Slashdot Mirror


MySpace to Use Audio Fingerprinting

dptalia writes "MacWorld reports that MySpace is going to start implementing audio fingerprinting to prevent copyrighted material from appearing on their site. The new technology will be used to review all uploads and prevent 'inappropriate' material from ever seeing the light of day."

210 comments

  1. Just like real finger printing today... by jackb_guppy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Will it be based NOT on science?

    What is an audio finger print really? If it is sample of 10 notes, is that enough? What of 200 notes?

    How does "I want a new drug" and "ghostbusters" match up? Are they the same tune even though they are half a bar out of sync. A court had to deside that one.

    Will there be a court to deside when it is wrong? Or has GOOGLE crossed the evil line?

    1. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google? Where?

      This is MySpace, not YouTube.

    2. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Or has GOOGLE crossed the evil line?

      Hmmm... Google? Did I miss something?

      --
      So say we all
    3. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by arun_s · · Score: 3, Informative

      The 'article' is woefully low on information, apart from a mention of Gracenote MusicID being used. From Gracenote's own page (Its on mobile music recognition, but I assume the principle is the same):
      How it Works
      1. When music fans hear a song they want to identify, they tap a command on the phone keypad to start the audio recognition process, and then hold the phone up to the music source.
      2. The phone captures a few seconds of the audio and extracts a waveform fingerprint of the snippet. The snippet can be from any section of the song, even the last few seconds.
      3. The fingerprint is sent to the Mobile MusicID recognition service from the service provider that may be located anywhere in the world.
      4. The Mobile MusicID recognition server compares the fingerprint to its database of reference fingerprints and responds with the exact match.
      5. The artist, song title and related information, as well as content like album art and download links are relayed to the fan.

      --
      I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
    4. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by dreamchaser · · Score: 0

      Nah, just the little fact that Google OWNS YOUTUBE now, so yes, google.

      In response to gp, Google crossed that line long ago. The 'Do no evil' slogan was just that, a slogan.

    5. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by IKnwThePiecesFt · · Score: 4, Informative

      But... we're talking about MySpace, not YouTube?

      I think this is where the confusion comes in...

    6. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Funny, I never realized that about those two songs.

      But beyond that example, all music is derivative. There are a number of chord progressions that lots of music uses. Standard blues riffs are the basis of countless songs. I highly doubt that at this time there's a way for software to accurately recognize songs. Similar songs? Sure, but there's no law against creating music that sounds similar to other music. The false positives will make it difficult to upload damn near anything.

      Others have already commented on the Google thing, I'll just chalk it up to being early in the morning.

    7. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one getting crazy here or the only one NOT getting crazy? As a good slashdotter I didn't read the article (well, now I read and it's pretty short, by the way), but I found reference to Youtube or Google nowhere! Are we using the same internet?

      --
      So say we all
    8. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by kjart · · Score: 1

      Will there be a court to deside when it is wrong?

      You do realize that this is MySpace trying to police what is uploaded to their (free) service? I imagine there will also be mechanisms in place to have things that get through removed. So what would courts have to do with this?

    9. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Will there be a court to deside when it is wrong?

      Why would there be? We're not talking about prosecuting people (yet...), just about filtering copyright materials that legally people shouldn't be uploading anyway.

      Why would a court be involved?

    10. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Jekler · · Score: 1

      One of the classic signs of getting old is when you can't tell the difference among the things kids are into these days (MySpace, YouTube, you know, one of those social thingies; Iron Maiden, Megadeath, whatever, one of those noisy bands).

      I'm not knocking you, I don't care to make such distinctions myself, but it's still funny to witness.

    11. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Kijori · · Score: 1

      I think his point was that since it took a court to decide whether the two songs were legally different, will such a recourse be available in the even of something similiar happening - the MySpace audio fingerprint detecting a new composition as copyrighted, for example. I suspect there won't be.

    12. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by TobascoKid · · Score: 1, Funny

      same internet, different tubes.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    13. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      The funny thing about the Google/MySpace confusion is that I noticed recently that some of Google's services will now integrate with MySpace (and will flat out mention MySpace, as in post to blog/MySpace buttons). And then there's that Google being the search provider for MySpace.

      I really wouldn't be surprised if one day Google takes over the day to day running of MySpace as a service provider for Fox/News International.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    14. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      Why would there be? We're not talking about prosecuting people (yet...), just about filtering copyright materials that legally people shouldn't be uploading anyway. Why would a court be involved?

      You're missing the forest for the trees:

      Trees = court judgement.

      Forest = human intervention was required to make an accurate judgement call.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    15. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      I can name that DRM in 3 notes, Jim.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    16. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
      One interesting point about them doing this... if they implement such an upload filter, they suddenly become 100% responsible for what ends up on their system. They have no common carrier protections, no press-style protections. If someone obfuscates a song, gets it past the filters, and 1,000 people download it, MySpace is fully legally culpable for willfull copyright infringement on a grand scale. The IP holder involved can sue them for $5,000 per incident IIRC, which would be $5,000,000 for this single incident. It wouldn't take too many of such incidents to close their doors to audio hosting permanently.

      I hope they've thought this through.

