Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Basics of YouTube and the effects of it on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Basics of YouTube and the effects of it on society
YouTube, owned by Google, is an excellent outlet for modern creativity, allowing video uploaders, known as “content creators” or simply “YouTubers”, to make a living off of their content; such as reviews, parodies, and skits; in the way of ad revenue. Yet, because of YouTube’s new copyright system, Content ID, this outlet and the jobs of the people working for it are in danger; Content ID is a broken system that should be revoked. By automatically scanning videos for even minute amounts of copyrighted content, or allowing copyright holders to mark offending videos themselves, and disabling ad revenue for the content creator (yet not Google or the copyright holder) of the videos, YouTube’s new copyright system causes the content creators YouTube thrives off of to lose their jobs, and it goes against said content creators’ rights.
Since YouTube has a phenomenally large user-base and allows for the monetization of videos using advertisements, it has become a viable job; yet the jobs it has created, it is now destroying. It first does this by not simply warning content creators when copyrighted content is found, but by immediately diverting revenue of the video to only Google and the supposed copyright holder (Tassi). This approach is quite like an officer who, upon pulling over a speeder, takes him immediately to jail, rather than giving him a ticket. By doing this to not only videos with little copyrighted content but with no copyrighted content at all in the way of false positives (Tassi), YouTube is causing many to lose money. Says an expert on the subject, “Whoever is accusing these content creators of copyright violation needs to provide sufficient evidence for their claims rather than this auto-flagging, wide-sweeping algori...
... middle of paper ...
.... "Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center." Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center What Is Fair Use Comments. Stanford, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. .
Tassi, Paul, Mr. "The Injustice Of The YouTube Content ID Crackdown Reveals Google's Dark Side." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2014. .
Vargas, Joe, Mr. "Youtube Copyright Disaster! Angry Rant." YouTube. YouTube, 11 Dec. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. .
Warr, Philippa, Ms. "Vlambeer YouTube Form Grants You Permission to Get Filthy Rich from Their Content." Wired UK. Wired, 05 Nov. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. .
Web. The Web. The Web. 07 Mar. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard JohnMcCaindotcom. The "Compare" - "Compare" YouTube.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." July/August 2008. The Alantic Magazine. 20 February 2012 .
Abstract: In 1995 Lance Rose and Esther Dyson wrote articles in Wired Magazine expressing polarized views on the future of copyright law and copyright infringement. This essay reviews those articles, analyzes each article's accuracy as defined by current trends years later.
Since its creation, the Internet has continuously grown in importance as a means to obtain information. This is due in part because it is not censored like the rest of America’s mainstream media, such as television, newspapers, and the radio. Nevertheless, the issue of censorship has raised many controversial issues, not only in the United States, but also throughout the world. In the debate by Intelligence2 (2008): Google Violates its Don’t be Evil Motto, it is argued that Google has violated its self declared motto that it wouldn’t be evil, thus putting people’s interest before their own corporate financial interests. While Google has committed certain questionable acts I do not believe they have violated their motto. Harry Lewis, Randal Picker, and Siva Vaidhyanathan argue that this violation is exposed in Goggle’s agreement to cooperate with the Chinese government in exchange of a larger monetary market and in its advertisement market (Intelligence2, 2008). Nevertheless, Esther Dyson, Jim Harper, and Jeff Jarvis argue that while such actions have occurred, the good it has brought to the over all population exemplifies their don’t be evil motto.
The Internet has most publicly impacted Copyright legislation and thus this essay will focus on it specifically. Copyrights are ìoriginal works of authorship in any tangible medium of expression, Öfrom which the work can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated, either directly or withÖ aidî (Bird, p.86). Not only has its existence and understanding been heightened by the general public, but violations against it have ìincreased on the Internet as far as its use and what is being used.î (Medieval Romance, p.1) ìNever before has it been so easy to violate a copyright ownerís exclusive right to copy.î (Bird, p.86) The Internet has increased piracy, it has changed legislation for both creators and infringers, it is been the precursor for harsher punishments to violators, and it has clouded jurisdiction principles.
