Group items tagged

This is what worries me about all of this "free say" and "free expression" online. These websites are making it very easy for others to copy or steal ideas, sometimes without the true creator's knowledge. Currently, there really aren't any copyright laws about this, because no one really knows what to do about these problems.

This is quite true. We love to talk about what's going on in Hollywood, on reality shows, and the Internet. It gives us something to talk about, something to relate to with each other. With the Internet, we are able to actually show others what we are talking about.

This is interesting to think about. These "themed" and tagged sites do offer problems for advertising companies. Because thousands of new videos are being posted on You Tube, it is often hard to control and monitor what is posted.

True. Entertainment on the web is vastly different than what is found on television, especially when specific channels can boast specific content. Advertisers might not be aware of what it is they are working with when using YouTube. They like to syncronize ads with content of similarity; if you don't know the content, you don't know if the ad is appropriate for the respective viewer.

I do not think that if i was an advertiser i would associate myself with these things. They are uselly things that turn people away.

As much I would hope that advertisers would not associate with these types of things, I am not so sure they would shy away. Look at what airs now on reality TV shows. Eventually, if the general public doesn't act in an uproar over something, I think the advertisers will latch on.

I know there is a lot of risk when advertisers associate themselves with violence, porn, etc... but the truth is, is that is what sells and gets the most attention. People don't wanna hear boring, everyday issues. They want drama, and lots of it. So, if that means incorporating violence, hate, or God, then I bet they will.

This is true people will stick with what they know and are comfotable with.

This is very true when something gets really popular everone wants to see it even if they do not injoy it.

While this is true, I also think a lot of people want others to see them. The notion of people wanting to have their 15 minutes of fame should probably not be overlooked when talking about why YouTube is here to stay.

I think this is really true. But I also think that in some ways it is beginning to delute certain genres. Everyone thinks they can make a movie now and the fact that you can make a digital movie doesn't mean it was worth making. Director's like Scorsese spend years honing their crafts and this instantaneous everyone is a star atttitude dimishes artists like this. And i must admit, i will watch the stuff on Youtube for hours at a time, but i never see these clips as anywhere near the quality of a seasoned film maker.

These videos could produce very specialized advertising. Those that would pose these types of videos can be targeted by morally ambigious advertisers for very specific products or services. That is scary.

I know there is a lot of risk when advertisers associate themselves with violence, porn, etc... but the truth is, is that is what sells and gets the most attention. People don't wanna hear boring, everyday issues. They want drama, and lots of it. So, if that means incorporating violence, hate, or God, then I bet they will.

Is this really true though? A few paragraphs before, the article talks about the futile attempts to remove copyrighted material from YouTube. If the users are okay with posting videos that result in copyright infringement, are we really to be believe that there is not a good number of people trying (and probably succeeding, at least on some level) to post violent, pornographic, obscene, etc videos on the site. If I were an advertiser, I'd be very hesitant to post my product where the users are "policing their own space".

I'm not sure what advertisers will do about this. However, I do believe that someone will be able to find a way to reasolve this issue. There is no way that a cat food company would let their product be associated with animal cruelty.

Everything has to be about money. No wonder it will take them so long to figure something out, even if it is really important, because one mess up could cost them billions. I hate that our world revolves around money!!

Youtube isn't going anywhere, it really has only JUST begun. It will advnce just as technology keeps advancing and could someday replace television altogether. Or maybe something better than Youtube could come along?

Again, I feel that this comes back to the concept of community. True, we sit at computers by ourselves, and it is a lonely or individual act. However, the need to feel a part of something while we're engaging in this personal act shows how much people enjoy being a part of something.

Which is why Youtube is so convenient; we DO long to discuss things and engage. Youtube is just another way to do that and it makes discussion it easier.

Which seems like a logical and smart action.

I like it when there are member ratings on items. I do not see any harm in it. It would help other viewers and it would help the advertisers. It would be the viewer's choice to participate.

This sounds like an interesting compromise. It still allows for creativity and no legal toes are stepped on. The only thing I would worry about is the details on the "split of ad revenue".

It is what all mass media banks on. Our human nature and our desire to laugh at someone or to question or speculate about something, like who is going to be the next on "Survivor" to win a million dollars.

