Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube's Content Identification Failure Raises Eyebrows

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the making-new-things-is-hard dept.

Google 109

MSNBC is carrying a story looking at YouTube's failure to follow through with a promised 'content identification system' by the end of the year. The article goes on to discuss the possible impact this failure will have on the site's (so far) good relations with television, music, and movie studios. From the article: "If the delay lasts for more than a week or two into the new year, suggesting more than just a slight technical hitch, 'this is certainly going to be a serious issue', [Mike McGuire, a digital media analyst at Gartner] added. Leading music companies have already made clear they see completion of YouTube's anti-piracy technology as an important step in any closer co-operation. Failure to build adequate systems to protect copyright owners could also add to the risk of legal action against the site."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431354)


My coworkers make me want to fucking puke! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431358)


Google and Youtube aren't that dumb (4, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431364)

It's hard to believe that Google hasn't already discussed the delay and any consequences with the movie, television, and music studios. Google had such intensive conversations with them before purchasing YouTube, that it would be silly if they went quiet and just let things slide.

Re:Google and Youtube aren't that dumb (2, Interesting)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431392)

_WE_ don't know if they did or not. This kind of negotiations are usually behind closed doors, and on this level this means vault doors.
Let's wait for some time and we will know. Any lawsuit - they haven't. Simple.

Re:Google and Youtube aren't that dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17434118)

Imagine MSNBC (a.k.a. Microsoft-NBC) putting out negative press about Google/YouTube.

Re:Google and Youtube aren't that dumb (1)

LO0G (606364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17437924)

MSNBC is just aggregating info from the Financial Times - you can see that if you RTFA.

But this is /., why would I ever expect that people read the FA.

Easiest code EVAR (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431378)

Here you go guys, this one's on the house:

if (content) {
    return "This Youtube content has been identified as: Bad";

Re:Easiest code EVAR (1, Funny)

SmlFreshwaterBuffalo (608664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431604)

You forgot the "mmm'kay?".

Re:Easiest code EVAR (4, Funny)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432370)

The code is not the problem. Maybe the MPAA was requested to provide the MD5SUM of all the material they object to be published. I suppose they haven't completed this. So it's not necessarily YouTube's fault. ;-)

10 YouTube exec: So what clips exactly do you want us to remove?
20 MPAA: well all those which we don't want you to publish.
30 YouTube exec: Ok, which clips exactly do you object to.
40 MPAA: all those we don't want you to publish.
50 GOTO 10

Re:Easiest code EVAR (2, Insightful)

ifrag (984323) | more than 7 years ago | (#17434330)

That's just a joke about the MD5's right? Even the most simple edit to a clip would cause it to change, such as clipping blank frames from the start or end.

Re:Easiest code EVAR (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439420)

Dynamic and/or spectral profiling of the audio content over a time domain of a few seconds renders just about any audio content easily identifiable by comparison to a library of the same profiles of a copyright holder's content. It's like, uh, it sounds the same, essentially.

MD5 is for exact digital authentication and a completely different thing.

Re:Easiest code EVAR (1)

xantho (14741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17434702)

The MD5 of their material probably wouldn't help that much, as most of the copyrighted videos are analog TV recordings and videos of kids lipsynching. I mean, there are tons of StepMania videos that are reasonably close to authentic reproductions, except that they're recorded on an awful digital camcorder and have obnoxious keyboard clacking sounds all through it ( ed&search= [] ). How's an MD5 gonna help identify the stuff then?

Re:Easiest code EVAR (2, Funny)

recursiv (324497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432484)

I thought of a new algorithm that should be more accurate:

    return "This Youtube content has been identified as: Illegal";
} else {
    return "This Youtube content has been identified as: Legal";

Re:Easiest code EVAR (0, Redundant)

clark0r (925569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433048)

For most of the drivel on YouTube: if (views > 5) { return "This Youtube content has been identified as: Illegal"; } else { return "This Youtube content has been identified as: Legal"; }

Re:Easiest code EVAR (1)

recursiv (324497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433116)

If I'm not mistaken, I just made that joke.

Re:Easiest code EVAR (2, Funny)

Richy_T (111409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433188)

If I'm not mistaken, you just made that joke.


Re:Easiest code EVAR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17434582)

Why solve this with code, when humans will do.

Make the content industry lawyers monitor every video uploaded to Youtube. Its their 'property' they released, they should have to babysit it.

Relax (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431382)

Its in Beta.

Re:Relax (-1, Troll)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431550)

Like Windows since 1995.

This should improve content dramatically (4, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431386)

Once all that illegal content is gone, it will make it easier to find things like this [] .

