In chapter 8 of Lessig’s book, called “Transformers,” Lessig tells the story of Alex Alben and his creation of a retrospective CD-ROM based on the career of Clint Eastwood. He talks about the trouble the development team went through to get permission from every single actor that had appeared in the that they were going to use. This is just a small part of the chapter, but it helps explain why partly there are numerous mashups and remixes out there without permission: It’s just too hard. Lessig tells a story where Alben’s team tracked down all the actors that had appeared, called them, and then paid them $600. Besides being time consuming, the process seems very cost prohibitive, which explains why there are such a large number of copyright infringing works on sites like YouTube and online.

    This is a particularly great article for a number of reasons; however, those reasons will be discussed after a brief discussion of its contents. This piece, by regular contributor Bob Garfield, gives an overview of the purpose of YouTube and what it is, video advertising (in all its forms), and the recent purchase of YouTube by Google, inc.

It talks about, among various other things, the 1.65 billion paid for it in Google stock, the outrageous number of 65,000 (which is the number of videos uploaded everyday onto YouTube), and the reasoning why YouTube has such popular viral videos. The last statement was proved in the article by this quote:

“It’s said that if you put a million monkeys at a million typewriters, eventually you will get the works of William Shakespeare. When you put together a million humans, a million camcorders, and a million computers, what you get is YouTube.”

This article would be superb to cite in a piece on YouTube, like I previously stated, numerous reasons. For starters, the article gives and overview of YouTube for those not formerly acquainted with the site. This is a great article, since it explains to reader how the entire process works. It would also shed some light on the culture of the site and the community that worships it. The article at about halfway through switches gears and begins to talk about the ramifications that YouTube is having in the Advertising industry, the recent decline of mass advertising, and the fall of TV Commercials. This would fit into an essay well because I believe it will certainly add depth to my explanation of the new culture that is arising in our society, the new digital culture, one of Tivo, viral video, and iTunes. All together, this article would be indispensable for any essay on remix culture. It’s a great read, that’s chalk full of good information, quotes, and anecdotes that would definitely spice up any essay about YouTube or other remix sites.

    This a great video that can be used as a counter argument for anyone that say’s online video is completely killing companies marketing and advertising strategies. The article chronicles the story of Chevrolet, and their foray into marketing involving online consumer generated works. Thinking they could profit on the recent online explosion, Chevrolet, in a bold move, asked web users to make their own video advertisements for their bestselling SUV, the Tahoe. While Chevrolet supplied the video, and music, users could mix and match them, and add their own captions. While most of the video’s created touted the superiority of the Tahoe, others became sarcastic narrations on global warming, masculinity, and even war in Iraq. Although it was a success overall in the eyes of Chevrolet, it can be argued that because of the appeal of the attack ad’s over the regular advertisements online on sites like YouTube, the negative commercials lampooning the automobile company were much more widely viewed. But, as I said, one could only argue, and not sustain, that this actually supports the fact that ways to advertise to consumers are being lost. Before this claim is made, an individual must realize certain facts.

    First, the company, Chevrolet, is known for selling large, generally fuel inefficient vehicles, which have angered some more eco-friendly consumers. Second, one must remember that many other companies have succeeded where Chevrolet has failed. For example, Burger King and Converse, both nationally recognized chains, have previously launched online “mashup” campaigns. The difference, however, was simply the type of users responding to the company’s promotion, and the products of the company itself. In contrast to what happened to Chevrolet’s dealings with “mashups”, Converse was actually so successful with their endeavor, that numerous of the submissions were actually brought onto national television and later went on to receive critical acclaim.     

    This is a great article for any individual researching the idea of “mashups” and user generated content being used by corporations. It shows what can go right, what go wrong, and what can flat out backfire when users are involved in advertising of a product.

The main purpose of this article would be to introduce the concept of the “mashup” to the reader. Written as a somewhat filler piece for the March 6^th’s Newsweek, it’s short, sweet, and to the point. The author intends to write to a slightly older audience, and begins his article with this sentence: “Unless you're a geek, obsessed with DJs or under the age of 35, chances are you've never heard the word ‘mashup.’” This shows that the piece is actually perfect for my aforementioned plan of introducing the concept of “mashups” to anyone not acquainted. A great part of this article is that it actually breaks “mashups” into the three categories that it can be created within: Video, music, and “web apps.” Although the third category of “web apps” is great, (and a big, meaningful part of the internet and the Web 2.0 movement) I don’t believe that it would have much use in an essay about more artistic “mashups” and the new electronic remix culture.

