YouTube is not a church approved broadcast service?

[russellhltn]

I just see the whole copyright thing as a non-issue when sticking to either the hymn book or similar music.

What about when using some of the songs I've mentioned that are on more restrictive copyrights?

[Jacobdaviddean]

I just see the whole copyright thing as a non-issue when sticking to either the hymn book or similar music.

What about when using some of the songs I've mentioned that are on more restrictive copyrights?

In my experience, this would only result in a claim or strike against the individual channel/account owner. Since there is no direct link between our stake/ward channels and the official church YouTube channel, this should not cause any issues for the official YouTube channel.

[acoustictrout]

Discussing music, copyrights, and youth camps misses the point. The Church has asked us to use Zoom and not YouTube. "Follow the Brethren" seems like a pretty good idea.

[russellhltn]

"Follow the Brethren" seems like a pretty good idea.

The letter in question is from "Meetinghouse Technology Team". It's not signed by any of the Brethren.

[Jacobdaviddean]

Discussing music, copyrights, and youth camps misses the point. The Church has asked us to use Zoom and not YouTube. "Follow the Brethren" seems like a pretty good idea.

This seems like a "If you have to ask, then you already know the answer." type of response while ignoring my original points.

The issue I brought up is that the email makes it sound like we were never allowed to use YouTube, while there are several how-to pages, docs, and notifications on the official church website instructing us on how to use YouTube for streaming purposes without any indication that it is "not approved as an official tool."

The mixed signals are confusing and frustrating.

[BrianEdwards]

The issue I brought up is that the email makes it sound like we were never allowed to use YouTube...

I think this thread shows that there are different readings of that email. Many, myself included, believe the Church was making a positive statement about Zoom being approved as the official tool for usage (previously we had zero approved tools, now at least we have one!), and not a negative statement about not wanting anyone to use YouTube. The email was really Zoom-centric, describing how Zoom has been integrated into the official Church system, but doesn't state YouTube or other services cannot be used. I'm grateful the Church provides online resources for local leaders who determine that the official tool still is insufficient for their local needs, or want to integrate an additional tool in tandem with Zoom, and then can access these additional resources to support their local configuration and implementation.