Ciao, Google (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431438)

See you freaks on the flip-side!

If I were google I would be worried (5, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431440)

Because once they show that they can identify bad content within video files won't the MPAA/RIAA/* start to bug them about soing the same with normal search results?

Instead of Perfect 10 having to search and list the illegal boobies on display, google will have to automatically remove them from view :(

Won't somebody think of the boobies :(

Re:If I were google I would be worried (3, Funny)

trollingsloth (1045938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431528)

There are no boobies until the third page of results and they aren't even good ones. Please doo some research before you send us on a wild goos chase.

Re:If I were google I would be worried (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432006)

Santa stole my boobies [] (comic from /gu it is SFW so long as your boss doesn't mind you reading comics, click back a few days if you honestly want to get the joke)

Re:If I were google I would be worried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17433796)

Won't somebody think of the boobies :(

You must be new here.

Re:If I were google I would be worried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17438340)

key difference between youtube and google, youtube is storing this content on their server, while google is not

Re:If I were google I would be worried (1)

fithmo (854772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17438400)

Won't somebody think of the boobies :(

Someone did. Ta-da: PronoTube [] (in case it's not obvious, this link is SUPER NSFW)

tro77 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431474)

Trying to diis3ct resound as fitting


WiseMuse (1039922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431484)

Does Microsoft own anything comparable to YouTube?

MSN Soapbox (Private Beta) (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431532)

Re:MSN Soapbox (Private Beta) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431750)

It is in beta, how very web 3.1p!

Re:MSN Soapbox (Private Beta) (2, Funny)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432140)

Just wait until Web 3.11 for Workgroups.

Re:MSNBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431536)

yes.... []

Re:MSNBC (1)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 7 years ago | (#17435612)

Your machine.

copyleft? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431498)

If copyright sucks, use copyleft.

It's the old story of the roach (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431502)

Squish one, two more pop up in it's place. Remove it once, someone out there will just repost. Lather, rinse, repeat... They'll be pushing this rock up the hill forever...

Lawyers Shouldn't Set Tech Deadlines (5, Insightful)

spike2131 (468840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431510)

I pity the developers who are making this product. They have been given a complex task and an arbitrarily chosen deadline, probably pulled out of the air by marketing/legal/upper management. Since September they have been on a death march to meet this date, sacrificing family time around the holiday season.

But you know what? It just ain't ready because it was a fools errand to begin with. My guess is they are working off of half-assed specs that weren't even ready before Thanksgiving. Maybe in a few more months they can have something good. But media partners getting pissy about it isn't going to help the code mature any faster.

Re:Lawyers Shouldn't Set Tech Deadlines (3, Insightful)

Herr Ziffer (1042828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431630)

The technology isn't there yet. There are other companies working toward the same goal of media fingerprinting for much longer than YouTube has. For a sufficiently long media clip, it can be done. There serious problem, though, is with smaller clips. 30 seconds just isn't enough material, currently, to get a good match. Add to that the fact that the original clips get resampled and distorted and overdubbed. YouTube may be getting a break from media companies simply "because" it is so easy to make the argument that this was never feasible in the first place.

Re:Lawyers Shouldn't Set Tech Deadlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431644)

I wish it was possible to mod above +5...
DAMN this is accurate!

Re:Lawyers Shouldn't Set Tech Deadlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17432344)

If developers can't make it, you can just turn the whole show off :)

Is it possible? (5, Interesting)

ErGalvao (843384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431544)

This may sound a little OT - sorry for that - but this story raised an old question here: is it really possible to do an automated content identifier/filter solution? Personally I've always found these kind of solutions full of flaws. Take web surfing filtering for an instance: it's pretty common that the filtering software makes a mistake and end up identifying a "false positive bad content site". After all - google or not - both things follow the same basic principles, right?

Re:Is it possible? (3, Insightful)

Rob86TA (955953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431698)

The thing is, the MPAA and etc don't care if there are false positives, they only care that they are no escapes. Youtube could probably deploy a solution that would make the MPAA happy, only to have its own users leave as valid content was always accidently being blocked.

Re:Is it possible? (1)

dwandy (907337) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432210)

The thing is, the MPAA and etc don't care if there are false positives
I suspect quite the opposite: They want *any* content that they don't get paid for taken down. They don't care if it's their content (and they're not getting paid) or someone else's content (and they're not getting paid). So the maximum false-positive rate is exactly what they want...
They only exist as long as they are the content owners: the second that content stops getting signed over to them they get relegated to nothingness.

Re:Is it possible? (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431892)

Honestly, it really depends on the type of content you're trying to identify and how much time/processing power you have ...

