Um, I don't remember being able to download ("own") and remix/alter content as being an intrinsic part of "Web 2.0". I'm betting that a lot of "Web 2.0" companies didn't get that memo either. Maybe Lawrence should have sent it priority mail or something.
Seriously though, it seems like this is just Lessig attaching his particular vision of "user empowerment" to the Web 2.0 moniker. Unless this is something everyone has talked about and I just missed. I do recall plenty of discussions about "the future of media" with the whole world making crappy remixes of real artist's work, but I don't recall it being imtimately intertwined wtih Web 2.0.
Anyway the whole use of that term just loads the conversation IMO. Instead of criticizing a company for calling itself "Web 2.0" and then not living up to some imagined ideal of that term, why not just criticise them for not doing what you want them to do in the first place?
But let's move on to the real meat of the subject: YouTube is not "truly" enabling its users to "share", because you can't download stuff off it through official means. Um, but you can *view* it online, right? I mean, same with Flickr, right? And sure you can right-click and download pics off Flickr, but I bet you Joe-Bob didn't really put his pics up there just so you could grab them and use them in your latest photo collage.
What I'm getting at is that Lawrence's idea of "sharing" is a lot more open and broad than most people's idea. It's a great ideal, but it is just that: idealistic. YouTube would certainly be dealing with a lot *more* legal hassle if people could actually download and enjoy these videos at any time. Streaming them is bad enough for the big media moguls.
So whether they (the media companies) are doing right or wrong in pursuing the protection of their copyrighted material, it is silly at the least to be harsh on the distributors for not allowing download. The only way things are going to be changed is by addressing this in legislation - as long as it remains illegal, nobody in their right mind would stake a business worth more than a billion dollars on the bet that media owners won't sue.