Beta
×

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 Filtering Is On-Line

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the harder-to-find-the-fun-stuff dept.

187

ghostcorps writes "After months of promises to IP-holders, the long-awaited filters system for YouTube has gone online. The new system will make it easier, the company claims, for copyrighted clips to be removed. 'YouTube now needs the cooperation of copyright owners for its filtering system to work, because the technology requires copyright holders to provide copies of the video they want to protect so YouTube can compare those digital files to material being uploaded to its website. This means that movie and TV studios will have to provide decades of copyright material if they don't want it to appear on YouTube, or spend even more time scanning the site for violations.'"

cancel ×

187 comments

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

perks of the job (2, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995573)

a few weeks ago the poll was what perks do google get, well now we know:

unlimited copyright tape library.

Sergey and Larry must have a lot of popcorn.

Re:perks of the job (1)

feed_me_cereal (452042) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995705)

beyond that, I wonder what the long term plans of a company whose mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" [google.com] when it comes to this data... Perhaps initially some mining applications?

Re:perks of the job (0)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997295)

I'm sorry, is it just me, or does Australia have different rules of grammar and punctuation that allows them to print a sentence like this?

It's still too early to tell how YouTube's new filtering system will affect the seven-month-old Viacom suit, said Mike Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel. "We are delighted that Google appears to be stepping up to its responsibility and end the practice of infringement," he said.

Quotes around Fricklas's first statement? "Google appears to be stepping and end" rather than "Google appears to be stepping and ending"?
The article looks like it was written by a damn five-year-old.

In before joke about convicts.

Opt Out!? (1, Flamebait)

monk.e.boy (1077985) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995723)

God I hate opt out. Imagine you produce films and TV, then google suddenly says "Yeah, it's all on YouTube by default. But you can opt out using this huge complex time consuming method."

Is this evil?

I mean, isn't anything where you get spammed by default even if there is an opt out option, evil? I know this isn't spam, but it must be pretty annoying for some people (like the BBC who I help fund through my TV license.)

Re:Opt Out!? (5, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995861)

Actually, its already opt-in.

I have to opt-in to create an account to upload stuff.
I have to confirm I have licenses for the data I am uploaded (it is mentioned in the T&Cs of your youtube account).

If there is something wrong the copyright holder should go after the uploader not the site.

B. You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service.

http://youtube.com/t/terms [youtube.com]

It's A Shame They Won't Take the Offer (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995593)

What I found most interesting comes from the beta announcment [youtube.com] :

Copyright holders can choose what they want done with their videos: whether to block, promote, or even--if a copyright holder chooses to partner with us--create revenue from them, with minimal friction. YouTube Video ID will help carry out that choice.
Because I'm certain Google realizes that a lot of these copyright holders are sittin' on a freaking gold mine here.

I guess that's the sad thing though, it's no longer the people that made this stuff that own the copyrights. It's huge corporations. This goes for sound and video. Do you think any of the big studios care about artist exposure? They don't care about building a fan base, they care about profit margins.

I personally would like to see Google help users approach and push the limits of fair use of sound and video. I think that a lot of artists would be open to their work being displayed in a tasteful manner without the full work being put online. I also think that the usually low quality of YouTube is a good reason to allow this and that if copyright material is found, they should investigate either shortening it or degrading the quality so that viewers get a taste. What's more, putting a link to sales of the item would be basically free advertising.

I feel especially sorry for the people who build movie montages with unpopular songs [youtube.com] for I have watched many of them and purchased a DVD & CD from seeing the two. After watching that particular video, I rediscovered the genius of Sergio Leone after a fan posted that video with one of my favorite bands, The Arcade Fire. Sure, it's just anecdotal evidence but I still view that as original art & innovative.

It's truly a shame that copyright holders are throwing away what could be a beautiful & profitable relationship with fans.

Re:It's A Shame They Won't Take the Offer (1)

Luke Dawson (956412) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996011)

Because I'm certain Google realizes that a lot of these copyright holders are sittin' on a freaking gold mine here.
Yes, but now those copyright holders cannot argue that Google isn't trying its damnedest to curb copyright infringement. I mean, how much more can they reasonably be expected to do? They comply with DMCA takedown notices, and some could say by implementing this filter, if anything they're going above and beyond their obligations.

Re:It's A Shame They Won't Take the Offer (1)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997003)

Don't be so sure.