With text it should be pretty easy and there are products on the market which will search the web to see if part of a paper was copied from a web-based source so that professors can ensure that the paper properly cited their sources ...

Music (I would imagine) would be somewhat easy to determine if a file was a copyrighted song as long as you had the original source; a quick method I can think of off of the top of my head would be to split the song into 1 second segments, use a wavelet to determine how many segments were in the file in which order, and determine whether the file is too similar to the original song (say if 95% of the segments were found in the file in the correct order).

I don't have a clue how you'd approach video though ...

All of these methods would have flaws, and all would require a lot of processing power; which is fine as long as you're not trying to create a system where 100,000+ files can be uploaded in a given day, all possibly copyrighted material where you may not have the original source material.

No, it's not possible. (2, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432040)

... is it really possible to do an automated content identifier/filter solution?

To take away your fair use they would have to fingerprint both the audio and video content. That's possible for whole works at a given frame size, rate and audio quality. Already, you can see the problem because there's an almost unlimited choice of those. Couple that problem to every length variation and you have an impossible task for any single work. The database of fingerprints would be infinitely large. You can multiply this infinite sized database time the hundreds of thousands of works the crackpots want to "protect" for a result thats that many times less practical. Policing for original works based on someone else's "intellectual property," such as a Star Wars parody, is clearly impossible. The already impractical task of making fingerprints of each submission is trivial by comparison. Even if they could fingerprint all submissions, there is no way they can match it to their satisfaction. Policing will require AI or a human inspector because the "crime" is sharing the details of a story, something only a person can recognize. If they do make it work, the first thing it will do is point to the blatant theft of concepts by every movie ever made, such as Star War's liberal use of "Triumph of Will", "Forbidden Planet" and several WWII films.

Re:No, it's not possible. (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432340)

You seem to be assuming that the only "fingerprint" algorithm that exists is something like MD5.

While I'm not entirely optimistic about the existence of a fingerprint function that matches what the media companies want (although that is partially the fact that they do not really know what they want to the requisite mathematical precision, or, put another way, what they want is easy money and whatever magical tech is required for that to happen), the problem isn't as hard as you make it out to be, either, even ignoring your abuse of the word "infinite".

Re:No, it's not possible. (2, Interesting)

Gulik (179693) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432878)

I don't know -- IANAM (I Am Not A Mathematician), but it sounds like an exceedingly difficult problem. To fingerprint a video, you're going to have to use specific information from it, and I don't know what information will remain constant between different encoding qualities and even encoding applications using the same theoretical quality. I assume you have to fuzz it up (the mathematical equivalent of "this area of the image from time index X to time index X+2 is reddish-orange, and this other area during this other time range is pinky-russet"), and that will result in false positives. And, if the algorithm is publicly known, people will mess with the areas that are known to be used in the fingerprinting to cause false negatives. Or just mess slightly with the saturation or intensity of the entire video, if they don't know the precise locations but do know that this is the kind of thing the algorithm checks. And with the number of people hammering at it, I don't expect the rough workings of the algorithm to remain entirely secret for long. And then it's a footrace like with Google's ranking algorithms, with lots of folks working to figure out how to beat it, Google improving it, and hackers having at it again.

In any case, I shall watch developments with much interest.

Re:No, it's not possible. (2, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433848)

I Am Not A Mathematician either but I'm closer than the vast majority of people on Slashdot. (I've studied this stuff in a formal setting and done some limited work in the field of handling wildly multidimensional data.)

This reply is much more reasonable, and much closer to the truth. One of the missing pieces of your first post is the problem of making attacker-resistant fingerprints. Fingerprinting is actually not so hard when you haven't got people actively trying to hurt the fingerprint and you can accept a reasonable (and small) rate of false positives. It's not even that hard to make it fairly stable under certain easy transforms like a volume modification.

Making it attacker-resistant is as hard as you say; it's not that a fingerprint function can't be created for each of the attacks you mention, it's that covering them all at once is hard. The easiest thing to do is simply make the fingerprints cover more stuff ("fuzzing" the fingerprint is a pretty good mental model), which definitely increases the false-positive rate on audio. (Video doesn't suffer from this quite so badly because it has much more data to work with, therefore videos are "farther apart", and can tolerate much more "fuzzing". The flip side is dealing with this extra data can be a pain and it does open up some other attack avenues.)

Only Possible in Vista. (2, Funny)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17434366)

The easiest thing to do is simply make the fingerprints cover more stuff ("fuzzing" the fingerprint is a pretty good mental model), which definitely increases the false-positive rate on audio.

I would have thought the easiest thing to do would be to take the Vista approach: all video will be reduced to a 2x2 pixel screen size. Content will easy to identify that way, because it will all look the same.

