Why all the YouTube hype is just hype.

Google paid over a billion dollars for it. TIME adorned the cover of their "person of the year" issue with it's shiny video interface. And I think it's just another internet novelty that will seem like a big fat waste of money to certain corporate officers in about a year or so. If you've read the title of this article, you know that I'm talking about the ever-so-popular youtube.com site, a place where every cocob0y222 and katg3rl9 can post grainy videos of themselves talking about themselves, while thinking to themselves that other people actually care. And while countless commentators trip over each other to be the first to proclaim the advent of a glorious new age of media in which Mom, Dad, Dick, Jane, and Spot gather around their 15" LCD display to watch 320x240 flash videos created by the Hendersons down the street, I'd like to recognize YouTube for what it actually is: a poor quality (albeit free) distribution system for amateur videos that carries a high risk of copyright infringement lawsuits, and no risk of usurping the mainstream media.

First of all, I'm not completely "dissing" YouTube. YouTube is an absolutely wonderful place to find great videos like the "Numa Numa Dance", "The Evolution of Dance", and "KItty cat dancing!!!!!!!!!! yeeea". However, I think that only a true dullard would argue that YouTube is encroaching on the traditional media's turf. How many people skip American Idol to watch a 10 second clip of mnkyj4m111 from Wisconsin stuffing mentos into a bottle of diet coke? Many people may find the user-made videos on YouTube to be amusing, but in the end they're pretty much the same as the videos that your annoying friend (you know who he/she is) used to forward to you way back in '01.

Of course, I don't want to downplay the broad range of programming available on YouTube. What about the plethora of video blogs available for your viewing pleasure? Finally, the people who failed English 101 and can't find any real-life friends to talk to, can eloquently express their innermost thoughts via the magic of the Internet! Who doesn't want to watch some fat college student with his hat on backwards sitting in a dimly lit dorm, while offering gems of wisdom that go something like this:

"So... anyways... uh... I saw a movie today... and it had a black guy in it.... but anyways it was... like... pretty funny... but my girlfriend... was all like, no way!... but I still think it was a funny movie... also today... um... what? Shut up Chris! ... No! ... Shut up! ... You're so stupid! ......... that was Chris... he's like... my roomie.... "

And who could forget all the wonderful no budget sit-com wannabes that prove that no matter how bad the quality of mainstream comedy gets, there's always something worse just a few mouse-clicks away. Yes folks, with the advent of low-cost digital video, we're simply being deluged with high-quality content produced outside of the traditional studio system.

That isn't to say there's nothing good on YouTube. Far from it! There are millions of great videos on YouTube, namely the ones that people rip from proprietary sources such as DVD's and television. Remember that one great scene from that otherwise lousy movie you saw eight years ago? With thousands of users working around the clock ripping, encoding, and uploading copyrighted movie clips, there's a pretty good chance you can find it on YouTube. There's only one teensy-weensy problem with this: copyrighted material is, for the lack of a better word, COPYRIGHTED. And websites hosting copyrighted materials without a license to do so can get into a lot of trouble with the copyright holders. This is where YouTube ceases to be a good business and becomes a great big legal liability. Somewhere down the road, YouTube will be the target of a copyright infringement case that most experts are predicting to be "One Bad Mutha'". The question is really one of when rather than if.

But do I really hate YouTube? No. If you don't have server space of your own, YouTube offers a video hosting solution that may not deliver the best quality, but gets the job done. My point is that YouTube isn't the threat to the traditional media that (ironically enough) the traditional media is making it out to be. Maybe once everyone starts using the Internet2, massive computer monitors become inexpensive, and YouTube offers HD video hosting/streaming, the big broadcasting networks can raise their respective white flags. Until then, pixelated Flash-7 encoded videos aren't going to cut it as serious entertainment media.