Annotated Bibliography Research question: Should YouTube be more aware and restrictive of the content being uploaded on the site? Balakrishnan, Janarthanan, and Mark D. Griffiths. "Social Media Addiction: What is the Role of Content in YouTube?" Journal of Behavioral Addictions, vol. 6, no. 3, 2017, p. 364+. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com.proxy.chemeketa.edu:2048/apps/doc/A509894501/AONE?u=oregon_chemeke&sid=AONE&xid=87501f0c.
Google is the largest search engine across the globe, which has significantly transformed the use of the Internet as an information source. The influence of Google in Internet use as information source is evident in the fact that by June 2010, it accounted for more than 70 percent of total Internet searches in America. In addition to its success and profitability in the global market, Google is renowned as a highly ethical company as demonstrated in its corporate philosophy features. However, the firm’s behavior during the launch of its China-based search engine in 2006 generated huge skepticism from the United States government and several human rights organizations (Baker & Tang, p.2). Since the launch of Google’s Chinese search engine, the company complied with China’s censorship regulations by deciding to filter out terms that are considered politically sensitive. This decision attracted criticism from political leaders and human rights activists who accused Google of betraying its adopted ethical standards by ignoring the essence of freedom of expression and information access. As a result, Google faced a dilemma involving the clash between law and ethics. In the subsequent years, Google reacted to the dilemma by changing its rhetoric strategies in efforts to respond to the changing needs.
The Internet. It is a vast network of millions of users, surfing and sharing billions of files, all day, every day. To individuals holding copyrights on intellectual property, this is a frightening proposition. After all, there is virtually no protection for these copyright holders from the misuse of their property. But, as Scott Sullivan, writer for The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin stated, “as history has proven, technological and societal advances usually come with a price.” The price society is paying for the Internet is a loss of copyright protection by laws for their intellectual material.
This report will describe the history of government regulations and FTC. How that applied to Google search and personal privacy. The changes made from the settlement between Google and the FTC, the difference Google's practices and policies from before the settlement and after the settlement, and the current demands and expectations from current and vocal Google users. The report will also draw a conclusion from the findings and will determine if additional regulations are needed or if the regulations currently in place are sufficient.
particular interest to educators is the “fair use” doctrine, which extends a get-out-of-jail-free card (so to speak) to anyone using copyrighted...
Levy, Steven. “Issues of Intellectual Property & Copyright for Educators”. Newsweek. 27 Feb. 1995. 26 Jan. 2003
Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic. (n.d.). The Atlantic — News and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international, and life – TheAtlantic.com. Retrieved April 21, 2012, from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/
The most detrimental forms of Internet piracy do not happen within American borders; instead, they occur from overseas countries, like China (London, 2011). This causes the American economy to lose billions of dollars. In reaction to the piracy issue, the United States approved the Protect IP Act, which creates new tools to disrupt Internet piracy. The bill defines a website that participates in Internet piracy as something with “no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating” the illegal copying or distribution of copyrighted material in “substantially complete form” (London, 2011). There is no question that the Protect IP Act limits constitutional rights, while another issue occurs w...
It has been decided to provide with big incentives to news publishers to entice them to upload the service directly. New publishers have full control over youtube videos. Publishers also have control over ads that are loaded, sales right and revenue share.
Throughout the years, as the looming threat of identity theft grew, many people have tried finding different ways of avoiding it while still maintaining the freedom of the internet. However, as each of these methods are continuous beaten by online thieves, we have come to a point where censorship is our only option. When many people here the words censorship, they fear that it is a barrier placed to stop their expression of right or freedom. However, in this instance it is the wall that protects us from a world of hidden robbers who in a few strokes of the keyboard can hold our entire world in the screen of their computer. While it is not a favorable option, it is the only option we have left.