What’s the big deal? Current TV, free, online now.

The startup ViiBlast.com has patent pending technology that overcomes this obstacle. The technology is cross-platform, carrier independent, and requires NO software download. Make your own wallpaper, ringtones, podcasts, and videos to use with your phone. The original technology created almost a year ago was built to send mms VIDEO blasts on all mobile devices. This was already tested with a political re-election in Nov 2, 2006 of about 125,000 blasts sent out. Out of this we had 10 complaints from cell phone customers that did not want the message due to they were not supporting that person.

Check out www .ViiBlast.com

Brilliant old media, big corporate thinking.

I think we can expect lots of action in traditional media/entertainment and the web in the coming months for sure, though I think video usage/user trends and what works will shift, kind of like how social networking is more like a feature to a site versus it’s only schtick.

This is correct for videos. But not for the actual comments!

And comments are very visible on every individual video page. There, right in your face are comments about “50 cent” being a slackjawed n***ger or “William Hung” being fat because he has eaten too much rice (the latter being inappropiate, but maybe not racist enough.. )

There are a lot of very offensive things being said about minorities, be they ethnic groups, gay or whatever.

For some reason, the only flagging you can do for comments is “spam”, which I’ve tried to use a few times with unknown effect. But most users will not use that for inappropiate content, so why not have button named just like the one for the video?

1) Hate speech and adult content, if slipped through YouTube’s filtering mechanism, are generally flagged by the users. On YouTube’s individual video page there is a prominent “Flag as Inappropriate” button you can click on to report whatever you deem “inappropriate” (including copyright infringement).

2) The assumption that all copyright holders prefer their creative works not be posted on YouTube is false. I am also a creative artist and the creative artists I know hold a diverse opinions, from those who poopoo YouTube to those who totally embrace it. I am almost certain even within “The Daily Show” production team, there is a disagreement about whether their parent company Viacom’s move to take down their clips on YouTube is smart or not.

3) We don’t live in a 100%-compliance society. A traffic cop is unlikely to go after people who drive 60 miles per hour in a 55-mile-only zone as enthusiastically as those who drive 90 miles per hour. If IRS were to go after people who cheat $100 dollars on their tax as vigorously as those who cheat $100,000 on tax, our society would be in chaos. Copyright infringement also has various degrees. On one extreme end of the spectrum is blatant offenses such as posting yet-to-be-aired TV shows on YouTube, which ought to be taken down, and the poster criminally prosecuted; nobody disagrees with that. But to go after 3-minute clips of already-aired shows is perhaps a waste of time, unless the copyright holders specifically say they don’t want them on YouTube, in which case DMCA take-down notices serve the purpose well.

It’s understandable that NBC’s new CEO talks in a scripted manner regarding YouTube, because he knows YouTube is a new reality he must learn to live with. These movie/TV studio execs are smart, they know the post-Napster lesson to learn is that they don’t want a repeat of what happened to their music-industry brethren. The aftermath of Napster is a lose-lose situation, as the music industry wakes up to the silent rage of consumers.

http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/9491

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02.....ref=slogin

If I’m Google I wouldn’t be too worried about NBC’s “big social networking plans”. Ohh. Scary.

I’m sure all 12 people who watched Studio 60 will cancel their MySpace / YouTube accounts and jump over.