The author, in this entry from a Web 2.0-centric blog, details Youtube’s recent efforts to both appease copyright holders and to promote creativity amongst its users.  In January 2007, Youtube unveiled plans for a Revenue Sharing program which would give certain Youtube users a portion of ad revenue Youtube receives based on the number of hits their videos garner. Youtube will give even higher exposure to users labeled as “Directors,” people who are allowed to upload films greater than 10 minutes in length. Similarly, Youtube will share revenue with some copyright holders based on ad money they receive for the viewing of infringing videos. The author discusses the possibility that Youtube will have to increase the number of ads it shows to make up for the profit lost from the Revenue Sharing Program. This leads to the dilemma of Youtube losing viewers if advertisements begin to show up before minute-long clips. To increase the effectiveness of heightened advertising, Youtube may have to adopt a TV style model in which “an advertiser pays Youtube (and thus the content creator) X amount for every viewing.”  To appease advertisers, Youtube’s new Audio Fingerprinting technology could be used to prevent inappropriate videos from being paired with reputable brands. This would be similar to Google Adsense which provides targeted advertising to firms. The problem relates to copyright because if Youtube adopts targeted advertising, which it has recently begun to do, it will be receiving revenue for ads placed in front of infringing videos for which it does not have deals settled with the copyright holders, thus increasing the possibility of them being vicariously liable. The solution, the author notes, is to use Audio Fingerprinting to detect copyrighted material and then inform the copyright holder, who will have the option to either remove the material or share revenue gained from the video with Youtube.

This system could potentially solve the problem of both Youtube and the copyright holder losing money from various transactions. Youtube loses money when it devotes bandwidth and time to a video only to have the video deleted due to a takedown notice. Similarly, the holder loses money wasting man hours filing takedown notices and finding the actual infringing material. If both groups work together, as Youtube intends, companies will be much less likely to sue Youtube, especially if they are actually making money from infringing videos posted online. Similarly, Youtube decreases its chance of liability because it is increasing its promotion of original works by paying some users. By offering directors a part of the revenue earned from their original and creative works, Youtube is encouraging users to make their own films rather than simply splicing together copyrighted material (which leads to zero profit for users). Thus, with the adoption of the revenue sharing plan detailed above, Youtube has simultaneously appeased the copyright holders and expanded its promotion of original material, showing courts that there are indeed significant “non-infringing” uses for Youtube.

In this Manifesto, Professor Boyle claims that there are systematic errors in contemporary intellectual property policy and that WIPO has an important role in helping to correct them.

Kembrew MacLeod takes a decidedly anti-corporate stance in Freedom of Expression, as he details the effects conglomeratization and more stringent laws have had on creative industries such as music, film and other art forms. MacLeod believes that these laws cause the creators of culture to self-censor in order to prevent legal action, and that as more laws are created (such as the DMCA) more self-censorship will occur. According to MacLeod, this increasingly hostile environment then pits "Intellectual Property" against "Freedom of Expression." MacLeod feels that both IP and free expression can co-exist, but not in the current legal climate.

In this article for Wired Magazine, Larry Lessig offers an overview of some of the troubles causes by over-protective copyright laws. As an example, Lessig tries to license the song "Happy Birthday" for recording and distribution, in honor of the first “birthday” of the Free Culture Movement. In order to obtain the rights to the song, Lessig must navigate through a web of nonresposive organizations and exorbitant fees. In the end, Lessig does not obtain the ability to record the song at all, revealing the weakness and confusion that are present in the current copyright system.

As a follow-up to their exploratory report of the effects of copyright restrictions on documentary filmmakers, Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi have collaborated with a group of filmmakers, lawyers and other experts to create a statement of best practices for claims of fair use in documentary filmmaking. This statement will help guide filmmakers in their claims of fair use, and help inform them what material is within their bounds. This statement of best practices will help standardize the process of seeking and obtaining rights in the documentary film world, and assist in helping filmmakers make legally informed decisions. According to the statement, documentary filmmakers should be afforded the same rights as cultural and historical critics in print media.

This book explores the historical and legal frameworks governing intellectual property law. Moreover, this book describes how these assumptions and frameworks have been completely changed by the introduction of the internet and other media like DVDs and CDs. Various theoretical arguments, both for minimizing and maximizing IP protection, are explored in the context of current issues like webcasting and the legal definition of trespass in cyberspace. These practical applications help illuminate the complicated nature of IP in an increasingly digital world.

In Who Owns Culture? Susan Scafidi navigates the unstable relationship between cultural creation and legal protection of cultural works. Scafidi is particularly interested in the notion of individual creation. The book highlights how American law privileges individual creation over group or communal works. In this book, the basics behind cultural commoditization, ownership and commercialization are explored, as well as the uneven legal framework that governs cultural products.

Spurred on by the publication of the Aufderheide and Jaszi report, Matt Dunne explores the strugglers of documentary filmmakers trying to fund their projects in this article. Dunne expresses the growing frustration in the documentary community at having to face large fees and mountains of paperwork before releasing a film. Dunne also notes that the commercial success of some recent documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11, may make the position of documentaries in the legal realm even more precarious. As the difficulties rise for filmmakers, Dunne draws a parallel to recent music lawsuits and the increasing difficulty of fair use claims for academic books.