⚖️What do you think about COPPA? ✏️Make copyright work for you with CopyrightCourse bit.ly/2Yt5p6M

"I'm 10 and I want to be a lowyer like you" LegalEagle: *sweat intensifies*

Objection: Careful Legal Eagle. My 19 month old was in the room while watching this video and kept yelling “Ironman!” This could be considered child-directed due to your vague likeness to Tony Stark lol

*Here's* *why* *your* *channel* *wasn't* *approved* *for* *monetisation:* • Content deemed suitable for children

The people with authority who think animation automatically means it’s directed towards children have clearly never been on the internet

"Johnny Johnny" "Yes COPPA?" "Advertising towards children?" "No COPPA." "Telling lies?" " NO COPPA!" "Open your account!" *LEWD LAWSUIT NOISES*

Impact of COPPA on UKposts: now all videos start with a splash screen, “This video is NOT directed to children.”

I'm tired if always having to _"Think of the children."_ That's what parents are for. If children are lying about their age, it's the parent's fault.

Children can lie about their age and anyone can lie about the following; "I have read and accepted the terms of conditions"...

Lets face it, Walt Disney movies are not aimed at children, they are aimed at their parents money.

Legal Eagle: "Obviously this channel is not child directed" ...Bold of you to assume that.

*UKpostsKids: Exists* *UKposts: Let's pretend we didn't make that*

When I was around 12, I remember watching educational content on UKposts. Think stuff in the style of Cody's Lab or Nile Red. If all this applied back then, I doubt that would have happened. Imagine if all libraries had a system in place that kept kids inside the children section, and didn't allow them to use library cards. No kid could check out a book, and no kid would be able to look up a fact in a book from the "adult" section of the library if curious about something. Now, also assume that adults cannot check out kids books, even if they have a library card. No kid could bring a kids book home, regardless of adult endorsement. This is effectively what UKposts is doing. UKposts is such a diverse platform. Lumping the educational channels in with "Peppa Pig" and "Call of Duty" disregards the intelligence of many children, and keeps them from accessing content that allows them to grow in their knowledge.

I feel like the reason no one’s done a deep dive into the language itself is because none of us are lawyers like you who can read it and translate it into a text readable by humans. Thank you for the in-depth look! [Edit: Oh my, what a can of worm’s I’ve opened up]

Unintended consequence: a Minecraft creator, leaves, a Sky Rim creator stays. This repeats. An animation that is gross, sexual or violent - not aimed at kids. Animation that is cute and wholesome - at risk for being aimed at kids. Result: UKposts becomes less wholesome and kids still come here.

This makes me worry that channels with "family friendly" language will start swearing like sailors to avoid that "directed at children" qualifier.

So how do I use this information to stop seeing ads for Raid: Shadow Legends

So, lemme get this straight... > Channel run by an actual lawyer > Rando: *Files bogus copyright claim against channel* Sounds like the legal equivalent of stepping out in front of a bus or something.

Can we all just take a moment to thank LegalEagle for making a full-length video explaining this? 49 minutes is a pain in the butt to watch, but it's sure of a lot better than reading the entire COPPA document, interpreting it like a lawyer, and gathering real-world context to draw inferences.

“Meet all of the other factors but the content is sooo adult it counteracts all the rest.” Porn, he’s talking about porn.

Me: UKposts suggestions never match my viewing habits and downvoting videos does nothing to show my disinterest in them. Also me: I’m so glad I have ad blockers so I never have to watch a UKposts ad.

UKposts: You're going to pay for *COPPA.* LegalEagle: No that's wrong! --- BREAK ---

The more I hear about this the less I think law makers understand how the internet works.

"UKposts is directed for only the people above the age of 13." PG13 baby shark music get louder

Useful video, thanks.

This sounds like doing my taxes. I have to find out how much I owe to the government, and if I get that number wrong I go to jail.

UKposts: Online Creators are on their own when it comes to navigating COPPA LegalEagle: Hold my reasonable affordable tailored suit.