    17. Re:Just like real finger printing today... by Cartack · · Score: 0

      perfect :)

  2. How soon before this is widely defeated? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Add a little noise here, stretch and squeeze some sounds there, change some frequencies over in that corner, and pretty soon you'll either have false-negatives or the potential of false-positives.

    If it defeats the filters expect such tools to become widely used within a few months.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:How soon before this is widely defeated? by tibike77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about the "fair use" dispute ?
      You know, as in parody, for instance, to name but just ONE of the legitimate "false positives".

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    2. Re:How soon before this is widely defeated? by tehwebguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      the great part about it is that there will be a huge number of false positives since half the songs the big 5 put out are all the same.

      --
      -- lol pwned
    3. Re:How soon before this is widely defeated? by kjart · · Score: 1

      How about the "fair use" dispute ?
      You know, as in parody, for instance, to name but just ONE of the legitimate "false positives".

      What does fair use have to do with anything? This is MySpace filtering what can and cannot be uploaded to their (free) service. Nobody is getting charged with anything here - they just can't upload their sweet, sweet Britney Spears music to MySpace (or whatever the kids are listening to nowadays).

    4. Re:How soon before this is widely defeated? by ja · · Score: 1

      If it is from big 5, it is by definition not a false positive ... Perhaps you meant that a single fingerprint would be enough to identify most of their songs?

      --

      send + more == money? ...
    5. Re:How soon before this is widely defeated? by groovelator · · Score: 1

      You have far-sighted vision. Who could imagine 'such tools', being able to manipulate sound in this way?

      And anyway, who cares?

    6. Re:How soon before this is widely defeated? by Bromskloss · · Score: 1
      the great part about it is that there will be a huge number of false positives since half the songs the big 5 put out are all the same.
      Note from Big Five: For increased diversity, and your listening pleasure, Sony has teamed up with BMG, so from now on, you may refer to us by Big Four. Thank you.
      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    7. Re:How soon before this is widely defeated? by itskiguy · · Score: 1

      all the songs with lil jon will be flagged as a false positive... WHAT?? YEAH!! OKAY!! skeet skeet skeet!

    8. Re:How soon before this is widely defeated? by rh2600 · · Score: 1

      But then who would want to listen to that? A noisy, messed-up track? A few years back I was at a conference where a representative from Philips Europe was presenting their research on audio finger printing... it was robust enough to be able to ID songs that had been mashed up so much as to be pretty much unlistenable... chopping around the order would eventually break it... but man that was already so far beyond something you would want to hear... The most interesting thing was the rest of the presenters at the conference were all demonstrating watermarking and much heated debate broke out when this guy said Phillips isn't interesting in watermarking because they fundamentally what can be detected can always be removed... cue heckles from the crowd... I tended to agree with the Philips guy... IDing can work and it probably as robust an automated process can be... the key thing is how do you manage the results...

  3. Watch how many bands get mad and leave by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    when their songs are (wrongly either because it's their original song and it's copyrighted by them or because of a technical glitch) forbidden from being uploaded.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    1. Re:Watch how many bands get mad and leave by SnoopJeDi · · Score: 1

      I think this is more targeted to people who create their own bands as personal audio collections, then just upload songs for their own personal use (usually illicit songs, that is).

      On a side note, embed will almost certainly stick around, and I can't see any way to "fingerprint" anything embedded, because youtube/google/etc. videos use it. So this is really just a defensive move, if you will.

    2. Re:Watch how many bands get mad and leave by edgr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've seen plenty of major bands (like top 10) on MySpace with clips. Will they have to get special exemptions? If it's just an automated tool, they'd have to some how.

    3. Re:Watch how many bands get mad and leave by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      I'd bet that now that big media is getting involved with MySpace, they'll have more than just special exemptions, they'll have their own deals with MySpace and maybe even a private API at some point.

      What's going to be interesting is when Big Media and the small bands clash. A few weeks before FX in the UK launched the TV show Brotherhood, they had promos stating that the first episode would be available the week before on myspace.com/brotherhood. I went and checked it out and that page was already taken by some metal band from Texas. Oddly enough enough, the weekend before the episode was supposed to be on MySpace, the promos changed the URL to myspace.com/brotherhooduk and about a week after, the URL changed to a location on FX UK's own website. However, I'm wondering if in future, the small bands might get bumped off when Big Media needs the URL.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    4. Re:Watch how many bands get mad and leave by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter who the target is, they can't filter those people out. When $BAND tries to release its latest songs on MySpace and this comes up, it won't be a good thing.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  4. I've been waiting for this moment by dino213b · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now I can definitely pat myself on the back for not having a myspace account. Another freedom of ours eroded away - the ability to infringe copyright, ignoring the consequences. It's kind of like the seat belt thing. I don't have to wear it (if I'm stupid enough) but no one else gets hurts in the process.

    1. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like the seat belt thing. I don't have to wear it (if I'm stupid enough) but no one else gets hurts in the process.

      It's in moments like this I wish there was a "-1 Bad Analogy" mod point.

      --
      So say we all
    2. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      Well, depends... if in his country (I suppose the USA) they don't HAVE to wear the seatbelt, it would be a good analogy.
      Quite frankly I hate having to wear it myself, but it's the law here, so... no choice.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    3. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by Psiren · · Score: 1
      Quite frankly I hate having to wear it myself, but it's the law here, so... no choice.


