DIE TUBE.
**********
There are two wonderful clips on youtube by the great LiberalViewer regarding copyright infringements on every level.LiberalViewer does little commented segments or reports on chosen issues, being in that case copyright infringement. It is like a vlog, in the sense that he initiates little (365 comments?) discussions on these issues by questions asked at the end of each clip. His work is both entertaining and technically well made as well as quite insightful and illuminating in it's content.
1st: He's accused of copyright infringement.
>>Why Did Comedy Central Assert Copyrights Now?<<
2nd: Who's infringing on whom or what?
>>Stephen Colbert, LiberalViewer ...Is That Why They Hate Us So Much?<<
If you really want to understand the new dimension of ..."journalism"....check these out!!
*********
When I was starting to write this article, which was 1-2 months ago, I wanted to make a little comment on how most feuilleton journalists act like blind folded sheeps and maniancs concerning web 2.0.
It was just meant to be a little sidestep that I fell over while celebrating my cultural found in this little tube of pfizer // claire fisher shower soap, or whatever you call this stuff smelling like tropical fruit substitute shit.
I will do the PFIZER and CLAIRE FISHER part later.
They comment on the hype by indicating that in its early years the internet was nothing more but a collection of sites with grey backgound under piss yellow fonts webmastered by freakish brother in laws and industry and company sites promoting something worthless.
quote, Feuilleton FAZ, 10. August 2006:
Bei der Renaissance des Internets geht es nicht mehr darum, Vierfarbstifte oder Topfpflanzen zu verkaufen, in dem man sich einfallslose Domains wie Vierfarbstifte.de oder Topfpflanzen.de sichert. Alles dreht sich darum, das bislang mit mausetoten, meistens von HTML kundigen Schwagern programmierten Privatseiten und uncharmanten Firmenauftritten vollgestopfte Internet mit neuem Leben zu füllen.
And now with web 2.0, all those blogs, platforms with interfaces to share anything you want, your music, your picture, your film, your words, all of your crap, all of the sudden the internet turned into that huge user oriented thing and made the user into a producer, boo hoo!
Yes web 2.0 is great. It's a great word spreading an intelligent slogan. But to say, that it made possible the impossible, that it completely, out of a sudden notion of enlightenment changed the oportunities is indeed revisionist history.
It must be clear that from day one the internet and then the world wide web (or was it the other way around..?) developed that kind of everyman distribution. The difference with youtube is just that now, it is videos, and there's a huge hype attached to it.
I mean I can see the reason why "my directorial secret: lightning Nora Ephron www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron would be too busy and I would be too lazy to get out and buy some html handbook, read it and follow it's instructions.
But it was always possible. I mean, both of us can read.
Harry Knowles, as I understand it, wasn't such a technology and computer freak himself. He all learned it by books only to do the movie scoop thing and turn it into some kind of hype. And he created something, that was only made possible in it's great scale by the activity of others, who'd be as crazy about films and filmmaking as he is. People that would risk something or not and send in stuff they had seen or heard of, or read.
Actually the internet has always been web 2.0, just in the past without interfaces, the bandwith, to start blogs, video- and picture sharing sites.
I love youtube. I especially love the increasing possibility of getting footage of any event and occasion Harrison Ford did attend. Or the opportunity of watching Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart Clips all night.
However, originally I just thought about commenting on the increasing exaggerating reports regarding web 2.0.
[The only really good thing about these reports is that they tend to feature sites and platforms you haven't heard of before.]
Now I extended my comment on it, as everyone in tv and print seems to go crazy over the google youtube coup and seems to loose all focus.
Some journalists for example centre their reports on how legally the whole youtube business is about to explode in a second (Which is a comparable large time in internet conditions) because of insufficient legal backing.
C'mon, don't you see that every little clip (and most clips don't run over 4 minutes) cut out of a film is nothing else but promotion? And every clip featuring an actor's appearance on a talk show is promotion, too. And it's not like these things didn't exist before. AS I already said. Youtube is just a form or format of exaggeration, nothing completely new.
Wake up and welcome to the 21st Century.
In addition to the promotion aspect there's the quality and quantity of the videos you can watch at youtube. Their quality mostly is pretty crispy and grainy but still pretty good for the occasion, retired men talking about their lifes, film clips, talk show clips, any form of artistic endeavours by people like YOU and me.
If the clip of George Lucas fighting Stephen Colbert at the end of the Colbert Report on Friday wasn't up on youtube as a streaming file (a further difference to the past. Just none remarks on it.), maybe it would be up on theforce.net or any other fansite concerning nerds of any kind or Colbert disciples.
Of course, with youtube, the possibility of getting that clip and finding it is much higher.
The funny and weird thing is how the old single channel media, print and television seem to be the last guys in the room to get the whole internet thing. Their blindfolded retarded reports on how the word wide web works only seem to disclose how slowly its own systems operate.
The fact that some shows dedicate some time to clips from video sharing platforms is not an opportunity to get hold of the internet. These shows just channel the newly available data like a news cast does with global political information. And less.
Youtube is just the beginning. Wouldn't it be much better to have an own mini youtube concerning one theme?
We or some of us don't like it anyway to be all under one and the same wrap, we wanna discover niches and little corners for ourselves.
Once youtube will be too mainstreamish, there will be platforms, specialicing on certain subject matters.
The main instinctive gathering notion in the internet, that is imo the most powerful indeed, is INTEREST.
Studivz.net is wonderful, if you're interested in seeing the whole everybody knows each other over six degrees stuff visually laid out in front of you. So is -again- youtube. But in the end, we'll sneak back to our little centres, homes of interests,
surf back to our harbors.
One of those harbors can be a website trying to collect as much interesting footage of an actor as possible. so that the ladies can rightfully drool over it.
(In this case it can be like porn with clothes for women.)
Aahh, I love the 21st Century.