    In any case, like previously stated, the article gives great examples of creative “mashups” such as DJ Dangermouse’s "The Grey Album," which took the lyrics from Jay-Z's "The Black Album" and mashed them with the Beatles' "White Album,” a plethora of Brokeback Mountain parodies (which are well within the bounds of fair use), and a “mashup” of Tom Cruise's appearance on "Oprah" where he confessed his love for Katie Holmes, juxtaposed against Oprah’s with her scolding of the author James Frey. As far as articles on internet sensations go, with many examples, and a sufficient definition, this piece is some of the best information an individual can find on the ever changing pop culture craze that is the “mashup.”

This is a great piece because it helps many individuals who do not know much about copyright law to become informed, of what is legal, what isn’t, why there’s so much fuss about YouTube, and what they can do to prevent illegal material from popping up on the site. It begins with “Ron” informing the viewer about a recent suit brought against the site, by Robert Tur, a helicopter cameraman who has taken numerous famous video clips, such as the OJ Simpson chase, and the LAPD police beatings. Mr. Tur feels that YouTube is purposely profiting by the infringement of illegal videos because of advertisements. However, our lawyer friend, Ron, states YouTube is not violating the DMCA because there is no way to see if the loads and loads of copyrighted material is drawing in ad revenue, or if the loads and loads non-copyrighted material is. He even presents what’s good for YouTube, and what’s bad for YouTube. He then states that in his lawyer opinion, that he believes Tur will lose.

             In the ten minute video, Ron also mentions many other copyright related subjects, such as Fair use, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Betamax case, Napster, Grokster, and others. This is a great source because it tries to help YouTubers avoid copyright infractions by offering advice, (though not legal advice, as the beginning of the video starts off with “The opinions in this video are the authors alone, and do not constitute legal advice.”) so that they can keep YouTube legal and running. In an essay about remix culture, this piece would serve as a devil’s advocate of sorts, showing that YouTube could possibly still survive without its popular, but illegal videos. In my opinion, however, this is probably not as possible as “Ron” puts it, but it’s a unique view nonetheless.

    This article, by online Newsweek contributor Brad Stone, discusses what YouTube represents in the online community. It begins by offering a point, saying “what if YouTube is the Napster of video?” Stone then refutes it by giving specific examples. He states that YouTube is cooperating with copyright holders much more than expected, and is taking down material quickly and but not very efficiently. To combat this problem, YouTube is apparently working with other companies to create a video reconition program that will be able to identify copyrighted material and remove it.

            As you might already be thinking, this is bad for remix culture that wants a large audience such as the viewers of YouTube. It not only slows the flow of creative and derivative works dramatically, but forces creators, who want to use YouTube as a medium, to use works that are royalty free, in the public domain, or ask for permission for use (which almost is never granted).

            This piece does not only give a good explanation of what YouTube is, and where it has come from, but shed’s light on a possible future for the site. If what Mr. Stone predicts comes to fruition, it would mean a entire medium for copyright infringing works would be gone; whether this is a good, or bad thing for society, is up for interpretation.

    To those not acquainted, the Grokster case was the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to make most p2p file sharing applications illegal. The court reached this decision after it reviewed an appeal of another appeal that went from a dismissal by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2003, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the previous decision was upheld. When relating special court cases to sites online today, an individual may spring to the conclusion that the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case would provide the answer easily. This was the case that prevented VCR manufacturers from having liability and suit brought against them for contributory infringement when users created copies. While the court in the Betamax case famously stated that VCR’s were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses," the decision in the Grokster case stated that even if something has the ability for those noninfringing uses, if no action is taken to prevent infringement of copyright law, it may be guilty of contributory infringement.

            How does this relate to the sites and programs used today? Do the YouTubes and BitTorrents have to fear the wrath of possible copyright infringement? The Answer is no, they do not; but, there is a caveat, they must follow the rules of Section 512 of U.S. Copyright law and remove infringing work. This case undoubtedly very significant when approaching and concerning intellectual property theft and property theft in the digital age.

