backtop


Print 17 comment(s) - last by psyph3r.. on Jul 31 at 8:56 PM

Google to begin massive copyright filtering on YouTube in September

YouTube, once the wild west of user-fuelled Internet broadcasting, will soon have a new sheriff in town. Google, owner of YouTube, said that it hopes to have new technology in place in September to half the posting of copyrighted videos on its website.

Google lawyer Philip S. Beck told a U.S. District Judge currently involved in the company’s legal matters that YouTube is working “very intensely and cooperating” with major content companies on video recognition technology as sophisticated as the fingerprint technology used by the F.B.I., according to the Associated Press.

Beck described the system as a recognition technology that would rely on digital fingerprints that copyright holders would provide to YouTube to help filter out illegal uploads. Once the fingerprint is in the system, YouTube’s software would be able to recognized and remove it within a minute or two.

Google says that it hopes that its new software would end the complaints – and litigation – from companies such as Viacom.

“Perhaps the filtering mechanism will help. If so, we’ll be very grateful for that,” said Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., a lawyer for Viacom.

In March, Viacom filed a lawsuit against Google alleging that the Mountain View, Calif. software company intentionally committed massive copyright infringement of Viacom’s properties. The lawsuit seeks more than $1 billion in damages, in addition to an injunction that will prohibit Google/YouTube from further copyright infringement. Google later responded to the lawsuit by denying that it had done anything illegal.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

.
By sprockkets on 7/30/2007 10:11:48 AM , Rating: 3
The internet allows people in general to find things that you otherwise could no longer find on TV anymore because they are no longer broadcasted or in production on any media. Somethings are not worth putting to dvd but worth at least posting. They just can't realize the potential.




RE: .
By Sazar on 7/30/2007 12:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly my thoughts.

The execs apparently don't realize that a lot of people appreciate and purchase products based off of little clips and shorts that you can find on YouTube.

Family Guy, in my example, I was not familiar with this show or Robot Chicken till I saw some clips on YouTube and voila, I am the owner of multiple DVD's of both shows.

I can understand some aspects of the reasons for this, but it's completely counter-productive.


RE: .
By omnicronx on 7/30/2007 12:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
very very true, but i would also like to point i think its time for the movie/television/music companies to realize, just because i can download it, does not mean that i was going to buy it.
Sampling online music/videos is becoming part of the online culture, and as you pointed out can actually help the industry, many people see things online worthwhile to buy.

But i find a hell of a lot more stuff that i will listen/watch once and i dont want anything to do with. It is not our fault the music/tv industry releases tons of well.. crappy music with cd's packing 10 crappy songs along with the hit single.

while i admit sales for cd sales/ movies have falle, it is no fault of ours the riaa/movie industry did not embrace change instead of rejecting it. Just imagine if from the get go the music industry streamed/had downloadable music for a fraction of the cost of CD's.. these sales probably would have offset lost CD sales.


RE: .
By SirLucius on 7/30/2007 1:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i would also like to point i think its time for the movie/television/music companies to realize, just because i can download it, does not mean that i was going to buy it.


You, good sir, have earned an e-cookie. <gives cookie>

As for the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more. When it comes to online sampling, well over 50% of the bands I listen to I would not have heard about, let alone payed money for, if I hadn't downloaded an album of theirs.


RE: .
By omnicronx on 7/30/2007 1:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
sweet an e-cookie, this is almost as good as the presents i receive on facebook.. want to be my superfriend?


RE: .
By christojojo on 7/30/2007 10:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree whole heartedly.

I was introduced to the music of Trans-Siberian Orchestra ( I'm a Holiday Nut, in season). I have bought three CDs now. I have enjoyed OK GO's video, Mindi Abair, etc. I have enjoyed new groups acts (Mentos and Coke anyone) which never would have happened without the internet.

I have gotten stung far less with poor purchases since the internet's growth in popularity. My worst purchase in music would have to be Pearl Jam's "Vitalogy" I gave it away after listening to the CD once.("Bugs" still haunts me to this day arrrggg.)

Its sad the myopic view today's entertainment industry has. Why can't they find a way to make money without shooting them selves and us in the foot?

Couldn't free videos with mandatory commercials pay there way and give us choices?

How about selling people life long IP licenses? You know buy the LORD of the Rings for $100 dollars and get to trade your copy in for whatever format comes in next for the life of the consumer.

There have to be better ways.


Will it work?
By AntiM on 7/30/2007 8:31:53 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think the content owners will be totally happy with this arrangement. As far as I can tell, it still puts the onus on them to identify and notify YouTube of infringing content and to request it's removal. It will certainly prevent the content from being reposted though.
I see more litigation on the horizon.




RE: Will it work?
By FastLaneTX on 7/30/2007 10:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
The whole point of this is that searching for violations won't be required anymore. The copyright owners will create fingerprints of their content, and GooTube will block the upload of any files that match that fingerprint -- even the first time. This, of course, relies on them submitting fingerprints of everything they own ahead of time, but if they don't do that then GooTube gets away scot free.


RE: Will it work?
By marvdmartian on 7/30/2007 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much, the onus is on the copyright holder to make the complaint against the person/site that's infringing on their copyright. Once that complaint is made, then it's on the person/site to take down the offending material as soon as possible.

I've never been much impressed with youtube, with few exceptions, and thought the whole thing about the apple iphone bragging point about having youtube on your phone was sort of silly, at best.
[sarcasm]Yeah, I want to waste my minutes on watching youtube videos on my phone! [/sarcasm]


RE: Will it work?
By psyph3r on 7/31/2007 8:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
actually you tube works on edge network...which is data...which unlimited on all iphone plans. minutes are only used for talking.


RE: Will it work?
By soydios on 7/30/2007 12:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
What you described is exactly how the DMCA is worded.


RE: Will it work?
By AraH on 7/31/2007 8:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
the question is whether this affects currently posted videos... because they still have to START encoding the fingerprints (unless they have already done this) which means that at most, it will only affect shows that air now/are on shelves now...? and does anyone know if compression algorithms would affect the fingerprints?


It was nice while it lasted
By ForumMaster on 7/30/2007 9:29:42 AM , Rating: 5
Well, there goes youtube.

one aspect of the site was that you could find short, funny clips from TV shows and things like that.
if they completly eliminate that, and only allow user-created content, the hordes will simply find another site that let's them upload what ever the hell they want.




RE: It was nice while it lasted
By omnicronx on 7/30/2007 10:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
I would no worry too much yet, I am not sure 100% how it works, but digital fingerprinting usually works with an indexing system. Essentially if it is not in the index, it wont be blocked, and it still doesn't work 100% of the time.
Of course google's new system could be better, but something gives me a feeling with a little know how, the system could be bypassed.. maybe this could get rid of a little of the crap on youtube.. including hundreds of duplicated videos and songs ;)


I was thinking
By Nik00117 on 7/30/2007 11:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
At first I was like who would even brother using youtube to priate when they are better sources.

Then a previous user bought up funny TV clips.

I agree i've watched those TV Clips, just short little clips of a really great moment on TV. Those could be gone as well.




RE: I was thinking
By sscilli on 7/30/2007 4:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
This will probably force people to go out and discover all the better sources for pirated content that there are :P. I'd rather have people watching short, crappy quality clips of my show than make them all learn how to download it in HD.


RE: I was thinking
By christojojo on 7/30/2007 11:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
By crappy, do you mean heavily pixelated low rez choppy, poorly editted narcissitic crap?

If so, you know, there are at least 10 decent videos on youtube. (mild sarcasm)


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki