As someone who probably spends too much time watching YouTube videos, I will say you can't trust the authenticity of many of these highly monetized YouTubers. Whether this guy falls into that category, I don't know. For all we know he slipped the crew member $20 to walk over and confront him.
It's like anything involving trains on YouTube, much of it is illegal, but the RR employees are all in on the take. Any one involved in RR security has access to these videos, like anyone else. Some of these content providers have been on YouTube for years, and it's not really that hard to have someone demonetized. Yet, they're still there in plain view. The RR's apparently don't care.
BackshopThe real crime is that Jaw Tooth's videos are pretty boring. I like the ones by Traveling Tom much better. He knows how to scout out locations and compose a scene.
Danny Harmon's Distant Signal Productions are by far the best on YouTube.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
.
The real crime is that Jaw Tooth's videos are pretty boring. I like the ones by Traveling Tom much better. He knows how to scout out locations and compose a scene.
EuclidMaybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
While I agree with you strictly on merit, the values of our society seem to increasingly be warped in favor of the nominal "victim". It matters not so much what you actually intended to say, for example, as does matter the motivated will of the self declared victim to construe an implied offense. Hand gestures, dog whistles, etc. It never ceases to amaze me how a guy sitting in an armchair 3,000 miles away can KNOW what a guy's words were meant to say even better than the guy who said them.
And yes, I believe that applies here to the assumption that malice was intended,.
Murphy SidingThat formatted weird. You have me quoted in there somewhere, but not saying anything. End result is it looks like Euclid is agreeing with himself.
Nothing new there.
Lithonia Operator Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all. Euclid is correct.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously.
Community Guidelines prohibit:
“Maliciously recording someone without their consent”
He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously.
Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
Euclid is correct.
That formatted weird. You have me quoted in there somewhere, but not saying anything. End result is it looks like Euclid is agreeing with himself.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Still in training.
Lithonia OperatorMaybe the conductor is nervous because he is calling out the coupling distances from too far away and at a bad angle. If he's skirting the rules, thats not JT's fault.
I think part of it was a 'tempest in a teapot' thing, where the conductor just thought he could go stomp his foot, and send his perceived threat, scurrying away. Not entirely disimilar to how the supermarket gladiator contends for dominance of the aisles with his shopping cart.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the bold and brazen do their best to make it uncomfortable.
BaltACDJT's wrong, was calling attention to the conflict in the title of the video as click bait.
Plus, if you look at the way he has named some of his other videos "Road Rage resulting from street running Trains" etc...ersatz controversy appears to be his bait.
The thing many here seem to overlook is the value of a judgement against any poor man. I suspect most good lawyers would insist upon payment up front.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. At least one person thought so. Maybe so, but the Conductor merely believing it was malicious does not make it malicious. To be malicious, it has to include the intent to cause harm. I don't see that at all.
Murphy Siding Euclid Community Guidelines prohibit: “Maliciously recording someone without their consent” He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. At least one person thought so.
At least one person thought so.
YoHo1975No, it would not, but if they are making money, then that conductor could sue to take any money that video made.
Then JT could pony up a George and ask for change from his aggrieved to call it square and thus make the aggrieved 'paid talent' in this Feature Video.[/sarcasm]
JT's wrong, was calling attention to the conflict in the title of the video as click bait.
Oh come on.
In this clip, the railfan was merely shooting a train doing some work. The conductor is just incidental. Pause the video and look at it as a still photo. What % of the frame does the conductor occupy? 1% maybe? He's not even recognizable. In some shots the conductor doesn't even appear. The railfan is just shooting a train. The fact that the crew is bored and wants to b1t<h about something (briefly) does not equate with the railfan doing something wrong; he's not doing anything wrong whatsoever. The conductor is not recognizable, and he's not presented in a negative light.
I think Jaw Tooth was wrong to keep filming when, in the other clip, the conductor came over to confront him and was recognizable. JT should have stopped filming, and in any event should not have used that part.
Maybe the conductor is nervous because he is calling out the coupling distances from too far away and at a bad angle. If he's skirting the rules, thats not JT's fault.
But sheeesh, as controversy goes, this doesn't begin to reach vanilla pudding status.
BaltACD York1 Does the video producer have enough followers on Youtube to make money? Might be able to cover his gas costs.
York1 Does the video producer have enough followers on Youtube to make money?
Might be able to cover his gas costs.
York1 John
York1Does the video producer have enough followers on Youtube to make money?
Does the video producer have enough followers on Youtube to make money?
Doesn't really matter what any of us think. It's youtube's playground.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
The right of publicity, sometimes referred to as personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of one's identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers.
BaltACD Euclid I would not assume that he was violating some kind of law, or violating the terms of service as it says in place of the video. What do people here see as something that would violate terms of service for the video? Suspect the trainman involved complained directly to YouTube.
Euclid I would not assume that he was violating some kind of law, or violating the terms of service as it says in place of the video. What do people here see as something that would violate terms of service for the video?
Suspect the trainman involved complained directly to YouTube.
So do I. Was the complaint valid? What YouTube terms of service did the video producer violate?
EuclidI would not assume that he was violating some kind of law, or violating the terms of service as it says in place of the video. What do people here see as something that would violate terms of service for the video?
I would not assume that he was violating some kind of law, or violating the terms of service as it says in place of the video. What do people here see as something that would violate terms of service for the video?
Always seems like the videos I find truly interesting, get taken down.
Used to be able to copy them in the wild days before HTML5.
And we wonder why railfans have a bad reputation with some railroaders.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Harrison It appears the video is now unavailable for violating YouTube's terms of service. Very interesting...
It appears the video is now unavailable for violating YouTube's terms of service. Very interesting...
His channel is still up although the subject video of this thread has been taken down. As I recall, there were two other videos of the same switching operation at about the same time, or maybe a couple days apart. Apparently one of those other two was also removed, but I have no way of knowing. Here is a the third one which is still up. Listen at 9:35. It indicates that this dispute over filming was wider than just that one confrontation on the video linked to the first post here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19gqCzdlVK4
Also, in this video, there are lots of comments about the NS filming dispute. I have not read they all, but there may be some more details buried in those comments.
Harrison
Homeschooler living In upstate NY a.k.a Northern NY.
Modeling the D&H in 1978.
Route of the famous "Montreal Limited"
My YouTube
243129 Railfanning is a hobby and I respect that. Every railfan I have encountered has been polite, enthusiastic, and respectful. When conditions would permit I would offer them a ride on the head end. One such railfan expressed his gratitude by sending me photos of engines I have operated and places I have been. F:\New Haven locomotives
Railfanning is a hobby and I respect that. Every railfan I have encountered has been polite, enthusiastic, and respectful. When conditions would permit I would offer them a ride on the head end. One such railfan expressed his gratitude by sending me photos of engines I have operated and places I have been.
F:\New Haven locomotives
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.