Game over, man: YouTube rolls out copyright filtering tools
posted at 10:24 pm on October 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
We’ve traveled many roads together, my friends, but I take my leave of you now to commit seppuku in the proud warrior tradition. Perhaps you’ll see an iPhone in a storefront sometime and think of your old pal AP, hm?
Online video leader YouTube on Monday rolled out long-awaited technology to automatically remove copyrighted clips, hoping to placate movie and television studios fed up with the Web site’s persistent piracy problems.
The filtering tools are designed so the owners of copyrighted video can block their material from appearing on YouTube, which has become a pop culture phenomenon in its 2-year existence. The tools also give the owners of copyrighted video the option to sell ads around their material if they want the clips to remain available on YouTube.
They had no choice. They’re looking at a $1 billion lawsuit from Viacom and the only way they can get to the statutory safe harbor protecting them from liability is to take proactive steps to “accommodate … standard technical measures used to identify and protect copyrighted works.” They’ve done that now…
…or have they? It might not be time to plunge that dagger just yet:
Louis Solomon, a lawyer representing and English soccer league and music publisher Bourne Co. in another copyright infringement case against YouTube, criticized the new filtering system as “wholly inadequate.
“It does nothing about the past and won’t be enough to protect the future,” Solomon said.
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 Web site.
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.
The logical solution here would be to have content providers embed some sort of digital signature in their videos that YouTube’s software would scan for. If the signature is detected, it refuses to upload the video. Hackers will crack that code in two minutes, but cracking the code would be ipso facto proof of willful infringement, which carries with it draconian damages. Make an example of a few hackers in court and they’ll straighten up pretty quick. Meanwhile, I love the idea mentioned up top of allowing the videos to be posted but affixing ads to them that would generate revenue for the content provider. That seems a smart compromise solution going forward into the digital age as it would leave information more or less free while making it worth the creator’s while to keep producing it.
We’ll see how it goes this month.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The copyright holders should consider the value of all the free publicity they now get before killing this golden cyber-goose.
It would make more cents to ask for royalties than to act like knaves.
profitsbeard on October 15, 2007 at 10:31 PM
What would Weyland-Yutani do ?
elgeneralisimo on October 15, 2007 at 10:33 PM
They won’t, though. Short-term thinkers, all. Movie studios are demanding YouTube remove movie trailers, of all things. Heaven forbid someone market your movie for free, right?
I think Hollywood executives are more stupid than actors, and that’s saying something.
Slublog on October 15, 2007 at 10:33 PM
You got that right, profitsbeard. It’s like when Napster was being sued (yeah, and lost) CD sales were actually rising during the short era of file sharing.
At least Google, YouTube’s owners, had the common sense to axe the idea of installing 30-second ad spots to all the vids uploaded there…
I mean, I can see where the copyright holders are coming from…they dont want to lose money, or control, over their property. And Google doesn’t want the lawsuits.
It sucks for sure if this goes through…but will it trickle to other vid hosting sites as well?
JetBoy on October 15, 2007 at 10:35 PM
i say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit
VinceP1974 on October 15, 2007 at 10:35 PM
profitsbeard, as usual, said what my little reptilian brainlet was thinking but could not put into words. My big ol’ heart was too busy reacting to your first two sentences, AP! Never shall you commit seppuku while I am alive, for I will stay your hand or take your place.
RushBaby on October 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM
They would build better worlds.
VinceP1974 on October 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Don’t do it Allahpundit, you’ll get sepsis.
FloatingRock on October 15, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Heh.
PRCalDude on October 15, 2007 at 10:44 PM
LOL….good….let em. The more things people have to pay for the better. I for one will gladly fork over my bucks to watch ‘clips’. Soon there will be enough technology in your shoes to warrant lease payments.
Limerick on October 15, 2007 at 10:46 PM
True, true. How do they think I ended up seeing a couple of the Harry Potter movies in the movie theater? Yup, YouTube. Oh well, more money in my savings account.
