharing
such private videos and then share those accounts among many users.
The practical effect of the new "unlisted" option for YouTube videos
is basically to make the "non-public video" function less complicated
to use, but the underlying dynamics of public vs. non-public YouTube
videos stay essentially the same and do not introduce new risks, in my
opinion.
--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator