Peter Fader of Wharton called the agreement between Warner Studios and YouTube, which allows Warner music videos to be played on YouTube in return for a portion of the ad revenue, the "single biggest business development deal in the history of digital media". Internet mogul and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, on the other hand, believes that YouTube will ultimately have the same fate as Napster and be crushed by copyright lawsuits. The real answer may lie somewhere in the middle.

The article mediates a debate between naysayers, such as Cuban, and optimists, like Fader, over what the fate of YouTube will be. Cuban states that YouTube is "in the same boat as Napster". He argues that although YouTube may do a lot of good things for copyright holders, such as the promotional benefits, it will not be enough to make every single copyright holder happy. Cuban notes that it would only take one successful lawsuit against YouTube to bankrupt the company. Fader, on the other hand, suggests that the Warner deal could lay the groundwork for future deals between YouTube and other major Hollywood studios. His prediction seems to be right on the money. Since this article was published, YouTube has made agreements with CBS, the NHL, NBC, and most notably, Universal Studios, which had previously been YouTube's most outspoken critic.

Also discussed is the significance of the agreement between Warner and YouTube. Fader notes that this agreement represents a sort of paradign shift, mentioning that Warner took a completely opposite stance when it was fighting Napster in court. Also, the agreement sets a trend for other companies to follow suit. This prediction by Fader was also proven true with the new YouTube agreements mentioned earlier. Fader also predicts that these deals will allow YouTube to "call the shots" in the video industry, much the same way Google runs the search industry.

The debate in this article is the fundamental issue regarding YouTube and its legitimacy.  It is important for YouTube to secure protection from copyright lawsuits, and they seem to be doing that with recent agreements and their willingness to takedown copyrighted material.  However, Cuban's view does hold true that one lawsuit could cripple the company, and that lawsuit could be Tur v. YouTube.  The ruling of this case and others like it may ultimately determine YouTube's future. 

Tim Wu in this Slate article describes in detail the differences between YouTube and Napster and why he believes that YouTube has very solid legal footing. Wu simply says the YouTube has a safe harbor provision in the DMCA protecting them, while  He also describes the "Bell lobbyists" and how their efforts set the foundation for YouTube's seemingly successful business model. 

The Bell lobbyists, Wu writes, fought one of the greatest copyright struggles in history when it took on Hollywood over the liability of internet companies for copyright infringement.  Wu describes the clash of these two entities as "Frazier meeting Foreman", saying that the unstoppable force that was the Hollywood lobbying team finally met an immovable object in the Bell lobbyists.  Hollywood, on one side, wanted internet sites to be responsible for all content on their site, even if they were unaware of the infringing content.  The Bell lobbyists insisted that this was ludacris and fought against Hollywood's lobbyists with all their political might.  A stalemate insued, so a compromise was reached.  Wu writes that this compromise would later become Title II of the DMCA, which states that companies are protected by a "notice and takedown" system.  This means that all a site has to do to comply with copyright laws is take down infringing material at the request of the copyright holders.  Therefore, YouTube only needs to quickly takedown any material after notified to avoid legal issues. 

Wu does mention that this provision is not 100% "air-tight" noting that if YouTube knows there is infringing material on its site and fails to act, it may be liable in court for the infringement.  Wu then describes the difference between Napster and YouTube, saying that if the Internet were a red-light district, Napster would be the "pimp" and YouTube the "hotel".  He says that while Napster, like a pimp, is a means of getting illegal things and nothing else, YouTube is like the hotel in that they only "provides the space for people to do things, legal or not".

This document was posted on Mark Cuban's website blogmaverick.com.  Cuban claims that this is the actual filing of the case Tur v. YouTube, and judging from the legal jargon and very deliberate format, there seems to be little reason to deny that this is the actual filing.

