Does this mean that YouTube users will have to obey copyright laws? That is, will old music videos be allowed to be uploaded without the copyright holders' permission?

Does Youtube even make any money?

The same way television makes money. Or corporate Websites or trade shows and conferences. Combine it with a P2P client and share legitimate content seamlessly. People don't really want to write, they want to watch. And please note that even the biggest most self important blogs are the product of 2 dozen posters, at best. Most people just graze. So yeah there's potential to make money and it doesn't have to do with copywrite lawyers.

A column like this puts in serious doubt the notion that Mr. Leonard knows "How the World Works," and especially what is at stake in gloabalization. That YouTube is "the necessary next step in the democratization and enrichment of global cultural intercourse" is pure hubris and fallacy. Hubris in that Mr. Leonard might claim to know definitively what the "necessary" next step in democratization is. Fallacy in that YouTube, especially when purchased by the likes of Google and reoriented toward an advertising model, has anything to do with true democracy.

Three points:

Napster did not produce an irreversible shift in how media is produced and consumed. Rather, P2P services were hemmed in by copyright laws and reorganized by profit seeking capital. Most of that capital came from the recording industry itself, so that despite initial reactions, Napster was not a mortal enemy to be destroyed, but co-opted. For more on this point, read Digital Music Wars, by Burkart and McCourt. But suffice it to say that recording industry profits are running strong, and that we have not seen truly independent acts sustaining themselves and altering the cultural landscape via P2P sharing. Rather, Beyoncé and Justin Timberlake still rule the roost.

Viewing tidbits of Bollywood films has little to do with democracy, and mistaking it for such is a dangerous precedent. Bollywood, as the name implies, is as profit oriented and non-participatory as it's North American predecessor and counterpart. Who makes the decisions about which films are produced, to whom they are marketed, and how they are distributed? Not "we the people" and not by democratic means. Read Global Hollywood 2 by Miller, et. al. for more on this. But it should be enough to simply ask whether the hundreds of millions of impoverished rural Indians -- many speaking languages not represented by Bollywood fare --would recognize Mr. Leonard's "multi-cultural" entertainment indulgences as a manifestation of democracy, or as anything that might "enrich" their culture or daily lives...

Finally, for a truly democratic orientation toward sharing video on the net, check out Democracy (getdemocracy.org), an initiative of the Participatory Culture Foundation, with which I am not associated in any capacity beyond appreciation.

Gootube rolls off the tongue a bit easier.