Re:Only Possible in Vista. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17437354)

twitter [] , please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

  • As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
  • Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
  • A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
  • Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
  • Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
  • Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
  • Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
  • Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
  • Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
  • There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From cy []

Re:No, it's not possible. (1, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17434266)

You seem to be assuming that the only "fingerprint" algorithm that exists is something like MD5.

You have something better? MD5 is the easiest computationally and produces the smallest result to store, using other techniques will increase the size of your database and computational expense. They could do FFT on single frame images, but you would need one for each scene of interest. The result could be made independent of size but not encoding quality. It would also be large and could create hundreds of fingerprints from each "protected" film. Trivial modifications, cropping and luck would circumvent the routine. Any way you look at the problem, what's required is intelligence well beyond the state of the art for machines and impractically expensive though human labor. It's not going to work.

A perfect result, as I argued, would unravel the whole game. It would prove that the industry "pirates" it's own content. That would lead to an impossible leagal quagmire that would show the folly of existing copyright law. If individuals could be sued years after the fact for fair use based on the results of a computer program, so could the big companies. If they did not pounce on each other, they would be in violation of anti-trust laws. It would be easier to skip all the heartache of DRM and recognize fair use in the first place. No one lost any money when Star Wars used themes, images and dialog from previous movies. Most of all, it would be a tremendous waste of intelligence. There are much better uses for a machine that could do the kind of matching the MPAA and RIAA dream of.

Finally, the MPAA and other copyright holders should bear the cost of policing their own works. YouTube is more of a common carrier than it is an entertainment company. Forcing Google to police it's users is kind of like holding the phone company or the post office responsible for pranks and crimes committed by their users.

The project is a pipe dream by companies that already enjoy tremendous compensation for the most minor of infractions. It's impossible, impractical, immoral and stupid, but they have gotten away with so much they might as well try this too. The sooner the broadcast monopoly companies die off, the better off all of us will be.

Re:No, it's not possible. (3, Informative)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17438276)

You have something better? MD5 is the easiest computationally and produces the smallest result to store, using other techniques will increase the size of your database and computational expense.

There's no way they could use MD5. MD5 hashes are designed to return the same value given the same input, and a totally different value for even a slight modification of the input. Or in other words, md5("ABCD") is nothing at all like md5("ABCE"). Given the nature of audio and video, it would be trivial to bypass an MD5 copyright check. Change a single pixel in a single frame from RGB(255,255,255) to RGB(255,255,254) and nobody would notice, and it'd get through the check.

Re:No, it's not possible. (1)

YGingras (605709) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432840)

...such as Star War's liberal use of "Triumph of Will", "Forbidden Planet" and several WWII films.
Did you actually watch Triumph of Will? I think you pull you accusation from an other source like Wikipedia. The graphical elements that are common to both films are military formations and I don't think that Riefenstahl had much to say on the way the SAs were to line up. Triumph of Will shows a bunch of guys getting ready for the speech (which include washing and shaving beside their tents and preparing food in industrial quantities) and a lengthy pitch by Hitler.

Triumph of the will is in the Public Domain so I suggest that you watch it and refrain from claims that certain movies "liberally use" it until you witness anything like that yourself. Yes you read that kind of claims everywhere and I don't know where it comes from. I think people studying cinema have to write long essays on early movies and somehow at some point a vague suggestions was taken too seriously by someone who didn't actually watch the said movie...

Re:No, it's not possible. (1)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 7 years ago | (#17434586)

And Forbidden Planet was based on a script written by some dude called Shakespeare and he ripped the idea from some Italian play.

Re:No, it's not possible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17434750)

Blah, Blah, Blah... remind me to never hire an "impossible" thinker like yourself. If you truly think that such a task is impossible, perhaps you should read about some of the recent (ie 10 years or so) advances in Computational Biology. Sure it is not easy, nor is it going to be perfect, but do you think it is "easy" to find a matching sequences from zebrafish and humans that are separated by millions of years of evolution, with missing peices, changed letters, etc.? Yet it can be done in less than a second, and is millions of times a week... because people thought about it and came up with solutions. It is only unfortunate that this "problem" is one that will be solved, as it means youtube will become a lot less interesting.

Re:No, it's not possible. (1)

kchrist (938224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17437284)

Star Wars is not nearly as homoerotic as Triumph of the Will. I didn't see any strapping young stormtroops wrestling shirtless for one, and Darth Vader isn't nearly as effeminate as Hitler.

Homo? (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439398)

Star Wars is not nearly as homoerotic as Triumph of the Will.

