You Tube etc are in my opinion heralding a new era of content consumption - people want what they want, and YouTube lets them get it.

I must confress my ignorance of copyright issues, but I am not sure that applying the rules that have worked for media for decades can keep being applied to the internet. We need to think up some new ones, or think up new ad revenue channels.

YouTube lets people engage with exactly what they want to - that is neither tacky nor a revolutionary idea. Give the people what they want.

And at some point there will be no TV/Internet distinction - convergence is coming.

http://openhouse.typepad.com

Thanks

Steve

It doesn’t take long to find that putting together your own high-brow programming block from your favorite YouTube material gives you a network far less tacky and garish than Fox, which never met a fast-cash exploitation program it didn’t like. It also gives you an advertiser-supported source of programming without the pledge drives of PBS. We could arrive at a point where video consumers no longer have to take the bad with the good.

So Terry thinks these channels have a “responsibility?” Who gave them that responsibility? Was it a condition of their carriage with cable companies that they program X amount of fine arts? Methinks not.

A&E and Bravo are adapting to stay on the dial and stay profitable. A lot of people didn’t know about Bravo until “Queer Eye.” And many of us remember the disaster that was CBS Cable (Some of you will even remember Norman Lear hosting a game show on that channel called “Quiz Kids” interspersed among the high culture).

And obviously Terry hasn’t heard of Classic Arts Showcase which is carried full or part-time on many cable systems, PBS stations and DISH network — all fine arts, all the time… and all commercial-free.

If we assume YouTube is a common carrier (so I can’t sue them) then they must turn over the individual who did post it for prosecution and civil damages. Either my story line could be used or I may not be able to get backing because it is “out” there freely. I don’t have the money to sue but certainly have filed a report with my county prosecutor just in case to cover my bases with paperwork.

O.K. Lets assume, as you say that everybody is a network. I understand that you are talking about television (not cinema/studios)…or are you talking about both? The converstation is king et cetera. A corollary is that distribution is cheaper and the barriers to entry are lower with digital tech, so leverage shifts to the content producer (or more specifically copyright holder)…what about advertising cost? In the global market increased competition has lowered the cost of production but creative costs (from design, to marketing, to advertising) have gone through the roof. Greater competition means a greater need to diferentiate oneself from the glut… If everyone indeed is a network, will these content producers really reap the benefit of their copyright vis-a-vis the traditional network model? Please elucidate…is the advertising model that works in this scenario dependent on viral marketing? What about sustainable creativity? Doesn’t one need economies of scale to spread risk to maintain creative output et cetera? Won’t media firms (MTV FLUX, YouTube, and MySpace in this case) ultimately reap the benefits of copyright….? Who makes money?