Youtube's "permissiveness" and its choice of short-form (< 10 minute) video clips are linked. The time limit means would-be scalawags can't post entire TV shows and movies without splitting them up. That decision helps YouTube argue that it's not designed to be a gigantic copyright infringement tool. Perhaps that'll make a difference in court, perhaps it won't. But it's the kind of design decision companies make in the face of copyright law run amok: an arbitrary limit on functionality, a sacrifice to appease the angry lawyer gods.

Blaming the victim is only a faux pas if it's a person, apparently.

That's a very good point, and one I hadn't considered. YouTube has done an incredibly good job at getting credibility with the Web crowd by appearing not to knuckle under to the networks (e.g., not taking down copyrighted material instantly) while at the same time doing a lot more to appease copyright holders (short clips, removing content when asked) than, say, Napster.