Granted, Internet videos of people fighting are as old as the invention of online video, but after seeing these pop up over and over again after any sporting event of note, it’s becoming clear that the downfall of society will not be a nuclear war or a zombie apocalypse.

It will be because people were too concerned with getting good video of the world crumbling around them instead of trying to do something about it.

Perhaps I’m overreacting, but after watching the upcoming video of Giants fans fighting at the Super Bowl parade — female fans, no less — the fact people are more concerned with letting the fight happen, all so they can film it is disheartening.

Or maybe I’m just getting old. Here’s the video in question:

Cat fight! Cat fight!

Let me guess. The first girl slept with the other girl’s boyfriend while Eli Manning was doing his MVP thing at the Super Bowl and got caught. Now, they’re playing the feud while a bunch of useless bystanders sit, watch, and video. Naturally, additional fights break out — again with females — as they, I don’t know, try to defend their “girl’s” honor?

Or maybe they just wanted to be on YouTube with they hair flying hither, dither and yon.

While the fighting itself is pretty standard for an Internet video, I’m still drawn to the crowd, one that’s more concerned with getting good video instead of putting a stop to the needless fracas. Is this what we’ve become? A society of attention whores who care more about being popular on the Internet than acting in a somewhat civilized manner?

Like I said, maybe I’m just getting old.

What do you think costs more? A public service announcement on YouTube, or unique (and often funny) ad content to be consumed by the masses, complete with actors who want to be paid for their time? The answer is pretty obvious, especially once you see FedEx’s thoughtful response, one that undoubtedly was cheaper to make. There’s nothing wrong with a pragmatic approach, especially if the message is getting through:

It should be noted the FedEx apology has not received near the amount of views as the package-tossing video did, which isn’t surprising. Controversy sells, especially when the mainstream media picks up on it, and the offending video was seen on local news channels across the nation. It’s actually unfortunate these same outlets won’t give the apology the same kind of airplay, but then again, being nice doesn’t sell quite as well.

It should also be noted the fate of the delivery driver is unknown. In the apology, Matthew Thornton III, FedEx Express Senior VP, indicates the driver is no longer working with customers, but the implication is being made that he’s still employed with FedEx. Maybe they have him locked in the company pillory as punishment.

Blockbuster, which operates 7,400 stores in 20 countries, had hoped to close next month on financing that would float them until 2010. Because of lender reluctance and the illiquidity facing the larger economy, however, the company may not be able to meet lenders’ terms. From the SEC filing summary:

The risk that we may not successfully complete this refinancing and obtain the related amendment of certain financial covenants included therein, and/or the risk that we may not have adequate liquidity to fund our operations as a result of not meeting our projected financial results, even if the refinancing is completed within the time and upon the terms contemplated, raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

This news may be surprising for some, especially considering that just a year ago Blockbuster nearly acquired Circuit City, which went under just after Christmas. In the filing, Blockbuster lays the blame on the worldwide economic downturn and the resulting credit crunch, but also briefly mentions the media entertainment industry “channel shift primarily driven by the emergence of new methods of distribution.”

Words Blockbuster doesn’t want to say likely include NetFlix, Amazon, and iTunes, the perfect storm of which forced the Starbucks of video rental to make radical shifts in strategy over the past couple of years. In addition to online offerings similar to (but not as good as) Netflix, the company eliminated in-store late fees, a source of huge revenue for the company over the decades, and heavily marketed that brick-and-mortar advantage.

But all that, in addition to set-top delivery of movie rentals, points out Ars Technica, meant Blockbuster was just late to the game. Netflix on TiVo, iTunes movies, Amazon’s Video on Demand were already way ahead.

Personally, it’s hard for me to feel sorry for Blockbuster. In my hometown, my father was the first to open a video rental store in 1982. He took pride in his video selection, emphasizing variety over mass quantities of premium, mainstream titles (though he was always sure to buy extra copies of those, too).

So when the chain stores moved in, each offering 50 copies of “E.T.,” 35 copies of “Ghost,” Dad would chuckle about all the great titles their inventories consistently lacked. His store (no membership fees!) became the local alternative for finding movies one would never see at Blockbuster. Nevertheless, in the mid -Nineties, he closed up shop. When Blockbuster came to town, the business started losing money for the first time.

Looking back, it seems Blockbuster ended up making the same mistake he did: stubborn devotion to a business model quickly going obsolete.  Dad’s world was a world of mom-and-pop operations that had survived and thrived his entire life, mom-and-pop shops he’d been running or helped run since he was a kid. (He tells stories of living above my grandfather’s grocery store and being told to keep an eight-year-old eye on the place and run the register when his parents had to run an errand—well before the invasion of Kroger and Wal-Mart). But Dad just didn’t seem to see the coming corporate invasion into small town business life, and saw no reason to change.

Blockbuster, with vastly more resources, bet on the idea that people didn’t want variety, they all wanted to rent the same small set of movies, that they’d pay way too much to do so, even pay exorbitant to the point of abusive late fees.

