@Hugh - Understood and agreed. If this is the time for a call to arms to fight it, then by all means fight. But we shouldn't act surprised. All of the works in question were created by people with knowledge of the risk.

@Trace - When YouTube was founded, they attempted to take a Napster-like stance of "we're not responsible for what people use our service for." So when they began, they deferred the responsibility to the users in a kind of honor system regarding whether they owned the content they uploaded, and then gave users a mechanism to report infringing content. That passive position has not held up in a judicial setting (much as it did not for Napster). So very early on, YT strengthened their wording on what was allowed, cautioned that works with copyright violations would be removed, and set up a more prominent mechanism whereby those violations could be reported. These things were all in place in September of 2006 when I uploaded Male Restroom Etiquette; YouTube had only been open to the public since November of 2005, 10 months earlier.

The only thing that has changed recently is increased enforcement of the rules they've been openly touting for years, an enforcement that does not rely on explicit DMCA reports but fingerprinting technology. Imperfect as it may be, it's a practical business approach to a problem that is now way too big to be done by manual human reviewing. Last estimate from YT was that thirteen hours of new video are uploaded every minute. Employ enough staff to keep up with that, and YouTube ceases to be profitable, and we're all seeing what happens to businesses in this climate that are losing money.

I disagree that there'd be no YouTube without infringing content. Certainly that's been a big part of its early appeal and growth, and consequently a big part of it being such a juicy target for the record companies... especially once the site started generating significant revenues last year. But there is plenty of content on YouTube that is not infringing, and a growing base of officially sanctioned copyrighted material. Plus there is still an enormous body of works which fall under the "infringing" copyright status but its owners are choosing not to press for its removal, perhaps because they share a different view about the value of it being there. In some cases they have an arrangement with YouTube to share in the ad revenue on their material (spotted by the fingerprinting), which gives tangible value to it for their business. Some companies (EA for one) are even using the fingerprint technology to encourage uploading. See this article in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/technology/16tube.html So the technology solution has some upsides, too.

So yeah, YouTube might not have ballooned the way it did without the infringing videos in the beginning, but it can certainly survive now. Those videos were only allowed to be hosted in the first place because YouTube originally thought they could get away with deferring that copyright responsibility to you and I.

I hope the EFF is successful in making the case that fan-made music videos are fair use, that would be really great.

Chocolate rain? daxflame? dramatic chipmunk? as far as I can tell, There are far more non-copyright infringing works in youtubes 10 million hits club than there are fan-music videos. to say that youtube would die without copyright infringement is an understandable argument from someone who focuses heavily on viewing the works of this small community we call machinima, but if you look at the numbers for where youtubes real traffic is (and always has been) you'll find that saying it would die without us is a gross exaggeration.

A rhetorical question is asked as a thought provoking gesture/way to stimulate discussion, it occurs frequently during debates. It's also a way of declaring an opinion while still acknowledging that it isn't a statement of fact.

This Youtube thing is interesting. Kinda. I think what many people are forgetting or just failing to realise is that posting whatever you like on youtube isn't a right.
It's funny that a lot of people see this as a legal problem, but ultimately I think not.

Youtube are free totally free to enforce requirements for videos on their site.
If I started a site for animation, and 6 months later changed it to a solely Machinima site, removing the items of general animation, that would be fair game regardless of my reasons. My site, I make the rules. The animation crowd can't then claim I have some kind of legal or moral obligation to accept their stuff.

I think we've all been using Youtube for so long we've forgotten, we DON'T OWN it.

Besides all that, Youtube DO have to think legally. If they are making money and they continued to allow use (and effectively, unauthorised distribution) of copyright material, they would be fools.

though you say it was a question and not a statement, it was definately WORDED as a statement, the kind of intonation needed to turn that from a statement to a question is something that doesn't come across in text, so I hope you'll forgive me for misinterpreting.

But do we really have a right to be mad at Youtube for taking down stuff that clearly violates rules they clearly laid out?

I don't think anyone is really shocked Phil? Youtube built itself on the social aspects of sharing fanart connected with music and tv/movies. Yeah, everyone did sign the "don't upload copyrighted material" but Youtube a. didnt' actively discourage the uploading of fanart for 2 years or more, b. wouldn't exist as it is without that content. Youtube isn't passive television, it's an active place to share common interests by commenting/uploading content connected to popular culture and hobbies. Without that it is nothing but sponsored ad slots. Vimeo, however, has set out from the very beginning what it will and will not tolerate, nobody should be uploading fanart to Vimeo. Youtube, however, is kind of different. Anyone can argue that all copyright content should be taken from Youtube, but there wouldn't be a site left at the end of it?

I dislike genuinely excellent films disappearing, potentially forever. These actions might legally be under the auspices of copyright, but they doesn't fit with the purpose of copyright: to promote creation.

Fair points. I suppose it's what someone uses Youtube for, 99% of anything I watch is copyright infringed, if it were gone I just wouldn't be visiting the site.

I can't even think of that much copyright free content? I'm not interested in videoblogs nor in official videos, if I was wanting to watch animation/independent movies I would be watching them on dedicated sites?

Erm Zach, did you notice the question mark at the end of the quote "but there wouldn't be a site left at the end of it?".

It was a question, not a statement.

I wasn't referring to machinima either, I was referring to what I personally use Youtube for, ie: obscure tv shows from 30 years ago, old and new tv ads, "shit what was that song by thingie released 20 years ago on that indie label let's see if I can find it", that dvd extra clip you can only view if you buy the dvd, that tv clip that just happened that I want to send to friends and hasn't been uploaded officially, clips from subscription tv I either don't want to pay for, or don't have access to, unofficial live music from gigs, the list goes on. 99% of the time none of that stuff is official.