    Before we get into the specifics of this article, it’s good to observe who wrote the it: Fred von Lohmann is a senior staff attorney with the now almost infamous group: the EFF or Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF is a San Francisco-based nonprofit group who try to protect users, the freedom of expression, creativity and innovation on the internet. While on a less than reputable site than others like Newsweek, Time, or other online journals, this piece is just as, or more so compelling and revealing about the business that is YouTube.

    the article itself is split up into 4 sections, the first called: “Why YouTube?” In this section, Von Lohmann explains that the popularity of YouTube has been greater than it’s competitors, citing mostly its ease of use. The second section is “Copyright Issues,” in this section he champions YouTube for being very willing to help abide by copyright, and states that because of this, it is a attractive business partner for advertising. The third section talks about the “Safe Harbor” of section 512 of U.S. copyright law, and how YouTube benefits from it. The last section is aptly named “Problems Ahead?” Like most writers, Von Lohmann is cautious about the future of YouTube and its ability to stay running. He states that while as of right now, while some advertisers are very willing to use the site, others do not because of certain reasons regarding copyright, and advertisement opportunities and effectiveness.

            All in all, this is the perfect article for any individual interested in the business behind YouTube.com. Von Lohmann articulately describes the opportunities facing YouTube, potential investors, and advertisers with the new medium. With this piece in mind, anyone can accurately state what YouTube means from an economic view.

    Wired’s recent YouTube article, YouTube vs. Boob Tube, does a good job of summarizing the important bits of YouTube culture for those who may have missed it up until this point.  It begins as any good discussion of YouTube, by rattling off a large array of videos which are simply to be seen so that you can understand the fundamental concepts underlying YouTube

    It continues to assert more of YouTube’s grassroots, consumer-generated flair, slowly beginning to delve into broader sociological concepts (writer Bob Garfield decides to bestow upon YouTube the moniker “monkey vision,” which is a name so outrageously “pompous social magazine writer attempting to coin the next phrase” that it is sure to be forgotten soon.

    But beyond that, it does address some key issues with YouTube, such as its future.  How can, for instance, YouTube truly keep afloat when all it has is ad revenue and the majority of its hits go through embedded content, not directly off of the site where the ads are?

    Regardless, Hollywood types are shaking in their boots, and for good reason.  As YouTube takes off, not only do they lose their stranglehold on the media market—as the article points out just a few years ago completely dominated by Hollywood—they lose ad revenue, and to top it all off, many of the videos on YouTube actually infringe upon content that they are creating.

    The article, in general, seems to depict a two-pronged future for media.  It raises two important questions: can YouTube capitalize on its success, or will it turn out to be a “useless” humanitarian endeavor?  The second question is, literally and oddly enough, “will we ever be rid of Regis Philbin?”

    Regardless, the future of YouTube still looks promising.  We are still in the midst of a consumer culture-driven wave, and as the technology gets cheaper and cheaper, there is no sign of end.

    In Chapter 5 of Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig lays out anecdotes and archetypes of all manner of piracy.  The duplication of copyrighted CDs and DVDs in foreign markets is touched upon, but one of the main salient points is his defense of Peer-to-Peer file sharing networks, the groundbreaking networks and servers which made Section 512 absolutely necessary and the rulings on which still protect YouTube from harm.

    One of Lessig’s major talking points is his attribution of the four archetypal uses of P2P networking: stealing music, sampling music before buying, access to abandonware or other copyrighted content that is no longer available by traditional means, and those who search for content that has no copyright or a Creative Commons license and is meant to be shared.

    This is a highly utopian view of both P2P networking and the internet, but at the very least interesting to consider.  Lessig goes on to discuss drops in CD sales and later Jack Valenti’s ridiculous claims about VCRs as “tapeworms,” just waiting to drive the industry down.  If anything, the VCR and file-sharing networks both paved the way for the kind of content generation and also server networks that my final project will use and draw attention to.

    This section of U.S. Copyright law sets guidelines and restrictions for internet service providers and internet services which use their own servers to host user documents.  It allows for an internet service to continue functioning without fear of reprisal from copyright property owners so long as the operators of the service are not participating in the infringement and do not know of the infringing material’s existence on their servers.

    This governs server liability, stating “a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.”

    It is this kind of exemption that keeps sites like YouTube and BitTorrent search sites up and functional.  If the copyright owner actively complains, the server simply takes down the files and no legal issue is raised (meanwhile the copyrighted content likely pops up again within a matter of days).

