Recently in the news, articles regarding YouTube, Presidential Candidates, and copyright law are getting attention. In TechNewsWorld.com, Jason Cohen wrote a blog regarding how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that McCain voted for, was now coming back to haunt him. As a result of the DMCA, YouTube, against McCain’s wishes is pulling some of McCain’s political ads off of its website. While the effect of copyright laws on the presidential election is the main focus of Cohen’s article, another important issue for many people is whether YouTube is guilty of violating copyright law.
YouTube describes itself as being, “the premier destination to watch and share original videos worldwide through a Web experience. YouTube allows people to easily upload and share video clips on [YouTube] and across the Internet through websites, mobile devices, blogs, and email.” However, it is important to note that many of these videos are not quite as “original” as YouTube claims. A user can watch TV shows, clips from movies, famous songs and singer performances, along with many other types of copyrighted material. The million dollar question is does this constitute copyright infringement?
Unfortunately, for the creators of innovative websites such as YouTube, the first copyright statutes were written during a time when computers did not exist. Even with updates such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act there is still no relevant statute clearly defining if YouTube is guilty of copyright infringement. This uncertainty in the law could be the reason that YouTube is carefully trying to follow any laws that seem applicable. While the writer of DMCA Comes Back to Bite McCain is critical of YouTube for taking down some of McCain’s political ads, the truth is YouTube is acting in their best interest. Instead of taking the aggressive route and trying to push the copyright envelope, YouTube is taking the more prudent and cautious action of removing potentially infringing material. As a result of this conservative stance a court in a copyright suit might be more lenient towards YouTube because of their good faith effort to comply with the law. This good faith effort is particularly relevant considering that Viacom is currently suing YouTube for a billion dollars in damages due to copyright law violations.
Right now many people are enjoying YouTube and the ability to access these videos for free, but how long will it last? Because of antiquated copyright laws will YouTube go the way of Napster? Since Congress is the group with the real power to clear this matter up, they should address this new type of problem instead of leaving it to the courts. If Congress can have special hearings on which baseball players are using steroids (probably an event you could watch on YouTube) it does not seem too far of a reach for them to use their constitutional powers to clarify the copyright laws regarding YouTube.
