Our Case Against YouTube

The Washington Post article "Our Case Against YouTube," by Michael Fricklas provides a very convincing argument against sites such as YouTube and Google video. Fricklas alleges that these sites have knowledge of copyrighted material on their sites and don't do anything to prevent this. In fact, he claims that this is an aspect they not only allow, but even go so far as to promote.

There is no doubt the YouTube contains copyrighted material. Users can watch entire TV shows and even movies. Other sites such as Daily Motion, or Yeoh Vision are even worse, containing whole libraries of copyrighted material. These sites, however, are not under the same fire as YouTube, because they are located outside the United States. YouTube, however, still contains a large share of copyrighted material. The issue at play is not whether the content is there, but whether the moderators of the website have the obligation to monitor it.

According to the Digital Media Copyright Act, websites that provide space to host content are protected from copyright law because they are simply providing a service for users. Fricklas claims that this does not apply to YouTube, because they are reaping the benefits themselves of the material that they host.

For the most part, I agree with Fricklas. YouTube cannot honestly hide behind that clause, meant to protect operators of server space, and email providers. YouTube is an entertainment site, and it's well-being depends on the content that it hosts. It reaps a monetary benefit from the material, whether it's copyrighted or not. The responsibility of finding this material, therefor, is left squarely on YouTube's shoulders. It is difficult enough for them to monitor all the content on their own site, and it would be exponentially more difficult for the actual copyright holders to locate their material. This may hurt YouTube's viewer base, but I don't think so.

The quality of video offered on YouTube and similar sites is of such low quality, that it is no substitute for actually watching a TV show or a movie. In the end, I think that YouTube does not hurt the copyright holders, but at as a matter of principle, it is still copyright infringement. It seems that YouTube was created for another reason anyway. With the internet being the most democratic medium available, and YouTube offering the apitome of this concept, it seems more attractive to people wanting to get their own work out there. YouTube is great for distributing small videos that would have previously never seen the light of day. YouTube would still thrive without hosting copyrighted material.