"It's still too early to tell how YouTube's new filtering system will affect the seven-month-old Viacom suit", said Mike Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel. "We are delighted that Google appears to be stepping up to its responsibility and end the practice of infringement," he said.


*sound of cash register ringing* Who wants to sing the corporate greed song with me?

Re:It's A Shame They Won't Take the Offer (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996385)

I agree and suspect that many copyright owners will just blindly demand that everything be blocked that uses any of their content because that's the easiest thing to do. As someone who enjoys making anime music videos, I can only wonder how things are going to shake out. If the things I make are just summarily blocked, I'll probably stop using YouTube altogether. I should note that I've bought more than a few songs after watching user created music videos that featured them. In each case, I would never have heard of the song any other way.

Re:It's A Shame They Won't Take the Offer (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996941)

I guess that's the sad thing though, it's no longer the people that made this stuff that own the copyrights.

And, you're talking right out your butt. Whoever owns the copyright, owns the copyright. If someone sells it or leases it, that's their choice. If a company pays someone to produce something, that 'artist' does not own the copyright, the company does.

This goes for sound and video.

Not, however, in the absolute sense you portray. Burton Cummings, for instance, holds his own copyrights. Hmmm. Seems artists can control their own work if they wish to.

I think that a lot of artists would be open to their work being displayed in a tasteful manner without the full work being put online.

Some would, some wouldn't. Those who don't want to have the right to not have their work ripped off.

Re:It's A Shame They Won't Take the Offer (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997063)

Maybe with the possible Writers Guild strike, there will be a new movie and TV industry that emerges that will be more digital friendly.

HASSAN CHOP! (2)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997279)

Copyright holders can choose what they want done with their videos: whether to block, promote, or even--if a copyright holder chooses to partner with us--create revenue from them, with minimal friction. YouTube Video ID will help carry out that choice.
Because I'm certain Google realizes that a lot of these copyright holders are sittin' on a freaking gold mine here.
YouTube is a genie out of the bottle, and the corporations hoarding copyrighted material are... Daffy Duck:

"Oh, I know what you want! You're after my treasure! Well it's mine, ya understand?! Mine! All mine! Get back in there! Down, down, down! Go, go, go! Mine, mine, mine!"

Almost brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20995599)

They devised a system that's so onerous to the content owners that nobody is likely to follow through, and it allows Google to go to court or PR appearances and tout having a new system in place that would work great if the owners would just use it.

Re:Almost brilliant (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995657)

They should put some fine print that says google is allowed to use the uploaded sample content however it sees fit, including distributing it freely ;)

Re:Almost brilliant (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996093)

how the fuck else do you suggest they do it? defending copyrights has ALWAYS been up to the holder, not the rest of us.

Yay (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995601)

One step down the path for Google to catalog every movie ever made, and provide live streaming of any movie you want direct to your home!

Re:Yay (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995779)

One step down the path for Google to catalog every movie ever made, and provide live streaming of any movie you want direct to your home!
And just imagine if the individual videos were searchable.

SELECT boobies FROM "80's teen movies"

Re:Yay (3, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995953)

WHERE Size >= ?

;)

Re:Yay (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996125)

AND Count=2 and Gender='F'

bit more specificaction

Re:Yay (2, Funny)

neveragain4181 (800519) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996311)

INNER JOIN?

!

Re:Yay (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996605)

As long as it's not BUSHY

Safe use of sql (1)

Tumbarumba (74816) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997137)

SELECT boobies FROM "80's teen movies" WHERE Size >= ?

Nice use of prepared statements! Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;-- would be impotent against your sql-fu.

Re:Yay (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996379)

boobies ------- 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 row(s) returned

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20996363)

Now, how can YouTube users access these (presumably full-length and good-quality) videos provided by copyright owners? Yes YouTube, we can help you identify rogue videos.

Re:Yay (2, Insightful)

Socguy (933973) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996501)

Absolutely, This is a brilliant scheme by Google. All it takes is one change of copyright law and Google is sitting on a library of all the content that copyright holders have uploaded to it! Heck, they don't even have to digitize it, the copyright holder does it for them!

How easy is circumvention? (3, Interesting)

AmIAnAi (975049) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995605)

Presumably they are creating fingerprints from the original material and comparing those against uploads. It would be interesting to know how well this copes with different codecs and frame rate changes.

