Why can't users upload videos with copyright content even though they aren't gaining profit from the videos?

Copyright rights, including the right to reproduce and make copies and distribute them to others, are supposed to exclusive to the copyright owner and to those they license their right to. Exclusive means just that, the monopolisitic ability to manage the work in all its forms and to carefully limit the market for selling the work.

Parody rights, however, belong to everyone, and they're not infringement, they;re the 1st Amendment in action. When poking fun at the rich and famous and talented and their movie and music & tv companies that make and own these videos, however, you have to be pretty sure you're within your rights because they have unlimited lawyers and legal war chests.

Disclaimer: Please note that this answer does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on, since each state has different laws, each situation is fact specific, and it is impossible to evaluate a legal problem without a comprehensive consultation and review of all the facts and documents at issue. This answer does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Query: Why is it illegal for users on youtube to upload videos that contain copyright content? They are not selling the videos or gaining profit from them. Why is it illegal to simply share them?

Answer: This argument always disappoints me. In its purest form the argument is: because I did not benefit financially from using the property that I took from you I have done nothing wrong. I get disappointed because the maker of the argument is only interested in himself -- he simply ignores the other person and that person's rights to his or her property. A society comprised of people who do not care about the rights of others will not long survive (nor should it). In short, the uploader is taking property (the sound recording) that does not belong to him AND is then using it for his benefit. BOTH the taking and the using is wrong. It does not even matter (most of the time) what the wrongdoer does with the property after he takes it. Just taking it is wrong. One other thing: creating that property (the sound recording) requires tremendous creativity, technical skill, and money. It is, in a word, valuable. There is no excuse for taking valuable property without permission (absent exceptions that do not apply in uploading cases).

Query: Also, when users make parodies or music videos, why do they not have some sort of copyright for their editing decisions?
Answer: I don't know what you mean. If a person lawfully uses another's copyrighted work to create a parody of that work, then the parody-maker owns the copyright in the parody (but not the underlying work). As for "music videos," if a person creates a song, performs it, and records the performance then the person owns the copyright to the song, the sound recording, and the video. If the person uses sound recordings created by others to make the video then the person owns the copyright in the video but not the underlying sound recordings -- the owners of which could sue for infringement. Creativity is certainly required to create a video or sound recording that uses pre-existing sound recordings but that effort does not justify using the pre-exising sound recordings without permission from their owner: could a person use my pile of rocks to build his home? No.

Query: Also, shouldn't it be legal for the videos to be uploaded under the fair use law?
Answer: if you can explain why using someone else's sound recording without permission would be fair, then sure. But take a lesson from my answer to your first question and ask yourself "fair to who?" The law requires (as it should) that the interests of the copyright owner, the alleged fair user, and the public all be considered when evaluating when the unlicensed use of the work is "fair." The burden to prove that the use is "fair" on the person who wants to use the work without permission. Good luck with that.

1. Because the Copyright Act says it is;
2. Sales/profit is irrelevant;
3. Because the Copyright Act says it is;
4. They might;
5. Generally, no.