    This section of US Copyright law outlines violations of copyright-managed systems, such as bypassing digital rights management and producing a copy of a video in another format.  This makes it illegal for consumers to bypass encryption that restricts content, for instance, to one device for purposes of moving the same content to another.  The law also includes information on the Librarian of Congress’ selection of a class of bypassable works, exemption for educational institutions, and what construes technological violation of copyright encryption.

    Section 1201 also states that no outstanding violations of this section will hinder a defendant’s fair use argument.

    This section of US Copyright law is particularly salient as in order to create my project, I will be bypassing both DVD encryption codes and any DRM embedded into the music used for the piece.

    These are both clear violations of Section 1201.  However, were my project ever to come under copyright scrutiny, I would hope to find protection under this violation being carried out within an academic institution, for purposes of parody, and creating a transformative video which falls neatly under fair use exemption.

    This is also important because for the vast majority of videos on YouTube that contain copyrighted content owned by major corporations, that content has been captured from a source which implemented digital rights management, and thus the uploaders have infringed upon Section 1201.

    This press release from YouTube briefly details their partnership with Universal Music Group (UMG), subsidiary of Vivendi Universal.  In this groundbreaking strategic partnership, UMG agrees to make music videos whose rights they own viewable on YouTube.  It also allows for YouTube users to utilize music from UMG’s extensive catalogs in their videos.  In turn, YouTube agrees to remove from their site any content owned by UMG which they choose not to make available, and UMG and its artists will be compensated by YouTube for their properties being viewed on the site.

    The document makes mention of the nature of the partnership: that is, a way for UMG to tap into the vast resource internet traffic, a way to assure that YouTube remains devoted to protecting their property, and lastly an embrace of contemporary convergence culture and the new consumer/prosumer drive towards user-generated content.

    This is an interesting deal, especially considering the rampant speculation of YouTube running into problems with UMG just a month before this announcement and how, in the midst of the YouTube deal, UMG sued two other video sharing networks.

    I reference this announcement because it, as well as YouTube’s agreement with Warner Music Group (which preceded this partnership) are primary evidence of a growing trend towards adoption of user-generated content models, and the willingness of media giants to begin the slow process of loosing content restrictions without direct payment by the consumer.

    I reference specifically the Universal Music Group rather than the earlier Warner announcement because segments from my project will include property (video) that is owned by Vivendi Universal.  While this announcement does not in any way justify the posting of my project on YouTube as a legal action, the existence of a link between the two companies is of note, and hopefully a sign that should property agreements expand, the video included in my project will one day be YouTube-licensed (keeping in mind that this is not likely, as the project will contain copyrighted material from additional companies.

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.

This article from the New York Times describes in detail the legal issues that Google deals with on a regular basis. Katie Hafner, who wrote the article, notes that any company that is large, successful, and has deep pockets, all qualities of the search engine giant, will attract lawsuits. Yet she says that Google "invites" lawsuits because of the company's "rush to create innovative new services. Professor Jonathan Zittrain of Oxford University is quoted in this article as saying that Google's strategy seems to be "just do it, and consult the lawyers as you go". He sees this as an offshoot of the late 90's internet boom culture which promoted new ideas and technology at the expense of possible legal trouble.

With Google's recent purchase of YouTube, many believe that the company is "exposing itself to a new spate of lawsuits". Hafner points out the fact that much of the content on YouTube is copyrighted material just copied and illegally posted, as well as the lawsuit filed against YouTube by Robert Tur, which Google will now have to deal with. However, Google has plenty of experience in copyright fights, and seems ready for the challenge.

Hafner spends the rest of the article detailing the reason's behind Google's aggressive policies toward fighting litigation and some of the most well known copyright and trademark cases involving YouTube. She first notes that Google now has a team of over 100 lawyers, stationed both overseas and in the United States, many of which are experts on intellectual property law. This team works tirelessly to fight nearly every single lawsuit filed against Google. They do this because, one, Google wants to set a good legal foundation for itself, and winning cases certainly does this. Also, any lawsuit that gets to the pre-trial fact finding phase, writes Hafner, would "pose the danger of revealing too much about Google's propriety technology"

The rest of the article deals with Hafner describing the Geico case against Google, in which the courts ruled in Google's favor, and the lawsuits brought up by the French and Belgian press. The Belgian case is extremely relevant to copyright law, with Google claiming that headlines are not copyrightable, while the Belgian media thinks otherwise. A Belgian court ruled in favor of the media outlet in September, yet it remains to be seen whether or not this ruling will have an effect on Google in the United States.