Creators dont collect information Why are we getting fined

"There's a lot that can still be done: You can leave comments with the FTC". Unfortunately that's probably going to be about as effective as all the comments about Net Neutrality were.

"UKposts is also going to develop an AI to determine if content is child directed or not" *oh no*

UKposts has entered the special kind of hell where all content must be simultaneously kid friendly (no swearing, nothing sexy, nothing dangerous, etc) yet despite sanitizing it for small kids it also cannot be of any appeal to them. AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

If their demonization bots are any indication, I'm scared of what UKposts's automatic COPPA bot will do.

I find the fact that the FTC is “punishing UKposts for children lying” as he put it is awful. To me that would be the equivalent of some 20 or younger faking an ID, getting into a bar and drinking, and then having the bar pay fines for letting someone underage getting into the bar. It should be the perpetrator (or in the UKposts case) the parents of the perpetrator being punished for faking information

I wonder how this will effect porn sites lol "Are you over 18?" 12 year old: "Yes"

UKposts: *about to slam coppa on legaleagle* LegalEagle: *piano starts playing*

"So, you have until the 9th to try to stop this." I take it this was the wrong video to put off watching until after Christmas was over...

OBJECTION 13:05 ..."So they created these 10 or so factors that are objective by nature"..... Subject matter, visual content, use of animated characters, music audio content, etc. NO NO NO! Determining whether subject matter is targeted to children is extremely subjective! It's going come down to some FTC reps opinion. That is why we are so frustrated by the guidelines.

"There could be a channel out there that hits all the checkboxes but still is for adults" Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss. Animated, bright colours, uses cartoon stock sound effects, even has famous voice actors like the one for Invader Zim ...And it's adult as hell

Part of me can't wait to see Happy Tree Friends getting mislabeled as child-oriented.

Raising the defined age of a child is a lot like waiting a few more years before telling them about the Birds and the Bees.

i wonder if pewdiepie calling his fans "the 9 year old army" counts as acknowledgment of child directed content

Dont hug me I’m scared is definitely the example of... “checks all 10 boxes but is certainly not for children”

well, "i'm baby" got a whole lot more dangerous

I started putting the PG-13 logo on my thumbnails and in every video and stream (visible at all times). I also have put a disclaimer at the start of every video and on my start and end screens during my stream. Also when I see someone say they're under 13 I always tell them they need permission from their parents to watch my content. I have a gaming channel and it is family friendly, just NOT directed to children. I hope all of the above I mentioned will do at least something in my advantage of proving I am not a "child directed channel"....

I literally started watching this and I didn't realize it was an hour-long because I was invested in everything you had to say

Apologies for typos. And there are fewer graphics than usual because this monster turned out to be 50 minutes long. I really wanted to get this out by December 9th so there was still time to comment with the FTC. Please make your voice heard!

"Animated Characters" does NOT equal "Child Focussed." There is a LOT of adult animation out there, from the movie "Heavy Metal" at the mild end, to "Fritz the Cat" at the X-rated end. And that's just American examples, ignoring the japanese end of the spectrum of adult animation.

7:55 That is NOT what a Cookie does. A cookie is just repository of the information the website has collected; it doesn't actively "look at your activity" because it's simply a text file, not executable code that runs on your computer. It's the websitte(s) you use is what reads and writes to a cookie file and does the accrual "looking at your activities" as well as the browser you're using, your operating system, and all your apps.

Could you imagine trying to file a copyright claim against an actual lawyer? Lol

Why is coppa so focused on UKposts and creators, meanwhile the advertisers that are actually “ unfairly targeting children” are getting off Scott free? If a serial killer uses craigslist to find victims, we wouldn’t fine craigslist and let the murderer walk. I think the solution is instead of age gating the content or use of the platform, we should require an opt-in for receiving targeted ads. That way children wouldn’t feel motivated to lie about their age to access UKposts

26:40 "Children can simply lie" I don't understand how any aspect of COPPA can work if lying children puts the site in the hot seat. I also don't understand how the FTC can forbid the age gate given the wording of the mixed-audience exception criteria

The problem with this system is that still 2 years later it doesn't work correctly. False flags are still a huge issue. Also there is quote unquote children's media that appeals to adults that grew up watching it, and the video features are restricted heavily.

