YouTube, ITube, We-All-Tube, Illegally.

At one time or another, most of us have all run into the problem on YouTube in which we click on a video of our favorite song and are thwarted by the YouTube staff who have removed the audio or forced the owner of the video to replace it. I myself have many times felt "rick rolled" by this, but unlike the first time I met the unfriendly message, it's appearance has become expected. The first time I ever saw the message I remember feeling shocked, like it was the end of the internet. We weren't allowed to have our favorite songs in the background unless the singer was dead? Although the result has yet to be that drastic, I continue to find many videos removed or altered daily due to some type of copyright violation.

Most YouTube members who regularly post or watch videos have a clear understanding of the tricks used to avoid being charged with copyright violation as well as the method YouTube has for finding these "violators". In shortest explanation, YouTube has software and staff that check video's for audio that matches what's in their database. Some common ways around this are too put a different several second audio clip, before and after the video, so that the computer can't recognize the song.

However, for the past several months I've noticed a new message written by the video creator, almost always pasted into the description box, which I feel has a large affect on the deletion of videos. Here are a few I've seen used:


 COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 41A
Fair dealing for purpose of parody or satire

A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or
artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary,
dramatic or musical work, does not constitute
an infringement of the copyright in the work if
it is for the purpose of parody or satire.

or

Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

However I've seen this so much recently that I feel it is overused and often out of place. Although recorded music is the same as any other digital media, it is also a product for many people. So posting it for the world to hear still allows listeners to bypass money owed to the creator. Owning a copy of a song and the rights to a song can easily become a fine line.
Similar to this, websites such as VideoToMp3 allow anyone to turn any video available on YouTube (or any other site which gives a direct link to the video), and separate, as well as download, the audio from it. Now that audio file or song is portable and able to be listened to without the requirement of internet access, which is the purpose of the 99¢ fee.

So where is the line separating ownership? For $1 the public can "purchase" songs to listen to, but that only gives them the rights to have it for themselves. However, it's free and legal to play songs out of a boombox on the street, isn't it?