Protecting fair use and free speech

What we might lose from YouTube to GooTube - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

Here's the quote I'm going by today:

Here is an example in which copyright acts as an instrument of political censorship: U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico) is running for re-election in a close race this fall. Back in the mid-1990s she chaired the New Mexico Department of Children, Youth, and Families.

Problem was, her husband was being investigated about accusations that he had been sexually involved with a minor. So, one of the first things she did as head of the department was remove his file. Now everyone in New Mexico is finding out about it. A blog called Democracy for New Mexico posted on YouTube a news clip of Wilson and others discussing the cover-up.

But New Mexico voters could not view the clip for long: The TV station invoked the "notice and takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to kill the video clip.

Of course, any one of my students would be able to tell you at length why posting a news clip of a public official who is under scrutiny and up for re-election would be fair use – an allowable use of copyrighted material for the purpose of news and commentary. But when it comes to the Web, the copyright act has no respect for fair use. Neither does YouTube, apparently. The clip came down.

It would be safe to say that, perhaps, sites like YouTube should not be based in the United States, where it is subject to the supposed laws that "protect" copyrights.

Rather, they seem to, from time to time, protect special interests.

Perhaps it is time for a YouTube to be founded in a country not bound by these laws, so that people can freely express themselves, and not have their clips pulled off the 'net all because it makes some politician look bad (like they need any help).

Any countries qualify for that? The location would also have to have some fast connections...