It still amazes me that much of the mainstream media thinks that traditional television networks are at death's door due to web-based services like YouTube. Sure, you can get your video fix on YouTube instantly and you can find almost any kind of content easily. But there's one huge differentiator here -- the experience. Are all American video content consumers going to move over to their PC screens to watch tiny videos in a window instead of that nice, big television screen with stereo sound? Doubtful.

To me, YouTube is a swell novelty -- but it can't touch the experience of a television program on a bigger screen. Maybe it's just me. The same arguments goes for pirated video downloads. Why spend hours downloading content that *may* have dubious quality and horrid sound when you can rent a perfect copy with factory sound for a few bucks? Experience be damned -- just give me free (I guess this is what some customers think). But then again, YouTube has consumer-created content you just can't get on broadcast television -- and that is the kicker for many. It's *real* reality TV.

But YouTube does make the traditional networks create more compelling content to keep younger viewers and such. On that note, it looks like the traditional TV networks here in the U.S. are forming strategies starting now.

These networks seem to have a love-hate relationship of sorts with YouTube. Viacom (NYSE: VIA) just recently told Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) to take down all links to copyrighted content, and NBC has done the same (only to partner with the video-sharing site later). Do the networks see consumer-created content as threat/competitor, or do they just see YouTube as a simple way for copyright violations to prosper?