Or do they wait for the uploads to be flagged as infringing and then do a dumb binary compare to prevent deleted files being uploaded again.

Circumvention Ideas (4, Interesting)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995695)

1. A filter that shifts 70% of pixels one pixel to the left.

2. A filter that munges the rows of pixels around the frame area, distorting the video fingerprint without affecting viewing quality.

3. A filter that randomly inserts the Goatse man for a Fight Club-like single frame.

4. A utility that uploads the clip backwards, and then a browser-player that automatically time-remaps it forward for playback.

5. A watermarking process designed to distort the video fingerprint while remaining invisible to non-AI viewers.

Okay now -- code it.

Re:Circumvention Ideas (4, Interesting)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995899)

I've actually written a video comparison utility, and it would have neatly ignored every single one of these (with the exception of "backwards", which would have taken about five more minutes of work - it wasn't really important in my case.) Video is an interesting case because it's already so damaged by the very nature of compression, your tester has to be very lax to catch anything - but on the other hand, there's so much data that it's easier than you'd think to match up. Especially if you're willing to toss borderline cases at human checkers - you honestly end up with surprisingly few of those.

I don't know what Google is doing along these lines, though.

Re:Circumvention Ideas (3, Interesting)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996235)

Yes, but given the quality of the previous fingerprinting, all those tricks are likely to work.

One video my, er, friend was uploading (that's my story and I'm sticking to it) was removed from youtube. He tried uploading it again and it didn't even go up, it was just immediately rejected. Out comes the hex editor and he changed the last byte to something else and reuploaded. It worked like a peach, like they were just doing checksums on the upload. *rollseyes*

For how long their fingerprinting has been in the making, one can only hope it's as functional as your comparison utility.

Add my vote for:
a1) chroma-shifting during encode
a2) video rotated 180 degrees, to be corrected with nvidia's nview "rotate monitor"
a3) odd, non-standard framerates (27 fps, etc)

Re:Circumvention Ideas (2, Interesting)

Animaether (411575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996903)

a1) ignore chroma data (gets compressed more anyway), or compare relative (rather than absolute) values - done
a2) to fall in line with 'use custom player to ungarble garbled content'; users don't want to have to jump through hoops to play back videos. Btw, are you going to rotate the audio, too? - done
a3) base your fingerprint on the realtime performance, not on exact frames. Use a margin of, say, +-5%. Anything over that will result in a 'garbled' up video again anyway.

In essence it comes down to this... if you take any decent fingerprinting software, then the only reasonable way to get around them is by garbling the video; at which point people don't want to watch it anymore, or would have to jump through hoops to get a special player to ungarble. 'Mission accomplished' for the content copyright holders.

It's funny that anytime this sort of thing pops up, most people are heavily debating how to defeat the system, rather than worrying about their own original content (or parody content/etc.) getting falsely flagged.

Re:Circumvention Ideas (1)

12357bd (686909) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996409)

Yes, I am also working on big scale image comparison (video is a perfect case) and your points are valid (even backward/rotated images are easily detected), the only question is how fast do you detect a video (or part of) duplicate?

Re:Circumvention Ideas (2, Insightful)

GrievousMistake (880829) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995971)

Those wouldn't even fool image fingerprinting technology from the 80's.
If the people that made this had their hearts in it, and if they were willing to allow some small amount of false positives, I'd assume that there's no way to trick it without also significally inconviencing human viewers.

Re:Circumvention Ideas (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996095)

How about subtly shifting each pixel one pixel in a random direction (ensuring that they all end up heading in the same direction for any particular frame) and then making each pixel a slightly different color shade, you'd have to accept a good number of false positives to be able to catch videos in a different location with different colors than the original.

Re:Circumvention Ideas (3, Interesting)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996349)

How about subtly shifting each pixel one pixel in a random direction (ensuring that they all end up heading in the same direction for any particular frame) and then making each pixel a slightly different color shade, you'd have to accept a good number of false positives to be able to catch videos in a different location with different colors than the original.

Dead easy to spot. Ever heard of sift descriptors? They're fast to compute, and you only need one or two per frame to be able to uniquely fingerprint a video in a way that's totally resistant to rotation, recolouring, frame rate changes, and most of the other (lame) circumvention techniques suggested in this discussion.

Re:Circumvention Ideas (2, Insightful)

TheGreatHegemon (956058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996177)

Or just use another online video service - far easier than circumventing this stuff.

