Comments on: Viacom Tries to Purge Google’s Money Bank with $1 Billion Lawsuit

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:56:44 +0000

Also, calling them “home videos” gives a negative connotation like they are all low-quality video with shaky cameramen. In fact, creating quality videos is becoming so easy and cheap these days, this is rarely the case.

I’ve always considered them to be “home videos” myself, but I guess it’s just a generalization that I have always made regarding whether a professional director was involved or not. I’ve seen some pretty amazing home videos in the past so I never really looked at that as a negative thing.

natmaster wrote:

You can purchase an HD digital video camera for only a few thousand dollars. (Not that you’ll need it for YouTube)

An HD camera just for uploading to YouTube would be like buying a Ferrari just for going to get the mail at the end of your driveway…you can do it but it is just overkill.

By: natmaster

natmaster — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:42:50 +0000

Just look at the YouTube interface, it is designed as a social video site, with features like ‘reply’ to videos! Yes, it also has the usual copyrighted content, but this is true of every other online video site. I’m talking about what makes it UNIQUE and why it is so successful. All the other sites have copyrighted content…probably even more since all the media corps are telling YouTube to pull their stuff off. It’s the community created videos that set it apart – and this is where the vast majority content comes from.

Also, calling them “home videos” gives a negative connotation like they are all low-quality video with shaky cameramen. In fact, creating quality videos is becoming so easy and cheap these days, this is rarely the case. You can purchase an HD digital video camera for only a few thousand dollars. (Not that you’ll need it for YouTube)

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:11:48 +0000

I think I have to agree with natmaster, because a large majority of what I watch on YouTube is people doing stupid stuff in videos that they make themselves. I think they could do just fine without having the copyrighted movies on there.

By: Ashley

Ashley — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:42:01 +0000

So you really think they could survive with home video content alone? I think the copyrighted material has helped them out more than they will admit which is why it’s time they make a serious effort to compensate the entertainment networks for their content. I’ve definitely seen some great “home” videos on YouTube but I think the copyrighted stuff has helped them out a lot.

By: natmaster

natmaster — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:30:44 +0000

I’m sorry, but I have to strongly disagree here. YouTube is all about the community videos. It is a community video site. People on YouTube use video as a conversation tool. This is what sets it apart from all the other video sites (including Google video).
Not only is this content the reason for YouTube’s success, an amazing amount of original material is quite high in quality and often more entertaining than stale media.

By: Krissy

Krissy — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:55:48 +0000

I agree that YouTube viewers are coming mostly for the pirated videos — and think it’s been given too much credit for being a “user-generated” site. (I consider it a “user-pirated” site.) This lawsuit will, hopefully, clean things up.

To be honest, I enjoy YouTube and its (stolen) content. It’s great to be able to pull up TV sgows and movie clips. But this kind of site is unsustainable. If we want to encourage new content and new services, copyright has to be respected. Once the law is properly protecting content, the door will be opened for a multitude of new, [advancedmediacommittee.typepad.com]

I think this lawsuit is going to change a lot of things.

- Krissy