As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes

This 4-point test could not possibly address a situation where an entire work is a parody, or when the objective is to make commentary on the commercial value. The copyright law should not be used to squelch public opinion by removing one of the legs of this stool. Conversely, parodies need to be completely transparent in their objectives so as to not confuse artistic discourse with rights to the intellectual property. The big problem with YouTube is that while something might be fair use in its own intent, it might be something else to others, e.g. using YouTube as a radio

clipped from www.nytimes.com The law provides a four-point test for the fair use of copyrighted works, taking into account things like the purpose, the size of an excerpt and the effect the use might have on the commercial value of the actual work. The body of law is ever-evolving, and each era and technology seems to force new interpretations. In the 1960s, for example, the Zapruder film, the home movie that captured the Kennedy assassination, was bought and copyrighted by Time magazine. But a judge denied that it could be a copyrighted work because of its value to the public interest.