Technologies and the Future of Writing Spring 2008

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.

Yes it is nice that all different types of people can relate to her...but they were not relating to a real person, so that could of really upset them when they found out it was fake. That could cause someone to do something out of hand.

The point is that people were relating to the story. It was what held their interest. Whether or not she is fictional is unimportant. The fact that people were interested in this is what made it so substational to the future of "tv on the internet"

i noticed that they did this....they have every boy's dream...a beautiful nerdy girl who isn't afraid to be herself....not sure how much girls would like her though...

She's extremely cute. I watched the three videos on the side of the first page, and I can see why people would think she's adorable. However, the things she does and says seems a little immature for me, maybe that's the point but I don't see why people would tune into her like they apparently do. I just don't know...

Thats the difference with having this series on the internet, it is worldwide not only reaching select television networks.

The people on Survivor and the Bachelor and any other show that ends prior to the last air date must sign agreements of nondisclousure so that the ending is not revealed. How is this any different. This actually makes me think about the movie The Truman Show with Jim Carrey.

These characteristics are doing exactly what is intended to do. Just from the small three video's that i have watched so far, im interested to watch more.

This change really brought drama to the plot, but I can see how the mystery drew people in. I remember thinking the Law & Order episode that was based on this story was intriguing since it implied a future for this type of entertainment.

SO, Lonelygirl15 wasn't sure if this was a scam or not? Did she even look into it first?

I can see that. =D

So Jessica Rose had to be pretty to be on camera...that is not right. If the person has something to say...let them no matter what.

Doing this screen play was also a way for her to meet new people and to keep in contact with people she already knew.

These people are receiving instant fame. Like any celebrity there are positive and negative consequences. While Youtube may have in fact helped this actress's career, it could have also easily shattered it

good segueway.....pretty inventive and it would get vloggers interested

I can't believe that people would actually get so involved in this. When you think about it, it's kind of ridiculous. It's as if people don't value their lives enough that they have to rely on someone else's story for entertainment. Then, after all of that, they find out that it's fictional. I just think that this was very deceptive.

This is very interesting and shows a huge jump in popularity.

The amount of people that view the "diary videos" from LonelyGirl15 is not surprising to me because there are many shows on television these days that I thought no one would ever watch and yet millions do.

This is something that happens all the time were someone is asked a question and they just don't answer it or they change the subject. I had never thought of it from a legal stance though.

I am still not sure how legal not answering the question is. In the series, she is saying she is a certain individual. How is that different than if someone asks via email? Most likely, the dollar issue is the one you could get in trouble for because that would bring in false advertising.

This to me is something that would seem very weird. I do not think film is that expensive so i would not see why he would do this. I would probably have a bad feeling about it.

I would have bacxked out right then and there. It sounded shady to me too, and I wouldn't have gone along with it. I wonder why she did.

You know it really could have been. But Beckett and Flinders probably backed out on their original idea when they were afraid of lossing her. =P haha

This guy was raised on a commune with twelve other kids. He's just trying to find any way to stand out, even if it is creepy. He really thought through the process and made sure to cover himself.

I've noticed how quick people are to post vile and insulting things. They don't care who will see their remarks because they can hide behind their screen name. Cursing seems like less and less of a taboo online. I don't think this is a good way to share with our peers.

You can really tell in the advansment in the editting techs. from the first clip to the later ones. the style of the program evolves

People want to hear the dramatic, soap opery issues. Like with the YouTube video of "boom goes the dynamite," people enjoy looking at videos of people in distress, whether emotionally or socially. Plus, the title itself relates with the emotions a lot of teens feel. "My Parents Suck . . ." It's a title a lot of kids probably want to put on their life story at some time or another. It's no wonder it was so popular.

This is kind of like politics. Don't answer the question, avoid it, and no one will get in trouble.

Can you blame her? This is all very sketchy. And it's kind of ironic that they lured her to get involved in this "project" under false pretenses and the whole project itself is a lie.

I wonder how many other young actresses they tried this on before they found her? I can not image trusting these guys like she did. Exspecially when they eventually told her they would film in a private house in a bedroom.

I never played with hand puppets when I was 16.

OMG, how crazy is that?!?! I'm surprised no one else has commented on this particular part. I can't believe Amanda looked up people's myspace pages. My page is private but it still makes me skeptical. Maybe I should delete my myspace and facebook. Who wants people to know everything about them?

I agree. That is scary. I don't really see getting upset that the video was a fake but to get into friendships, email conversations and investigate people . No that crosses a line somewhere that is not acceptable. Those conversations were past just a unique new entertainment.

How does this justify the fact that the story line is flasified? Is this not false advertising? They are misleading the viewers.

I follow the Big Brother blogs. They are full of people who follow the live feeds. The houseguests are not permitted to sing any song because of this copyright issue. Watching the feeds, the stuff that is only seen over the internet, you can here producers come on and ask houseguests to "please stop singing" anytime they break into song. It's pretty amusing sometimes.

This is where this can get really ugly. Young girls who make a connection with her, only to learn that it is all lies. This could cause some serious emotional repurcussions.

I am not surprised. In our troubled world, people like to feel that they are not alone in the way they feel. They tend to gravitate towards people who have problems. It makes their own more bearable.

Okay, so where does this invasion of privacy end? It is like you are standing in the nude for the entire web to view.

it's interesting how the same viewers who degraded Emily embraced Lonelygirl15. I wonder if it has to do with her created persona. As they discuss later, it did appeal to a certain demographic on the web.

This is how they draw people in. When they see someone is upset and trying to deal with a problem, the viewer is drawn in. Humans like to see others besides themselves with problems.

Isn't this what most of us long for-a chance to be someone else, even if only for a bit? Think about it, I know when I was younger, I played dress up and pretended to be someone else. Even as an adult writer, I create characters that are not like me. They are from me, but are not me. Sometimes I am a child in my stories, sometimes an elderly man, sometimes I am even an anilmal or a bug, or a fairy, or a princess. The point is, it is an escape from reality, a vent, a form of release.

I've never heard of Soapbox. Among my group of friends, YouTube is pretty much entrenched in their lives, for now. Which isn't to say if something better comes along they wouldn't immediately switch. I'm just saying that it can't be too much competition if I have never even heard the phrase uttered.

This point caught my attention. I used to coach competition cheerleading, and for a mix of sound effects, voice overs, sound clips, and songs it would cost over $300 to be mixed by a DJ. As far I am aware, a portion of that had to go to paying for the license to the songs. That's a significant sum of money for 8th graders to jump around to for four months, and yet some things can just be put up without regulation online.

I didn't think it was that funny, and I felt really bad for the kid, because he was clearly nervous. Even worse now, because of this YouTube video, thousads of people a week can watch him stammer and stumble his way through this sports cast, and he probably had no say in the video being put up, which is one of the problems with YouTube. Some of the video's are self posted, and others are put up by friends (for example) who thinks its funny to embarass their friend. I've seen it happen.

"LOL"- This reading is filled with the new slang of the 21 century. Who would have thought that a figure of spech, such as this one, would end up in a published article.