Youtube: the new media industry

BTEC HND in Media (Moving Image) Yr 2 Student: Irenia Alvarez Unit 2: Media Industries Tutor: Kelly McErlean  ‘Right now there are more people on Facebook than there were on the planet 200 years ago. Humanity greatest desire is to belong and connect. And now we see each other. We hear each other. We share what we love and it reminds us what we all have in common. And this connection is changing the way the world works. Governments are trying to keep up. And older generations are concerned. The game has new rules’ Jason Russell, Kony 2012. March 5th, 2012. A video called Kony 2012 was released on the website YouTube, by the organisation ‘Invisible Children’. Three days later it became the most viral video in history. According to Visible Measures (‘an analytic and advertising platform for social video’), Kony 2012 beat hits like Susan Boyle on Britain’s Got Talent in 2009 or Lady Gaga’s new musical video Bad Romance. Jason Russell, the film director and co-founder of the named organisation, uses his personal life and his relationship with his toddler Gavin, to explain and promote a campaign against the African rebel leader Joseph Kony and the atrocities he committed against Ugandan children. Immediately after the huge success, criticism and accusations felt over the organisation and especially over Russell. Many have disputed the real purpose behind the film and the campaign, assuring they obtain economic benefit from it or that the United States has some kind of interest in this African country. Exactly a week after the video release, Russell had a public breakdown and it was shown on a video qualified as ‘potentially offensive or inappropriate’. The one-week-famous man became a mock. The debate is currently happening through YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Blogs and every form of media. Kony 2012 will even be on a Time Magazine cover. Not only the campaign itself it’s being discussed. This phenomenon has also raised the analysis on whether there has been or not a social change achieved by the video’s viral circulation through social media. But mostly, the film has highlighted the power that websites like YouTube have on the public opinion. As Jason Russell states in his video: ‘The game has new rules’. 6 years of video sharing In the beginning of 2005, after the boom of photo sharing websites, three PayPal employees realized the need for video sharing sites. By May 2005, a small office in California led by Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, launched the beta test for YouTube. Its growth began immediately. According to Burgess et al (2009), the success of the website relied on the fact that regular people were allowed to upload their videos, in a standard browser that does not need a large bandwidth for streaming and most importantly it created a large space for community sharing. Only one year after its release, the multinational Internet and software corporation, Google Inc. placed their interest in the website and announced the purchase of YouTube by US$1.65 billion in stock. The small company became then an “independent subsidiary” (Schepp et al, 2009, p.21) of the highly recognized corporation. In less than a year this platform became one of the most viewed website worldwide. According to them, “the site exceeds two billion views a day - nearly double the prime time audience of all three major U.S. networks combined… Every minute 24 hours of video uploaded to the site” (YouTube5year, 2010). But most importantly YouTube rose to become a mainstream media, where participatory culture and new technology interact completely. A co-created platform The structure of YouTube is built in a legal form where ownership is distributed because it is “co-created by YouTube Inc., now owned by Google, the users who upload the content to the website and the audiences who engage around that content” (Burgess et al, 2009, p. vii). This new formula works within what is known as Web 2.0 technology and Social Media. According to Safko (2009) these two concepts, which are often confused as synonyms, interacted to create successful sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and blogs. Web 2.0 is described as the passageway from passive interaction with the content generated by a website, to an interactive collaboration where the virtual community are the content creators. Meanwhile Social Media are those web-based applications where the communication process evolves into an interactive medium in which different communities can share knowledge, information and opinions. These terms bring many questions regarding the ownership of the content displayed in the website. YouTube or any of those mentioned websites are not the content creators; they only provided it but they are legally responsible for it. In their Terms of Service they explain that when you upload a video to their platform you are giving them: “…a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that Content in connection with the provision of the Service and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Service and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels” (YouTube, 2010) Meaning that the way that they deal with this legal issue is by asking every user to grant YouTube the same rights they have as owner of their videos. So the content then is co-owned by the two parties involved. It is also important to highlight the role played by Google. This multinational has what is known as a vertical concentration, which is a “pattern of ownership which extends through different stages of production and distribution” (McQuail, 1994, p.164). Although Google began as an Internet search engine, it spread rapidly and now days it is constituted by a long chain of products, partnerships and acquisitions. This corporation owns offices in several cities around the world, it’s positioned as the most viewed website globally and “with control of 63 percent of the world’s Internet searches, as well as ownership of YouTube, Google has enormous influence over who can find an audience on the Web around the world” (Rosen, 2008). Although YouTube wasn’t the first sharing site (Metacafe started in 2003 and Vimeo in 2004), it is positioned as the number one and that is due to its partnership with Google. Life in a day: a global story On the 24th of January 2011 YouTube released a documentary categorized by them as an ‘historic cinematic experiment’ called: Life in a day. The film, directed by Kevin Macdonald and produced by Ridley Scott is a gathering of images of the life of thousands of people around the world in one day. YouTube asked their users to film their life