Viacom v. Youtube

I am not a big fan of Youtube, and I personally believe that the protection of copyright in cyberspace should be reinforced, but I can’t agree to the Viacom’s methodology. As far as I know, many countries which have internet service providers allowing data-sharing had shared the notion that service providers just acting as a conduit to convey the contents generated by end users should be exempted from the secondary liability, and this has led enactment of safe harbor provision or limitation clauses of liability in their national copyright acts. Reviewing the conducts performed by Youtube, I still believe Youtube should be protected by the notion that the legislators and interested parties in this country agreed to, because most video clips I rely on were just user created fun stuffs. While it may be true that you can find some infringing contents in Youtube, but I believe this situation should be resolved by less strict ways, such as working on “adaptive” filtering technology, or establishing efficient system to watch and pull out the infringing stuffs, rather than sending cease and desist letters to internet service providers. I do not believe that things get to the point where they provide the infringing material so much so that have to be shutdown for good. I think the notion the legislators and interested parties agreed on is still valid, and most people and users are happily enjoying that, so I hope Youtube could win this case.