Plus, back then, those Hollywood premium titles weren’t as cheap to buy as they are now, and consumers couldn’t buy them at the grocery store the day they came out. Premium titles wholesale to the mom-and-pop video store were upwards of $100 per copy. And this was how Hollywood and Blockbuster ran mom and pop out of business to create a more streamlined, centralized approach.

So now Blockbuster’s getting killed by innovative upstarts, new business models, and lack of money. I’ll cry them a river for sure.

They could return of course, if able to secure those loans, and if not, then they might be able to resurrect online, the way Circuit City appears to be planning.

Broadcasting & Cable is reporting that plans are still in the early stages, and that the idea is inspired by the success of SNL sketches on Hulu. Likely, popularity on YouTube has been a driving factor, too, though the corporate line probably wouldn’t allow them to mention that.

The first SNL/YouTube phenom that comes to mind is “Lazy Sunday,” which sparked a lot of tension between SNL and YouTube, just ahead of the Viacom lawsuit. When the video’s popularity proved to be a boon to SNL—after years of steady decline—NBC was less vigilant about taking it down.

In fact, since then SNL’s Andy Samberg has produced regular short video pieces intended for the Web, with varying degrees of quality. One involving a Justin Timberlake and a box was a pretty nice addition to the comedy scene, though.

It will be interesting to see if expanded video presence on the Web will continue to fuel TV viewing on Saturday nights. More fun will be access to classic SNL sketches and classic casts—the eras between Eddie Murphy and Phil Hartman, and between Will Ferrell and the present excluded, obviously.

Now that the political season has boosted SNL’s ability to hang onto Tina Fey for a little while longer, post-election SNL producers should probably work on actually being funny.   
 

Broadcasting & Cable is reporting that plans are still in the early stages, and that the idea is inspired by the success of SNL sketches on Hulu. Likely, popularity on YouTube has been a driving factor, too, though the corporate line probably wouldn’t allow them to mention that.

The first SNL/YouTube phenom that comes to mind is “Lazy Sunday,” which sparked a lot of tension between SNL and YouTube, just ahead of the Viacom lawsuit. When the video’s popularity proved to be a boon to SNL—after years of steady decline—NBC was less vigilant about taking it down.

In fact, since then SNL’s Andy Samberg has produced regular short video pieces intended for the Web, with varying degrees of quality. One involving a Justin Timberlake and a box was a pretty nice addition to the comedy scene, though.

It will be interesting to see if expanded video presence on the Web will continue to fuel TV viewing on Saturday nights. More fun will be access to classic SNL sketches and classic casts—the eras between Eddie Murphy and Phil Hartman, and between Will Ferrell and the present excluded, obviously.

Now that the political season has boosted SNL’s ability to hang onto Tina Fey for a little while longer, post-election SNL producers should probably work on actually being funny.   
 

Broadcasting & Cable is reporting that plans are still in the early stages, and that the idea is inspired by the success of SNL sketches on Hulu. Likely, popularity on YouTube has been a driving factor, too, though the corporate line probably wouldn’t allow them to mention that.

The first SNL/YouTube phenom that comes to mind is “Lazy Sunday,” which sparked a lot of tension between SNL and YouTube, just ahead of the Viacom lawsuit. When the video’s popularity proved to be a boon to SNL—after years of steady decline—NBC was less vigilant about taking it down.

In fact, since then SNL’s Andy Samberg has produced regular short video pieces intended for the Web, with varying degrees of quality. One involving a Justin Timberlake and a box was a pretty nice addition to the comedy scene, though.

It will be interesting to see if expanded video presence on the Web will continue to fuel TV viewing on Saturday nights. More fun will be access to classic SNL sketches and classic casts—the eras between Eddie Murphy and Phil Hartman, and between Will Ferrell and the present excluded, obviously.

Now that the political season has boosted SNL’s ability to hang onto Tina Fey for a little while longer, post-election SNL producers should probably work on actually being funny.   
 

Broadcasting & Cable is reporting that plans are still in the early stages, and that the idea is inspired by the success of SNL sketches on Hulu. Likely, popularity on YouTube has been a driving factor, too, though the corporate line probably wouldn’t allow them to mention that.

The first SNL/YouTube phenom that comes to mind is “Lazy Sunday,” which sparked a lot of tension between SNL and YouTube, just ahead of the Viacom lawsuit. When the video’s popularity proved to be a boon to SNL—after years of steady decline—NBC was less vigilant about taking it down.

In fact, since then SNL’s Andy Samberg has produced regular short video pieces intended for the Web, with varying degrees of quality. One involving a Justin Timberlake and a box was a pretty nice addition to the comedy scene, though.

It will be interesting to see if expanded video presence on the Web will continue to fuel TV viewing on Saturday nights. More fun will be access to classic SNL sketches and classic casts—the eras between Eddie Murphy and Phil Hartman, and between Will Ferrell and the present excluded, obviously.

Now that the political season has boosted SNL’s ability to hang onto Tina Fey for a little while longer, post-election SNL producers should probably work on actually being funny.   
 

Francis is also framing the lawsuit as a First Amendment struggle, accusing Panama City authorities and opposition lawyers in the 2003 case of working "in cahoots" "to extort a ransom for Francis’ release from a Panama City jail, where he spent nearly a year. Francis says his imprisonment was the result of a Bay County Courthouse "cabal" resulting from "shady backroom deals stemming from a civil lawsuit filed by several coeds," which led to his imprisonment without bail.

"Panama City officials began their persecution of Joe Francis with open deception, continued with perjury, and concluded with illegal imprisonment," said Robert E. Barnes, attorney for Francis. "That may be what counts for justice in Panama City, but it’s not American justice."

In his web video on MeetJoeFrancis.com, Francis echoes those sentiments, warning Panama City’s justice system of their inability to hide from him now that he’s out of jail. He also warned viewers they weren’t immune to injustice. " "We’re fighting back against judicial and government corruption," he said. "If this can happen to me, it can happen to you."

Francis said the settlement with the coeds, who were underage at the time they were filmed, was "coerced by duress and the improper conduct of the women, their parents, and their attorneys."

It becomes a First Amendment issue, he indicated in the video, because government authorities infringed on the citizen’s right to read, hear, or view whatever they choose. Putting someone in jail for eleven months without bail in a civil matter, he contends, is also unconstitutional.

Francis joins scores of others who’ve taken their causes to the web, either in the form of web video, or in the attempt to establish grass roots support for various causes. Google did this recently with its appeal to write the FCC in favor of the use of white spaces for wireless broadband. Also recently was the LetOurCongressTweet campaign, an online coalition to rewrite outdated communication laws regarding legislators.
 

It was too late to be going up against “American Idol,” so it must have been another powerhouse viewer-magnet that the audience just had to see. First place for the Tuesday 10 PM slot: “Primetime: What Would You Do Now?”

Hmmm. Well, I can’t account for TV viewers myself – 11million people opted for an NCIS rerun in the 8 PM slot. “Primetime” pulled in twice as many viewers as “quarterlife.”

Maybe the hipster-geek-web-crowd was torn about what to watch. While it may have been very cool that a Web-show got picked up for prime time, it was up against “Jericho,” which was forced back on the air by a rabid, peanut-chucking campaign by the same set of hipsters. The good news is that “Jericho” picked up another million viewers, trailing “Primetime” by just 700,000 with 6.9 million.

I mean, really, it might as well have been up against “Robot Chicken.” Maybe that hipster-geek-web-crowd won’t be so torn when “quarterlife” is moved to its intended Sunday night 9 PM time slot when it faces…

“Family Guy.”

Oh. I guess a time slot against any of the incarnations of “Star Trek” was unavailable, huh? If you’re a “quarterlife” fan, keep your fingers crossed that it ends up shown on Saturday afternoons.  

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), chair of the committee and sponsor of pro-Net Neutrality legislation, videoed the meeting, an historical first, and put up the video on YouTube.  At another time, Markey interviewed Hurley one-on-one about his sudden success, his hopes for YouTube, and what it’s like be goofy and a billionaire.

Okay, so the last question never happened.

In a video also posted on YouTube, Hurley expressed his desire that YouTube become the Internet’s Town Hall, and a bastion of democracy. Check out the video for more back-patting, ego-stroking, and grandiose delirium.

After all, getting your own audience in front of United States lawmakers, and your behind smooched by a Congressman – on video no less – is bound to inspire some dreamy grandiosity.

It wasn’t all spits and giggles for Hurley though. Cuban and others were present at the committee hearing to rain on his parade a little. Shortly after Markey’s introduction, Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) pressed the young executive about YouTube’s lax copyright enforcement.

Hurley offered up a DMCA defense, to which Cuban let out a terse balderdash! Cuban accused YouTube of ignoring infringements by hiding under a DMCA blanket.

On his blog, Cuban continued the criticism:

Which puts Youtube in a position of acting just like your typical big market radio station or music radio network.

Youtube immediately went from a small, but interesting community for its original content, to basically being just like Clear Channel. Responsible for programming its different "formats" with the "best" possible content that creates the greatest number of eyeballs and maximizes advertising revenue. Its big business, just like Clear Channel

Which leads to the question of who is going to do something about it? Who is going to take the responsibility of protecting that content that Youtube is paying for?

He ends sentences with prepositions because billionaires can do that, and he also doesn’t think any of the pervasive Net Neutrality fears will pan out, because billionaires can think outside the bandwidth. Cuban’s touted fiber as the key to mooting Net Neutrality points as the virtual world evolves beyond coaxial cable and telephone wires.

Both ArsTechnica and CNet have their own creative coverage of Mr. Hurley’s trip to Washington, be sure to check them out too.