There is a difference between what should be copyrightable and what ends up being copyrighted, there can be the slippery slope effect as too many laws are added and that brings me up to a topic.
I'm thinking of writing an article about some illustrations describing copyright jurisdiction and enforcement.
Imagine aliens on Mars or other planets in other galaxies or parallel universes and dimensions. Would you try to go there and tell them they were infringing on your copyrights, patents, trademarks, intellectual property, name, reputation, etc, or would you consider any of that to be outside the jurisdiction of the copyright?
Imagine you upload a video to YouTube in Mexico and assume the laws of that nation allows for copyright infringement and/or Fair Use Exceptions alongside the Safe Harbor Act or imagine that the video was transformative in nature or whatever exceptions to copyright there might be, and assume this nation rejects alleged international laws relating to copyright if any or anything else that might be externally capable of an attempt to interfere with the internal affairs of a specific country.
Imagine I come from America and assume the United States has copyright laws and such, should I try to enforce such copyright onto your video in Mexico or might I be outside the jurisdiction of the copyright?
Now, imagine the alleged copyright infringement occurs in my house in Mexico. But now imagine that half of my house is in America. Assuming my house has dual citizenship, does the copyright have jurisdiction or not?
Now, take that same question regarding jurisdiction and all of these insane illustrations above and apply them if you might to YouTube itself. Say, for example, imagine I upload my video to YouTube Mexico and they promise the video will stay in Mexico.
If YouTube Mexico sends the video to YouTube America or Facebook America or fill in the blank, should American lawyers try to take you to court for that video or should they go after YouTube Mexico for passing the video to America?
Now, imagine that YouTube Mexico argues liability protection thanks to the Safe Harbor Act and who knows what else, then it is possible the lawyers would be angry and would want to punish somebody. So, they may try to go after the user.
The next question might be, does the liability protection apply also to the users of YouTube or does it only extent to the content therein but not the external parties involved in the uploading of the videos? And if that is true, then could operating systems of computers be targeted as they helped the user upload the video? Could you blame the cameras, phones, video editors, other programs, other machines, devices, computers, routers, modems, cords, cables, wires, etc, or can blame only be placed on the uploader? And what if the video is stolen and uploaded by another person, is copyright infringement blamed on the creators of the videos or on the uploaders or on the owners of the YouTube accounts therein?
That leads me to a final point for this post and that is this main question being, what is YouTube? Like I've said before, YouTube is a combination of many servers and other things which resides in different countries of different jurisdictions meaning YouTube is like a house which resides in many different countries. YouTube may have given users in the past the feeling of liability protection which may not be legally true some may argue but YouTube appeared some would argue to have given their potential customers for years that perception regardless of the reality of the issues regarding copyright, laws, jurisdiction, the procedures and steps in attempts to enforce copyright and punishment of copyright infringement therein.
It appears that Walt Disney used copyright to steal art from his partner nearly a century ago. Bill Gates is accused of stealing things which ended up being part of Microsoft Windows which is then given copyrights and such. Facebook is accused of stealing and selling user data which probably should have been copyrighted or what have you. Facebook is probably copyrighted as a whole and yet they are hiding behind the label of copyright protection and yet also liability protection which might be an aspect of a paradox between copyright and the liability protection as a publisher, platform, and for-profit intellectual property robber. And on top of that, when YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc, remove videos, etc, they are in fact destroying intellectual property, etc.
RE: You cannot take away from the author that which does not belong to the author.