Group items tagged

To me, this is an example of the cultural lag most of us are experiencing. Executives, typical of the white male dominating elites, are not ready to embrace this new video storytelling technology. Blurring the lines between reality and fiction is groundbreaking storytelling. We participate in interactive video games via our computers, why not interactive storytelling. Again, this whole concept to me is absolutely brillant!

Collaborative video storytelling.....who would have thought!

I think that Beckett is on to something, but the TV world just isn't ready for it yet. I think that we may see shows similar to "Lonelygirl" soon, because people want to be involved and participate in what they watch. Why do you think that shows such as Dancing with the Stars and American Idol are so popular? It's because everyone gets to be their own judge in a way. Also, they develop "relationships" with the contestants. They want their favorite singer to win or their least favorite to get booted off. Successful shows such as these are highly interactive.

I think that this feature is what made so many people interested in it before, and led them to be currently interested. There were no boundaries with this show. It's creators were free to do whatever they wanted with the show. This is part of what made it different from an ordinary television show.

So, Internet as a writing space remediates early TV as a writing space, which was at the time remediating radio as a writing space. Only later did innovations for each particular space come to exist.

It must have been a tough choice for the creators to trade a deal for the freedom to screen their shows wherever they want, but it only makes sense. The designed the series for a writing space that was based on sharing, so signing exclusively with a website would defeat the point.

Interestingly enough, while this separate collaboration doesn't happen in TV or film, it does happen with longer book series. For example, Star Wars books are authorized by George Lucas but written by multiple people. Sometimes single series within that larger group are written by different authors.

Oddly enough, this idea contradicts the remediation theory. Instead of saying, "it's like film, only [insert difference here]," they're saying it's unike film.

There's a big difference here before the standard of television and today's internet. Interativity is a lot more involving, and a person can grow more emotionally attached as opposed to the "passivity of television." Emotional attachment equals addicted viewership, which equals popularity and success of the show. It's really an ingenious new medium for the entertainment industry to consider.

I do not thing it's a good idea to blur reality and fiction. As we saw in "A Rape in Cyberspace," problems arise when you mix VR and RL.

That's an interesting concept to consider when you think about it. By having separate vlogs, you're able to give separate points on view on different "issues" going on in the characters lives, and it makes the audience feel like they can relate even better. Some movies give you the first-person-point of view, so you know exactly what one person is thinking (like Bree), but you don't know the mind of the other characters (like Daniel). By giving them their own "spotlight," the viewers can form a greater attachment and interest in the stories presented.

Even after people realized that the story was fictional, they still retained their viewership, and that really testifies to the success they had. But even then, Beckett and Flinders didn't choose to "sell out" on the idea; they've kept it as they intended it, and I think that's a pretty important thing to observe. They didn't try to modify it to fit onto the big screen so that they could earn even more money from it.

I guess any publicity can be good publicity.

It didn't seem to matter whether she was real or not in the end. People wrote to her and contacted her regardless, and now she i watched more than ever. People become angered at being tricked, but fascinated all at once.

I don't think it has to be boring. If you are really creative you can make it interesting.

The concept that this is a whole new form of entertainment seems totally spot on. People treat YouTube differently than they do television. It kind of seems like an evolved reality show phenomenon.

It wil soon blow up. Everything starts out small-if they get enough views it will go big sooner than later.

The more I read the more interesting it sound, it is to bad they could not have just admitted from the beginning that they are just trying to get a web tv type show. People would still watch if it was interesting enough.

People want something they can relate to and many teenagers have family problems.

By not telling the audience whether this character was real or not, everyone automatically assumed that she was real. Maybe it was just realistic casting. This is like an online mockumentary but instead of being viewed by a small group of followers gained an enormous following almost instaneously.

Yes making 500 dollars a week is okay for a 27 year old, but I would personally hate the fact that I'd have to keep my identity hidden all the time, and couldn't tell anyone what was really going on, that has to get stressful.

This is so old hollywood. During the filming of Gone With The Wind, the studio forced Vivien Leigh to live separate from her husband to continue the illusion of her being a single eligible southern belle. Also, many of the studios knew then and still use the practice now of setting up known gay actors with romances to throw the public off. I think the studios care more about this than the public does now, but the practice still goes on to this day.

Brillant! Getting the community sucked into the plot is big, but getting the community to start speculating about the plot is even bigger. When people start speculating, a dialogue occurs and from that dialogue the speculation spreads like a virus, which in turn promotes more interest in Bree and more viewers to follow the story.

