“The real innovation that Youtube provides is that --- individuals and groups can produce entertainment. The lawsuit is one of the Great Battles over who controls or provides access.” Do you agree?
Founded in February 2005, YouTube aimed to allow free video sharing which allows users to upload and share their video clips. These videos can be viewed by the public and members are allowed to give comments and rate them. The site gradually grew and now consists of a wide range of videos including movie and TV clips and music videos, as well as amateur content such as videoblogging and short original videos. The company was named TIME magazine's "Invention of the Year" for 2006 as well as voted one of the most user friendly websites by users.
Such an advanced novelty may very well be the new media of entertainment in future. So why is there such uproar about this website? Countries including Iran, US and Australia have been banning specific video clips or imposing bans to disallow students to visit YouTube in campus. Other countries namely Thailand and Brazil have engaged in lawsuits either due to political reasons or overly exposing videos. Even as such, many people are still strong supporters of this website, looking at it as a source of diversion and amusement apart from this hectic lifestyle that we live. Thus, I believe that YouTube exist to produce mainly entertainment or as a channel for broadcasting yourself, to promote more interaction in this shrinking world. It is the acts of violation that destroys this mean of modern entertainment, the real issue that we should be looking at is who should be allowed to run this site for it to function effectively, without invading the privacy of others or insult the belief of others unknowingly.
YouTube has created a new way for millions of people to entertain, educate, shock, rock and mock one another on a scale we've never seen before. Few years back, this would not have been possible, but the world has changed. In the past 24 months, thousands of ordinary people have become famous. Famous people have been embarrassed. What happened? YouTube's creators had produced a revolution. First, the revolution in video production made possible by cheap camcorders and easy-to-use video software. Second, a cultural revolution of people creating and sharing videos with one another. The third revolution is a cultural one, consumers are impatient with the mainstream media. Where audience are only fed with what the media chooses to broadcast, propaganda, what the media wants us to think, not being able to share their view pertaining issues they disagree with. People want unfiltered video from Iraq, Lebanon and Darfur—not from journalists who visit there but from soldiers who fight there and people who live and die there.
YouTube is ultimately more interesting as a community and a culture, however, than as a cash cow. The way blogs made regular folks into journalists, YouTube makes them into celebrities. The real challenge old media face isn't protecting their precious copyrighted material. Now that people have the ability to entertain themselves, it is more vital of how should the modern talented artist still continue to win the battle for fame against these others.
Facing the charges by various companies and countries YouTube sure has a lot to answer to these people. But let us first take a look at what did it all begin with. Just last month, Viacom demanded that YouTube ore than 100,000 of its video clips, but remove earlier this week, Viacom moved the fight to court: it sued Google in federal court in Manhattan for “massive intentional copyright infringement” and demanded $1 billion in damages. The problem is that copyright law—like so many other areas of the law—doesn’t provide clear answers. Therefore to say there was copyright infringement may be subjective.
From what I feel, YouTube is a form of entertainment and nothing else. Users are the ones who violate the laws by posting illegal or unethical materials online. Then again, one may argue that where are the employees of YouTube? True enough, the YouTube staff have to be the one to control all these violations. Should we just conclude that there are not doing their job? YouTube appeals to the mass as a mean of entertainment, to promote themselves to be made known to the public as many videos have been posted. Little thought has been given to who can control or post materials. As such I think that using etiquette control over what is posted on YouTube can still allow it to function and continue to bring enjoyment to the lives of others, whether it is mocking oneself or sharing interesting videos, the issue should not be whether YouTube produces entertainment, but rather who gets to operate this large company.