during the 24th of July 2010, upload the material in the special channel created for it and then they were going to put it all together. The result is a film that shows amazing things like the birth of a child to daily routines like eating breakfast before work, in hundreds of cities, hundreds of languages and cultures. This experiment is a clear example of YouTube’s influence around the world. The fact that in the film we are able to see how there is users of this website in every continent of the world proves that this is a globalized product that has spread tremendously, even to unexpected places. As is stated in their website, they have different interfaces in 42 countries, one in a territory (Hong Kong) and a worldwide version. They also have the option to avail of 60 languages. Another thing that this video reinforces is the relationship they have with their users, by highlighting the fact that this movie was ‘filmed by you’. This website slogan is: ‘broadcast yourself’ and this is YouTube main’s promotional aspect: everyone can participate. It can be said that thanks to YouTube, for “the very first time, individuals have access to the same broad audience once reserved for major television networks and their wealthy advertisers.” (Schepp et al, 2009, p.1). As a way for them to encourage video uploading and to allow users to obtain revenue of their content, YouTube created the Partner Program. This program allows “established media companies like Sony Pictures and Universal Music Group; new media companies like Mondo Media, Machinima and Next New Networks; and YouTube web hit-makers” (YouTube, 2010) to upload videos of any length and to put ads on it. There are no specific requirements to become a partner, though they do take in consideration the amount of viewers that your video has, the volume of videos uploaded by you and they expect the user to respect the community guidelines and copyright laws. YouTube also offers different programs and tools for those who decided to get involved in the program. Copyright and censorship: an everyday issue As Burgess et al (2009) explains, the ethical norms within YouTube are rules that are constantly co-created and negotiated in this network. In their Community Guidelines, they set a few easy-to-understand rules to avoid video banning. They rely completely on their user’s common sense, to avoid things like sexual explicit content, abuse, violence and the use of copyrighted material. They use terms like ‘bad stuff’ or ‘gross-out videos’ that might give a loose idea. But this voluntary self-regulation system also depends on the ethical awareness of the viewers who decide to flag a video for their content. As Rosen (2008) explains in his article, the way that it works is that once a video is flagged, YouTube’s internal reviewers around the world decide if it should be banned, if it should stay as is not going against the Guidelines or if is a complicated theme that should be sent to higher authority: Google headquarters. The majority of videos that reach this level of objection are those that are requested by foreign countries. For example Turkey banned YouTube for two years demanding them to remove videos that insulted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of their Republic. They asked Google to ban the videos, not only at home but around the world and the company decided not to, because Turkish law should not apply outside their territories. As Nicole Wong, Google’s vice president and deputy general counsel, explains in the interview given to Rosen (2008), when cases such as the above, appears on their desk and they have to make the decision, they think that they are not judging but instead they are finding a way for its products to continue in these countries. She assures that their job is to ensure that everyone’s free of speech is respected and at the same time, comply with all the local laws. But beyond this ethical crossroad there is always the economic purpose behind their actions and their desires to not only maintain themselves in the current countries, but to continue growing as the multinational corporation they are. What I believe is a very strong ethical issue example, would be Kony 2012, the video mentioned before. Many Ugandans felt affected by the image portrayed of them worldwide, especially because it was made by a foreigner. Although for many this video is completely within their ethical boundaries, especially because it’s a ‘good cause’, for others the subject isn’t fair to those who are involved in the situation. Here in the thin line where ethics and morality collapse, is shown how complex the globalization of culture can be. Regarding copyright, the debate is also an on-going discussion. Mainly because for the users, this website is a place to share and to access culture but for the companies YouTube is largely a distribution system that is taking advantage of others efforts. In 2007 YouTube was sued by the mass media company Viacom (owners of MTV, Time Warner and The Walt Disney Company, among other products) for US$1 billion, arguing that they were taking profits from their work and they asked the website to remove a thousand clips. After this, many other companies imposed similar lawsuits to the website. Private producers and company always “seem uncomfortable with their role as participants in a space where they don’t exercise complete control over the distribution and circulation of their cultural products” (Burgess et al, 2009, p.5). But there are many companies that understand the promotional benefits of having their products there, so they become partners with this website. Although YouTube assures they take copyright issues very seriously, this is a subject that can easily escape from their hands. Not only is very hard to control but it is also an issue that is strictly related between the importance of protecting intellectual property and the economic interest of many. Last October a bill called Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was introduce in the United States House of Representatives, the law is meant to reinforce the protection copyrighted intellectual material, with several strong measures, such as banning different websites that somehow prejudice copyright. Even though this bill was introduced in the United States, if this legislation is finally approved it will affect the way Internet works around the world. This law will definitively spill “over to other countries too, because court orders will be given to those outside of American jurisdiction who infringe American copyrights” (Myers, K., 2011). And of course YouTube, due to its nature, will be one of the most affected