How do you get "homoerotic" out of a film made by a woman? The thing is a long nightmare of twisted sentiment, logic and fanaticism, brilliantly captured, with one awful end - 25% of the people you see will die violently and no two bricks will be left standing a few short years after filming. The sexual aspects of boys playing escaped me. To each, their own.

Re:Is it possible? (3, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432068)

I'm betting they go with a computer/human pair system. If it matches close to 100% to a known video treat it as if it were the known video. If it matches greater than 50% have a human look at it. If it matches less keep it and wait for a user to flag it. Realistically most youtube videos are near carbon copies of other videos on youtube already. This would greatly decrease dups at least.

Re:Is it possible? (1)

Ken_g6 (775014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17440232)

Great idea. Exactly what I thought of.

There's just one problem I see. Where is a site with no revenue stream going to get money to pay the humans?

Re:Is it possible? (1)

shish (588640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433474)

musicbrainz [] automatically checks a given chunk of audio against a database of known songs -- it's designed for automated MP3 tagging, but similar tech could be used by youtube

Re:Is it possible? (1)

cswiger2005 (905744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17435704)

It's relatively easy to write a content filter for audio which can detect reasonably close copies (ie, is tolerant of different MP3 bitrates and encoder variants)-- companies like GraceNote and Shazam have services available which can be used to ID music files, but they are at the mercy of having up-to-date signatures to catch the latest music going around.

Depending on the service, they may have a web-based POST mechanism which returns an XML result, which can accept either raw PCM/WAV or sometimes other formats like WMA or MP3. They also tend to have a "fingerprinting" utility that will process incoming raw PCM/WAV audio and come up with the sonic "checksum" they compare with their signature database of all of the recognizable music their service knowns about. False positives are extremely rare ( 1%), and for known-recognizable songs, they could be 99+% reliably recognized given about 1-2 MB of PCM sample data from anywhere in the song, corresponding to between 10 - 30 seconds of play time from a clip (modulo sample rate and lots of other stuff).

On the other hand, the recognition can be easily fooled by significant noise or hiss in the recording: ie, a live version of a song taped from a show would likely not be recognized especially if there was audience noise present.

I have no direct knowledge of how the recognition side works for video content, but I suspect the situation is similar. (Ie, it's easy to match pretty reliably from even a few seconds of a copyrighted sample once it is in the database.)

Why should we help the content providers? (1, Redundant)

Programmer_Errant (1004370) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431564)

Some of us could certainly think of ways to easily identify video content. I've thought of a way. I don't know if it is feasible but I'm not going to post the idea here. If anything, I'd patent to to keep it from being used. Why help an industry who is so consumer unfriendly?

Re:Why should we help the content providers? (2, Funny)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432072)

If anything, I'd patent to to keep it from being used.

Better yet, patent it and send all royalties to the EFF. The "industry" can only use it at "their own expense" - in more ways than one :)


Not sure I understand the problem (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431574)

Content producers wouldn't license their content to Google/YouTube if they weren't getting something out of it (either money or free advertising). And as we've seen in the past, when it comes to money, the content producers would rather make more of it, even in the face of rampant unauthorized duplication, rather than follow through on their threats to take their toys and go home.

The content producers who are going to license their content will ultimately do so without any sort of detection scheme, and the ones who don't license their content can continue to do things the old fashioned way, i.e., DMCA takedown requests.

Internet Video Sites (1)

gavinpquinn (1026592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431580)

It will be interesting to see how long YouTube can stay in the lead for video. It will give other sites like MySpace [] , Facebook [] , and Grapheety [] some way to evaluate themselves. This web 2.0 thing could be making some changes soon...

DMCA (2, Interesting)

Xymor (943922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431636)

Isn't all they need to comply with DMCA a link to allow reporting of DMCA violation/copyrighted protected content and removing of the content once verified?

Re:DMCA (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432540)

not a link, some listed person/procedure.

the best way is to take it as snail mail since it's too easy to lose messages into a spam filter if you use email.

It's all Utube Has (0, Troll)

hotrodman (472382) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431668)

Utube is in no hurry to get rid of the copyrighted stuff because it's all they have. Once that stuff is gone, they will go the way of Napster and Scour. The world only needs so many videos of some dad getting racked in the balls with a baseball bat.
    So long, were great while we had ye.

Re:It's all Utube Has (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431808)

Umm... I doubt that Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment [] have any content on their site which is copyrighted by other providers. YouTube, on the other hand...

Re:It's all Utube Has (3, Insightful)

symbolic (11752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432242)

I totally disagree. I rarely pay any attention to the copyrighted stuff, because that's exactly what I'm trying to get away from. The only way that I'd agree with you relates to situations where someone has used a copyrighted work to produce something derivative - like a spoof of a music video, or some music in a home-made video trailer.

