Opinions on YouTube & Creative Commons

I first wanted to address the Viacom v. YouTube case. Essentially, I cannot take either side. I recognize that YouTube has had both a positive and negative impact on promoting the "progress of Science and useful Arts." First and foremost, who doesn't like FREE? YouTube has allowed people across the globe free access to millions of artistic works. This availability has no doubt fostered a tremendous amount of creativity and stimulated the production of new art. The popularity of the website has also created a new way for artists to reach their fans and the Internet using public. However, these benefits have also come with some significant costs. Many beginning, local, and smaller-market artists find it difficult to "make a living" when their works can be accessed for free on YouTube. Major movie production studios like Viacom are claiming they're headed down the same path. due to the costs associated with movie production. Titanic, for example, cost an estimated $ 200 million. Obviously, there are many different groups with varying viewpoints that have an interest in this dispute. With this said, I think it would be utterly impossible for a court to effectively balance the interests of all of these parties and reach a result in accord with Article I Sec. 8 Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, I think Congress needs to enact legislation to presumptively resolve this dispute. Copyright law has a history of attempting to adapt to new technologies, [AHRA & DMCA] and although these attempts have been subject to criticism, in my opinion these determinations are best left to Congress. No doubt, any legislation would not be a perfect fit, but by taking some action the legislature would not be leaving the judiciary to its own devices on this issue. Please check out the following link for an interesting story on YouTube: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/16/entertainment/main4949296.shtml?source=RSSattr=Entertainment_4949296

Regarding the Creative Commons (CC) I think overall it is a good thing because it provides artists with another option when seeking to make their work available. The following two websites provide a good overview and response to the concerns of ASCAP:
http://ascap.com/playback/2007/fall/features/creative_commons_licensing.aspx
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/12/commons_misunderstandings_asca.html
The biggest problem I have with the CC is that it is not clear in defining what constitutes "noncommercial use." After utilizing a CC license an artist could potentially see someone else profit directly from their work. In such a scenario, a court would have to first determine the meaning of "noncommercial use." Even if noncommercial use was defined in the CC, however, the artist is essentially without a remedy because their damages are $0; they have not lost anything because they licensed it for free with the CC. What's more, is that if the artist was indeed awarded damages this is exactly the situation they sought to avoid by entering into the CC in the first place. My point is that a CC license can be good as long as the artist understands and accepts all of the terms along with the reality that they will no longer be able to realistically exert any control over the work. With the advent of the Internet CC license may become more and more common by choice or otherwise. In the end, however, I think the CC will encounter and create as many, if not more, difficult legal problems than traditional copyright law.