YouTube copyists must go to "copyright school"

The Inquirer notes: The biggest change to Youtube's copyright policy is requiring people to go to the Youtube Copyright School if a copyright infringement notice is served against one of their uploaded videos. Instead of just taking down the video and letting the user simply do it again, Youtube will now require copyright infringers to watch an educational video and answer a quiz afterwards. If they don't then they will no longer be allowed to use the online video sharing service.

See also the Toronto Star's YouTube’s penalty for copyright pirates: Watch a cartoon

**Separately, see YouTube and its Amici File Their Briefs in the Viacom v. YouTube Appeal which includes

The Consumer Electronics Association amicus brief, from Michael Barclay and UNC prof. Deborah Gerhardt, does a nice job building off Mark Lemley's article in recounting the history of paranoid and mistaken content owner overreactions to new technology.

Lemley's article is -- Is the Sky Falling on the Content Industries? -- which manages to cite Chris Sprigman and Mike Masnick in consecutive paragraphs:


It may even be the case that copying drives creativity in unusual
ways. Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman have suggested that the fashion
industry benefits from the absence of copyright protection, because
knock-off fashions serve both to popularize the original ones and
eventually to drive demand to replace them.38 Both dynamics may work
in other content industries. Up-and-coming musicians may like piracy if
it builds their name recognition, and it may be that the growing
availability of content actually spurs an increase in demand for that
content.

This is just a smattering of examples: Mike Masnick and Chris
Anderson have spent some time documenting a number of ways people
already make money from free content.

Also, the text
So the
copyright industries tried to shut down the photocopier; suing in the
Williams & Wilkins case to try to prevent the widespread copying by
federal government institutions of books and journal articles.12 Again the
content industries made it to the Supreme Court and were barely foiled,
here by an equally divided Court.13 The photocopying of journal articles
was (barely) allowed.
Books and journal articles did not disappear in the early 1970s.
Instead they seemed to thrive during that time, notwithstanding the
existence of a technology that allows people to take them for free.

managed to ignore AGU v. Texaco.