Youtubs is a threat - I don't think it's a threat because people use copyrighted material in this manner, it's a threat because it moves the entertainment decision-making process from the few that used to have nearly complete control, to the end user. It's another paradigm shift that will be fought tooth and nail by the old guard.

Re:It's all Utube Has (1)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432468)

Theres some great copyrighted material on Utube if you ignore the current dross
How about
"A Song by Michael Münzing and Luca Anzilotti from 1987 made with a Commodore Amiga 500"

16 Bit - Changing Minds []

Yeah, plug that DRAM expansion pack in baby! It cant get much groovier than this.

Enforce That ! (3, Insightful)

leftcase (1030652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431736)

Given that the media and entertainment industry has made such a miserable job of enforcing copyright since the emergence high speed internet, perhaps their efforts would be better spent figuring out ways to capitalise on the presence of sites such as youtube and myspace.

If businesses such as Red Hat can make a living from open-source software, surely there's a more refined way for said media businesses to realise capital from their assets without being so 'grabby'!

Enforcing copy-protection (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432272)

Not only that, but they've done a shit job of copy-protection too. Name one form of copy protection that hasn't been hacked shortly after inception, whether through reverse-engineering, number crunching, or a plain ol black sharpie. Not only that, but name ones that haven't made life more inconvenient for legal users than potential infringers.

The fact is that the ??AA would just love to have youtube create a system that could effectively single out copyrighted works, because it would save them the trouble and then they could cram it down the throats of every P2P provider and/or ISP around while threatening lawsuits for non-compliance.

Re:Enforce That ! (1)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433584)

...ways to capitalise on the presence of sites such as youtube and myspace
The thing is, they already are (in theory at least). The RIAA and MPAA need to understand that everything on YouTube that is copyrighted, is really just an advertisement for the full copyrighted work. YouTube has placed a lenght limit in order to prevent the entire two hours of a movie from being posted. So any movie on there is bits a pieces. Same with TV shows. Sure, lots of people split the 30 min. shows into three ten minute clips, but that's not exactly convenient to watch, and plus, the show has already aired. Chances are, a person will watch a bunch of clips from a TV show, realize that the show is really good, and then start watching it when it airs on TV. Isn't this what networks do during commercials? Show all of the best clips in a row in the hopes that you will watch the whole thing. If TV networks advertise their TV shows in the banner ads on YouTube, whenever someone plays a clip from "The Office", an ad will display on the side saying "Watch the Office on Thursdays at 8:30pm on NBC!" Now that I have discovered how funny The Office is, I now know where I can see more of it. The same goes for movies. Music videos are a whole other can of worms. The main reason is that a music video is also known as a "promotional video." A music video is designed to be a commercial for the entire album. While MTV gets ad revenue when they show videos, they may now lose ad revenue because people are watching them on YouTube instead, but MTV hasn't shown a music video in its entirety since 1983, I don't think that's a problem. So everyone should be happy about YouTube and those like it. Unless there is some other content that I'm forgetting that would be detrimental, but it would have to fit the following criteria: 1) Be short enough to fit in one single clip on YouTube. 2) Not be an advertisement for another product, whether that be a promotion for an album, tv show, movie, or other consumer product/service. 3) Actually hold a copyright by a corporation or individual with the expectation of being paid for the rights to show the content.

This is a web2 problem that needs a web2 solution (1)

ukemike (956477) | more than 7 years ago | (#17438748)

The only practical way to do this is to utilize the army of users to police the site. Set up some kind of tagging or flagging system where users can flag a video as "copyrighted music" or "copyrighted video." Perhaps a meta-moderation system on top of the base level can assure smooth functioning. At the top a smaller army of actual people will have to make decisions about fair use etc. This site, and craigslist employ similar strategies relatively effectively. It'll be the first ever web2.0 social snitching system!

bizn4tch (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431748)

reasons 3hy Anyone

This podcast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431816)

This podcast [] talks about pretty much the same thing as this article.

Solution (2, Interesting)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431854)

The solution would be to perform some sort of hash check against previously taken down material. So actually posting copyrighted material once and having it spotted, would stop it from recurring on the system. It just needs to still match submittions with bits cut out and varying watermarks and source qualities with some kind of identification algorythm. (similar to fingerprinting)

Re:Solution (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432754)

couldn't you easily destroy a checksum by inserting somethign random into the file?

All it should take (I tihnk) is some one to create a nice little program that detects file type and manualy inserts a white pixel into a corner of every frame. IF that is not enough just randomly change the colour of the pixel, or insert any other sort of noise that we (as humans) would not percieve, but would destroy a checksum.