      So, if it wasn't the law, you'd choose not to wear it? I can't even begin to imagine why you'd not want to. There is absolutely no way on earth I would drive or be a passenger in a car without wearing a seatbelt.
    4. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by truedfx · · Score: 1

      Fine. Re-phrased: there are laws in several countries against not wearing a seat belt. For those they apply to, such laws invalidate the GP's on-topic analogy. This is rather obvious, so I wish I didn't have to spell it out, but apparently someone didn't get it...

    5. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by IDontAgreeWithYou · · Score: 2, Informative

      No one else gets hurt? Let's just imagine that you are in a moderate accident. Say another car's tire blows out. Their car loses control and crashes into yours, legally making the accident their fault. Your car rolls over an embankment and you are thrown out of the car and killed. Now the person has to live with causing an accident that killed you, when you would have been fine had you worn a seatbelt. Plus, do you really think that first responders enjoy scraping your dead ass off the highway or that other motorists want to see your internal organs spread out all over the road, all because you weren't quite comfortable enough with a seat belt on. No, it definitely does hurt other people.

      --
      Finding other idiots on /. that agree with your opinion doesn't make it any less stupid.
    6. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by stunt_penguin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Excuse the fuck out of me, but when the vehicle you are travelling in hits a solid object (like another vehicle) then most of your momentum remains until *you* manage to hit something solid. If you're a passenger in the back of a car, then that solid object is likely to be the person in the seat in front of you. If you're in the front and it's a side impact, then there's a 50% chance that you're going to slam into the driver at most of the speed your vehicle was travelling at. The results are never pretty.

      It's bloody minded ignorance like this that makes the roads a more dangerous place. I don't mean this unkindly, but I just hope you get a harmless scare that is bad enough, or see an accident victim cut up bad enough to make you wear your belt. You sure as hell aren't going to listen to reason.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    7. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      In the USA it's based on the State. Most states require a seat-belt other states do not. I live in New Hampshire and beyond a certain age (I think it's 16 or 18 now) you don't have to wear a seat-belt if you don't want to. Similarly motorcycle helmets are optional.

      It's really quite comical, we get a lot of vacation traffic on the weekends from Massachusetts, it's not uncommon to see bikers cross the state line pull off to the side of the highway and take their helmets off. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people who unclick their seat-belts when crossing the border as well.

    8. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by ricepudd · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find if you're sitting in a rear seat, and the car stops suddenly, the poor soul in the front seat can get seriously injured when your body is thrown into the back of them. A road safety advertising campaign in the UK showed this all too graphically.

    9. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by EssTiDee · · Score: 0

      It's waaaay too late to expect that this post will see the light of day on anyone's screen, but i couldn't pass up the mention of the taxpayer dollars that pay for your trip to the hospital, life-or-death major surgery, rehabilitation, and pain killers as they put your broken body back together at the public hospital since you weren't wearing your seatbelt. Assuming you were actually fairly well insured, then your insurance will cover most of the costs... except as a general trend people like you cause the rising costs of healthcare as the insurance company simply ups your rates (and everyone else's in your statistical grouping) to offset their losses. It MOST DEFINITELY hurts everyone else in the society around you. Perhaps not physically (although plenty of others responded with scenarios in which physical damage takes place) but certainly in the pocketbook... and assuming USofA, that's really where it hurts most anyway :)

    10. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans are never passengers in a car, the point in moot.

    11. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or that other motorists want to see your internal organs spread out all over the road

      Considering how slowly people drive by accidents, trying to get a good view, rather than watching where they drive - yes they do.

    12. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's kind of like the seat belt thing. I don't have to wear it (if I'm stupid enough) but no one else gets hurts in the process.

      My grandmother was killed by someone not wearing their seat belt, you insensitive clod! The man was ejected from his vehicle when he hit a telephone pole, and smacked right into her.
    13. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Plus, do you really think that first responders enjoy scraping your dead ass off the highway or that other motorists want to see your internal organs spread out all over the road, all because you weren't quite comfortable enough with a seat belt on. No, it definitely does hurt other people.

      OK, the seat belt analogy was bad, but this argument for requiring seat belt use takes the cake. To prevent others from seeing your mangled remains!?! I guess I can finally ask for my pet law: Mandatory stomach stapling for the morbidly obese and pants-belt legislation for kids whose underwear sticks out above their trousers. Cause I don't enjoy those, and I'm forced to see them.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    14. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by paralaxcreations · · Score: 1

      Indeed. In the event that someone else slams into you AND topples your car over AND that kills you AND the other person feels guilty that you didn't wear your seat belt AND your corpse ends up horribly mangled, then yes not wearing your seatbelt definately hurts other people.

      For the record I wear my seatbelt at all times, but not because i'm worried about other people if I don't wear it. I just wear it because I'm not an idiot, and I realize that I am going in excess of 60 mph in a 2 ton box of metal that if suddenly stopped leaves me moving forward at the same speed unless properly strapped in.