Re:Circumvention Ideas (1)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996795)

Or just use another online video service - far easier than circumventing this stuff.
And that is precisely what Google should be worried about. If the "IP-holders" had their way, the only videos that would populate Youtube would be home videos of people acting insanely stupid. [youtube.com] The population of viewers would drop significantly over time. Not to say that EVERYONE only goes to Youtube for viewing copyrighted material, but I can imagine people using other services to find their favorite band's music video or clips from one of their favorite movies if everything were to be filtered out.

Perhaps I'm not correctly grasping the concept here, but to me, less viewers means less ad hits. Less ad hits means less revenue stream for Youtube / Google. Yet, Google HAS to oblige by copyright holders when requested to, so they have absolutely no choice in this matter.

Very bad idea. (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996583)

It won't take long for content providers to work around your workarounds. Furthermore, youtube might ban such kind of workarounds. Worse: They might sue those who implement those ideas under DMCA, because your *explicit* intent is to circumvent copy protection measures. You don't want to appear in Fark news as "dumbass", do you?

You guys need to realize that if your intent is to preserve works of art from censorship, you would use either a darknet, or an Anonymous P2P system. I'm not saying the model works, it was just an idea... (<whisper>however, my sources inform me that there are people working in a revolutionary network which will allow you to run your favorite p2p apps on top of it - and even forums and e-mail. Some parts of it already work, but I won't tell... muahahahahaha!</whisper>)
*AHEM* *AHEM* Aaaaaanyway.... (insert angelic smile here)

This can be a great opportunity for content providers to upload commercials to youtube and generate revenue for popular clips, like the good old Bugs Bunny episodes (Little Red Riding Hood is my personal favorite - HEY GRANDMA!). Why? Because in the old TV model, the providers chose the content. In the Youtube model, the viewers choose. In other words, they're more willing to watch a determinate clip and not just get whatever the publisher shoves down their throat.

What am I trying to say? Commercials in copyrighted clips uploaded to youtube will be MUCH MORE effective than commercials in standard TV. Simply because the watcher is 100% decided to watch that clip.

Let's hope the copyright owners choose... <old_crusader>wisely.</old_crusader>

Re:How easy is circumvention? (1)

krilid (1171645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995755)

From an efficiency standpoint, having the copyright owner submit the material to a centralized location for fingerprinting seems odd. Distributing the fingerprinting mechanism and having content owners create the (presumably more compact) fingerprints themselves would make sense. Of course, publicizing the fingerprinting mechanism would make it easier for those designing circumvention tech.

Re:How easy is circumvention? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20997071)

FYI: Bandwith is cheep.

Re:How easy is circumvention? (2, Interesting)

imgod2u (812837) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995801)

Wavelet approximation does a pretty good job of being independent of framerate. Codecs just need to be decoded into raw information, and then analyzed. Hell, a simple FFT of the video, normalized to a certain framerate, would also do a bang-up job of filtering out 99% of the videos that don't match. The staggering amount of processing power required for this though, is surprising. Either Google has some monstrous server farm somewhere, or they're counting on content "owners" not using this utility too much that their processing queue becomes backed up.

Remember that it's not just the initial analysis/data extraction to some form of meta-data representation (eigenvectors or wavelet data) that has to be performed. Every subsequent video submission by every teenager out there has to be run through the same video analysis process and then compared to the entire library.

Re:How easy is circumvention? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996325)

The staggering amount of processing power required for this though, is surprising. Either Google has some monstrous server farm somewhere

Surely that's a given though - this is Google we're talking about. How many web pages does their search engine index, and how quickly are the results of a search returned?

I appreciate that they're not the same problem, but YouTube must involve a large number of servers which are relatively doing very little beyond grabbing content and streaming it out. They currently need gobs of bandwidth, and probably have gobs of processing power sat around more or less idle as a result.

Audio is better than video for fingerprinting (1)

JRGhaddar (448765) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996175)

Even though youtube is a video site they should have created an extensive audio fingerprint system.

That would be much better and with copyright material audio is the key. It covers both music and video. It is much smaller amount of data and and is easily identifiable across compression and formats.

