Is YouTube changing the way media is veiwed? Anyone can access this site and see copyrighted clips or virtually every visual and audio media source (films, TV, music, radio, ect). Is YouTube the beacon for a new generation of how the world receives its entertainment and news? Will books and magazines be transformed by the evolution of the internet? What is the future of our media?
-AlexIs YouTube destroying the media?I don't think its 'youtube;' as such, I think its the 'net in general that is changing the way media is viewed. As far as destroying it goes, Im not sure that thats the case. Large-scale media (what you are able to see on tv) have limited ownership. Media ownership has become more of a scary issue over the years because the number of corporations that deliver mainstream media has dwindled to the point where now there are only a few key players. This means that there are stronger and more narrow controls on what media people have access to. The internet is the only 'free' domain left where information about anything is freely available to anyone who has access. Can you imagine what would happen if it was possible for a company to buy it? Everything would be bought to you by FOX or whoever. Now THAT's a scary thought.
I don't know about the future of books and magazines being so threatened. At this stage the technology is there for their content to be replicated on the net (and it is) but people still buy 'hard' content (paper) for their reading. Personally if im sitting down to read Id much rather do it with something solid than to stare at a glowing computer screen. Ever tried reading a book online? (errgh_)
Anyway thats my 5 cents worth. Interesting question.Is YouTube destroying the media?No. Youtube deletes copyrighted stuff now. :(Is YouTube destroying the media?YouTube is altering the media landscape, but it is not destroying the media. Rather, YouTube is part of the media itself, so the only way YouTube could destroy the media would be to destroy _other_ media, and then collapse itself. That won't happen.
At issue in your question is whether quotation, cloning or outright plagiarism will destroy the older media of TV, radio, cinema, and other recordings. I doubt that. Assuming that YouTube existed mainly for the purpose of expropriating content from these media, the destruction of these media would leave very little for YouTube to offer.
Many people evangelize the egalitarian aspects of YouTube, and it's true that YouTube (and other sites with similar functions) enables many people to stream their own video worldwide. That said, a review of YouTube content reveals that much of it is vanity material or of such esoteric or personal value that it very rarely draws a mass audience. It's not all narcissism at work, certainly. But the viewer does need to ask himself in critical terms whether all this community originated video-making is really creating that much fresh content. 100,000 na茂ve videographers can't all be wrong, but I suspect only about 200 of them will have anything that is interesting to say to a wide population.
As with the desktop publishing craze a decade or so ago, we see the difference between using the medium in mechanical terms versus using the media to communicate. Some of the people who take up YouTube video production at the beginning will drop out. Just because one can make the software work, doesn't mean one has anything to say, nor that one is doing it with any style. So some will continue but not really learn or invent the appropriate techniques for good production (and they will eventually drop out as the novelty wears out). And a few will strive to perfect their work in this medium, to be embraced by professionals in the neighboring media (TV, cinema, etc.). As long as producers clone and upload broadcast clips into their libraries, they are not doing much to help YouTube aspire to anything new as a medium.
Books and magazines, in the face of so much free motion video, are sometimes thought to be %26quot;dead%26quot; media because they are static and material. A lot of philosophical dialogue has evolved around branding Western culture's shift away from reading as drift toward a %26quot;post-literate society,%26quot; and YouTube isn't to blame for this. It's merely one more player in the worldview. The bulk of the blam has rested on television in this critique.
But because books' value is so plain, however, I think a blend of visual, aural, and textual media will arise that will make anything called %26quot;post-literate%26quot; seem like an exercise in fashionable neologisms. Speaking strictly in utilitarian terms, books are efficient for many abstract and detailed things, so they may never go away. Video is certainly better for other things, where witnessing the action is much easier and more practical than relating it word by word.. Each medium has a range of communications that it handles very well, and each handles a few particular types of communication so well that other media may not compete.
So we all live with various things that we prefer to see, hear, or symbolize in words, and this mix should likely persist for a while. It will give rise to a society we may call %26quot;aurally literate,%26quot; meaning that the literate person will be well-versed in media that they can read, hear, and/or watch, and this knowledge will be contained in a single, common understanding of literacy that reflects all the media you've cited: books, periodicals, movies, music, broadcast media, the web, and possible new forms of communication that are yet to be invented.Is YouTube destroying the media?Honestly, i dont see the point of youtube deleting 'copyrighted' videos like movies.
you can rent videos from a public library..so its pretty much the same thing except saving gas for going to the library and then for returning it.
LAME TO DELETE THEM.
anyway to answer your question:
i think it will make more people famous in an easier way
they just have to make their videos entertaining and then BOOM
stardum