    15. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by IDontAgreeWithYou · · Score: 1

      Read carefully. It will make you much better at arguing. I am talking about a truly random accident. Where in reality, it is nobody's fault. Somebody driving down the road hits a piece of road debris and loses control of their car. You die. They will spend the rest of their life wondering if they could have done something to save you. Meanwhile, you could have walked away if you had worn a seatbelt.

      You should also realize that people have been killed in accidents as slow as 15 MPH. All it takes is for your neck to get twisted the wrong way and you're done. All I am saying is that you can ruin someone elses life by not wearing a seatbelt.

      Finally, I guess it's possible that there is no one in the world who cares about you, but I'm going to assume that someone will be distraught at your untimely death.

      --
      Finding other idiots on /. that agree with your opinion doesn't make it any less stupid.
    16. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by IDontAgreeWithYou · · Score: 1

      Not everyone in the world is so desensitized to the kind of gore that can occur when someone is forcefully ejected from a car. We are not talking about merely not enjoying seeing it, we are talking about truly traumatizing someone. I would hope that your sense of empathy is not so degraded that you are really as disgusted by seeing some fat kid's underwear as you are by the sight of someone who has just been killed in a car crash.

      --
      Finding other idiots on /. that agree with your opinion doesn't make it any less stupid.
    17. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      Let's put it this way... the car I'm driving (Dacia 1300, Romanian-made, from 1979) doesn't have a single airbag, crashing it in a wall frontally at 50km/h would almost certainly be lethal with or without safety belt, and so on. I never use it for longer drives, almost exclusively drive it inside the city or close by.

      I know one thing for certain... if homehow "manage" to crash in it, I'll most probably die either way.

      Before you even ask, yes, such cars are legally allowed to drive here in Romania. And yes, you are SAFER *without* the "safety belt" on, in this type of car. AND there's tens of THOUSANDS (if not hundreds of thousands) still in circulation in Romania.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    18. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      Agreed, If I don't have a seatbelt on while I'm in the car I feel somehow naked. My wife spent 3 months in a hospital because she forgot to wear a seatbelt ONCE and it was that once that her car was involved in a rollover accident. My car doesn't move until everyone is belted.

      If stupid people don't want to protect themselves or their kids then they're doing the species a favor.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    19. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by yourlord · · Score: 1

      I was never a big wearer of seat belts.. in fact, most of my life I never wore them. That was until one morning, while driving to work in the rain on the interstate, my truck hydroplaned off the road, down a hill, sideways into a bank of trees at 65 mph. Out of sheer luck I had put my seat belt on that morning. I walked away with nothing more than a few scratches from flying glass and a bruised shoulder from the seat belt.. I don't leave the driveway without the seat belt on anymore.

      That being said, there shouldn't be a law requiring the use of them. If someone wants to not wear it and assume the increased risk involved that's their choice. Pass a law that bars all public expendatures on the medical bills of someone who was not wearing a seat belt in an accident and I'm all for it (as the government shouldn't be involved in that anyway)..

    20. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by redcane · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but I've maybe seen one mangled person from a car accident (actually I'm pretty sure I only saw car, and no human), but I see plenty of adolescents with pants below underwear. So I'd say that the pants below underwear thing is a bigger problem, just in smaller doses.

    21. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by redcane · · Score: 1

      Now imagine the trauma of someone who, through a freak accident, hits you, and your neck gets twisted by the seatbelt. This person doesn't have the comfort of knowing it was partially your fault for not wearing a seat belt, they have to take all the blame on their own. I'm not saying you shouldn't wear a seatbelt (hey, they save lives), but that when it comes down to something as indirect as comforting someone by wearing your seatbelt when they pummeled your car, it no longer matters. They might be 1% more or less traumatised by seeing someone die than seeing someone hanging painfully by their seatbelt until help arrives (or perhaps dying that way)....

    22. Re:I've been waiting for this moment by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      Well, generally speaking I believe that laws concerning issues , which don't victimize third parties are stupid. If somebody doesn't want to wear a seatbelt: hey, go for it!

      Don't get annoyed however if your insurance company makes a 90% deduction on your claim since the not-wearer of a seatbelt is a stupid moron ignoring absolutely basic safety. And the public (via insurance premiums) shouldn't have to pay for that.

      I know of the stories of the guy who was lucky to live and unharmed since he didn't wear a seatbelt. (Same as the story of grampa Jones, who is 99, smokes three daily packs of Chsterfield without filter, swills a fifth of Jack Daniels, before lunch and jogs 20 miles a day, but I digress).

      Flaunting statistically proven safety devices, when doing something potentially dangerous is outright stupid. If you want to do it anyway, be my guest, but don't let society pay for your stupidity.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

  5. Silver lining... by stanleypane · · Score: 1

    I takes forever for a video feed to start with a 6Mb/s downstream. WHat going to happen when they start analyzing that data on there end also?

    Here's to hoping MySpace bloats their site out of existence.

    1. Re:Silver lining... by hadhad69 · · Score: 0

      My 2Mb connection handles streaming video quite well. And bandwidth doesnt have anything to do with the analysis, as the software will run locally on their servers its limitation would be CPU power.

      --
      If you can read this, it's already too late.
    2. Re:Silver lining... by joshetc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its ok because they analize it when it is uploaded and block it from being uploaded.. not every time the file is downloaded.

