YouTube, ITube, WeAllTube

You can call it a passing phase or you can call it the flavor of the month, but the fact that the website YouTube is hosting presidential debates (no matter how inane they may be) proves that the latest cultural technological phenomenon is here to stay. At least for a little while. For those who have been too busy at work to discover this website, basically YouTube is a site where anyone can go and post videos of themselves (or others) thus making it available for the world to see. Now this can be a good thing or a bad thing but it's definitely something. I mean suddenly the world has been populated by wanna-be Cecile B. DeMille's. The quality of the videos varies but on the whole, there is a wide variety of video footage available out there.

For example, do you nostalgically remember some show, commercial or music video from your childhood? Chances are you will be able to find it on the website. Now before you rush of to find the most vulgar stuff you can, be aware that this is a relatively family friendly site so no smut will be readily available to those of you seeking it. That being said, YouTube is not without some controversy. What piece of technology ever is for that matter? Though I leave most movie matters to my brother, I do know a little bit about how movies are made, that being said, I can understand some of the problems associated with YouTube; one of the main ones being obtaining permission of those you film.

Whenever you produce a movie, you have to obtain permission from those within the frame for use of their likeness. Now this includes everyone from the main stars to the guy standing in the background with a cup of coffee as an extra. With YouTube, since it is more or less a free for all, the line gets a bit blurred. There was recently a case of a teacher in North Carolina, a Ms. Keri McIntyre, who contended that her image was illegally used on the internet site. Apparently someone filmed the teacher at a fifth grade 'graduation' ceremony and set the entire scene to the Van Halen song "Hot for Teacher". Now what could have been funny had permission been taken is now grounds for harassment simply because the person who filmed the video did it without McIntyre's knowledge of what had been done with it. Now this case has been called under review for privacy violations and thankfully the site complied in removing the video to prevent further embarassment to Ms. McIntyre.

However, the reaction of the site also depends largely on how big your purse string is apparently because the bigger the star, the faster the video will be pulled. Singer Beyonce successfully got video footage of her tripping on stage removed when she cited copyright infringement. Okay. Makes sense. Most concerts to have announcements and notices that forbid making videos of the event. But still, stars such as (The Artist formerly known as Prince then known as the The Artist and now known as) Prince have been working hard to 'reclaim their art on the internet'. Previously you could easily find music videos and the like on the site. Many older music videos (and some newer ones) were often posted on the site and readily availble for immediate viewing. Prince is leading an effort to have all of his material removed from the site in order to protect it from falling into the hands of those who haven't paid for it.

Seems fair right? In a way it is I suppose. I mean if you'll recall the case against sites like Napster where brand new material was often available for download immediately upon release (sometimes before release) in stores. As such, artists contended that their art was being subverted and they would no longer be able to make ends meet if their records were selling. The digital music revolution definitely changed the way in which the entertainment industry viewed and used the internet and now, this is why you have exclusive agreements with sites such as iTunes to sell exclusive music and movie tracks to paying customers. I think YouTube may start going in that direction very soon too.

There are some videos that could be charged for such as new music videos of movie footage that is still generating revenue but for older stuff and things put out by the average Joe, why charge for it? I don't want to pay to see video footage that has a chance of appearing on America's Funniest Home Videos. I think the site needs to be regulated to prevent incidents like what happened to Ms. McIntyre but I think it's going to be much harder to enforce. Who is going to check to see if the participants within the video had consented to their image being used? It's much harder when you're dealing with non-celebrities and strangers. Still, despite the fact that the company is dealing with cases of copyright infringement amounting to millions of dollars, the site continues to go strong. It may be a passing fancy, but it isn't passing off all that quickly.