Meetings on YouTube?

[Mike]

A friend of someone in my congregation has been watching meetings on YouTube. She send a link and sure enough, those are indeed our meetings. It looks like it’s the streamed meeting. I doubt the Branch is using YouTube and not making it know. More likely someone is using there good intentions and posting the meetings.

 

My question: Does anyone know about this YouTube meeting thing? Is there a way to tell who the original poster is actually is?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old]

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

A friend of someone in my congregation has been watching meetings on YouTube. She send a link and sure enough, those are indeed our meetings. It looks like it’s the streamed meeting. I doubt the Branch is using YouTube and not making it know. More likely someone is using there good intentions and posting the meetings.

 

My question: Does anyone know about this YouTube meeting thing? Is there a way to tell who the original poster is actually is?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

All I can say why would anyone go to go to youtube for our meetings ?  If I recall wehave been instructed not to post our streamed or otherwise videos of our meetings on the internet. So who is the one flaunting guidelines (not laws) the one posting or the one viewing?

In narcotics we have the ones selling and the ones buying, do we have any problem identifying the ones going astray ? So why question who selling or who is buying on youtube?

[jwhess]

For weekly meetings  or circuit assemblies or the memorial, the JW Stream videos are by selected and approved viewers who have been personally invited.  On YouTube this selective invitation would be voided.  At the end of all of our videos, you can see the copyright information displayed, so letting this material appear on a commercial site for rebroadcast is in violation of these rights.

 

In Africa, our organization carefully negotiated the display of such material on commercial TV stations and gave the needed permissions.  It is not our personal choice to skip this legal step and just post them ourselves.

[Tortuga]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

More likely someone is using there good intentions and posting the meetings.

Its unfortunate that they may be letting their heart sidestep the current approved arrangement. That opens the heart to possibly running ahead of Jehovah's chariot. 

[Mike]

All I can say why would anyone go to go to youtube for our meetings ?  If I recall wehave been instructed not to post our streamed or otherwise videos of our meetings on the internet. So who is the one flaunting guidelines (not laws) the one posting or the one viewing?
In narcotics we have the ones selling and the ones buying, do we have any problem identifying the ones going astray ? So why question who selling or who is buying on youtube?

Good point. I probably should avoid my tendency to get to who’s behind it and ‘give them one of my lectures’. Not my battle ... move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brother_Bliss]

I've seen the channel, and they are the midweek meeting and weekend meeting videos that have been downloaded from stream.jw.org (which requires a username/password, or an invitation link) and re-uploaded to YouTube. The organization has said straight up not to do this. 

 

I'm sure it's someone with good intent, but they are not following theocratic direction nor respecting copyright law.

[Hope]

I Zoom-visited a meeting in Trinidad a couple of weeks ago. I was surprised to see that their meeting was being recorded live onto a YouTube channel sponsored by their COBE.  I actually clicked the notification and went right to the video being posted in real time.  Afterward, I could even go through and find where I commented! 

 

Quite unique, I must say. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dages]

Maybe Youtube is more stable there, than Zoom.

[pnutts]

Time for our own video conference tool and stricter use of download link use of bethel broadcast meetings. I'm sure the branches will get directions soon.

[jayrtom]

 

3 hours ago, Dages said:

Maybe Youtube is more stable there, than Zoom.

That's not even a question... AS per Uanni's comment, the meeting was being held on zoom, and directly recorded to youtube. So the problem was not the zoom stability (it would be even more unstable doing the 2 thigs at the same time)

Whatever the justification for uploading our meetings into youtube it's not valid in any way!

Just look for the reasons we shouldn't do that

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402018364?q=videos+social+network&p=par#h=4

Quote

All material on our websites is copyrighted, which means that it is protected by the law.

...because our material and our logo are protected by the law, we can go to court and stop them from doing so. (Proverbs 27:12) But the courts may not support us if we allow some people, even our brothers, to post our publications on other websites 

 

If we download our publications from anywhere but jw.org, it could be dangerous.

... On these sites and in these apps, we will not find any advertisements or anything from Satan’s world. But if we get our publications from another website or app, there is the danger that they may have been changed in some way.—Psalm 18:26; 19:8.

In addition, if we post our material on websites where people can make comments, this allows apostates and others to criticize Jehovah’s organization. S

 

1 hour ago, pnutts said:

Time for our own video conference tool and stricter use of download link use of bethel broadcast meetings. I'm sure the branches will get directions soon.

I'm sure that even then, there will some "smart" ones that will post everything on youtube

[Dages]

7 hours ago, Dismal_Bliss said:

I've seen the channel, and they are the midweek meeting and weekend meeting videos that have been downloaded from stream.jw.org

That's definitely not ok.

[Bob]

7 hours ago, Dismal_Bliss said:

I've seen the channel, and they are the midweek meeting and weekend meeting videos that have been downloaded from stream.jw.org (which requires a username/password, or an invitation link) and re-uploaded to YouTube. The organization has said straight up not to do this. 

 

I'm sure it's someone with good intent, but they are not following theocratic direction nor respecting copyright law.

When I see clear copyright violations, I email the link to our legal department. 

[Guri]

2 hours ago, jayrtom said:

I'm sure that even then, there will some "smart" ones that will post everything on youtube

😆 That made me lough. 

[Bek]

I think there is a difference between a self-recorded cong meeting and the ones done by the org. If a cong decided to record meetings and posted them on YouTube, what copyright would they be breaking? 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Bek

[jwhess]

33 minutes ago, Bek said:

I think there is a difference between a self-recorded cong meeting and the ones done by the org. If a cong decided to record meetings and posted them on YouTube, what copyright would they be breaking? 

 

 

The Watchtower videos shown?  Also, you would need permission from the participants to have their comments published on display.

[Vido]

I've seen these meetings, and since they are broadcast (on YouTube) a day or two before our own meets, I sometimes (and unwittingly) visited them in the past when missed my own meetings. I've even recommended to some friends to do the same in the same situation. 

 

I now see how wrong that is!

[Bek]

11 hours ago, jwhess said:

The Watchtower videos shown?  Also, you would need permission from the participants to have their comments published on display.

The ones I have watched from Ukraine had only brothers standing behind the platform talking or sisters doing assignments. You could not see the videos or see the audience. Only sounds in the background. That was when I could not tie into meetings by phone. I checked that YouTube channel a few weeks ago and it is completely gone now. 

[M.J.]

On 7/6/2020 at 2:41 AM, Hope said:

I Zoom-visited a meeting in Trinidad a couple of weeks ago. I was surprised to see that their meeting was being recorded live onto a YouTube channel sponsored by their COBE.  I actually clicked the notification and went right to the video being posted in real time.  Afterward, I could even go through and find where I commented! 

 

Quite unique, I must say.

The COBE was doing this!?

 

Remember everyone, our JW material is extremely popular. When someone has a YouTube channel that receives a lot of clicks, they can start monetizing. They can make money with every click. Directly against what Jesus taught.

[TylerD]

From the zoomist-E.pdf, page 4 (Zoom instructions from the Branch)

Quote

IMPORTANT: The meeting should not be recorded, posted online, or streamed on the Internet using a service that subjects users to commercial advertisements or that allows users to post comments

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by TylerD

[Thesauron]

I think there is a difference between a self-recorded cong meeting and the ones done by the org. If a cong decided to record meetings and posted them on YouTube, what copyright would they be breaking?   

 

 

YouTube monetises on such clips by showing ads, and imagine the comments that might ensue on such pages. This is not ok when it comes to spiritual material. This, and not everyone attending and participating in the meeting might be informed about the public posting. Likewise, we would not take a screenshot of those attending our meetings and then post it on social media without approval. It is not the kind and considerate thing to do.

 

[Shawnster]

22 hours ago, Bek said:

I think there is a difference between a self-recorded cong meeting and the ones done by the org. If a cong decided to record meetings and posted them on YouTube, what copyright would they be breaking? 

 

 

It's a matter of following direction.  Meetings are not to be uploaded to YouTube.  If a congregation chooses on their own to post a meeting to  YouTube they are working against the clear direction from the Branch.  

[M.J.]

It's the principle. We want people to be drawn to Jehovah and his organization, and the Internet tool for that is JW.ORG.

 

Why misdirect people somewhere else?

For your personal fame of having a popular youtube channel?

For money?

[DarinS]

On 7/6/2020 at 2:31 PM, Bek said:

I think there is a difference between a self-recorded cong meeting and the ones done by the org. If a cong decided to record meetings and posted them on YouTube, what copyright would they be breaking? 

 

 

There is specific direction from the branch to NOT record our ZOOM meetings

 

it says recording of meetings should be turned of - REQUIRED

 

so they are Probably violating the direction / instruction and technically the meetings are under the direct oversight of the local branch

 

it might even be a version of Zoom that the branch arranged

 

so circumnavigating their instruction violates the actual meeting parameters

 

— of course - I’m not involved in any branch decisions - and have no knowledge of possible exceptions

 

imho —

[Mike]

There is specific direction from the branch to NOT record our ZOOM meetings
 
it says recording of meetings should be turned of - REQUIRED
 
so they are Probably violating the direction / instruction and technically the meetings are under the direct oversight of the local branch
 
it might even be a version of Zoom that the branch arranged
 
so circumnavigating their instruction violates the actual meeting parameters
 
— of course - I’m not involved in any branch decisions - and have no knowledge of possible exceptions
 
imho —

It is a Branch recorded Zoom meeting which is made available the Elders to Publishers that need it. YouTube is not the ‘chosen channel’ to distribute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bek]

1 hour ago, DarinS said:

There is specific direction from the branch to NOT record our ZOOM meetings....

Ok, thanks. The cong meeting videos I used to watch on YouTube were actually from the pre-Zoom era. I thought that brothers in Ukraine were publishing them specifically for brothers in the war-hit eastern provinces and brothers in Russia. The channel was quite popular and was called "JW Russia" and it carried all the logos and the like. However, I discovered a few weeks ago that it was deleted completely. So it was probably some well-intentioned brother who was posting videos without official permission.