VirginiaTam said:

This is such a contentious topic. Joe's analogy is interesting, but it may be a little shooting in the foot for original artists because more exposure may mean more purchases of CDs and attendance to concerts. It could be free publicity. Youtube videos are not a commercial product for the poster are they?

There are two misconceptions there:

A. Joe's analogy is interesting, but it may be a little shooting in the foot for original artists because more exposure may mean more purchases of CDs and attendance to concerts. It could be free publicity.

"May" and "may be" and "could be". That's an argument about the (un?)wisdom of the copyright-holder exercising his right, but it has nothing to do with the legal fact that (s)he has those rights, and has the sole discretion in the matter.

and

B. Youtube videos are not a commercial product for the poster are they?

That's irrelevant. Whether there's "commercial product" or "profit" are not involved. Contrary to folklore or what some might think of as common sense, the owner of copyright has the right to be protected from his property being sold or given away for free.

Dave Oesterreich