I am in agreement that copyright owners should be able to protect their materials, but I also agree with the general sentiment that Viacom and large interests have had too much influence. If we're lucky, both sides will prevail.
According to the US courts, copyrighted and trademarked material may be reused and repurposed for satire and in other ways. Everything from Southpark to the Church of Satan (which Apple filed a complaint against for the reuse of the "Think Different" campaign language and iconography), have taken advantage of this important exception.
Given that much of the YouTube material is not a direct pirating and often does involve the use of the material in some new way, I will be interested to see how much Viacom would actually be able to make stick. If Viacom isn't careful, it may have to prosecute on a case-by-case basis, which could become very costly in more ways than simply financial.
It should also be noted that in the USA there is no right to privacy stipulated in the Bill of Rights/Constitution. The Supreme Court has created one based on language from several Amendments that the Court believes *imply* a right to privacy. Obviously, as the healthcare worker above noted, it is a very practical and necessary right to have in certain situations, but those borderlines are still fluctuating with every privacy case brought before the court. Given recent changes in the Court's sitting justices and the particular sensitivity to the potential for changes of the Roe v Wade decision which established much of the basis for our constitutional understanding of privacy, what we know now could easily be significantly modified.
Slashdot Mirror
I am in agreement that copyright owners should be able to protect their materials, but I also agree with the general sentiment that Viacom and large interests have had too much influence. If we're lucky, both sides will prevail. According to the US courts, copyrighted and trademarked material may be reused and repurposed for satire and in other ways. Everything from Southpark to the Church of Satan (which Apple filed a complaint against for the reuse of the "Think Different" campaign language and iconography), have taken advantage of this important exception. Given that much of the YouTube material is not a direct pirating and often does involve the use of the material in some new way, I will be interested to see how much Viacom would actually be able to make stick. If Viacom isn't careful, it may have to prosecute on a case-by-case basis, which could become very costly in more ways than simply financial.
It should also be noted that in the USA there is no right to privacy stipulated in the Bill of Rights/Constitution. The Supreme Court has created one based on language from several Amendments that the Court believes *imply* a right to privacy. Obviously, as the healthcare worker above noted, it is a very practical and necessary right to have in certain situations, but those borderlines are still fluctuating with every privacy case brought before the court. Given recent changes in the Court's sitting justices and the particular sensitivity to the potential for changes of the Roe v Wade decision which established much of the basis for our constitutional understanding of privacy, what we know now could easily be significantly modified.