The document states that on December 4, 2006, the case Robert Tur v. YouTube will be heard in United States District Court of Central California.  The introduction states that "there can be no doubt that serious and repetitive infringements of Tur's copyrighted works are displayed...on YouTube on a daily basis."  It also states that YouTube's main defense is the Safe Harbor Act in the DMCA, which they say protects them because they immediately remove copyrighted content at the owner's request.  The summary of Tur's claim states that YouTube does not qualify for the Safe Harbor provision because they make money "in the form of banner advertising directly attributable to the infringing video clips."  The article then goes on to list the details of the case, which basically state that five clips copyrighted by Tur are being shown on YouTube illegally. It also states that Tur is seeking roughly $150 million in damages, or $150,000 for each illegal viewing of his clips.

The decision in this case will be absolutely essential to the future of YouTube as a legitimate business.  While YouTube has helped solve many of their copyright issues with big name studios through recent revenue sharing agreements, a decision favoring Tur in this case would open the door to more lawsuits from small copyright owners.  This case will also test the legitimacy of YouTube's safe harbor defense.  Without the safe harbor provision, YouTube is an illegal company.  If this court's decision and later decisions eventually change the validity of that provision, or convinve Congress to do so, YouTube may be completely out of luck.  However, a win in this case would put YouTube on solid legal footing behind this Safe Harbor Defense.

Michael Liedtke writes in this article about the recent lawsuit brought against Google involving Google's online video service and whether or not the lawsuit is a sign of more copyright issues to come for Google's newest addition, YouTube.  He writes that content owners may only be biding their time until the Google acquisition of YouTube is finalized.  At that point, a number of lawsuits may be filed against YouTube by copyright holders. 

Google launched its online video service this January.  Since then, Liedtke writes, they have been desperately trying to catch up to YouTube, created a year earlier by two Pay Pal employees in California.  However, Google has "abandoned its attempts to catch YouTube", and instead just purchased the company for a cool $1.65 billion.  The issue with the acquisition, Liedtke explains, is that copyright holders can now sue YouTube with expectations of a large payout, now that they are backed by the immense capital possessed by Google. Liedtke notes that before the deal with Google, YouTube "had been subsisting on $11.5 million in venture capital".  Google itself has $10.4 billion- in cash.  Google itself has acknowledged the fact that it could face more copyright lawsuits because of YouTube.

Liedtke also talks about the widely circulated internet rumor which said that Google had set aside $500 million in case copyright issues came up after the purchase of YouTube.  The number was later confirmed to be $200 million by Google representatives.  Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, continues to remain confident amidst the fears of lawsuits.  He said that YouTube has "been on this path" referring to copyright issues, and that together they could solve these issues "more quickly". 

Investors also seem to be unfazed by copyright concerns over YouTube.  Liedtke points to the fact that Google has a lot of experience in copyright cases and has yet to been dealt a serious blow.  Google's stock has risen nearly 15% since the purchase of YouTube. 

Amanda Bronstad in this article writes about the differences between the copyright infringement cases that ultimately doomed music file sharing sites like Napster and Grokster and the current batch of cases involving video sharing sites like YouTube.  On one side of the argument, video sharing sites say that a major percentage of their content is perfectly legitimate and legal.  Also, these sites, especially YouTube, point out that they remove content considered to be copyright infringing immediately after they are notified by the copyright holder.  This did not happen with music file sharing sites. However, lawyers for Hollywood's major studios say that their case is bolstered by the fact that they now have a precedent in MGM v. Grokster.  They argue that web sites know they make money off of this infringing material, and therefore are liable for induced infringement.  They also say that video sharing sites may be considered direct infringers because of the role these sites take in editing user content.

Bronstad also notes that while the recent agreements between YouTube and major studios such as Universal, Warner, and CBS does help legitimize the site, the agreements aren't necessarily "suit proof".  She says that many experts in the field see a major gray area that could be exploited by an ambitious company or law firm.  She says that the debate will ultimately come down to the DMCA's "safe harbor provision", and whether or not these video sites have put in place and enforced rules to protect themselves from future legal issues.  She says that the strongest safe harbor these companies have is the ability to remove copyright infringing material from their sites.  If sites continue to consistently remove copyright infringing content, as YouTube has done over the last few months, then these companies will have a strong legal foundation for their business models.