Who cares whether she was real or not. The purpose of watching the videos is for entertainment and to get in on the new wave of storytelling.

it is interesting that people would get to the point that they would correspond with her. I can understand why if they thought she was real, but after that, I'd think to continue would be strange

I think when people find a connection with someone, real or imagined, it gets in touch with something inside of them that reaches out. This maybe is the whole point of cyberspace, to reach outside of who we are and try to connect on a difference level

This is a good point. I never thought about how youtube videos are basically in the hands of its viewers

Yes many of the YouTube videos show what work and what doesnt work according to how good the video is.

It's amazing how addicting things like this are. Even though people have already viewed the "episode," they return to it. Maybe they're hoping to find out more about her? Perhaps it became part of the investigation into who she is. To me, it's a little reminiscent of releasing DVD versions of television shows.

This attention as I mentioned before can be both positive and negative. It raises concerns

The character and the actress need to separate. It's dangerous when the two become fused.

This was the only aspect that threw me off from thinking it was real.

This just goes to show how the idea of privacy has changed in a technology-oriented society. As Vaidhyanathan talks about in his article, we can always be tracked somehow given the technologies we use daily.

This idea of always being tracked just makes me nervous. I am such a private person when it comes to certain things. I will tell you 90% of my life story, but that last 10% is mine. I think about that about that alot in relation to all of the sites that I belong to and subscribe too. They probably have more information on me than my own mother knows and there really is no way to exist without it.

people like the idea that they are watching reality, hence the fascination with dating shows and reality tv. they feel closer to the characters and the experience. we feel a need for shared experiences.

people like the idea that they are experiencing reality. we liked the shared experiences with others...it makes us feel more human to witness them occurring in someone else's life.

it is amazing that people get so involved and look so far into this. when i go on youtube, i am looking up a music video, i don't latch onto a series.....are there more like this on youtube?

Who actually has the time to watch something that intently and notice the SKU number on background items in a video? that borders on obsession

Reading up until this point, I kept thinking how creepy the creators were. Now I'm thinking they played into their target audience very well. They were able to create online videos that attracted such a faithful audience (possibly crazy with too much time on their hands as well, but nonetheless) willing to go over every detail.

Just goes to show you what you can accomplish with a well dressed set. Iam still so fascinated by the public's love for stuff like this. I guess it brings out the voyeurism in all of us in what many consider a safe outlet.

it seems crazy that he would give up a career, any career let alone being a surgeon, to start an unpaid youtube series. what was in it for him?

Although, I am not really for what these men did, I do give them credit. They took a risk, and it proved to be revolutionary for both the Internet and You Tube. It changed the way that many people view, You Tube. They created a story which captured the lives of many audience members. This must have been a great feeling when they realized that their story was changing the world.

This is so war of the worlds. People assuming that what they are seeing and hearing is real because they are seeing is depicted as real. If this was on ast teeno'clock on a Thursday night we would not assume the same thing.

This is interesting, because the Internet does allow the audience to interact with the content presented. In the Lonelygirl's story, viewers were able to present all types of ideas and feelings. This, in turn, allowed them to feel connected emotionally, much more than if they watched a reality television show. This is what they believed to be a "real" person who cared about their imput and feedback.

This is a great way to keep people comming back alway make them wonder what is going to happen next.

This is something that I would have a problem with I could not stay home that much. Plus i would want to tell everyone.

Now this is ridiculous. Did she not see she is losing her life to this? Come on, she's a young adult and if she plays this character on a Youtube video she has to stay home in the dark and not have a life? This is totally ridiculous! Where are her parents in all of this? Her friends? What's going on here?

It is a good thing that his father gave him the money because if not she would have started to work at Fridays and they could not have used her in the series.

This shows that you can never really escape from things there is always a trail.

That's about the most unusual proposition available for an actress, isn't it? It's kind of hard to believe she even agreed to it at first, especially since she wasn't even paid! And even once she was, she couldn't tell? Her career changed her lifestyle, though not in the way it usually tends to for celebrities.

Again, demonstrating how convenient Youtube it. As Americans, we want instant gratification.

Sure it worked, it plays out like a soap opera. Look how many years Erica Kane from "All My Children" survived on TV. People love the suspense and drama that unfolds in the world of others

This should make the Internet users more cognicient that nothing is ever ireally private. You need to be aware, if it is out there, anyone can gain acess to your infomation.

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.

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.

I believe this is why YouTube and other Internet Videos are so popular and in demand. Our society has become a very fast pass society where instant gratification is a norm. Becuase YouTube's videos can be viewed every day and any time, they make a great for great entertainment, at your fingertips and there is no waiting.

Very interesting- it all comes back to technology and what is in demand. Everyone, wants to be "up-to-date" with the "new fads" and this shows how society truly is. We are in the 21 century and everyone wants to show and prove that they are there too.