There has been controversy swirling around the YouTube website for almost as long as it has existed. Videos are constantly being removed from the website, and it seems like every other day a new copyright infringement argument is being brought up. Because every YouTube user with an account can upload videos, freedom of speech becomes a topic for debate.

One issue that is constantly in the news is the war in Iraq. In 2006 videos had been released of sniper attacks and other forms of Iraqi violence were posted on YouTube The website has removed dozens of the videos from its archives and suspended the accounts of some users who have posted them which was received by complaints from other users. (cite).

Taking down said videos seems to be somewhat of a contradiction. Isn’t the main reason the United States is in Iraq is to defend freedom of speech; to defend democracy? If that is the case then why not let the American people see what is happening the wrongdoings that are going on in that country so we can feel that we are doing the right thing rather than thinking are troops are dying for nothing.

I do realize that websites like YouTube and Google video have restrictions on the violence they are allowed to show. That is understandable. Children who use the internet are probably familiar with YouTube and could navigate their way to something that they really should not be seeing. Nonetheless there can be age restrictions put on certain videos to dissuade some younger viewers. Acts such as this would help YouTube users believe that their freedom of speech and uploading is being protected.

Even more recently a YouTube users account has reportedly been deleted because he uploaded a slideshow of verses from the Quran. As most people know the Quran is the religious document of the Muslim religion. In YouTube’s defense the verses that this user was posting involved hell and other similar things. Because YouTube can deem whatever it wants inappropriate they are allowed to take whatever they want off of their website.

This again seems like a violation of free speech. This document is available to everyone with all of the bad things included. Just because someone puts a video that accentuates these points does not mean that it should be removed from public viewing. People have the right to believe whatever they want; that is what democracy is.

YouTube will still exist because the people that think free speech is being violated this way are few in numbers. With the seemingly endless possibilities of the internet, however, it would make sense that in the near future there will be more debate about if freedom of uploading is similar if not the same as freedom of speech. It may take a few years, but issues like these are not going to be the last ones brought up about YouTube.

The website YouTube has become increasingly popular with just about everyone that has access to the internet and enjoys watching television. Never before has the internet seen a website that put so much copyrighted material up for viewing at the public’s convenience.

It would seem that what YouTube has made its killing on is illegal, but that is obviously not the case considering the company is still in business and was bought by the ever-powerful Google. What the company has done is found a loophole in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998.

Since the act was passed nearly ten years ago Congress drafted this when website hosting was different than YouTube’s situation. Section 512 of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is where this loophole resides. This section is also known as the safe harbor portion of the DMCA.

“Section 512’s so-called safe harbor generally allow hosting companies off the hook for legal liability, as long as they don’t turn a blind eye to copyright infringement and if they remove infringing material when notified. YouTube does the second part through a formal posted policy, and it prohibits uploads of unauthorized videos more than 10 minutes in length.” (McUllagh).

Section 512 of the DMCA was designed to protect commercial Web-hosting services, which feared they might be held responsible for the posting habits of their customers. This section is as follows:

“The safe harbor provisions permit a copyright owner to subpoena the identity of the individual allegedly responsible for the infringing activities. [512(h)] Such a subpoena is granted on the condition that the information about the individual’s identity will only be used in relation to the protection of the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner. [512(h)(2)(C)]” (Cuban).

Although the wording of this section of the DMCA is dense, the phrasing is what YouTube has relied on to stay in business. Similarly, the music file sharing website Napster, thought that they could win in a court of law due to the phrasing of the act. As you may know, defending their position did not work out so well for the people at Napster. This has not discouraged the attorneys at YouTube to cite section 512 in their defense.

The DMCA “makes very clear” that Web hosting companies like YouTube and blogging services enjoy a safe harbor, said Glenn Brown, product counsel for Google and YouTube. (Mcullagh).

YouTube already has deals of some sort with media companies including CBS, Warner Bros., the BBC, the NBA, Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment. (von Lohmann).

As mentioned earlier one portion of section 512 of the DMCA that YouTube has to comply with is taking down videos that are deemed to be infringing on copyright. If the media companies chose to fight YouTube and win Web site operators may be required to police uploads for copyright infringement. (Mcullagh).

The media companies would want this result because so many internet users have the ability to upload videos that large amounts of people are able to view videos that violate copyright before a website like YouTube would be able to take down the illegal video.

As of right now YouTube does not seem like it will be going anywhere, but it may be in jeopardy in the near future with continual pressure from the large media companies.