I think until customrs object, advertisers will associate themselves with whatever is going to sales. We have seen over and over in other media such as TV and radio that an advertiser will pull something when there is a public outcry. Where is there barometer before that? I think it''s in their pockets and their bank accounts.

Humans love ANYTHING that gives us something to talk about. Youtube sparks conversations. What is cool about it is if someone hasn't seen a certain video, it is so easy to look up. The viewer can go back and view it whenever.

The question is if there is a danger in this. One of the kids I nanny for is fascinated with The Wiggles. When looking for a Wiggles video for him on YouTube, I cam across a family video of two little kids getting Wiggles toys for Christmas. It may be cute to send this video to the family's friends and relatives, but should the whole world have access to it, too? Everyone tells young people to protect their identity on the Internet, but then YouTube provides unlimited access to so many otherwise-personal videos.

This is a nice way for people to learn another technology, rather than doing the same thing all of the time, which is just watching the television. Maybe adults of an older generation would like to learn this technology.

Yea, you would think that would be the first thing that the founder of U-tube would know. What started your bussiness off is usally an important detail to remember

it is easy to see how something like this could happen- you start posting funny videos of your friends, they post of theirs, you open it up, and you have a movement...

We discussed in class why people would want to be on Youtube. This quote here is a great example. People want their five minutes of fame. They think that because other people are watching their videos they are star because they are entertaining them.

Sifting through the millions of piences of crap enables us to accidentally come upon such gems as "Boom Goes the Dynamite", "Treadmill Dane", and Lonelygirl15. Users could possibly feel a sense of discovery when finding such unique entertainment. It's like being on your own personal entertainment expedition.

When discussing target content relevant to what the marketer is selling, personal information is getting collected and data possibly being manipulated. Nonopticon surrounds us.

I think more money is now put into online advertisements than TV advertisement. Is it fair to say that the computer is almost (that is in popularity and phenomenon (sp?)) as big of a pop culture invention as the TV was in the 50s?

What about copy right laws?

I agree that advertisers are having trouble with televison. With TiVo and DVRs becoming more affordable, there is almost no need to watch commercials. They make it so easy to skip through a commercial while watching a program. I have recently noticed that advertisers are responding to this by creating more comical and appealing commercials. There are some commercials that I actually like viewing now.

Yes...until recently. Now, there is limitless space on the Internet. Highly viewed websites such as MySpace, Facebook, and You Tube have provide great outlets for companies to advertise. These sites are often viewed more frequently than most television shows, and they are often unavoidable. You can get up, get a snack, or use the restroom during a commercial break on television, but you can't click off an advertisement or an icon while its on a webpage.

This seems to be reflective of everyone's desire for "15 minutes of fame." The internet is making that a reality. The question is whether or not this is a good thing. Yes, it is easy and possible. It is revolutionizing our culture, and people constantly want to search and discover interesting morsels of entertainment. But is it becoming an obsession, especially with some people? With the huge number of broadcasts daily, it makes you think so.

I would personally never put a video on Youtube. However, I have to admit that some of them are extremely funny. This also makes me think, though, of our discussion in class how some jobs look at internet sites and if they see you on them, they are less likely to hire you. So, it just goes to show that we have to be careful with how we portray ourselves.

We are in an age of technological advancement. The culture is saturated with it. If networks want to appeal to the generations that have grown up using this technology and prefer it as a mode of entertainment and communicaiton, then the smart business action to take is to begin expanding toward internet broadcasting. The standard television is no longer the central figure in the entertainment and news world, and in order to keep up with it, the networks have to "go with the flow."

I completely agree with this statement. I personally watch alot of shows on DVR, especially American Idol because I can't stand how they draw out the show with commercials every five minutes. Advertisers have to adapt to the changing marketplaces or else their products will suffer.

I completely agree with this statement. I watch most shows on DVR, especially American Idol and fast forward through the commercials. They draw out these shows and make the commercial breaks longer and longer.

Eventually the technologies will merge fully. You won't have a television and a separate computer. You will have everything all in one. Comcast digital cable has numerous music stations. Look at On Demand, you get to pick and choose when and what you watch. It will all meld together. Instead of previews to programs, it will be whatever you want to see whenever you want to see it. Your TV/Computer will do everything.

