Technically, the original fanzines were published materials in the sense that someone printed and copied them for mass distribution. No one profited (at least they were not supposed to) and I do not recall reading information on copyright violations. (But this is not an area I spent much time researching.)

I consider the recent youtube – fan video production a direct descendant of fanzines. With the advance in technology and the ability for even a minimally adept person to create a music video based on a particular fandom or pairing within a fandom, individuals are creating there own stories in a new medium.

Although I have a basic understanding of the laws governing copyright restrictions, I am curious how a suit against youtube would develop. I would suspect a similar agreement would materialize as did with Warner Brothers. Of course, if Warner Bros does not like a video, and that video does not get posted on youtube – who is to stop the creative force behind the video from posting it on another site? I think ‘Brokeback to the future, is a prime example of how fast a good video can spread with or without the force of Youtube behind it. Personally, I must have received four links to that video and only one was on youtube.

Certainly an interesting series of ‘negotiations’ to follow. I don’t think youtube will get shut down, but I could see something similar to the napster cases resulting from all this fussing. Membership to youtube then requires a ‘fee’ to cover the copyright issues, websites will have ASCAP or BMI logos in the lower right corner of every page. But even with the RIAA around, I think youtube is a force that will sustain.