iGeneration 08

Sep 23 2008

jhfsam

YouTube – a new Hollywood?

11 responses so far

Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

11 Responses to “YouTube – a new Hollywood?”

1.   stopheron 04 Oct 2008 at 10:34 am 1

   So I’m looking at the questions you’ve posted here Jo, particularly the last one, and sort of coming to some ideas. It’s a pretty long think though, hence not posting about it til now.

   In short, I think YouTube does have a future, in some capacity, by virtue of its design. And of course this is assuming things stay as they are – particularly the up-in-the-air nature of YouTube’s legal responsibility for copyrighted content. I mean, there is clearly a market for this sort of thing to be uploaded – music videos, clips of old shows no longer available and so on. The sorts of things people have transferred from 10 year old videotapes to the internet, not the sort that have been taken from commercially available products – compilations of music videos on DVD for instance.

   I also think that this is a morally justifiable breach of copyright, because basically if something isn’t available then those let-the-free-market-sort-it-out capitalists have been derelict in their duty/life goal of finding a market and supplying it with products.

2.   alexpondon 04 Oct 2008 at 4:37 pm 2

   I think Chris has definitely hit on an important point in terms of what will make youtube viable well into the future… as I mentioned in the seminar about the only time I use the site for to demonstrate/support something I am talking about (such as reminding someone of the theme from an old cartoon)… youtube is certainly the first source I think of (both in terms of on-line, and in a wider world sense) and unless I spent hours trawling through the internet/video stores/old VCR tapes I can’t think of another (incredibly fast) way to get ahold of that information.
   I think that this will be the way of the future for youtube (even through it still violates copyright), because you can get the movies trailers and the music videos from place like the official websites and myspace… but there is still no place where you can get the The Trap Door opening credits…

3.   Shemilaon 04 Oct 2008 at 5:24 pm 3

   YouTube is now a centralized database of all kinds of videos and has sort of become a mainstream video site, or even a phenomenon for video sharing through internet. Actually I am quite amazed that even old classics can be found in YouTube. I can find the video of my childhood idol singing out of tune in 1991! I guess copyrighted material is one of the main reason for internet users visiting YouTube. As the platform is really handy, I agree with Chris and Alex that it has a capacity for its future.

   But of course, YouTube is not the best video platform to visit.

4.   stopheron 06 Oct 2008 at 11:26 am 4

   Given what we’ve all said thus far, that the copyrighted content is what contributes greatly to YouTube’s success, I think it’s fair to say that we can say in response to this title’s question “NO!, YouTube is not the new Hollywood.”

   Mainly because Hollywood creates its own content, and is rewarded financially and culturally as a result of this. Given the existence of other video sharing websites that offer contributors not just fame, but fortune as well, I think they serve as better analogies for Hollywood than YouTube.

   Furthermore, the business model on which YouTube runs, in that it is selling advertising space makes it more analogous to commercial television, given that Hollywood does not gain the bulk of its revenue from advertising, rather from box office proceeds.

5.   jhfsamon 06 Oct 2008 at 11:33 am 5

   YouTube is a place of convenience, where you can dig up virtually anything you want – from the past to the present. I too, turn to YouTube whenever I want to watch short clips, movie trailers etc.

   But I was wondering why copyright laws have to be so reinforced in YouTube. Personally, I think it is pretty harmless if people are just merely uuploading videos for noncommercial purposes. Sometimes I wonder if the copyright laws are placed for advertising purposes, such that YouTube is able to gain revenue from there. To ensure that their site continues to remain up and running.

   I feel like all these copyright laws have inhibit people’s creativity (not that they cannot create any home made videos using commercial stuff) as it defeats the purpose of being able to share it with others on the internet. Technology such as YouTube is suppose to facilitate sharing, yet copyright laws are stopping people from uploading their own remix videos.

6.   Kirion 06 Oct 2008 at 11:53 am 6

   OH MY GOSH, I DID IT AGAIN!! I just wrote out a thing and then posted it, but I’d forgotten to put in the anti-spam word, so it disappeared – and that was the second time I’d done it! Idiot… third time lucky (and it’s getting shorter, but hopefully more succint, every time):

   So. I was wondering what Shemila meant when she said YouTube is not the best platform. Did you mean for video quality, or other reasons?

   Not being the most savvy internet user, I tend to find out about alternative platforms, like BlipTV, well after I’ve become familiar with the dominant platform, like YouTube. This is probably as much to do with the way it has infiltrated popular knowledge as anything. But I continue to turn to YouTube first for the same reasons as most – because I can find almost any clip, obscure or not, whether a childhood cartoon, or a random comedian in stand-up, or an episode of a tv show. And this last example is one of the main reasons YouTube will be around for a while yet, I think. The sheer enormity of its database puts it well ahead of other possible platforms, but this is due to its ‘blind eye’ towards copyright. As long as this can be maintained, the site is likely to continue in relative health.