Altering just the audio is a little trickier and if the audio is altered enough it really takes away from the viewing expierience sometimes making it unwatchable. Copyright holders would give google an audio fingerprint for their works and youtube would check all audio against that. Music & Video copywritten material could be protected at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_fingerprint [wikipedia.org]

Re:How easy is circumvention? (1)

deviceb (958415) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996791)

"It would be interesting to know how well this copes with different codecs and frame rate changes."
or how about something like the clearpixil.gif? A watermark, floating logo or similar should break whatever fingerprint they are looking for i would think.
Whatever though... i hope google gets all there content!

Remember folks (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20995607)

Fair use is only a defense to the use of copyrighted material. It is not a right you can assert.

Re:Remember folks (0, Offtopic)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995711)

Wow, shills come early today! [slashdot.org] Someone mark the parent -1 already to save us some time...apparently they've never looked on wikipedia either. Wikipedia states: "An affirmative defense is simply a term of art from litigation reflecting the timing in which the defense is raised. It does not distinguish between "rights" and "defenses," and so it does not characterize the substance of the defendant's actions as "not a right but a defense." [wikipedia.org]

One day, the trolls will evolve. They will stab themselves in the throats, and society will steal their shoes as gratitude. Too bad it took me 5 seconds longer to post the reply than it took the troll to make it.

Re:Remember folks (2, Insightful)

imgod2u (812837) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995879)

It's actually the other way around. Copyright law and copyright enforcement have to be justified. The inherent right of "fair use" falls under the 1st amendment that protects free speech (and subsequent expression in any form, including giving a disc you burned to your buddy). Any restriction on said ability must be justified through a court case and is granted Constitutional validity by Article I, section 8:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

Re:Remember folks (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996551)

As if there's a difference.

copyright holders aren't going to provide anything (0)

alen (225700) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995649)

copyright holders aren't going to provide decades of anything since it's up to google to keep copyrighted content off youtube. no reason why a copyright holder needs to go through this when someone else is infringing on their rights

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth (2, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995685)

But it's the copyright holder's responsibility to notify Google that the infringement is taking place. Google is under no legal obligation to screen everything.

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth (1)

alen (225700) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996809)

true, but all they have to do is pay someone $1 an hour in a third world country to surf youtube and find violations. they don't have to go through their archives and turn all of their movies and music over to google for automatic

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth (1)

1001011010110101 (305349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995727)

mmmm... I thought that all google (youtube) had to do was to take down the content if they receive a takedown notice...

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20995863)

You are right.

Grandparent isn't familiar with how DMCA takedowns work.

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995869)

The problem is that Congress has created a safe harbor in the DMCA. Youtube can't be sued for copyright violation simply by providing an Internet service, as long as they cooperate with the copyright holder's right to control copying. Since youtube can't tell if somebody owns a copyright on something, requiring them to do so would mean that youtube couldn't exist. Most Internet services couldn't exist. The onus is on the copyright holder to find copyright violations and inform youtube. Congress may have screwed up other parts of the DMCA, but they got this part right.

Youtube is just giving copyright holders the right of prior restraint, at the cost of having to enumerate everything to which they claim copyright.

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995893)

> The problem is that Congress has created a safe harbor in the DMCA.

That's not a problem. It's a solution. It just happens to be a solution that the studios don't like.

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996183)

why should it be someone elses job to protect their content?

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth (3, Informative)

badasscat (563442) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996811)

copyright holders aren't going to provide decades of anything since it's up to google to keep copyrighted content off youtube. no reason why a copyright holder needs to go through this

You mean, other than the DMCA, which says it's the copyright holders' responsibility to do so?

It's the law. It's not up to the copyright holders to dictate anything to Google. If they want their stuff off of YouTube, they need to police their own content.

And this was no accident, either - the law was written this way specifically anticipating cases like this. (Ok, they thought at the time that it was telecom companies who would be most affected, but the result is the same.) The point being that if service providers were forced to police the content on their networks on a continuous basis, it wouldn't be worth it for any of them to be in business. So they lobbied for this provision of the DMCA, and copyright owners acquiesced, knowing that on balance, the DMCA was a huge win for them.

They can't go back now and whine about the fact that they don't like the compromise that they agreed to, and which was the only way they got the DMCA passed in the first place. Unless that was their strategy to begin with - accept the compromise to get the DMCA passed, knowing they'd just pay off congress to amend it later - and I wouldn't put that past them.