Hopefully RedEyeRecap dude will still go strong considering that’s one of the ways I keep up my addiction to RedEye. Then again, since Rupert Murdoch owns everything, I’m sure he won’t get too worked up about this copyright thingie.
mjk on October 15, 2007 at 10:47 PM
That is truely comical
Resolute on October 15, 2007 at 10:49 PM
The studios can’t require YouTube to put in their ads until they Yahoo identifies all the clips. They will also want to make sure that only unaltered clips are put up.
The tricky part comes in distinguishing fair use.
pedestrian on October 15, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Get ready for a lot of public domain movies and clips- from before 1950- coming online.
(Colorization firms should get a short spike from this folly, too.)
profitsbeard on October 15, 2007 at 11:03 PM
If they would consider my borrowing five seconds of a clip here or ten seconds of a clip there to be a violation, that would destroy the hobby for me and for every other absolutely-no-money video maker on Youtube.
Their content would be nothing but big money guys. It’s getting close to that now, but it’s not a complete shut-out for the little guys yet.
angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Don’t do it big A! Today I saw one of those iPhones in real life. The owner told me it wasn’t worth its cost and that it’s limited. Certainly you’ll find something more worthy to be memorialized by.
Entelechy on October 15, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Maybe they think they can raise their movie revenues.
I really don’t care who loses this battle; the lefty Google owned Youtube, or the lefty Hollyweird nutjobs.
reaganaut on October 15, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Let’s see, in a nutshell…
Google/YouTube profits off flagrant copywrite violations.
Faced with billions in lawsuits they know they will lose, they try to work out a deal wherein the victims of their crime can choose to share in the profit, or have their content removed.
The internet community, left and right and in-between is outraged at the loss of their free smorgasborg of entertainment.
There is actually plenty of good content on YouTube that is original. If everyone weren’t so drawn to the flagrant violations or the so clever it’s cliche sampling of other’s material, they might find something worth watching.
I must be the only guy on the internet that believes in copywrite law, and doesn’t get bent out of shape when the producers of a product decide to end a free meal.
krakatoa on October 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM
You know, if I stole the intellectual property of every known person in the world, my business would be worth over $600 per share also. Gee, who came up with this brilliant plan?
Why is Google still in business?
faraway on October 15, 2007 at 11:31 PM
krakatoa-
The copyright owners should get their cut, not cut their throats.
YouTube/Google has made billions and can afford to skim some of the largesse back to all of the original creators who they now defraud through this “Honest, we couldn’t control it!” gimmick that they have skated with for years.
profitsbeard on October 15, 2007 at 11:36 PM
If you take my copyrighted material(songs) and post them YEAH! for me,if you copy them for your own profit,talk to my lawyers(YOU WILL LOSE),that’s the point.Movie trailers gimme a break,posting original songs? better for me cos people hear them,the RIAA is paranoid for no other reason than GREED!
Bob
Bobnormal on October 15, 2007 at 11:48 PM
The copyright owners should get their cut, not cut their throats.
True, but it is their choice.
the RIAA is paranoid for no other reason than GREED!
Protecting one’s intellectual/artistic property is defined as paranoia & greed?
You know, while that may be true in some cases, and even if it were true in all cases, it is the law. If you don’t like it, change it.
Just remember, the free market is dependent upon the proposition that people have a right to produce, and to control their product, to make a profit as they see best.
krakatoa on October 16, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Sorry, AP, but you are bound to us. Never, can you leave!
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Slowly, the grip of movie making is slipping away from Hollyweird and into the hands of us mere mortals web cameras. [Hint - AP should get in front of the camera with Bryan and Michele]
Perhaps it’s not gaming that’s rifling through the pockets of big movie maker studios. so much as YouTube drama-queen Britney fans that are sucking the life blood out of Hollywood’s appeal at the box office.
I ask you AP, which is more entertaining? Keep the faith brah!
God takes many forms, such as my Sony Cyber-shot camera.
Kini on October 16, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Well, if it is up to the companies to get their copyrighted stuff removed from YouTube, you should be okay with Fox News clips… it seems to me that they’ve embraced YouTube.