websites. It might even be necessary to rethink their whole participatory culture, which is indeed the core of this network. The future of mass media Seven years ago, when YouTube was conceived its rapid rise was probably not foreseen. At the moment, the creators did not know “exactly what it was for and arguably it’s this under determination that explains the scale and diversity of its uses today.” (Burgess et al, 2009, p.103). What it began as a simple viral video platform has evolved into an internet mainstream media that supports 3D and High Definition. This platform has brought a shift in the media in an economic and cultural way. Thanks to its participatory culture characteristic, the protagonism was passed on to others, creating new business models that allow new media producers to grow in a more accessible way. This is what Burgess et al (2009) calls mass democratization. Besides this, YouTube is very much aware of its capacity to expand towards an even stronger mainstream media, especially given the rapid evolution of new technology. Nowadays there is the option to see live stream events on the website and even to participate, e.g. during the 2008 presidential campaign in the United States, people were able to send their questions during the national debate. The website has been categorized every day even more, to news, music and even movies channels, where it is possible to watch full feature films for free. And currently they are creating the Beta Rentals, available for now only in the U.S, where the pay-per-view model evolves to an even more accessible system for the users and it also allows the content partners to obtain revenues from their products. At the bottom of their main page there is a link saying: ‘try something new!’ This leads to a section called TestTube, defined by them as the ‘ideas incubator’. In there the users are able to see and try the upcoming experiment and give their feedback. Many fresh and appealing ideas are proposed in it, like Leanback, which is an app where an android can be used as a remote control. Or the Video Editor, an online software that allows users to work easily on their project. All of this is not only a way to establish themselves even more, but is also a search to become more sustainable, an issue that every co-created platform goes through. As it is explained in the website, Google does not reveal the income of their products but they assure they are a profitable business and highlight the fact that their model is progressing. Burgess et al (2009) raises the question of whether YouTube is a platform for providing and promoting culture or a space for consumers to participate as producers. And I believe that the uncertain future of the website leaves a door open for any of those options. Then again despite the fact that YouTube is considered a form of Social Media, its interface and design resembles every day less of a social network. So it is very clear that YouTube is moving forward to portrait itself as a mainstream media. In it, the word ‘channel’ is more easily to be found than ‘profile’. The individual is hardly an important point; it is the video that is highlighted the most. Seven years is perhaps a short period of time to begin to understand the social and economic effects of the famous video platform, but undoubtedly the mainstream media is evolving to a completely new set of rules thanks to it. A media that won’t only be more accessible and with better quality thanks to technology, but it will also be a place where participatory culture will become stronger. In the ‘YouTube FiveYear’ channel there are several videos of people explaining how the website changed their life. Mehdi Saharkiz, tells how he used the platform to show the political situation of his country Iran, following the words of his father, a journalist that is now in jail. Mehdi expresses very well the importance this website has for the users, by saying: “we are going towards a new kind of a democracy. Is not hundred thousand, two million people watching, is 6 billion people watching” (Mehdi Saharkiz, 2010) YouTube has become a tool. A tool not only for those who want to express themselves, o for the production companies to get promotion, or as an entertainment and cultural platform. YouTube has gone even beyond this and Kony 2012 is the freshest and clearest example. An example of the scope of the website, of its globalization power but most importantly of the strength users have in it. Not for the thousands of positive responses this documentary has, but for the thousands of negatives ones that likewise have the space for expression.  Bibliography Arnold, J., Luttrell-Rowland, M. (2012) Kony 2012 Debate: Does the Campaign Create Effective Social Change? Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/kony-2012-great-debate_n_1362450.html?ref=impact (Accessed: 20 March 2012) BBC News (2010) Turkey lifts two-year ban on YouTube. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11659816 (Accessed: 16 April 2012) Burgess, J., Green, J. (2009) YouTube, online video and participatory culture. Cambridge: Polity Press. FiveYear (2010) Celebrating five years of the YouTube Community. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/user/FiveYear/featured (Accessed: 19 April 2012) Life in a day (Kevin Macdonald, 2011) Life in a day Press Information (2011) Available at: https://sites.google.com/site/liadpressinformation/home (Accessed: 20 March 2012) McQuail, D. (1994) Mass communication theory: An introduction. Third Edition. London: STAGE Publications. Myers, K. (2011) SOPA: Why YouTube fans need to be worried about America’s piracy bill. Available at: http://memeburn.com/2011/12/four-kinds-of-youtube-video-sopa-will-be-the-death-of/ (Accessed: 16 April 2012) Rosen, J. (2008) Google’s Gatekeepers. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink (Accessed: 20 March 2012) Safko, L. (2009) The social media bible, tactics, tools, and strategies for business success. Hoboken: John Wiley & Aons, inc. Schepp, B., Schepp D. (2009) How to make money with YouTube: earn cash, market yourself, reach your customers, and grow your business on the world's most popular video-sharing site. London: McGraw-Hill. TestTube (2012) Available at: http://www.youtube.com/testtube (Accessed: 20 May 2012) YouTube Community Guidelines (2009) Available at: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines (Accessed: 20 March 2012) YouTube Partner Program (2009) Available at: http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/partner.html (Accessed: 20 March 2012) YouTube’s Term of Service (2010) Available at: http://www.youtube.com/t/terms (Accessed: 19 April 2012) 17