After watching this video, I'm left with one question: Why does the FTC logo have such a condescending look on its face?

Considering that the personalized ads are almost never accurate for me, it's amazing that they even try.

I'm suddenly very concerned "I'm twelve and what is this" will go from meme to weapon. Also, what does the FTC actually think is acceptable validation of age?

Member when parents were expected to parent? I member.

animation does not make things child friendly. It really annoys me that that's a factor.

FTC: "So you see, with all your animated content, we're going to have to mark all of your content as being for kids." Hentai Creator: "..........excuse me?"

So if we're considered site operators, then there are responsibilities that we have in order to be COPPA compliant. UKposts as a platform does not supply the tools or information we need in order to for us to adhere to these responsibilities. We don't have access to any of the information collected, so we can't even do what would be required of a site operator to be COPPA compliant. We can't modify UKposts's site in any way shape or form. What have unreliable age analytics information (mine in particular has been stuck on the 34-44 all year and that can't be right) and even then, the analytics do not go below the age of 13. So without proper factual black and white information and without the ability to perform the responsibilities required by COPPA to be complaint if we come across viewers under 13, how is it just to sue a content creator? The "fish in a barrel" statement could be true under this lens because the FTC could potentially be going after people who can't defend themselves. Isn't this the equivalent of suing a grocery store employee because the grocery store facility does not adhere to some building code when the employee didn't know about the issue, nor does the employee have the means to fix it ? Are not content creators in the same boat? Lack of information and lack of a means to rectify the situation? Now I understand that UKposts will still terminate channels and mark videos as children's content (resulting in the actions you've specified) at their leisure. UKposts reserves that right and that has been made clear to content creators. Whether we like it or not, it's "their" platform (kudos if you see what I was getting at there). However I'm failing to see how suing content creators is just. I'm not going to say they won't, because anyone can sue anyone (doesn't mean they'll win), but how is this just? How is this not a content creation deterrent? If I'm missing something or oversimplifying something, please correct me.

I just saw one comment where someone expressed concern that some 'family friendly' channels may almost be compelled to "start swearing like sailors" in order to avoid being regarded as 'directed at children' and, not gonna lie, I genuinely felt as though that was gonna be an element I would be expected to include in my videos just so I could avoid this claim. I haven't even uploaded any new content in years. I was just pursuing it as a hobby. I enjoyed watching review channels for years and I was eventually inspired by the direction I took with my art degree to attempt making my own spin on these channels where I, instead of primarily looking at films/TV shows, I focused more on fan-generated content and original content primarily produced for sites like UKposts or Newgrounds or talk about aspects of fan culture and my own experiences with it. While LegalEagle certainly has presented some interesting points here that could serve as an argument on behalf of creators, the incredibly vague and even subjective nature of this act is what what makes me feel insecure. I only ever built up a small audience on my channel and based on the comments I had seen on my videos, it's very unlikely a significant portion of them were actually children. I never made my content with a child audience in mind. Hell, my most popular video was a review to a fan series that's even older than the children COPPA is supposed to protect. But because of the presentation and the material often referenced in my videos, I can easily see how they may be considered appealing to them. So because of this risk, I ended up making my videos no longer available to view until I could be certain how my channel could be affected. I've had trouble getting myself back into making videos again and unfortunately, with this act going forward, I suspect I may very well never take it up again while such a risk is viable to something I only ever did just for the fun of it...

Imagine a 5 year old watching call of duty because they weren't reccomend some kids stuff

As someone who studied constitutional law, before steering away from law-school, my initial response was "IS this even constitutional?" Glad you brought up that point. =)

I have a gut feeling that traditional media, such as cable tv, has lobbied the FTC because they want to hurt their competition.

So people are forgetting another fact about UKposts... You don't need an account to watch UKposts.

I know this seems like old news now… but I would love if we could get a follow-up on this for whether or not they have done anything so far.

