And so it begins.

Viacom sent a DMCA notice because of Jim's home video. Jim happens to be at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law.  

EFF Page about Viacom DMCA notices

if the entire accounts are down though it could be youtube/google's doing.  

There has always been a tension between copyright law and the first amendment since the enshrining of the two principles into the Constitution. In fact, the fair use doctrine arises out of those tensions as a compromise test that is meant to alleviate some of the preassure, but the tensions have always and will always be there. So, when you say "it begins"- I have no idea what that means since it began back when they first wrote the document several hundred years ago.  

If YouTube doesn't fix this in real short order, they and their new Google parents need to hear from the netroots loud, clear and relentlessly.  And, if they don't respond with a real fix, there needs to be a mass migration to a web-video platform that is willing to make the effort to deal with demands from the likes of Viacom while also respecting the rights of millions of users.  Any suggestions out there on how to mount a focused effort of pressuring GooTube to do just that?  They need to know that the citizen/user side of their "rights" balancing act can and will push as hard as (or harder than) Viacom.  EFF is an obvious ally here.

This is THE issue. Corporate powers are abusing the copyright laws to crack down on free speech and dissent.

The struggle for free speech online centers on copyright and net neutrality.

Matt, as always I applaud your leadership on this issue.

Sorry, I'm kinda new to this particular debate, but it seems to me that most of the blame for us not being able to see what we want to see (for free) is being put on YouTube and Google, which are both traditionally freebees.  Viacom, on the other hand is the heavy handed corporatist, which own many, many of our favorite shows, etc (like the Daily Show, and lord only knows what else.)  I suggest that we start finding out what else they own and figure out which of their properties that we can do without (yes, I mean boycott,) and which of their sponsors can be influenced into requesting that they take their stinking thumb off the scale.  It's kinda like when the bank used to give away toasters for opening a new account and would give you checks for free.  Now you're lucky if they don't charge you for opening an account, for using their tellers, for using an ATM, and of course you have to pay for your checks.  Why?  Because they found out that they could, and we wimped out and let them charge us with just a little grousing. We figured they're the only game in town, and so did the bank.  Somebody please explain to me why I'm wrong!

So much for Google's claim not to be evil.

Best response is to move to another video service.

Does Youtube and its owner Google nt realize that the really the only reason Youtube has been popular is because of the ability to see almost anything on its pages?

They took away all the Daily Show and Colbert Report clips, the South Park Episodes and more, and now the political ads.

Why don't they realize it can only take a quick moment for the public to go from saying 'Oh you can Find it on Youtube, why dont we visit there' to 'Oh don't go to youtube, it used to be there but who knows if its allowed now'

Most people aren't going to use youtube to stare at stupid people in their bedrooms making home videos. They want to see clips of things that may vry weel be copyrighted. and really, can anyone tell me how  youtbe clip is going to hurt a business?

I mean, Youtube isn't the invulnerable saviour of web clippings, and they need to realize that This is just bad business on the part of google.

the headline of the post is unfortunately misleading

with great respect for Matt, copyright is not at fault, and the headline only contributes to a further needless misapprehension about what copyright does and does not protect

in this case it appears YouTube suspended material which was not a violation of copyright - material which falls under the Fair Use exception

this is more likely an example of heavy handed corporate intimidation

large corporations have commonly used threat of lawsuit to secure their objectives, whether a case would actually stand up legally or not

SLAPP suits - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - were often used by corporations against environmentalists who protested land development, for example

and states have created anti-SLAPP legislation

but YouTube doesn't really have an obligation to showcase anyone's video either - just like restaurants have "a right to refuse service"

blogs which feature video can't afford to rely on 3rd party hosts which are either unknowing of the law or unwilling to fight for their users

the good news is that software exists so bloggers can control their own video content

the only way to save us all from the lawyers, is to save it when it plays. all flash media and the like can be recorded by webcam - just turn on your webcam and frame it to a place on your desktop and then run it back through your webcam when you play it.

second point - just me. does anyone else besides me ever notice that lawyers almost never seem to add anyting to the internet, only try to take away? prediction: one day , just as Iran and Iraq will go to the EU, the bush administration will be known for introducing lawyers to the internet as a form of spam.

Time for someone to create a new video hosting site.

This will only hurt them more then help. The Daily Show, Colbert, Keith Olbermann all got huge ratings jumps because people saw them around the internet. These are like mini commercials for the shows.

Maybe YouTube and Google should just add commercials or ads for these studios and shows that pertain to the video clips. They could do this easily like the do with the rest of their ads.

Progressive Blue

Texas Nate is onto something. This is nothing if not a blow to the notion of Google's support for net neutrality. They have a near-monopoly on online video and search. And now they're cutting deals with the content companies who would restrict the free flow of content across the web -- similar to what they are doing with Comcast on the distribution side.

I am not a disinterested party, but I argue this is a bigger threat to the net as we know it than anything that might happen with high-speed lanes for Internet video and voice.