Yep - that makes sense. Why should we continue to make certain media sources super rich to the detriment of everyone else (who can now participate in creating content so move over Viacom). The BBC seem to understand online assets better than most media organisations.
What about the consumer backlash against Viacom for attacking YouTube? It is us.
We used to need big media organisations but they will now face fierce competition for eyeballs. That is the real problem for them. They think YouTube damages them - in fact the exposure does them more good in the new world where anyone can create a TV series and some cheap ones are gradually evolving better content than media infested expensive production houses.
Did they not read TIME magazine that celebrated community contributions over the commercial dross that Network Television and Sky provide?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep - that makes sense. Why should we continue to make certain media sources super rich to the detriment of everyone else (who can now participate in creating content so move over Viacom). The BBC seem to understand online assets better than most media organisations. What about the consumer backlash against Viacom for attacking YouTube? It is us. We used to need big media organisations but they will now face fierce competition for eyeballs. That is the real problem for them. They think YouTube damages them - in fact the exposure does them more good in the new world where anyone can create a TV series and some cheap ones are gradually evolving better content than media infested expensive production houses. Did they not read TIME magazine that celebrated community contributions over the commercial dross that Network Television and Sky provide?