This is what motivated much of the Writer's Guild strike. The writers wanted to have a share of online revenue when their shows are downloaded, like royalties.

Fragmentation has decimated the audiences of the big networks, but it's also been the reason so many new channels have been created: Animal Planet, the cooking channel, the sci-fi channel. And viewers watching these channels have special interest in the subject, so they are more likely to actually watch the commercials. So it's mostly the bigger networks that are suffering, which explains why there are so many reality TV shows on the major channels now. While they aren't "reality," they don't need a script so much as a situation.

Yes, a lot of shows are available online anytime, and also on Comcast. So, the big corporations are tryng to deal with the fragmentation. The problem with that is that it's still not exactly interactive, which is the thing people love about YouTube. This still doesn't address the issue that everyone wants to be a star.

I think the fact that many TV shows are now available online is a good sign. The greater U.S. population has been using the Internet for awhile. By putting TV shows online, it shows a good meshing of the two media outlets.

A recurring theme we've talked about in ITW is how some people are hesitant toward change. The want to keep the status quo shows this hesitantion, despite the overwhelming popularity of YouTube.

I agree this content is funny and entertaining, but there is social relevance. What do you think will be our legacy when all this is found 50 or 100 years in the future?

I find it amusing that Hurley mentions this. We actually discussed this in Creative Writing on Monday. The teacher asked who in the classroom wants to be famous. To my surprise there were only a few of us who raised our hands. As much as I want to be a star though, I wouldnt find posting a video on youtube very successful.

The way technology is quickly growing and moving I don't see anything getting in its way. I see the computer replacing other medias.

If so many people view "You Tube" it must say something about its entertaining value. I am one of those people who shifts through "You Tube" and I have come across many interesting ones.

I think the advertisers do that. Look at the sig-in page for myspace. It is a virtual billboard. Any given day the entire sign-in page is a new advertisement. Sometimes it is a movie. The other day it was an entire page devoted to crest toothpaste. Once you are on the site, the sidebars are bombarded with schanging advertisements. Vans shoes one minute then after refreshing the page, it is some other product. Maybe we don't pay that much attention or ever click on the link. I know I never do. But clearly the advertisers have achieved at least some of their purpose because I remember seeing thier ad.

An the audience today is mostly a younger crowd that is geared more towards technology and watching veidos on computers, what a difference in only five years.

I like the idea that U-tube is welcoming to let others use their site to post commericals

I just finished reading the article assigned next week about plaigerism. It is true that many individuals think that just because it is on the internet and free access does not mean it is free to use. There are a lot of consequences that come along with stealing other peoples work.

wouldn't the artists be getting more publicity if people put their music/videos online? it's free exposure....

Even though these things (music and photos) arent of the person's creation it is something the person admires and they just want to promote it on his/her page.

I think a lot people come on youtube to watch highlights of their favorite show and not be distrubed by commercials. Everywhere we go we seem to see ads and this is the one place you wouldnt get any annoying breaks or pop ups. I think it would be stupid to start.

I agree, I think that youtube participation would downfall greatly if commercials were added to the videos.

Though younger crowds are generally geared towards new media, I think older crowds are catching on and are becoming crazed by it as well.

As it said in our article about Facebook, the average age of the fastest growing users is over 35 years old.

they have such a broad audience...my dad is hooked and it seems as though everyday my mom is showing me a funny video that her sister sent her...my brother watches tv shows and my cousin posts videos. it is universal

The guy that created "Evolution of Dance" came to Rowan and spoke to us about this. He did have to receive copy right license I believe. The law is the law. The internet is not a "free for all"

What if someone else videotapped his performance and posted it on youtube, could he get in trouble for that if he didn't get permission to use those songs?

This was interesting because as we have seen in the history of new technologies there are always many who are just not comfortable with change. As the past has shown, opposition does not always indicate whether something will succeed

Even if YouTube is "screwed" there will be a replacement instantly.

I want to ask if this is even possible, but then again, look at where we are. Technology is never-ending, and there's no doubt that there will someday be a breakthrough. The question is only when.

Media reflects the desires and whims of the audience. YouTube already has this, but when there's a sharing attitude prevalent that doesn't restrict the everyday, ordinary Joe Shmoe from posting, it's hard to come up with profitable ideas. No one wants to see commercials; that's why internet clips are so popular! People post what they want to see how they want to see it--and they don't stick in a 30-second add for cookies with it!