"When you say teenage, how old we talking?" - R. Kelly

See, this is why I wanted to see this channel tackle this topic. He knows how to dispense info without histrionics, unlike other channels.

The part that concerns me the most of the range of power that COPPA has as a result of how vague these rules are outlined. As you said, it leaves a gray zone where consideration can be made yes, but in turn it still puts the power in their hands to shoot you down if they deem it fit. I myself am not a content creator- I have 1 subscriber who is a real life friend because I made a couple animated music videos a good 10 years ago. But i"m worried about this whole thing because the channels I watch have many of the factors that would make it "for kids". I watch gaming channels where some of the primary covered material is in fact Pokemon. Those channels are 100% at risk. And said channels have already come out with videos talking about this topic and they have said that they are prepared to walk away from the their channel because those fines are scary. The other thing that worries me is how videos will get flagged in the first place. With millions of videos on UKposts it is impossible for a few staff members- even a few thousand, to manually hunt for videos in violation of COPPA. What is the alternative? Bots. An automated program that auto flags and removes video content based on pre-determined criteria. I cannot imagine a bot program having the reasoning programming to separate implied context vs face value context. We all know that the show South Park is hardly for kids, but to a bot program, it would probably be flagged as for kids. And once your video gets flagged/removed, even if you can appeal it, take a ticket and get in line behind the thousands of other people looking to appeal as well. Protecting children is all fine and well, but COPPA is trying to make fool proof an issue that cannot be made fool proof without basically tearing everything down first. As you said, if the Age Gate cannot be relied upon, what is the point? Should we not just be holding parents more responsible for watching their kids? Its also dumb that these COPPA guidelines are essentially stereotyping what people should and shouldn't watch. Its assuming that animated video content is ONLY for kids. Its assuming verbiage choices are for kids or not. Its almost like racism in a very loose modern sense.

It's sickening that the state is taking the parents' job from them and calling it 'protection'. It's mindblowing how stupid, irresponsible and entitled those people are.

"Desperation and Trust are seldom allies." - Apollyon

"- that I've used to defend my channel against dozens of bogus copyright claims." ... I kinda wanna hear about those..

I found this video highly informative, and I personally would like to see a video dedicated to the follow up analysis of the Net Neutrality repeal. When it first came out everyone was just complaining about raising monthly rates for their internet access. As a Network engineer reading through the basic rundown, I saw it as opening a door to alot more nefarious practices such as ISP forced website redirections, censorship issues, and basically leaving your entire internet experience up to your ISP's discretion. Unfortunately, I don't speak "lawyer-nese" to the extent that allows me understand the full ramifications of this repeal. So I'm sure the other viewers and I would enjoy your insight on the topic and what has become of it since the FCC's decision to ignore popular consent and follow through with the repeal.

"the content may not be child oriented but you check all the other boxes" immediately thinks of Happy Tree Friends

This seems to have a chilling similarity to the PMRC hearings in the 80s. Using the guise of protecting children to punish creators. PMRC resulted in the Parental Advisory sticker that ended up making music much more risque and less child friendly than it was before because once creators knew they were going to get the sticker on their albums, the chains were off. Of course this resulted in higher explicit album sales to children anyways, so the content that was trying to be walled off was just made more accessible. The same thing is going to happen here. Children are going to watch adult oriented videos, plain and simple, now all they will see on their feed is adult oriented videos. Frank Zappa said it right. This is akin to treating Dandruff with Decapitation.

I really enjoy how thorough and point-by-point your videos are. Thank you for all your hard work!

If I have to see a commercial, I would prefer it be specific to things I would buy. For instance, there is a really nice playhouse in my neighborhood, but I had never been and frankly forgot it was there. Thanks for Facebook, I saw the add and now I'm regularly going to see their plays.

Objection: UKposts does use persistent identifiers on children, but they can only discover or even suspect that a child is on the platform through those persistent identifiers.

THIS is why nice restaurants should have "child free" seating.