  6. spelling error by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
    review all uploads and prevent 'inappropriate' material from ever seeing the light of day.
    The author of TFA appears to have misspelled "obstruct people posting legitimate content in myriad frustrating, confusing and probably threatening ways".
    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    1. Re:spelling error by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The author of TFA appears to have misspelled "obstruct people posting legitimate content in myriad frustrating, confusing and probably threatening ways".

      So you've used it then? Or are you just using wild, unfounded speculation to spread FUD?

    2. Re:spelling error by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      Or are you just using wild, unfounded speculation to spread FUD?
      I guess you must have spent the last few years under a rock. All forms of DRM inconvenience legitimate users while doing nothing to prevent commercial piracy. Try googling for "China". Or are you just some corporate shill working for Sony?
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  7. SHA256 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't a simple SHA256 check against a list of known copyrighted files work as well, albeit with more human work needed?

    At least they would only have to ban any single file once.

    1. Re:SHA256 by tibike77 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ah, yes, because every MP3 file playing a certain specific song is identical in length/checksum ... [/sarcasm]

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
  8. That'll take care of audio... by mgscheue · · Score: 1

    ...asuming it works as claimed. Myspace is chock-full of copyright violations of still pictures and videos and the typical Myspace user seems to not have a clue.

    1. Re:That'll take care of audio... by phatmonkey · · Score: 1

      The audio track on video can probably be used in a similar way. Fingerprinting still pictures can't be that difficult either.

    2. Re:That'll take care of audio... by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      'Er' yeah. I thought that was pretty well known. However, when you take things away from users that they have become acustomed to, don't be suprised when they get cranky and leave.

      MySpace is just reminding it's users that MySpace is not their space, it is News Corp's space, and just like space it is a vacumn of intelligent thought and creative content (and I am not talking about the content created by the users, I am talking about the content created by the members of the RIAA and the MPAA).

      This will most likley be very successful in stopping users from posting copyrighted content, not becauss e the filters work but because the users won't be there to post anything.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  9. Don't worry about fair use by trezor · · Score: 1

    I am absolutely certain that this audio-fingerprinting software is aware of the concept of fair use and has embedded logic to handle cases where fair use is employed.

    Ok. I'm having troubles writing that without losing my face.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    1. Re:Don't worry about fair use by maxume · · Score: 1

      MySpace doesn't have to respect fair use. They can remove anything they want from their servers. Willy-nilly removal of stuff just to cover their ass is a great reason to avoid dealing with them, but they can do whatever they want. They can even change their mind, at any time, about what they want to do:

      http://collect.myspace.com/misc/terms.html?z

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  10. Gracenote's own article on this by in2mind · · Score: 3, Informative
  11. The evaders will win by Paul+Lamere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder how well this will actually work. Audio Fingerprinting is designed to be insensitive to most 'naturally occuring' music distortions such as encoding artifacts, noise and changes in equalization, but I don't know of any audio fingerprinting system that will work well when faced with people who are actively trying to evade detection. It won't be too difficult for a properly motivated MySpace user to find a set of filters that can be applied to any song that will allow the song to get a unique fingerprint, without actually changing how the song sounds. A quick trip through Audacity to apply a micro-pitch change, a little equalization, and perhaps a slight tempo change will probably do the trick. Of course, the folks over at Gracenote are pretty smart and may be able to adapt to evasions, but this will no doubt lead to even more sophisticated evasions. In the end I don't think it is possible to create a fingerprinting system that will be able to deal with people who are actively evading the system. In the end, the evaders will win.

    1. Re:The evaders will win by bhpratt · · Score: 1
      In the end I don't think it is possible to create a fingerprinting system that will be able to deal with people who are actively evading the system. In the end, the evaders will win.

      Yeah, all ten of them.

      Seriously, do you think the average MySpace user will want to go through all that? The big boys know that this kind of detection software can't do everything, just as the DRM folks know that their DRM *will* be defeated--by a tiny minority of "hackers."

      They don't have to cover everybody, just 99% of them. And let's face it--that's just not that hard.

    2. Re:The evaders will win by jackbird · · Score: 1

      When somebody wraps it in a neat little bow, makes it available for download, and maintains it through the escalation of the arms race, sure. See also Peerguardian, keygens, DVD ripping, etc.

    3. Re:The evaders will win by NickFortune · · Score: 1
      One way around that would be to increase the tolerance to distortion until the filter matches everything from white noise to Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.

      They'd have to add a whitelisting mechanism to allow legitimate music through, but I don't suppose News International will see a problem with tighter control what content they allow on MySpace. All in the interests of protecting their users, obviously.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    4. Re:The evaders will win by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with you if, for some strange reason, MySpace were the best way of trading music online. Even as things stand now, it is far from that. Once the fingerprint censors step in, the reaction I expect is: "Oh, fine, we'll just trade music in some other way" - and that will be the end of it. So I think this is a smart move by NewsCorp (parent of MySpace).

