United States Copyright Office. Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
This section of the United States Code prohibits the "unauthorized Fixation and trafficking in sound recording and music videos...without the consent of the performer or performers involved." In other words, it makes it clear that it is illegal to distribute music or music videos, online for example, without consent. According to the language used, it sounds like music videos are defined as recordings of live performances, rather than more abstract videos edited to reflect the content of the music. Elsewhere in the Copyright Code, phonorecords are defined as being separate from audiovisual works. But when music videos are available online, they become one more way for internet "pirates" to obtain a digital "phonorecord" without paying or receiving permission from the artist or copyright holder.

This is the only area where noticeable steps have been taken to stop the distribution of anime music videos. That is, stepping in on behalf of the interests of the musicians to control the distribution of their songs. Record companies are not beholden to the niche audience of anime fans, so are willing to act on the law when an infringement is brought to their attention. For the record company an entire creative work is being reproduced and transmitted in a music video; whereas for the copyright holders of a given anime, only relatively small portions of (if even the "heart" of) their works are reproduced. As they have done in various areas of internet music trafficking, music companies have the (moral or ethical) right perform the same way a domestic anime copyright holder would when faced with illegal distribution of an entire film or series. When a music video is downloaded, it is possible to detach the audio from the video and acquire the song on its own, or even just enjoy it in full as it plays over the video. Therefore using a song in a music video is closer to a clear-cut act of piracy than editing the video.

This is a copy of the lawsuit Universal filed against MySpace on November 17, 2006, in the United States District Court of Central California.  In the suit, Universal claims that MySpace is guilty of copyright infringement.  Universal claims that the songs and music videos shown on MySpace are done so illegally and without permission from copyright holders.  Universal uses Jay-Z as an example in their case against MySpace, saying that songs from his new CD, "Kingdom Come", are available on MySpace even though, at the time the suit was filed, the record had not been released.  Universal says that MySpace is well aware of the copyright laws that it is breaking and continues to support the "user-stolen"content distributed on the site.  They also say that MySpace knows that they don't have a liscense from the copyright holders of the songs and videos it distributes.  The proof, says Universal, lies in the agreement each MySpace user makes with the site that gives MySpace control over what can be done with the content.   Universal says that MySpace knows that these are not the real copyright holders, and yet continues to show infringing content without permission.

This case is extremely relevant to the YouTube copyright discussion.  First off, it could convince MySpace and other similar sites to follow YouTube's lead and strike revenue sharing deals with major studios.  The YouTube business model would then be seen as a blue print for similar companies, and this in turn would help shield YouTube and other sites from future lawsuits.  However, this case could end up hurting YouTube.  Universal claims that since MySpace edits and posts much of the content on the site, they are knowingly infringing upon the copyrights of the videos and songs available on their site.  Although YouTube's users do much of the posting and editing, YouTube itself still edits user content.  If the courts buy Universal's arguments, YouTube could be in grave danger of future lawsuits.