Love your channel. I was planning on creating a channel for toys directed to all ages. I thought "Millenials reunited with PlayDoh" was a catchy title. My little sister told me about this COPPA situation so I looked into it. Now I am wondering if it is even worth trying. I was going to buy some decorations for the background and of course, I needed toys to review. I found myself solving the problem of how can I make my toy-themed channel considered not directed to children because I at least would like to break even the cost of buying toys, etc. I realized I might be able to direct it towards adults by adding adult content suitable for youtube. If most creators walk the line between child-directed and adult-directed by using adult language, adult visual content, adult music content on top of their pokemon videos then won't children start watching videos that are even worse than before.

Could you do a video like ”introduction into US law” where you go over how... US Law works... And USC and CFR, Stat.L. And like all basic s*it, I've missed.

Objection: giving my iPad to my child is consent unless you start making sure newspapers, Tv, books, and radio also comply with Coppa

Second question: If the FTC is saying that an "Are you over 13 yes/no" barrier is not good enough, what implications, if any, does this have for "Are you over 18 yes/no" barriers? Is is possible that any sites with adult content would need to institute some form of verifiable check for age (such as credit card, State ID/Drivers license, etc?). This seems like it could make the entire internet less safe by normalizing the request of such documents, ESPECIALLY for those too young to protect themselves, and would be only slightly more effective, as there's nothing stopping an underage user from borrowing their parent's information without consent.

That is NOT what a cookie is. A cookie is not a file stored on your computer that tracks you and watches you, etc. (too long, won't read: this has a TLDR at the end) In as simple but accurate terms as I can put this: Some important terms are "client" and "server". The client is you, your browser, your computer, etc. when you make a request online. The web server is software that responds to your request. When responding to your request, the server sends you data (e.g. a web page you want to view) and "headers" which are like metadata. Cookies are pieces of data that are stored on the client usually by a browser. Browsers store cookies when a server tells them to store a cookie when responding to a request (via the headers). The server tells the browser 1) what website this cookie belongs to 2) name of the cookie 3) data of the cookie 4) expiration of the cookie (other technical information is sent too). Once the browser has stored the cookie, in any new requests to the web server on the same site, the browser will provide all the saved cookies for that site. Cookies do not track you: as the cookie is a simple piece of data, it does not literally track you. Cookies, however, can be used to track you when a site that wants to track you (let's call this "bad site") agrees with the owners of other sites ("3rd party sites") to include an embedded part of the bad site in the 3rd party site. This "embedded" part can be a like button that a social network provides, a piece of content from such social network like a post, video, image, etc. When your browser loads this embedded content, a request is sent to the bad site and all of the cookies the bad site has set are also set. Now the bad site is informed of your visit of a 3rd party site (which the bad site knows the topic of or other info that it wants to tie to your "interests"). In this way, the "bad site" is being told by many 3rd-party sites whenever someone visits these 3rd party sites (and these 3rd party sites choose to allow this). **Now in technical terms:** (still simplified since if you actually knew how this works you wouldn't be reading this) A cookie is data namespaced by the domain name or other URI of an HTTP server. It includes data such as cookie name, cookie data, expiration, security policy, etc. A browser that supports cookies will save cookies on a client's device whenever it sees the "Set-Cookie" header in responses to HTTP requests. Whenever the browser sends HTTP requests to a URI for which it has saved cookies, it will include any such cookies in a "Cookie" header. Cookies do not track you, but here is how they can: A website can track your visits to many 3rd party sites by asking these 3rd party sites to include e.g. an pointing to the URL of said website that wants to track you. Whenever the is loaded, all relevant cookies are sent together with the HTTP request the generates. E.g. by giving each 3rd party website a unique URI for the , the websites that wants to track you can identify which 3rd party facilitated the tracking. The website that wants to track you will tell your browser to set a cookie with an ID for you. This ID allows the website that wants to track you to know that it is you whenever a request is sent. TLDR: Cookies don't track you. Could use to track by agree between site you open and site that want track. Cookie not bad same as knife not bad. Site can only tell you are same guy visiting again by cookie. No cookie, site think you completely new visitor. No agree to track cookie. No agree ads. No agree data collect not need for site work.