    5. Re:The evaders will win by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      They'd have to add a whitelisting mechanism to allow legitimate music through

      How's it gonna cope with a recording of a symphony done in 1920 and a recording of the same symphony done in 1990??? the notes are the same. What about me doing my own performance of a blues number written way back in 1920 and (say) a recording of Stevie Ray Vaughan doing the same blues number??? (apart from the fact I couldn't possibly hope to fill SRV's shoes though)

      the problem is you have the copyright on the recording and the copyright on the composition...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    6. Re:The evaders will win by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      if ytou want to know how this works, watch an animal planet special on primates. See how they puff up and beat their chests to intimidate each other? that is exactly what is going on. Lawyers are very much identical to primates as in they rely solely on intimidation by making themselves look bigger or make it look like they actually have an advantage when they in truth do not. It's a bunch of huffing, puffing and making each other look bigger to the wild pack of roving lawyeramotous primates that seem to have taken over business in this land and as they puff up at each other things like this audio fingerprinting made out of 99% pure unobtanium is simply a puff-and-show by a set of lawyers to the current set of intimidating lawyers that are currently all puffed up.

      Crikies! I cant wait until they all start flinging their poo at one another!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:The evaders will win by upeters · · Score: 2, Informative

      I developed a system using AudioID technology (http://www.m2any.com) from IIS Fraunhofer (the people who created MP3) during the past year. I can assure you, a few distortions won't harm the audio recognition at all. The company I developed the project for works with commercials which should be aired several times each day by radio stations. To check if the commercials were actually broadcasted, the whole radio programming was recorded during 12 hours, and then analyzed with AudioID. Note that some radio stations (AM and FM) were pretty distant, so distortions were a given. And to keep the recording in managable sizes, the recording was sampled with "telephone" quality, keeping the 12 hours recording about 40 MB in size. The files were scanned with AudioID in about 5 minutes (or a bit more if the audio had lots of background noise), and was able to find commercial spots, most are only 30 seconds, with 100% confidence. The software uses overlapping time frames, and if the sound pattern of any part of the recording was similar to a fingerprint stored in the database, where we kept our commercials which should air during that day, a log was produced pointing where a spot was found. Naturally, if a spot uses a certain background music, and the radio station happens to play that music, an entry is created as well. However, the confidence will point out that this isn't the spot and it won't reach 100%. To evade the software, there can't be no 4-seconds interval where the song still sounds similar to the original, or else it will be matched against the fingerprint. I am not sure if the Gracenote software (licensed from Philips) is as powerful as the Frauhofer's product, though. It was too expensive to even consider it for testing.

    8. Re:The evaders will win by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      Even better - set it up so people can pay to have their craptastic taste in music played to people visiting their pages. Something like $6-10 a month for a certain amount of songs.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    9. Re:The evaders will win by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder how well this will actually work.

      The technology works surprisingly well on a cell phone. One of the guys I work with in the UK showed me Shazam. I picked a random track from his vast MP3 collection, he dialed a number and held out his phone for a half a minute, and shortly thereafter they SMS'ed him the artist. Not a quite background either...

      http://www.shazam.com/music/portal/sp/s/media-type /html/user/anon/page/default/template/what_is_tagg ing/music.html

      Take that same technology and do it on what should be even cleaner audio than what you send over a cell phone speaker - I suspect they could get most of it.

    10. Re:The evaders will win by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      cos the majority of myspace profiles have symphonies as the primary song?

    11. Re:The evaders will win by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Block em all. What difference does it make to MySpace - none at all. You may be bothered, but who cares what you think? Go use another site, if you aren't happy. We don't have to let you upload anything.

    12. Re:The evaders will win by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Judging by the MySpace demographic, I'd have to say that you're going to the wrong site if you want to hear or share jazz or symphonic music.

      At least MySpace doesn't recompress your audio files you upload so that you can encode at a better bitrate for jazz or classical music to get the same quality as ~128k pop/rock/whatever.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    13. Re:The evaders will win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmm.
      Re-encoded pitch shifted filtered time stretched MP3s?

      The result will sound so bad that any copyright concerns won't matter any more.

    14. Re:The evaders will win by makomk · · Score: 1

      One way around that would be to increase the tolerance to distortion until the filter matches everything from white noise to Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.

      They'd have to add a whitelisting mechanism to allow legitimate music through, but I don't suppose News International will see a problem with tighter control what content they allow on MySpace. All in the interests of protecting their users, obviously.


      Yeah, but once a load of small/local bands find they can't upload their own tracks and quit the site in anger, I expect MySpace wouldn't be seen as cool anymore. (Especially if they do so loudly and publicly - and what do you think would happen?)

    15. Re:The evaders will win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy... there are a ton of Flash-based MP3 players out there for myspace, for people who hate the default MySpace player, or who want to host their music elsewhere, under their own control, instead of uploading it to Myspace's servers. MP3 isn't hosted on myspace, problem solved.

      Or maybe someone can hack something that takes a *reversed* MP3 uploaded, and plays it backwards again to visitors..

    16. Re:The evaders will win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MySpace is only good for two things.

      1. Finding new, independent bands
      2. Getting young girls (by that, I mean 19-23, my preferred age range)

    17. Re:The evaders will win by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      I'll bet that they're not even interested in 'catching' people who would actively attempt to defeat the fingerprinting. Rather, they're looking to stop the people who don't know any better than to put copyrighted material on their page OR those that just don't care about the material being copyrighted.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    18. Re:The evaders will win by NickFortune · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but once a load of small/local bands find they can't upload their own tracks and quit the site in anger, I expect MySpace wouldn't be seen as cool anymore.

