Cory Doctorow is concerned that copyright campaigns such as Viacom's suit against YouTube will shut down the free-wheeling web.

Well, I'd be willing to lay odds that this *won't* happen.

To begin with, it's possible that CD isn't explaining the aims of "big media" very well. Is Viacom really likely to insist that YouTube hire a human to scrutinize every posted clip? There seems to be no basis for this claim. Viacom's public statements call for effective filtering; YouTube's early actions weren't good candidates for "effective," requiring content owners to pony up clips for the filters to compare. Obligating content owners to anticipate you-tube-type sites worldwide won't work well for most artists. A filtering method that looked for watermarks from a central database would be more effective. Content owners had a second concern, that YouTube's early practice of offering to filter only the content of its business partners amounted to extortion. Nothing here about needing a human to scrutinize every clip. Nor does the law require it.

Even in a worst case scenario, where liability is broader rather than narrower, have we struck a body blow to the creative classes? The creative types by and large post their own obviously homemade stuff, not excerpts or copies of TV shows and movies. Yes, there's a murky area in between, where-in clips are transformed, parodied, and so on. So have a human look at those, if the filter's action is contested.

Being an unapologetic hardcore free speecher myself, I can understand the tendency of the civil libertarian types to cry wolf. There is no other way to get the public to pay attention. One's "victims" are often unsympathetic--pornographers, for example. But consider; there are plenty of real threats to free speech and due process in the world, without exaggeration. Stick to making a compelling case against those. Paranoia and pessimism gets attention in the short run--in the long run it get us nothing but a lack of credibility.