34:24 There appears to be a frame where the red foreground disappears.

The fact that this guy ends his videos with "see you in court" makes me feel threatened that he might sue me

I'm 34 years old and youtube still recommends me to use youtube kids, guess because i see a lot of animated and videogame videos. Saddly it is hard to trust in youtube age segregation you mentioned before

I'm curious about the persistent identifiers that they were talking about. Persistent identifiers in the form of cookies are used on websites all the time in the form of cookies for things like logins. When you go to a website and login, it generates a random string of letters and numbers which are sent back to the server for each request (to load additional content like a new page or page asset). This prevents from having to ask you to login every time that you are trying to load a new page or a picture on a website. It seems to me like this law is out to break website logins. There are ways to have logins that don't use cookies, but they still use a persistent identifier in the form of passing that string to a URL or a hidden form field that gets submitted (some websites use Javascript to submit forms to navigate to a new page). I guess, like a lot of things, it depends on how good of a lawyer you have to argue your case. As far as the audience goes, keep in mind Internet rule 34. If it exists, there is porn of it on the Internet. You mention Peppa Pig. I haven't seen it, and I haven't gone looking for it, but I'm sure that there is porn of it. I'm curious how COPPA will attempt to take on rule 34.

In NZ and other Commonwealth these additional rules are called Orders In Council. They are not debated in Parliament but a legally binding once sign by the Crown or the Crown's representative in the country, the Governer General.

So theoretically, someone can assemble an army of actual 9 year olds and have them watch non-child friendly videos, forcing anyone they want to have to be at risk of a $40k fine?

im 12 what is this

That's why when I watched a Disney Channel video on UKposts the rules for the site were different. It didn't allow comments and it directed me to UKposts for kids. Now I was just on a nostalgia tour, but it is a good idea that content for kids triggers different functions for the site.

The government isn’t meant to parent, the parents are.

28:47 This is the problem - UKposts will roll out a hastily made algorithm that will mis-classify MANY channels because of things like the usage of animation. Algorithms don't do well with 10 point subjective human judgement call criteria written by politicians and interpreted years later by judges, and UKposts will error on the side of self-preservation, at the detriment of many content creators.

I've got the *perfect* solution: instead of asking kids for their age, why not ask for identification which can inform their age, like their social security number … wait

in cases like social media, I think ALL private information should not be required by the sites since the only thing they have for ensuring that there's an adult involved is a question that kids can lie to get past and create their own accounts... disallow requiring real names to be used, disallow anything more specific than states (or even country) to be displayed to anyone outside of their immediate connections and disallow the entering of specific schools/work places attended into saved information on the profile... and disallow checking in on any public forum... pretty much force a person, as a private individual would have to go through the trouble of posting their whereabouts manually and per time they wish to do so... while this allows for more anonymity and trolls... it provides anonymity as a protection, even if it opens the doorway for more copyright infringements.. the most dire of copyrights are less important than the most frivolous personal rights and safety.

Terrific, as usual. One small FYI: There is a typo in the title card at around 13:42: "Children" is missing the 'R'.

So I'm getting the strong impression that this is UKposts's fault, honestly. Bragging that they have a sizeable child audience to advertise to, jesus, no wonder they got smacked down. Furthermore, if they know that, and can target those users, then presumably they know who they are and can just shut off algorithm access to them.

The real problem with the FTC's interpretations is that content creators cannot be termed as operators who track data regarding children as UKposts itself is the one who collects data on children. I don't know of any place in youtube analytics where it shows any information about anyone under the age of 13. That information is tracked solely by UKposts for their own targeted advertisement which content creators have no control over. UKposts is the one that's at fault here!

If someone says "I am a 10 year old child," you have 0 responsibility to respond to it because chances are its a troll. Plausible deniability is fundamental.

Thank you very much for this video and it's information. Can you please think about doing an update? I'm not sure where things are, in this argument. Thanks again...I'm 49!