      Can't argue with that. Just have have difficulty imagining that News International "gets" MySpace enough to understand that. But even they do - Yahoo! hasn't been cool since the early 90s, but it still makes a ton of money. I think they'd be willing to trade coolness (which tends to be pretty fleeting in most cases) for a chance to impose some extra Terms and Conditions on all that potential budding talent.

      I don't approve, but I'd be surprised if someone wasn't thinking along those lines, somewhere.

      (Especially if they do so loudly and publicly - and what do you think would happen?)

      Realistically? I think that after the initial wave of defections, there's still going to be about a gazillion angsty teenage bloggers clicking randomly around the domain and very receptive to the right sort of band. I think a lot of them will stay there just to pick up those angsty teens. And as time goes on, a lot of those teens are going to turn into bored blogging housewives who will probably stick with MySpace after it stops being cool, because it's what they know, and they have a history there. And then bands targeting that demographic will start arriving.

      But I don't think that angle is going to bother the money men. I'll bet they're thinking "bums on seats" rather than "coolness".

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  12. YES! by Bega · · Score: 1

    Sweet! I'd better make some noise music quick, I'll have the rights on white noise on MySpace in no time!

    --

    THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
  13. It's good. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    It's good. Good idea. Should cut out much of the copyrighted content posted on MySpace.

    Oh wait, this is /. What about false positives? How can they be accurate? Why do the RIAA think the world revolves around them (at the inconvenience of others)?

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  14. Sounds like... by Agram · · Score: 1

    ... a death sentence to the Weird Al's MySpace page to me.

    1. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can still add 127.0.0.1 to ALL their DNS entries. I leave them that way for good!

      # nslookup myspace.com

      Non-authoritative answer:

      Name: myspace.com

      Addresses: 216.178.32.51, 127.0.0.1, 216.178.32.48, 216.178.32.49

                          216.178.32.50

    2. Re:Sounds like... by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      Not really. If you actually listen to his music, you'll notice that he always changes little things here and there, beyond the obvious lyrical changes. Also, he uses his own instruments, amps, synths etc. which creates a distinct "feel" that is different enough from the original to be easily distinguished by mere humans. A perfect example is the song "Germs" which is musically based off of NiN's "Terrible Lie" with other NiN-style phrasings thrown in, although it is officially an original Weird Al song. The songs sound different enough to the average person, yet similar enough to easily see the influence.

    3. Re:Sounds like... by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      I would imagine anyone as famous as him would be able to just call up MySpace and ask them to make an exception.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  15. Am I the only one... by Skater · · Score: 1

    That thinks this is a GREAT development? No more music playing when I visit someone else's page...finally! Why people think they must play a song when I visit their page is beyond me. It was popular back in '95 or so, when the web first became popular, but then common sense broke out and everyone stopped doing it...until MySpace came along. (And don't get me started on the awful designs people use - backgrounds that make the text impossible to read and slow to scroll, etc...)

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by ahsile · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because you're the only one here who likes myspace?

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a lot of the music playing on individuals sites are linked from the band's myspace page. This means that the music is there with the permission of the artist. So, I guess you are going to have to continue to live with the music.

    3. Re:Am I the only one... by Eccles · · Score: 1

      I admit it, I occasionally use myspace too, just because several members of the cast of "The Office" have pages. I've exchanged messages with Angela, the dour accountant. So I agree, not having music play when I check another user's page -- usually because they're an attractive young woman, I have to admit -- would be a good thing.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    4. Re:Am I the only one... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to listen to music don't visit the persons page. When you go into someones office do you turn off their tunes?

    5. Re:Am I the only one... by Skater · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't, but friends keep directing me to their pages, so out of curiousity I look at their friends' pages...

    6. Re:Am I the only one... by Skater · · Score: 1

      You have no warning that the music will be playing when you click on the link to their page.

      (Usually I only visit pages once anyway - I look at friends of friends' pages briefly, then go back to the useful part of the internet.)

  16. Yea, well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, maybe it's because this kind of infringement doesn't hurt the artist in any way.

    Maybe the record companies ought to get a clue and just say, "hey teeny-boppers sharing clips of music on the site. That's probably a good thing in the long run"

    instead we get:

    "OMFG! Infringement! This is costing me...I mean the artist.... Billions! Filthy scummy pirates! We need a law that the FBI needs to track this down! America in the balance! Terrorists use this kind of stuff to fund...uh... terrorism! And kill people in tall buildings in new york!"

    and then we get people on /. who are either astroturfing or just one of those internet do-gooders who say stupid stuff like:

    "Well, this is their property and who are we to infringe. You people on /. are just filthy scummy pirates and the guys from the RIAA and MPAA are just honest businessmen trying to run a garbage company in New Jersey...oh wait, that's Tony Soprano... no no, I mean, they're as honest as Donald Rumsfeld talking about how 'victory is at hand...' "

    Shame on the lot of you.

