It appears as if Big Media is finally ready to play ball with all of those pesky internet sites. Unfortunately, it also means a new set of rules.
Several industry magazines are reporting that a giant collective of studios has reached an agreement with internet giant YouTube in order to bring official content to the video sharing site.
Of course, this is somewhat exciting. YouTube is easily the best web invention of the last ten years – yes, better than Twitter – and it has retained and enlarged its audience despite direct threats from sites like Hulu, Vimeo, and others. It would be nice to have easy (and, for you anti-pirates out there, legal) access to a wide variety of professionally-produced entertainment.
Its hard to pinpoint why YouTube has remained so successful. The video quality is still akin to watching a movie made on a pinhole camera. Every other video features someone farting into a HandyCam. Yet millions and millions of people go to the site every day, gazing at the latest freak of nature humiliating themselves and their family tree.
Probably the secret to YouTube’s bounty is the underground nature of the site. Even now, the site retains a mostly “no holds barred” aesthetic that encourages uploads. Also, I think the site feels much like going to a garage sale, whereby, in picking through the junk, you find pieces of treasure. And, in comparison to the competition, YouTube has a healthy and thriving social network that drives the community.
Of course, it’s this community that advertisers desperately want to turn into cash. And that’s the unfortunate part of this little tale. You see, this multimedia merger will now give advertisers the opportunity to plug their products before or during the videos. The money goes to YouTube and its partners - not necessarily the content creators.
And get a load of this lovely little statement stuck discreetly in the article:
Although the service remains free to YouTube users, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said during a conference call that eventually the service envisions securing “micropayments and other forms of subscription models.”
YEAH RIGHT! Isn’t it amazing how Mr. Schmidt – who made millions off of giving people a free service – has forgotten that basic tenet of the internet now that he has made it big??? Rather than worry about how to get money from users, Mr. Schmidt should try figuring out how to finally get video quality on the site that can rival a shadow puppet show as seen by a cataract patient.
Besides, I’m not sure what advertisement would go with this:
But I can tell you one thing: I WANT MY FRED TO BE FREE!!!!
The unfortunate victims of this restructuring will, as always, be the average internet users. YouTube has been a monumental device for the fostering of creativity among people who would ordinarily not have a chance to express themselves to a large audience. It would be a shame to see this locked up and charged just so that the boys in Hollywood can get their percentage and attempt to control the uncontrollable.
8 Comments
I’ll tell you one thing I will never understand about You Tube is why studio’s pull some trailers after they have officially been released. How is someone watching a trailer a bad thing for a studio. I agree You tube is great and Twitter is just ridiculous.
chuck
@ chuck – I wholeheartedly agree with you. YouTube has been, in my opinion, nothing but a boon for studios. It allows everyday people to promote stuff FOR FREE. Yet, for some reason, all the studios can think of is the copyright infringement part, rather than the promotion.
Which is why they will eventually meet an unfortunate end.
Whatever happens with you tube, something else will take it’s place. It’s successfull because it’s a free service, once that begins to change, people will only look elsewhere.
@ Tino – Yeah, I think you’re right. Although I do think YouTube’s success has more than it being being free going for it. The site built its name on the “you can do this too” idea, and now the owners are forgetting that.
I think you’re right about “you can do this too” idea. Most of their initial videos were just people doing whatever they wanted and sharing it with everyone else. Plus, people started using it to post episodes of their favorite shows for those who weren’t able to see the latest episode or wanted to see the ones they grew up watching as kids. I can understand the idea of studios wanting those videos down, but I can never understand killing accounts/videos that post trailers or use their music.
@ Lencho – I’m not sure I agree with the idea that studios are right in wanting those shows taken down from YouTube. What does the copyright holder have to lose if someone puts up an episode of “Sigmund and the Sea Monsters” on YouTube? In my opinion, having that posted on YouTube only enhances the product, because it keeps the product fresh and relevant in the public mind.
I think we are still several years away from having broadcast-quality video played on television screens rather than computer monitors. That is where it’s headed, though. The computer will eventually be the home entertainment system, plugged into the television and streaming everything you watch. That’s why it’s important for studios and the like to restructure their ideas of revenue and income models NOW.
Well, they want to make money off the ads they show during the shows. If people aren’t watching them live, or on a site like Hulu, they won’t make as much money. That’s why they get angry when people post their shows online without their permission.
I agree it’ll take time before the computer becomes the #1 way people watch shows, but as of now, TV’s where it’s at. Wasn’t this unknown future about entertainment on the Internet one of the points of the strike last year?
@ Lencho – Good point. I’m going to post something tomorrow that addresses what you’re talking about in that comment.