RightWinged on October 16, 2007 at 12:34 AM
They mostly come at night… mostly.
SilverStar830 on October 16, 2007 at 12:38 AM
It’s the only way to be sure.
Rusty Bill on October 16, 2007 at 1:03 AM
I think the real problem is that some people upload entire shows or movies on Youtube. That’s gonna kill revenue. Personally, I just hope I get to see every episode of Naruto before youtube axes it.
Darth Executor on October 16, 2007 at 1:12 AM
They’re just trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
This won’t play out well for the studios. They’ll be back!
stonemeister on October 16, 2007 at 1:20 AM
F***in’ A
dont taze me bro on October 16, 2007 at 1:31 AM
These comments are totally Alien to me.
Kini on October 16, 2007 at 1:51 AM
They’ll mostly come for the hackers. Mostly.
-
deesine on October 16, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Hacker gets community service, Letterman gig, and book deal.
Mom of 5 gets $300K fine.
Limerick on October 16, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Someone else will create another site doing the same thing. The genii is out of the bottle…
dogsoldier on October 16, 2007 at 7:03 AM
Let’s see if I’ve got this right: South Park, gone. Jihadi snuff p0rn, still there. Right?
HerrMorgenholz on October 16, 2007 at 7:06 AM
I agree with you AP, the embedded ads would be the way to go. Some hackers are so unscrupulous they’ll hack copyright codes whether there is a penalty or not.
Jezla on October 16, 2007 at 7:33 AM
Dammit, SilverStar…
JohnW on October 16, 2007 at 7:58 AM
Nothing like the rule of law to upset people.
Bradky on October 16, 2007 at 8:18 AM
there are other sites to use. no biggie.
madmonkphotog on October 16, 2007 at 8:21 AM
Your sanctimony is getting really tedious.
Allahpundit on October 16, 2007 at 8:21 AM
If the shoe don’t fit don’t wear it.
Bradky on October 16, 2007 at 8:24 AM
This is stupid. These people should realize that YouTube expands their reach and makes their content wildly more popular. This crap is getting really annoying.
CP on October 16, 2007 at 9:34 AM
I honestly can’t count the number of older CD’s I’ve bought because I saw a video clip of one of the songs on YouTube. Pretty much the same can be said for old movies I’ve rented after a clip reminded me of it. Guess the artists and their money men can’t see the advantage of free advertising so they have to screw it up for everyone.
Buzzy on October 16, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Working in the field of intellectual property, I can certainly see YouTube’s (and the copyright holder’s) point from a legal perspective, but your post serves as a great reminder how this narrow view can cause some to shoot themselves in the foot.
BTW, re: the video clip, that was Bill Paxton’s second best role. He should’ve got the Oscar for best supporting for his role as Chet in Weird Science.
thirteen28 on October 16, 2007 at 11:26 AM
The Hollywood denizens are determined to make sure that NOBODY can see their products ANYWHERE…at least anywhere that people are actually visiting.
Wonder what would happen if tradespeople like bricklayers took the same stand on the buildings they construct…trying to leverage an hours work into a perpetual demand for a royalty each time someone enters a building?
The copyright/patent systems are completely dysfunctional. What has been forgotten is that the whole basis for even having these systems is that disclosure serves the public interest. The Hollywood types would corrupt this by trying to turn these systems into tools which make the public serve their interest.
landlines on October 16, 2007 at 1:05 PM
They’re not completely dysfunctional and can (and often do) serve a very useful purpose. This isn’t a case of the system being screwed up, it’s a case of those who have secured rights under the system enforcing those rights in a way that in the long term is detrimental to their own interests.
thirteen28 on October 16, 2007 at 1:33 PM
In all seriousness (or non-sactimony mode) they were fighting this when CDs were only in sci-fi movies and cassette recording was seen as the end of the music business.
And they will be fighting it each time the latest code is broken.
Bradky on October 16, 2007 at 6:24 PM