This is a bit old news, but it's a nice compilation for those of you who are new to this area. Please read the article below, and post your comments here. I want you to seriously think about the issues, such as copyright, etc. and post a thoughtful response. You don't have to have all the answers, but I want you to consider the issues.
http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/02/14-ways-to-broadcast-yourselflive/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It seems like the biggest problem the companies may face with the copyright infringement issue is the loss in max advertising profits they typically make as their broadcast is spread all about the interweb and they loose home channel viewers.
If people really want content and are willing to seek it out, they deserve to watch it.
It makes me think that we are making strides to the everything-is-free-esque utopia they write about it books all the time.
Maybe the large broadcasting companies that are getting all their panties in a bunch should partner with the youtube-ish websites out there and then charge their advertisers more for the anticipated viewer increase.
I feel that to really, truly experience "sporting events, movies, concerts or other events" you must attend the event to get the full effect. If a person can not attend because of whatever reason, (they don't want to pay nine dollars to watch Jumper, but kinda want to see Samuel L Jackson in action, for example) they shouldn't be completely denied the pseudo-experience of watching it on a small computer screen. It's like getting a postcard of the Mona-Lisa. We all know the content you can create with a phone isn't all that special anyways.
It makes me wonder if there was ever such a big problem when people first started making mix tapes. (you know, cassettes)
Kind of interesting how different companies are going about this from different angles. I thought the one with a storyboard editing page sounded cool. Just from the numbers in funding dollars for these companies, it seems people are confident that web video will not be censored any time soon. I think the government, if they even were interested in controlling what video content is uploaded, realize now how huge youtube is & how widespread web video sharing has become. The issue of people "stealing" movies or sports footage or whatever else is not anything new. I don't think that the bootleg dvds sold on the street in new york take that huge of a bite out of movie revenue. With the HD & bluray market expanding, it proves people want to pay for high quality picture & sound. Don't think a cameraphone can deliver that. If someone takes the time to locate & play a video on the web, they might want more than the limited bit they find, & are interested even more to purchase it. In this way youtube helps viacom, & companies like it to fuel interest and revenue.
I suppose I'd term myself as an early adopter, so I've been around YouTube since it first came out and it's become just as important in my daily life as Google.
(In a high school Algebra class I taught, a student asked if I'd "ever seen" something... a movie or TV show or something... and my response was, "Is it on YouTube?")
I say that to say that I've grown accustomed to finding the content I want, copyrighted or not, in one central site. It's fast, easy and convenient. On the flip side, to turn around now and find all of that copyrighted media disappearing - well, it's pretty damn frustrating. Like the article said, sites like these are becoming littered with user-generated content and most of that stuff is pretty crappy. I don't want to search for "Family Guy" "I Would Walk 500 Miles" and see three little kids lip syncing to the clip I was looking for originally.
That being said, there are serious copyright issues to consider, and especially when live events come into play. I suppose the ultimate answer is that it would be pretty hard for us to take a giant step back in terms of video sharing. Hulu figured it out, but that's because it's backed by NBC and Fox. So if it's indeed commercial content that we really care about, and let's face it, 9 times out of 10 if I'm searching something copyrighted, I want the original... then we need to figure out a solution.
I suppose it's just one of the growing pains that the internet will suffer. Along with duplicate videos showing up... or sometimes when you search for a video, there's a really crappy version of it uploaded and a higher resolution version hidden somewhere else in the results.
Wow. I wasn't aware that so many avenues for live videocasting were proliferating, and with this much financial backing!
Legality of reproducing copyrighted works (shot on private property, especially) is certainly an issue. But with the development of the mobile aspect of live broadcasting, amateur videographers will also have to be aware of the kinds of concerns photographers face today surrounding privacy and security of shooting on site. I read an article recently addressing these concerns for photography, noting that it is legal to photograph anything visible from public property and to publish it as long as people's likenesses aren't used for commercial profit. I am not sure if this extends to public videography, but it is sure to be similar.
Another point about live broadcasting is that there will necessarily be lesser production value invested in it than conventional edited videos, and - as Chris points out above - this is particularly true for user-generated videos, which can have a peculiar capacity for inanity. Live video can derive some value from editing, which is why I'm pleasantly surprised to read about Mogulus' tools for to manipulating the live feed. But I suppose this isn't necessarily a problem - particularly if you're simply filming an already crafted experience, such as a tour or a convention, or if the unedited (or immediate, or mobile) nature of the work is the focus.
Number 1: Let's face it, the broadcast television medium has content of higher broadcast quality than most stuff you find on youtube or whatever. Now that a good amount of TV networks are putting up their most popular shows on their websites (for free, with ads), I find myself watching online more often than scrambling to record a show off-the-air. I would say to the large media corporations that if they want to play quality control and take down stuff from youtube, they should also make all current and classic content available through their own official channels. I could care less about ads--I mean, I do watch commercials (passively), but I want content!
Number 2: Again with quality. Some of the stuff on these sites are just plain uninteresting, weird, or really, really weird. I guess if certain sites were to maintain a quality level they could evaluate some of the content coming in, but that would be a challenge to implement.
I did not realize there were that many options for video sharing. But in light of YouTubes success, it is not surprising that people want to try their twist on the formula. Some of the companies seem a little hard for a beginner to get started. I am assuming that with more experience the interface would be easier.
It is interesting that so many people are out there recording all sorts of things that may, or may not, be of interest to anyone. It is also a little unsettling that there are people recording things with no thought to rights, privacy or ownership.
Technology affords great accessibility, which seems to give some the idea that they have permission to use the info however they wish. However, even though copyright is such a hot button, I think it never occurs to some people who are not in an industry that is concerned with intellectual property that there is anything wrong with appropriating information and reusing it.
But if there is money to be made it always increases the stakes. The music and film industries seem to be at the forefront of reinventing how they do business and protecting their rights in the virtual world.
Post a Comment