|
|
 |
 |
|
Thursday, March 23, 2006
I guess I should post something this week
Front page new of the San Francisco Chronicle was a story about video sites on the internet. YouTube, founded in San Mateo, gets most of the attention but so does Google's video arm and other video sites.
I'm interested to how visual entertainment, television, film and whatever you want to call internet videos, has become more and more personalized thanks to the sites listed above as well downloadable television (mentioned in the article), PVRs like TiVO and the plethora of TV shows on DVD. We can all be our own network programmers and fill our schedules with content from decades back to whatever "digital short" was on SNL last night. While visual information is getting more personalized there is content that manages to really penetrate. Those SNL shorts are one but there are also heralded cancelled television shows like Arrested Development and Firefly. They're popular with the plugged-in population, many who live in the Bay Area but whose number dwindle the farther you get from urban areas and the coast, and yet the old-school thinking of the network executives deem the shows failures. A sign of disconnect between different ways of watching TV? Is there are a certain profile (Hell, why just one?) of the person who is indulging him/herself in this new way of watching TV? And what about the huge issue of copyrights?
The article linked above answers none of these questions (although it does point out that it is mostly, although certainly not all, people in their teens and twenties that make these sites popular). Stories about filmmakers discovered on-line are interesting but I’m more interested in the sociological aspects of this whole phenomenon. It’s something to ponder over the weekend. That is, if you have no life.
Permanent Link: 8:02 PM |
0 comments
Comments:
-- Home
|
|
