Maybe [just maybe] these three decided to just get together and have a nice time, possibly discussing many other things besides. I doubt Disney is one person behind the scenes that created the said story.
You can claim YouTube was wrong to do as it did on this issue or not. Please let me supply another theory as to why things appear to have done incorrectly may not be so in another realm. Here's a likely scenario: Some [YouTube] employee, not too high up on the chain, was ordered to take it down. This person may very well share the same view as the author of this article but this employee's hands are tied. The person ultimately responsible for this decision may not be totally aware of the situation in Libya or Egypt. We don't know. And that's the thing, the actions of some company we deem to have gone about it the wrong way, as in this case, could very well be catering to someone or something else. The issue at hand may be bigger than what the media is supplying to you. My bet is on politics and it often trumps logic alone.
I suppose you could use copyright in the manner that Lord Finesse did. It's fair usage but the outcome for Dan Bull obviously wasn't favorable. It's like a hammer--meant to drive nails--but, for some, it could be used in a manner not intended. Copyright is a tool, isn't it?
Isn't there a mechanism out there for crowdfunding to act like agent for investing in an artist? For example, Band A raises cash from resources of the fans but the fans get money from the revenue of the sale of music. Kind of like being paid to be a fan of Band A. Forget about the RIAA or Record Labels.
Any perception I hear from folks who indulge in free are saying is if they know the artist is starting to get popular, then they must be getting rich. "Bono doesn't need more money!" or "Gotye isn't going to miss it." And therefore, to them, it's ok to take.
If you're just one person exposing something about the White House as opposed to a large organization reporting about the malware incident, then I'd side with group. Children play this game and know how it works. Physiologically grown people continue to play this game, holding on to their same mental capacities.
We speak of innovation and how important it is, particularly that we have entrepreneurs that want to take their ideas and execute them. Your phrase "those that govern us" got me asking why aren't there parallels between that of the business world and that of the Government. Elected officials are people too as are the individuals that start amazing companies and the people that make up that enterprise. Yet, there aren't any trailblazers (for lack of a better word) that want a better government system. You have young people that want to code. Where are the young people that want to change the way the government is run with the focus on basic fundamental rights of citizens in mind? I guess it works both ways and you get the government you chose.
I guess the next move would be to prompt the user to press OK to continue or to select 'yes' or 'no' to continue to the question: "Did you understand this?" and still wait an additional 10 seconds to watch the DVD.