This article is important in the YouTube discussion because it points out one of Google's great advantages when dealing with copyright issues- Google has tons of experience in this area.  Google's executives and lawyers both know what to expect in the upcoming lawsuits, and they firmly believe that they have a solid defense.  Google would not have purchased YouTube if they had not been confident in the company's legality. 

Stephen Speicher discusses YouTube's place in the fair use discussion, and how the debate over YouTube could help and answer the "age-old question: What is fair use?".  He first comments on YouTube's amazing rise to stardom, becoming the number one internet video service just a year after its conception.  Speicher explains that YouTube's success stems mostly from its ability to allow users to post videos and view them.  He also points out that while much of YouTube's traffic comes from views of homemade, legal, amateur content, a large bulk of the videos posted on the site are copyright infringers and, therefore, illegal. 

While many of these videos containing copyrighted content are direct copies and obviously illegal,  many of the videos show short news clips from cable television, sitcom or clips of sporting events and other public gatherings.  These "tightly-edited clips", argues Speicher, can be seen as reporting or educational, and therefore within the limits of fair use.  He uses the example of someone blogging about the officiating in the NBA playoffs, saying that while it would be possible to describe each play in detail and then give the thumbs up or down on the refs call, it would be much more practical just to show the clip of the play itself to illustrate your point.  He also mentions the fact that YouTube is positioning itself to be at the heart of this debate by "distancing themselves" from complete works (The ten minute limit on clips is a good example of this).

This fair use argument, while it isn't YouTube's major defense mechanism (that would be the Safe Harbor provision in the DMCA), can help bolster the case for YouTube as a legitimate company.  If YouTube can convince the courts that these clips are fair use, it would eliminate a significant portion of the clips now considered illegal on the site.  With more legal videos, YouTube can make the Sony argument, saying that their company has substantial non-infringing uses.  This precedent has been in place for twenty years and would put YouTube on very solid legal ground.

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.

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. 

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. 

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".

Brian P. Wilkner discusses in this article the effects of the Sony v. Universal and MGM v. Grokster on the newest batch of cases that will "pit mainstream, consumer-participation-oriented companies against copyright owners".  The article gives background information on both the Sony and Grokster cases and talks about the contributory liability doctrine, and how the Sony decision limited the power of this doctrine by stating that Sony's VCR had significant non-infringing uses.  On the other hand, it noted the Napster and Grokster cases which found each music file sharing company guilty of copyright infringement, and therefore were illegal.  Napster's fatal flaw, writes Wilkner, was the fact that they had a centralized indexing system that gave the creators of Napster too much knowledge of what was actually being shared on their website.  Grokster attempted to circumvent this problem by creating a decentralized index which "deprived their creators of any knowledge of infringing activity".  The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against them, saying that companies that distribute a device with clear intentions of promoting copyright infringement were illegal, and that Grokster's claim that they were unable to stop copyright infringement from taking place demonstrated an "unlawful objective".  One of the interesting tidbits about the Grokster case was that the court did not rule on the limits of the Sony decision, as many court observers thought they would.

Wilkner then goes on to talk about "inverse Grokster scenarios",  which he says will "pit content owners against legitimate organizations seeking to capitalize on the demand for interactivity".  Companies like Google, MySpace, and YouTube, he states, will not make statements or take actions to promote copyright infringement, but will maintain day-to-day operations with the knowledge that some copyright infringing content is being viewed or placed on their sites.  This is in direct contrast with Grokster, which claimed ignorance by stating it was unaware of any infringement taking place on its site.  The article ends with Wilkner proposing a "test" of the inverse Grokster dilemma in which the courts will have to decide whether the public benefit from these sites outweighs the property rights of copyright holders. 

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.  

Riddle me this: what do you get when you combine a nifty little piece of Flash software, some backend mojo, an army of cellphone-toting teens, and one "Lazy Sunday" clip? The answer is, of course, the largest online video streaming service on the planet, YouTube.

...

Ironically enough, however, it's YouTube's philosophy of small, digestible content and their willingness to avoid copyright issues that has positioned them to answer the age-old question of “What is fair use?”