Youtube removes any copyrighted material from its site at the request of the copyright holder. What this requires is Viacom and other intellectual property owners monitor Youtube (and similar sites) and if they find their stuff removed request it be taken down (which Youtube does fairly quickly). Under the current system copyright holders are responsible for defending their own copyrights.

What Viacom wants is for Youtube to stop copyrighted material from appearing all together. In other words they want Youtube to check the copyright status of every clip posted PRIOR to it going up on their site. Obviously, given the shear volume of videos put up every day, this would be impossible. While it might be easy to note popular TV shows or movie clips it would be utterly impossible to check the copyright status of every single video (especially given the wide range of sources, many foreign, which appear). Not to mention the personnel, technical and time difficulties in having to sift through literally thousands of videos everyday. It would take days just to review a single days worth of videos.

Such a requirement would basically shut down video sharing sites.

The better option (which most other companies are following) is to try and find a way to work with Youtube (and other video sharing sites). The people who post and watch these videos are clearly fans. Many of them go so far as to re-edit clips to make their own stories. As I pointed out in my above post, Lucas actually embraces and encourages this type of fan behavior (going so far as to provide CGI models and sound effects). He’s suffered no loss in the value of his intellectual property and has probably increased it.

Again, under the current system copyright is respected but it requires copyright holders to defend their own property. What Viacom proposes is an impossible and unworkable system of prior restraint that would cripple video sharing sites.

As for the legality, that’s highly questionable. The posting of 1-2 minute clips by private citizens could arguably fall under ‘fair use.’

Let me see if I understand this. The entire purpose of the ‘surge’ that Bush et al have been pounding down our throats for the past few months is the following:

The ‘surge’ provides security for Bagdad and surrounding area so the government of Iraq can get down to business and make the deals the Bush administration is demanding.

Over the last couple of weeks the Iraqi government has all but collapsed. The Sunnis have pulled out. Maliki’s called for a summit and only invited one Sunni member of government (his VP) and it’s iffy on whether he shows up. Maliki is now threatening to fire all the existing Sunni cabinet members and replace them with the US’s new Sunni ‘friends’ from Anbar province (and forget that whole ‘election’ thing we’ve been touting). Several Shiite members of parliament are threatening a no confidence vote when they get back from their ‘vacation’. Others have pulled their support.

So even if we grant that the security situation has ‘improved’ (a highly dubious claim at best that Salon has already debunked) it seems that rather than ‘getting down to business’ the Iraqi government is collapsing.

So the ‘surge’ has had the exact opposite effect of what was intended.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

A sobering article that should be required reading for everyone who still thinks we can ‘win’ (what ever that means) in Iraq.

What I found to be the most critical passage is the following. After discussing the many differing factions and shifting alliances on the ground the authors point out:

“While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.”

This is essential to understanding why our occupation of Iraq can not and will not succeed. As a nation we are not willing to use the brutal means necessary to put down the kind of widespread lawlessness and violence that marks Iraq today.

I took a dictator in the mold of Saddam to keep Iraq under control for the past thirty years.

I fear we have passed the point where we can even find a bad solution to this mess.

How many ‘governments’ did we go through in South Vietnam before the end? And what did we end up with? A corrupt system that could only survive with massive US military and economic aid.

Now Bush and Levin (D) are calling for the same thing in Iraq. If we don’t like the government, replace it with one we do like and to hell with even the phony elections that we ran. We all remember how Maliki came to power right? We didn’t like the previous President so we pressured the Iraqi government to replace him. We don’t like Maliki now so he’s got to go.

We never learn.