I think we all know what a copyright is. According to the freedictionary, a copyright is "the legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, distributor, to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."

In other words, if someone wrote a book and got it published, then they expect to gain money off of how many people buy that book, in what is called a royalty. In return, they wish that no one would copy or steal their ideas. For the most part, copyright infringement really wasn't a problem, or an "issue" until the Internet came.

On the anonymity of the Internet, one can put up links to websites, videos, or things that usually reference, show, or explain tv shows, books, or movies. Usually, you can just put a disclaimer saying that you don't own it and that you have fair use to back it up.

Lately, however, things have been getting pretty bad for people on YouTube. I should know, since I have an account. Most of my favorited or liked videos have been disappearing. If I click on it, it will say "So-and-so has been removed or the account suspended due to complaints from a third party on charges of copyright infringement."

First, I would not like it if someone copied off of my work, but as long as people are reading it, enjoying it, and recommending it, what's the problem? Sure, I'd want to get paid, but I'm one of those authors who feel that satisfying the audience comes before money, or my own needs. The author, poet, and actor have one thing that controls whether they are liked or not, and that is their audience. 

It is important to please your audience as much as possible, since for the most part, audiences are the key point in determining whether or not you will become popular and succeed. The Beatles wouldn't have gone anywhere had it not been for people realizing their talent at Hamburg, and telling others about it. That led to their rise to fame, and changed the musical world forever.

Second, what exactly is a "third party?" I know in politics that it is a party that voters can choose to vote for if they don't like the primary candidates in an election. I would assume that they are anonymous people hired by an organization to go on the Internet like silent spies, and remove whatever they deem to be "copyright infringement." This is not only sneaky, but unfair. How does YouTube discern what is a genuine copyright infringement and what could be a false claim or a malicious trick played by someone who doesn't like the user who has uploaded these videos?

Take for example one of the world's most famous parody authors, CardGamesFTW. He made the wildly popular "Yugioh Abridged" series, which is a hilarious take on the Japanese anime. He has many, many fans, and is possibly the most subscribed user on YouTube. Unfortunately, he has also fallen victim to copyright dictators banning his account over and over due to really trite claims. He always springs back up, though.

Users on Youtube used to blame a now defunct anime dubbing company named 4kids for the removal of his account, but it turned out to be that 4kids actually was supporting CardGamesFTW's work, because it was drawing attention back to Yugioh and introducing new buyers to it. That is a good thing. 

Second, with references to anime fandubbers or fansubbers or people who upload old movies, isn't that a good thing? There are some obscure anime or movies that are not well-known, and the only way to see them is to go on the Internet and see them. Maybe that prompts a newfound fan to make a request from a publisher or company and ask them to put it in English or rerelease it. The main thing publishers are looking for are books that are wildly successful, like J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, or Dragonball Z. They are not looking for lemon movies or anime that do not do well at all.

The same goes for music. I found some cool music and became fans of bands through the Internet, then I was able to buy their CD's. I also recommended them to fans. I know they need their money, but they really should consider their audience more than how much  $ goes into their banks or their wallets.

There are obvious problems with not taking down videos, too. I suppose it is a legitimate claim if people are illegally buying them over the Internet. But I don't see how it's bad to distribute it with a disclaimer or just show it to people. So, recently, they have expanded the copyright infringement law. Apparently, you will get  5 years in jail just for putting up videos of movies, books, or anime that aren't yours. It sounds rather trivial, doesn't it?

Shouldn't they be more concerned about stopping drug addicts, murderers, kidnappers, and rapists than worrying themselves over people who are just doing something they enjoy? Well, that is an understandable question to ask. The answer is simple:they aren't satisfied with letting people do what they want. They are overly greedy with money and want to control everything that happens. To those who are still convinced that the penalty for copyright infringement is good, consider how absurd these claims can be. On one site, I heard of a high school teacher who got in trouble simply for showing her students a recording she made of a football game. The ad for NFL is hypocritical. One second, it says "This copy is free for distribution." The next it says "Remember how copyright works. Don't break the law."

I think they are trying to limit our personal freedom, which sounds like the beginning of a dictatorship. Warning signs of a dictatorship include: charismatic leaders, role conception, Ends of power, Corruption, Limited pluralism. Sound familiar?