[Lucario]

I'm pretty sure that the aforementioned usage of FIRST recordings falls under the category of fair use (on watchfirstnow.com)- it might fall in the category of education, since it is educating the public on what FIRST does. While the original recorder technically has the exclusive rights to public distribution, the fairness doctrine overrides this right when it applies.

There's 4 items considered when determining if a scenario classifies as fair use, but these two items (from 17 U.S.C. § 107, fair use doctrine) are, in my opinion, most salient to this case:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It can be reasonably argued that this work is for educational purposes (as it educates the public) and the website, seeing that it is devoid of advertisements, seems to be of a non-profit nature.

(I will admit the WHOIS obfuscation is annoying... Grr... those people...)

It can also be argued that these videos have minimal market value that's being lost in this case (I mean, no one's getting paid from YouTube yet, right?) and based on the number of views these videos get, I'm not even sure losses in ad revenue can even be remedied in court (is it even worth the filing fee, anyways?)

Personally, annoying as it may be, I think that this website has a strong case for fair use. Without any monetary market for these videos, legal arguments against this site may not only fail, but be detrimental to FIRST's goals of expanding the program.

(TLDR) People will share things on the internet no matter what you do; just let them be.