But what choice did they have? (1)

TechnoBunny (991156) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995687)

There's no other way to automagically scan all submitted videos and decide whether they are copyrighted or not. Only by having a set of material thats deemd 'copyrighted' to compare against can a given clip be tagged as legal or not.

It seems like the best solution to a practically impossible problem.

Re:But what choice did they have? (1)

BlowHole666 (1152399) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995767)

So it is like that machine that finds the Golden Ticket in the Wonka bars. It just beeps and spits out a sheet of paper that ask "What would I do with a lifetime supply of chocolate?". But under the hood we all know it is just a midget in a tin can feeding a sheet of paper on cue.

Re:But what choice did they have? (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996111)

The best solution for the copyright owner, maybe but:
-Why can't any weasely person or corp download anything and submit it as their own property. I believe it will be restricted to large media corps to avoid most abuses or else it will become a mess like the patent systems where anyone can submit someone else's product without much checking.
-How could an automatic system tell appart illegal use of copyrighted material and legal one such as parody?

Re:But what choice did they have? (1)

vil3nr0b (930195) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996491)

I would have kept the business model the same. I would have acted like I was really taking down copyrighted material, all the while having a twenty percent success rate against unlicensed material. BTW, just take down the new Britney vids, etc. because noone cares about Stevie Wonder on Sesame Street singing, "Superstitious". That way you appease record companies, etc. and still don't piss off the customers who click on the ads to support you.

How does it work? (1)

BlowHole666 (1152399) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995697)

How exactly will this work? Do the copy write holders upload their files and google analyzes them and compares them to uploaded files by its user base? If an uploaded file meets a specific threshold does it remove the file? What about parts of a show? If Fox uploads a 30 min episode of Family Guy and someone uploads a 5 min clip how is that handled. Also I thought you could use up to 30 seconds of a video/commercial/show etc. with out getting in trouble or does that just apply to educational use?

Re:How does it work? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995817)

Also I thought you could use up to 30 seconds of a video/commercial/show etc. with out getting in trouble or does that just apply to educational use?/quote>

Hey, that uploaded family guy episode, I'm only using 30 second clips from it. I just happen to be using them sequentially in the same video. Hey, if sampling's a crime, go after the rappers first!

Re:How does it work? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995961)

> Also I thought you could use up to 30 seconds of a video/commercial/show etc. with out
> getting in trouble or does that just apply to educational use?

Google "fair use". There is no specific threshold. Under some circumstance you can use the entire work. Under others 30 seconds would infringe.

Rubbish (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995709)

Copyright owners don't need to provide "decades of copyrighted material".

The system will help with reuploads. This means, when a video is marked as pirated, the system will be able to recognize the duplicates and mark them for removal.

This means companies don't need to track the duplicates manually any more but just point to a single sample.

Thin cover? (1)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995717)

Given varying levels of capture quality and compression, I think this is always going to be a sticky situation. I wonder if the filtering technology can identify partial clips of a copyrighted work and flag those as well.

My real curiosity though, is if Google/YouTube might be trying to build a huge searchable library of video media, as they already did with the books project, and this is a way to sort of lure the content providers in. I'd love to see what kind of license the content providers are extending to Youtube in providing this material.

Re:Thin cover? (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996165)

I wonder if the filtering technology can identify partial clips of a copyrighted work and flag those as well.
This is a good point, and another can of worms. What if I make something that includes a short, fair-use-protected clip of someone else's content? Will those perfectly legal frames get me automatically zapped as an infringer?

Can we get the HAHAHAHA tag now (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995721)

Google finds a way that is only minimally less painful for the **AA to protect their copywrited works, and in turn gets original copies of all of them. I just know this made the **AA truly happy.

Cuban said anyone that bought youtube was a fool, wonder what he thinks about this move?

It sounds to me like the **AA will be hiring in their IT departments soon.. anyone need a job?

Re:Can we get the HAHAHAHA tag now (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997033)

You mean work for Lord Sauron in Mordor as a minion? No thanks! I have a video clip I'd love to show you of what happens to those who work for the dark Lord. Alas, it got blocked so all I can tell you is...it aint pretty.

so when will youtube's bitrate improve? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995729)

It's a great service and all but I'd like to see these videos at a higher encode rate. (yes, I'm spoilt).

Re:so when will youtube's bitrate improve? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997161)

The next version of flash supposedly includes h264 support, which is miles better than the codec they're using now.

