backtop


Print 12 comment(s) - last by msimic.. on Jan 3 at 7:16 PM

Google rings in the new year without its promised anti-piracy protection scheme

Although YouTube rang in 2007 with a virtual New Year's Eve festival complete with a performance from Warner Music, live performances and participation from hordes of online members, the company failed to meet its self-imposed deadline to implement anti-piracy protection on its site. In an agreement with Warner Music Group, YouTube promised in September to have an anti-piracy system in place that would feature an "advanced content identification and royalty reporting system."

The anti-piracy system to be in place by the end of 2006 was a part of a deal which allowed Google to distribute Warner music videos, artist interviews and other music-related content. When Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion USD in October, it was widely expected that Google's deeper pockets would give YouTube the financial backing to implement such anti-piracy measures.

Missing the year-end deadline could be seen as a virtual pothole on the road to a more controlled distribution channel, but YouTube still can save face by getting the system live within the opening weeks of 2007. "It is hugely important, especially from the rights holders' perspective, that the best efforts are being made to corral the stuff flowing through YouTube," said Michael McGuire of Gartner Research. "Rights holders are making specific bets on paths of distribution and are expecting serious effort to make uncontrolled distribution difficult for most folks to do."

For now, YouTube is leaving the ball in the user's court when it comes to copyrighted music by telling users that uploading content "shall be at your sole risk."



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: RIP
By sceptus on 1/2/2007 7:45:41 PM , Rating: 3
I realize that copyrighted videos are a big part of Youtube, but I think that the true gems of Youtube are videos made by the actual members of the community, and viewings of these make up most of the activity.


RE: RIP
By ScythedBlade on 1/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: RIP
By cochy on 1/2/2007 10:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they are losing money. Networks pay big money to bring television shows to you. If you circumvent them and watch a show on YouTube you are lowering their ratings which translates into lost revenue from advertisers. You are also wrong to say that shows are "public" since they are certainly not. You are allowed to tape a show for your own private use. Uploading a tv show to YouTube is about as far from private use and can be possible on this planet.

In conclusion, it was wrong for the creators of YouTube to profit so handsomely while at the same time leveraging off illegal use (even thought they didn't themselves upload) of copyrighted materials, which is what made YouTube so popular. Google should pay for this. I am surprised the copyright holders have been so lenient with them so far.


RE: RIP
By hubajube on 1/3/2007 7:06:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am surprised the copyright holders have been so lenient with them so far.
No lieniecy needed. They're all multi-billion dollar corps and as such like to help each other make even more money and market share. The media corps see a money maker in YouTube which has MUCH higher viewership than regular TV. It's when the old farts in the media can't make money is where the problems arise.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles













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