A better analogy is that you can go to a book store and read a book for free if you want.
no... its not better because it is not an analogy about getting stuff for free... its an analogy of the responsibilities of a distributor to the owner of copyrighted material, when it turns out the vendor is distributing material that is infringing on the rights of the owner.
It has already been found that a website allowing folks to post videos is NOT responsible for the fact that some people will post copyrighted materials without authority of the owner.
It is not the distributor's job to vet all materials for copyright infringement...
As in a bookstore... if it turns out some best seller has pictures or prose in it that was appropriated from the copyright holder... the Bookstore can not be held financially liable as that would require the bookstore owner to have perfect prior knowledge of all sources of all materials...
However... the bookstore DOES have a responsibility to assist the holder of copyright in enforcing their rights by revealing the sources of the books on their shelves.
Similarly, Youtube and google, while not criminally responsible for copyright infringement... should have similar responsibility in enforcing copyright law by providing the copyright holder with the sources of the infringing materials.
Or so argue the lawyers of VIACOM.
Frankly... they have a valid point. The only difference between the bookstore scenario and the internet scenario is that books cost a lot of money to produce and so infringers are usually corporate publishers...
Whereas in the internet scenario the publishers are generally individuals.
The fight is over privacy rights versus copyright law.
Does your right to privacy sheild you from discovery of your illegal infringement of copyrights?
THis is the delicate ground on which the entire internet treads... all these issues, so easy to deconstruct in a physical world, become so much more difficult to nail down in a world of pure information without borders.