This statement kind of made me laugh. It is totally true. I guess if so many people are using Youtube, it obviously can not be wrong. Also, I think how they are called useless is funny. As long as people are enjoying the videos, then who cares if they are useless? In their own minds they are successfull and that's all that matters!

This is a major problem. There is a code of ethics that needs to be followed, but a lot of people don't care about that. Maybe some don't realize what they're doing, but still, it's illegal. We inherently accept that lying is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that plagerism is wrong. What's the difference between that and breaking copyright laws? Is that some sort of "golden opportunity" that people can ignore? No! But maybe they just figure they won't get caught. Few others appear to.

I'm suprised YouTube users (and people in general) aren't against this. For that matter, maybe I should phrase it as more people not publically being against this. It seems very sneaky to me to encourage this behavior, especially considering the ethical implications.

I would think it would be smart of them to sell ads. A lot of people view things on youtube every day and they could make a lot of money

It's true, most people probably won't watch ads after the vdeo. I can't speak for anyone else, but I usually wont even watch the credits. Maybe if video makers did what filmmakers do now, have a bonus scene after the credits. You would see a video, the credits, a short ad, and final a bonus scene. A lot of people still wouldn't watch, but it's a possibility.

It's a good point. A lot of YouTube videos make use of copyrighted material, and although they credit the original creators, users seem paranoid about what the companies will do to them. By opening the site up to advertisers, it becomes even more likely that the big companies will start censoring what users can post.

This is exactly the fear of users. They use songs and video clips, and even though they aren't making money for their videos and most of the users do credit the original artists, they know that big companies can come along and tear their work down. Which isn't fair, when you think about it. All art is influenced by other art. In previous generations, it was okay for kids who became artists to begin by tracing and kids who became writers to begin copying other writers' styles, and kids who became directors to use action figures and a script drawn from other scripts. It's how people grow and discover who they are and what they want to say.

Yet Zuckerberg was at the beginning of the social networking when he started Facebook and now look at what has come from it. If anything, it is likely that YouTube had a more direct startup (its target audience was not initially as limited as Zuckerberg's). Despite being at the beginning of online video, YouTube is becoming a social norm.

One of the things I find most annoying with TV shows online is the pseudo-commercials they include while loading and throughout the programs. If YouTube started using pre-video commercials, I personally would probably use the site less.

If they have to run an ad, I think it should be done at the end or at least have the option to skip it. I think having it at the beginning sometimes hurts things in the end because people are impatient and they may just skip to another video or site else that does not have the ad first.

This is rather true. Sure, Google is a billion dollar company now, but what will happen five years from now? We live in a world where everything is constanly changing. Technologies are being upgraded and replaced. New companies are putting old ones out of business in a matter of months. No one can predicat anything in the digital revolution.

This is rather true. Sure, Google is a billion dollar company now, but what will happen five years from now? We live in a world where everything is constanly changing. Technologies are being upgraded and replaced. New companies are putting old ones out of business in a matter of months. No one can predicat anything in the digital revolution.

This is rather true. Sure, Google is a billion dollar company now, but what will happen five years from now? We live in a world where everything is constanly changing. Technologies are being upgraded and replaced. New companies are putting old ones out of business in a matter of months. No one can predicat anything in the digital revolution.

I have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.

have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.

have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.

have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.

I have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.

I have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.

I have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.

I think that protecting intellectuall property is important, very imporatnt.I feel in a way that youtube is like limewire because you get to go on there and look up msuic for free; in the porcess, msuicians and artist alike aren't paid and the rights to their music are completely dimissed.

Procter&Gamble is probably the biggest distributor of products, from household products to prescription drugs. This fact makes it a highly advertised company. I guess this would make them very ecstatic.

Putting a commercial in the beginning of the video may discourage the viewer from watching it. Is there some way the commercial can come in the middle? Or is that technically impossible? Maybe force the viewer to watch it?

The idea of intellectual property and copyrighting is something that we discussed in our other two modules, so I found it intriguing that it continues to be such a sticky area. Also, the concept behind lawsuits being driven by the amount of money the company running the site has shows how it may all just be about wealth.