Re:Solution (1)

clodney (778910) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433092)

Digital watermarking is far more resilient than that. To destroy a Digimarc watermark in a photograph you have to do a surprising amount of manipulation of the image - it is by no means impossible to get rid of, but doing it without significantly altering your perception of the image is difficult (I am sure people have figured it out, but the amount of manipulation required made me wonder how the watermarking is done).

In some ways, watermarking video should be even easier. You could potentially watermark every frame, and use a number of different technologies throughout the video, making removal harder.

But having said all that, the problem that they are going to have is that the huge majority of material has been released into the wild with no watermarks whatsoever, so they are going to have to detect content without the assistance of watermarks.

Re:Solution (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433528)

Theres a big difference between guarding material with watermarks and identifying material from known content. The already got those annoying dots in the movies so they can identify where a TS was made.

Solving the problem should be possible, but theres a lot of licensing issues to deal with. You need to try to match pictures from the original to every single frame to look for similarities, and then you need to match the sound from those frames, find a good threshold and mark offending videos for manual review.

Something I noticed with Google Video (4, Informative)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431932)

Only one video I ever uploaded was not posted immediately. It was a demonstration of a touchscreen media player I'm working on (Was one of a couple vids I uploaded that night). I was playing copyrighted material in the demo, but no song played very long before moving on and the audio (as it was off camcorder) was horrible.

About 12 hours later, it cleared. Fairly certain it was flagged and reviewed. If that's the compromise, I think I could deal with that.

Re:Something I noticed with Google Video (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432112)

Fairly certain it was flagged and reviewed. If that's the compromise, I think I could deal with that.

Why have any censorship at all? Anyway, don't you think that people looking to watch movies for free would rather download off of P2P. I don't see something that uses Flash in a browser window to play video as a large potential infringement problem.


Re:Something I noticed with Google Video (1)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432246)

I'm not advocating censorship, but as a public company they have liability. So if Google has to cover there ass to provide me free hosting, I can't bitch about that too much.

But if what I experienced was infact flagged content, it was quite reasonable. I wasn't trying to provide a high fidelity copy of somone else's music, I wasn't trying to capitilize on it, the music was simply to show function. In my mind, a fare and reasonable use (what the law would say OTOH)

I'm just saying, if that were the way it was to work, it seems alright in my book.

Don't get me wrong, no love for the those assholes. If they have there way, we'll never own anything, just rent it forever. More cost, less value.

Re:Something I noticed with Google Video (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17437194)

I want a touchscreen to sit in my living room. When idle, it can cycle through images like one of those digital photo displays. When touched, it switches to Amarok (or equivalent) and lets me select from music on my server upstairs (wireless connection to home network, Samba-shared drive with music on it). The music is streamed downstairs and plays through the room's sound system.

That doesn't happen to be what you are working on, does it? I was gonna tackle one of these as a project this year, but I'd rather just buy one...

Business Opportunity? (1)

zifn4b (1040588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432402)

Why does the *AA always move to the default assumption that internet distribution of content == EVIL?

I would argue that Youtube and other services like it are very similar if not the same as a television channel. Instead of trying to police Youtube for copyright infringement, why not collaborate on a similar business model as television? The video service would pay for some type of broadcast fee presumably via advertising revenue just like television. For videos that are more popular the advertising space costs more along the same lines as advertising during the Super Bowl being premium.

Why can't the *AA see that these services are not evil but rather a huge business opportunity?

Re:Business Opportunity? (1)

PockyBum522 (1025001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17437980)

Honestly, you're looking for logic where there is none. You're trying to sell a bright new day to the blind, and I really hope they all die off for it. It's getting to the point where people can handle content creation (And certainly distribution) by themselves. Who needs em?

Re:Business Opportunity? (1)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17439448)

From a business point of view, lawsuits are more profitable than licensing.

If the RIAA licenses content, they have to share the income with the artists. If they sue, they keep the proceeds for themselves.

I don't get it (1)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432522)

Mike McGuire, a digital media analyst at Gartner, says [T]he technology industry really has to start living up to the media industry's expectations ....

Maybe it's the other way around, the media industry needs to start living up to the expectations of the technology industry.

I don't understand why the content providers don't just embed their content with banner advertising overlays and distribute it online themselves. I guess these guys are so stuck in 20th century television mode they just don't get it.

Re:I don't get it (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 7 years ago | (#17433836)

Why not impose a reasonable content tax to all those services (youtube, etc.) which offer "non public domain materials." A similar system is used elsewhere in the world on things such as blank media, yes apparently also in the US on some media sc_sec_17_00001004----000-.html [] .