On a side note... (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995743)

On a side note, they could work out those small bugs first, now couldn't they? Like, clicking on a thumbnai and then finding out it's been removed? Well then why include that result in the search anyway?
Doesn't bother first, but gets really annoying afterwards.
Also, isn't youtube so popular just because of all thr material they're going to remove? Who wants to watch some emos bitching about their day? (Those who want are probably on Myspace anyway).

Well, yeah (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995761)

This means that movie and TV studios will have to provide decades of copyright material if they don't want it to appear on YouTube, or spend even more time scanning the site for violations

But at least they can!

How do you prove you own copyright? (1)

BeardsmoreA (951706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995775)

Having seen a few stories on this today the thing I still don't understand is how the 'true' copyright holders are identified to start with? What stops Joe Blogs uploading Spiderman 3 and claiming he created it and wants a cut of the revenue?

Or is this aimed solely at the 'megacorps' and not actually a wonderful means of sharing the wealth etc... (On the whole I like the pitch, and if they have a good answer to this problem, it generally sounds like a move the right way - assuming content providers take it up).

Re:How do you prove you own copyright? (1)

imgod2u (812837) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996199)

This is an interesting point. On a tangent, what's to prevent the studios from just randomly marking any content they want, whether or not it's copyrighted, and having it taken down? What's the legal process provided to prove that said material really is copyrighted and owned by the person who claims that it is theirs?

Re:How do you prove you own copyright? (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996685)

have you seen a DMCA takedown? you provide you name, address, phone number, and have to sign it, mail or fax it, no anon email notices here, plus you have to state on penalty of perjury that the information provided is accurate, including the means to contact you. basically, only a real dumb fuck would file a DMCA takedown that wasn't legit. if the takedown is opposed, its trivial to phone the person who issued it, and ultimately, an open and shut case to sue their ass for big bucks.
Good luck pretending superman 3 is yours, I think the fine is around $200k for being wrong.

Re:How do you prove you own copyright? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996669)

What stops Joe Blogs uploading Spiderman 3

Well, there's no Joe Blogs' Spiderman 3, but there's an indian superman [youtube.com] :)

All material (2, Interesting)

Nosklo (815041) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995785)

because the technology requires copyright holders to provide copies of the video they want to protect
Wait. That means google will pretty soon have almost ALL COPYRIGHTED MEDIA in its servers?
I, for one, welcome our new media-holding overlords.
There's a lot of money to be made with this material, besides searching youtube. Even without releasing it.

Not too bad (1)

Se7enLC (714730) | more than 6 years ago | (#20995815)

Obviously no company is going to actually go through and send google videos of all the stuff they want to protect, but what they CAN do is identify the videos already on gootube that need to be removed as copyrighted, so they can just use the offending videos as the sample to scan for. Prevent the same video clips from ending up online over and over again.

What a scam! (1)

JeremyGNJ (1102465) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996013)

Pretty funny that google is trying to con people into building a digital library for them.

Think about how much google has spend just trying to build a library of books, and now they're getting people to build them a media library for free!

Danger, Fair use! (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996053)

There are a lot of Anime Music Videos in there. I fear the artists (either greedy japanese companies or greedy RIAA members) will want to take them off.

But then again, I haven't RTFA so I don't know WTF is Youtube Filtering :P

So Children Can Watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20996055)


the War On Everyone [whitehouse.org] by George W. Bush et al.

Another Site With Automated Content Filtering (2, Interesting)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996121)

You might have missed out on imeem.com [imeem.com] or at least ignored them ever since they changed from being a client/IM based p2p network to being a social media site about 2 years ago. But for the last 6 months they've been using automated content filtering for the music that people are posting to the site. Some of the people who register their content are have deals with imeem which allows the free sharing of their music - labels like Warners, Sony, BMG, Nettwerk, Beggars etc etc, and of course there are a few labels who have their tracks reduced to 30 second samples.

It should be noted that imeem announced all its big deals after turning its system on so presumably the content identification system helped make those media deals possible.

Fair Use (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996141)

How are they going to handle fair use? MY guess: they won't. Your Steamboat Willie parody is not going to be allowed on Youtube.

I wonder how long it will take for the first software to come out that alters vidoes just enough to evade detection...

