Group items tagged

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.

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.