This video has been removed due to terms of use violation: on intellectual copyrights, part 1

The terms "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation" appears in a number of links to posted materials such as music videos/film clips, such as on such popular websites as Youtube.

Youtube, listing its terms of use rules, states the following: The content on the YouTube Website, except all User Submissions (as defined below), including without limitation, the text, software, scripts, graphics, photos, sounds, music, videos, interactive features and the like ("Content") and the trademarks, service marks and logos contained therein ("Marks"), are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under United States and foreign laws and international conventions. Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be used, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purposes whatsoever without the prior written consent of the respective owners. YouTube reserves all rights not expressly granted in and to the Website and the Content. You agree to not engage in the use, copying, or distribution of any of the Content other than expressly permitted herein, including any use, copying, ordistribution of User Submissions of third parties obtained through the Website for any commercial purposes. If you download or print a copy of the Content for personal use, you must retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained therein. You agree not to circumvent, disable or otherwise interfere with security related features of the YouTube Website or features that prevent or restrict use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on use of the YouTube Website or the Content therein.

And so, we see a continuation of the ongoing struggle between the rights of "intellectual property" owners and users/consumers of such content. Youtube, being an extremely popular and successful video hosting site, appears to be managing this struggle on an ad-hoc, case by case, basis. It also is the case that the entertainment industry is itself internally divided on the question.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this matter.

YouTube policy does not allow content to be uploaded by anyone not permitted by United States copyright law to do so, and the company frequently removes uploaded infringing content. Nonetheless, a large amount of it continues to be uploaded. Generally, unless the copyright holder reports them, YouTube only discovers these videos via indications within the YouTube community through self-policing. The primary way in which YouTube identifies the content of a video is through the search terms that uploaders associate with clips. Some users have taken to creating alternative words as search terms to be entered when uploading specific type of files (similar to the deliberate misspelling of band names on MP3 filesharing networks). For a short time, members could also report one another. The service offers a flagging feature, intended as a means for reporting questionable content, including that which might constitute copyright infringement. However, the feature can be susceptible to abuse; for a time, some users were flagging other users' original content for copyright violations, purely out of spite. YouTube proceeded to remove copyright infringement from the list of offenses flaggable by members.
Hollywood remains divided on YouTube, as "'[t]he marketing guys love YouTube and the legal guys hate it.'"Further,

“While lawyers are demanding filtering technology, many Hollywood execs actually enjoy the fact that YouTube only takes down clips when they request it. "If I found part of a successful show up on YouTube today, I'd probably pull it down immediately . . . If I had a show that wasn't doing so well in the ratings and could use the promotion, I wouldn't be in a rush to do that."
”
Content owners are not just targeting YouTube for copyright infringements on the site, but they are also targeting third party websites that link to infringing content on YouTube and other video sharing sites. For example QuickSilverScreen vs. Fox Daily Episodes vs. Fox and Columbia vs. Slashfilm. The liability of linking remains a grey area with cases for and against. The law in the US currently leans towards website owners being liable for infringing links although they are often protected by the DMCA providing they take down infringing content when issued with a takedown notice. However, a recent court ruling in the US found Google not to be liable for linking to infringing content (Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc.).

Examples of infringement complaints

On October 5, 2006 the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) had their copyright complaints regarding Japanese media on YouTube finalized. Thousands of media from popular Japanese artists (such as Tokyo Jihen and various other music including Jpop) were removed.

When CBS and Universal Music Group signed agreements to provide content to YouTube they announced that they would use new technology that will help them find copyrighted material and remove it.

TV journalist Robert Tur filed the first lawsuit against the company in Summer 2006, alleging copyright infringement for hosting a number of famous news clips without permission. The case has yet to be resolved.

On November 9, 2006 Artie Lange said his lawyer were in talks with YouTube, after finding his entire DVD, It's the Whiskey Talking, available for free on their site. Artie said he will either demand money from them, or else he will sue.

Viacom and the British Broadcasting Corporation both demanded YouTube to take down more than 200,000 videos.

Viacom announced it was suing YouTube, and its owner Google, for more than $1 billion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Viacom claims that YouTube has over 160,000 of their videos on their website without their permission.

Speaking personally, I am for as much open access as is possible, and I am for a balance between intellectual property rights and the principle of fair use. (To be continued.)