Response to GooTube Post

Russ Taylor from ofcomWatch reponds to Michael’s post “Is GooTube Just Faking its ‘open’ credentials“:

My response to this idea — that YouTube is in some respects a fake sharing site — is that in order to be a fake, there must be some sort of false presentation or false claim. I don’t see that with YouTube and I don’t think any fair-minded person would. YouTube’s About Us section is straightforward: The firm’s goal was to create a website so people could watch and share videos. It doesn’t appear to be part of their business plan to function as site where people can download, break apart and re-use digital content. YouTube is clearly an entertainment site. Similarly, the terms and conditions of the site, as well as the technological interface are clear and straightforward.

End-user control — the ability to take video content and re-mix it or add a different soundtrack, etc. — of web content may be important to some people, but they are projecting their personal values or habits on to millions of other YouTube users and oddly relating it somehow to ethics. I personally don’t care to remix YouTube content. I visited the EyeSpot website that Lessig mentioned and it just looks like too much work – we’re not all content creators and re-mixers, you know. Some of us — maybe most of us — just want to be entertained by others.

If I watch some duffer hit a golf ball through a window on YouTube and I find it amusing, the site has served its purpose for me. That duffer has shared his experience with me. And YouTube made it possible, garnering millions of users and viewers along the way.

So what’s faked?