   Other platforms for video sharing, having different and stricter attitudes towards copyright, will continue to co-exist with YouTube, because they are utilised by a slightly different demographic.

   Indeed, as Chris points out, it is these other sites that are closer parallels to Hollywood, as far as exposing new talent. More serious attention might also be paid to video-sharing sites that have guidelines for what is uploaded, and especially the one, whose name I’ve forgotten, that pays its contributers.

   (The 15 seconds of fame was never worth it anyway. )

7.   jhfsamon 06 Oct 2008 at 11:55 am 7

   I don’t think YouTube would actually be the next big thing if other video websites like BlipTV really becomes the next big thing. Meantime, YouTube has all the power in attracting all (ok, maybe not all but most) the internet users.

   I was thinking YouTube could be the next Hollywood in terms of videos uploaded but hey, it’s interesting to note that there are differences in terms of generating revenue (as mentioned by Chris).

   Thinking again about copyright laws, like Chris, it’s more of a moral breach kind of copyright. People are just selfish beings where they want to gain control of whatever they’ve produced, especially when it involves money (here comes the money issue again). In a way, it’s to bring a halt or diminish freeloaders.

8.   Shemilaon 06 Oct 2008 at 12:02 pm 8

   I guess, instead of suing or taking down copyright materials from YouTube, stating its copyright and making it become sort of like an ad is not a bad idea of doing things. As Tama has mentioned during the seminar and it is definitely true, it costs a lot of money for internet bandwidth to upload a video and make it stay on the net for a certain period of time. Since videos on YouTube by individuals are not for commercial purposes, YouTube provides a free platform for individuals to put up videos (regardless of copyright). Therefore, it is natural that YouTube has to put ads, or let companies to claim copyright on some of the materials, so to make money to continue running the website. Users are benefitted from it I guess. As said before YouTube is now the mainstream, and if somebody wants his/her video to be widely viewed, YouTube becomes a really good idea.

9.   alexpondon 06 Oct 2008 at 12:04 pm 9

   I think that part of the reason why copyright is enforced on YouTube is that, as I mentioned above, many of the clips that exist on YouTube also exist on company created/endorsed websites as well. For most major movie releases, a website is designed, normally featuring trailers in a variety of sizes. These are generally of a much higher quality than those posted to YouTube (due to the site’s restrictions on upload limits). Personally I go to these sites, or sites like Apple Trailers to check up coming movies, as I can choose the size/quality of the clip and can also find out more about the movie by reading the blurb or connecting to the main website.
   I feel (I’m pretty sure that movie producers feel the same way) that it’s detrimental to the impact of the movie to watch a poor quality trailer… and why would you when you could watch a large screen, full quality version that at the very least gives the viewer some indication of the cinematography… so in terms of movie trailers, I’m all for them being taken off YouTube – I think both the viewer and the makers of the movie will both benefit from better quality trailers!

   Grrrh I hate pixelisation.

10.   Kirion 06 Oct 2008 at 12:16 pm 10

    In response to Jo’s comments, I think I agree with a certain degree of laxity in what content is allowed to be posted to YouTube. However, it’s still harmful (even to a small degree) when clips that are watched on YT are available commercially, thus drawing people away from spending their money on movies, commercial tv programs, and dvd buying or hiring. It’s easy to say, well, whatever, it makes no difference to a big corporation who are rolling in revenue anyway. The copyright laws probably are in place to protect advertising space, in part, but we have to remember that without the cash brought in from advertising, YT would be even more inviable and perhaps not exist anymore. Which would restrict a certain amount of creativity. And we’d all be sad that we couldn’t find those opening credits to old tv shows anymore.

    Yet – the most original content is not usually found on YT (and if it’s there you have to wade through a lot of shit to find it). So it comes back to those other video-sharing sites again. And I think they might have less chance of crashing and burning than YT, as well as supporting creative content.

    Although I can’t help thinking, without copyright restrictions, there is all that potential for mash-ups, as we’ve seen. And that can be so creative at times, as well as carry a message when popular culture is re-constructed. So it almost seems worth it.

11.   Tamaon 09 Oct 2008 at 10:00 am 11

    Given our conversation about YouTube spent some time speculating about ways Google could actually make real money with this platform, it’s noteworthy that they’ve just released tools to directly link to iTunes and Amazon to buy commercial music heard in clips.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.