Think MySpace, Google or YouTube.

But the law is still trying to keep up with the Internet's explosive growth - for instance, over the next few years, the courts in the United States and Europe are set to mull over whether such sites should be held responsible for hosting content that infringes on copyright.

One factor to be considered is how the law should balance the rights of service providers, like YouTube, against the rights of those whose copyrighted material has been uploaded.

Yesterday, the issues were laid out and debated before some 50 lawyers attending a working session at the International Bar Association Conference.

Mr Richard Raysman, a lawyer from New York, set out the three lawsuits in the US courts pending against YouTube.

YouTube's stand has always been that it prohibits infringement of intellectual property rights and provides a channel for content owners to report any such activity.

But critics say that YouTube's business model is based on piracy and it does not use enough technology to protect copyrighted material.

YouTube has sought refuge under a so-called 'safe harbour' provision in US copyright laws.

The provision states that service providers are not liable for copyright infringement if they:

did not know about the infringing material;

act efficiently to remove them once aware; and

do not directly benefit financially from the material.

The plaintiffs in the three cases - journalist and helicopter pilot Robert Tur, media giant Viacom and the English Premier League - will disagree.

A likely bone of contention, said Mr Raysman, is that Google's US$1.6 billion (S$2.3 billion) purchase of YouTube is evident of some intent to profit from the infringing material.

French lawyer Alexandra Neri also gave her perspective and spoke of her personal experience acting for YouTube and Google in similar suits in France.

Since the beginning of the year, she said, more than 30 lawsuits have been filed there against such service providers as YouTube, Google and video-sharing site Dailymotion.

During the question-and-answer session, she defended the providers, saying that none of them was actually making money for the time being.

Moreover, said Ms Neri, out of 100,000 videos a day, only a very small minority - five to eight - might infringe copyright rules.

Even as she spoke of how the producers of a documentary had gone to court to get an order to stop it from being released on Google, it became clear how difficult it was to police this area of the Internet.

Two hours after Google took down an infringing video, another was posted online by a different user.

The day after, seven new videos appeared.