It could be based on a percentage of gross profits but with a preset minimum. Heck, this money could be used to fund the space program and help emerging artists.

What incentive is there for YouTube? (1)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432542)

"Failure to build adequate systems to protect copyright owners could also add to the risk of legal action against the site."

Huh? I assume by copyright "owners" they mean copyright "holders". I don't think there's ever been any claim that any holder has ever been put at risk by YouTube. It's possible that copyrights might be infringed via YouTube, but that hardly amounts to a risk to the holder of that copyright.

Why should YouTube waste the CPU cycles in a futile attempt to seek out copyrighted material? First, they are not legally obligated to. It's up to the holder to complain if there's an issue and THEN it is YouTube's responsibility to take it down.

How can YouTube possibly mechanically identify infringement? Pretty much all of the content on YouTube is copyrighted, including all the stupid videos of people falling off chairs or dog's chasing remote-controlled cars. There's no property inherent to the video itself that can identify the content is infringing unless it's identical to known content that the copyright holder has indicated would be infringing. Further, technically the content isn't technically infringing until so adjudicated in court (infringement is decided on a case-by-case basis). So what are they supposed to do, piss away millions trying to appease an industry group that their clients despise so that they can make their product less appealing despite the fact that they have no legal obligation to do so? Dumb.

Impossible Mission (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432700)

Haven't we already seen filtering attempts like this with the old Napster? That failed miserably because at the end of the day, there is just too much content to be checked and defeating automated id systems is relatively easy. Now it may be that that has changed, but still the sheer volume of content is likely to slow things down noticeably. And as others have already noted, if the system successfully removes illegally uploaded content, then why are people going to bother with YouTube anymore?

In the end, technology is not going to yield a solution to the copyright violation problem for a service like YouTube. What they really have to do is drive home the need to make deals with the content owners so that the owners get a mutually acceptable cut of the revenues. Both sides need to realize that there is no perfect solution, but they can all still make money on the deal. Alas, this all requires more good sense than has been displayed so far, especially by the media companies.

Good luck, Google... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17434306)

When you do this, YouTube will drop like a rock in popularity, depending how good job you did.

Just figure out where it came from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17434498) []

From the URL: "Verimatrix is dedicated to the protection of our client's digital creations and securing operator's revenue streams. The Verimatrix Content Authority System (VCAS) is a software-based solution that increases content security over Internet Protocol (IP) systems. There are no smart cards, it's easy to deploy and we can trace piracy to its source."

I've seen this work. You can use a handheld camera with a different frame rate in a movie theater tilted off angle and the water mark hidden in the meida will show up.

Gracenote's failure to deliver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17435606)

Myspace licensed Gracenote's acoustic fingerprinting technology last year. []

Gracenote's failure and inability to deliver on promised recognition rates and performance is directly related to Myspace's failure to deploy a comprehensive system by year's end.

I am astonished that Slashdot has not picked up on the fact that Gracenote uses community submissions via its user-submited database (CDDB and MusicID) to turnaround and police the community. Everytime you enter music metadata to Gracenote's database, it could be used against you in a court of law.

Mission Impossible (1)

haggie (957598) | more than 7 years ago | (#17436396)

So, YouTube is going to build an automated system that can tell that the movie clip in my video is part of my online review of said movie and is thereby covered under fair use? Or that my video which uses a famous pop song is a parody of that song and also covered by fair use? The only way to build a system to detect copyright infringement is to ignore fair use. I'm sure that makes the MPAA and the RIAA happy, but it really isn't viable.

Re:Mission Impossible (0, Redundant)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17437636)

Fair Use? I hightly doubt you're engaging in Fair Use.

Killing the goose that laid the golden egg (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17437292)

In some ways I agree that the copyright holders should control the content but at the same time I can see they are missing a golden opportunity to "promote" their content on youtube. To give you an example, I like watching Anime but as anyone knows "my favorites are someone else's rubbish". So how do I know if I "like" the content on a DVD? Well when someone mentions a new Anime series I can go look at a review but as previously stated thats not always a good method or I can go look on youtube for an episode. Now with youtube removing most if not all the anime episodes I can only confirm that a handful suite my needs. So Im stuck with either bittorenting the first episode or just not buying the series at all because I cant confirm anything about the series with any certainty anymore. I think the content managers have gotten to the point that the controls are so harsh on the content that people "who want to pay for it" are starting to walk away. Not only is it an insult to be called a thief every time you play the dam thing but I don't want to be told how and when to play "what I've paid for".

Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17437948)

Yeah, I'd say it's a failure. I've yet to see any content on youtube.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?