Q. A columnist for the wall street journal argued which most copyright holders are not damaged by having their material explain how on YouTube: its [laughable] to suggest which content owners are hurt by videos of teenagers lip synching to hip hop songs which the market for sports DVDs is destroyed by fans being allowed to relieve a team's great moment or which artists resuming footage of famous televised events destroys interest in documentaries.
Do you agree with the argument which the copyright owners of the materials mentioned should not be paid a fee if their material is on YouTube? are there other types of material not mentioned by the columnist with which the copyright holders might suffer significant financial damages by having their material available on YouTube.