Video IQ (1)

Azreal (147961) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996143)

Other than the sheer scale problem, couldn't a company just run the video through an identification program to ID the actors in the video, cross reference it with an imdb type database with both movies/shows and actors video IQ profile? Couple this with video fingerprinting to dispose of copies. Add in a system to freeze the offending video and allow the user who uploaded to be able to contest the infringement?

this is going to be a field day for lawyers (1)

t35t0r (751958) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996181)

this is going to be a field day for lawyers

Re:this is going to be a field day for lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20996877)

I just want to make sure I'm interpreting your post correctly. Are you saying this is going to be a field day for lawyers?

GoogleTV (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996197)

A number of pundits out there said that GoogleTV would never fly, but now we know how they're going to get all of those video clips online. Man, Google is pretty smart!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=J9SK_M_nVWA [youtube.com]

Copyright claims (1)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996257)

I have come across an instance of youtube deleting hundreds of newsreel films from an account which were public domain for over 60 years.

Maybe youtube should spend some time on finding out if the items they delete are actually in copyright first before deleting them, in addition to spending time on this system.

Do no evil, indeed. (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996305)

...just aid and abet Highly Concentrated Forms of Evil, instead.

(Disclaimer: this post is a wake-up call to all who labor underneath naive good/evil views of corporate entities. I do not subscribe to such infantile views myself.)

Do they have to provide the movie or a hash? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996333)

Do the copyright owners have to provide the entire damn clip to Google? Or just buy the hash/indexer too from Google, run it through their materials in their secure facility and give Google just the hash data base?

I'll gladly do this too. (3, Funny)

NoseyNick (19946) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996411)

Hey, RIAA, please send me all your original media and I'll make sure there are no shared copies of any of it in my collection ;-)

Re:I'll gladly do this too. (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997123)

And hey, since it'll cost you (MAFIAA) a lot of bandwidth to send copies of material to all us to be sure each of our private collections is free of copyrighted material, we could set up a torrent for you. We'd like to help out.

Full copies are unnecessary (1)

MultisSanguinisFluit (608373) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996475)

Technically speaking, one wouldn't need to provide google with copies of all infringing video. Youtube could give copyright holders a tool that would create signatures for their media. Then they'd have to give the signatures to Google. If the signature generation algorithm is mildly clever then basic artifacts like frame rate, resolution, and timing should not pose a problem to the detection routine. More cleverness in the algorithm could catch more deliberate circumvention attempts.

Video is only half the story (1)

OnesAndNoughts (872266) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996489)

The sound track is probably easier to check and we're *much* more sensitive to changes made there, leaving very little wiggle room for deception.

Public Domain (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996585)

This way, Google will be able to build a large library of copyrighted movies that will become public in 60 years, or when the copyright holder disappears. That's far sighted, if Google supposes that it will remain in business at this time !

In the background? (1)

negated (981743) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996609)

What if you aren't actually uploading a clip of a video, but instead a clip in which the video in question is running on say, a TV in the background of the clip?

-S

Google Motto (1)

RuthlessMinx (1174749) | more than 6 years ago | (#20996937)

What happened to the old Google motto? "Don't be evil." Oh wait they gave that up long ago. Am I the only person who thinks Google's grown too large lately and should be split up. They're worse than Microsoft now. They have their fingers in everyone's pies. Search, online work collaboration, email, maps, digital video, and so on...

Jihad on YouTube (1)

tdent1138 (832732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997019)

I just wish YouTube would 'filter' out Jihadi videos... But they haven't/won't, because its Constitutionally protected 'free speech' for a foreign based terrorist organization to recruit online (I'm sure the ACLU and CAIR will take any cases pro-bono)...

Decades? (1)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997037)

This means that movie and TV studios will have to provide decades of copyright material if they don't want it to appear on YouTube, or spend even more time scanning the site for violations.

Given the amount of work that would entail, I doubt they will provide "decades" worth of comparison files -- they will likely concentrate on recent and/or popular (i.e., majorly profitable) material. NBC may well want to prevent "Heroes" from turning up on YouTube, but something tells me they aren't going into the archives to provide "fingerprints" of "Supertrain" or "Hello, Larry" or the Jean Doumanian era of SNL. (Well, in the latter case they might wish to keep those shows off YT out of sheer embarassment....)

I Wonder... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20997227)

I wonder if I inverted the image (rotated it 180 degrees), if the copyright filter would catch me. Turn your monitor 180 degrees to watch, or have a small app to flip the viewer's screen.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>