  17. Wasting their time by packetmon · · Score: 1
    What's to stop someone from simply (drum roll):

    posting an off-site link to illegal content

    ripping and saving under a different file type

    stop using MySpace and moving on to the next big hype It's their money let em waste it how they want. They should know by now its only a matter of time before whatever solution they use will be defeated.

    1. Re:Wasting their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already see a ton of myspace pages crossposting media content from imeem.com pages - they'd probably use use imeem.com, since it has more features than myspace now, except for the fact that imeem stops users from applying the blink tag to everything.

    2. Re:Wasting their time by cerelib · · Score: 1

      The problem is not linking to copyright content, it is the upload of copyright content. For example, somebody really likes band X, so they create a MySpace page either claiming to be band X, or as a fan forum. The account they create is a musician/band account which lets them upload music to MySpace. This music is hosted by MySpace and served up through their Flash music player. So if that content is being distributed against copyright, it is possible that MySpace could be at fault. Hosting an HTML page with a link to another site hosting illegal content is not infringing on copyright(unless they stuck that in some deep corner of the DMCA). Basically, MySpace, like YouTube, is trying to cover their own butt by taking, or at least claiming to take, every action possible to satisfy due diligence in prohibiting illegal distribution of copyright content via MySpace.

  18. lmao, myspace can't get simple stuff right! by porkThreeWays · · Score: 1

    Is there any chance at all this will work? Myspace can't even handle basic uptime issues, let alone complex audio fingerprinting technology. I'm not even 100% sure they have a test environment yet (for many years they didn't). Half the time you go to the site at least one part of it is completely broken. Will we start getting messages from Tom, "sorry guys, every song thinks that it's hey ya. We'll fix it. In the meantime don't email us. We know.".

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:lmao, myspace can't get simple stuff right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely -- MySpace looks like it was hacked together by three 12-year-olds on speed.

      Which I guess is standard practice in the IT world.

  19. not necessarily automated. by radarsat1 · · Score: 1
    The story says:
    MySpace will review all music audio recordings uploaded by community members to their profiles, identifies that which is copyrighted, and blocks the uploading of such music as appropriate.


    It says NOTHING about how this will be implemented. For all we know, they are not cutting the human out of this process. It's very, very possible that they'll be using fingerprinting to flag potential copyright violations, and have a human review it before deciding to reject an upload.

    Besides this, audio fingerprinting is not a binary process: "is a known track / is not a known track". Many implementations return a "confidence" value, or even the top 3 "best guesses". Thus, it could automate the process for, say, hits where the system is 98% sure that it's a copyright violation or above, but notify a human for hits that are between 80% and 98%.

    I really don't see a problem with utilizing statistical techniques to determine whether or not a song is likely copied off of a CD. There's nothing unethical about identifying music. I'm really surprised at the number of negative posts here...
    1. Re:not necessarily automated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm really surprised at the number of negative posts here...

      First time on /. then?

  20. Reminds me of the Titanic by Toby+The+Economist · · Score: 0

    Glug, glug, glug, glug, glug...

  21. fingerprinting to prevent copyrighted material... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The statement about fingerprinting to prevent copyrighted material to appear on their site is very misleading. Most material posted by MysSpace member is copyrighted (by the members). Copyrighting is automatic; it is not a privilege of big labels.

    What is meant here is unauthorised/infringing publication/redistribution of copyrighted material.

  22. Too late by yoprst · · Score: 1

    Aphex Twin already holds copyright for all kinds of noises.

    1. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and John Cage to silence, is every myspace infringing on JCage or RDJames??

  23. Oh No!!!!! by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    Millions of 13-year-olds will no longer be able to spread plastic, manufactured "build-a-songs" puked from the mouths of talentless indivduals elevated to stardom by millions of brainless Pop Idol fans...

    I'll never be able to sleep soundly again!

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Oh No!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've used myspace about 3 times, so maybe i'm completely off base... but when did anyone ever illegally download a significant amount of music from it??? does anyone really bother sifting through page after page, trying to collect songs one by one?

      oh, right, because it's so hard to find pirated music anywhere else on the internet.... ?

  24. I'm glad they're working on this important feature by AEton · · Score: 1

    ...and not on, say, responding to emails from my friend. He's being stalked on the Internet by a ruthless AOL-using lunatic who has conjured death threats against his ex-girlfriend while faking his identity, using publicly available information from Yahoo & Facebook & a personal blog. Whoever this is has convinced the police in three different states that my friend is writing these death threats (and thereby gotten him questioned and an investigation ongoing) and has convinced my friend's ex-girlfriend to file a restraining order.

    It's a terrible mess, and Myspace is dragging their feet. Average age of each new profile created by the stalker: weeks to months, even though they're contacted promptly by email each time. Amount of uniquely identifying information provided about the stalker to police by Myspace: zero.

    This is the kind of situation you would expect a very large, very public Web site to have some defined policy for. As far as I can tell my friend has not been able to find this policy. (Or to find a working phone number for these folks.)

    But instead of worrying about little details like freakish Internet stalkers who pose a significant danger of actually hurting someone, they're working on bottom-line things like "not getting sued by recording industry".

    Color me surprised?

    (Poor "my friend", though. At least all I have to worry about is problem sets.)

    --
    We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
  25. or the MPAA and viral marketing efforts by sjwest · · Score: 1

    http://myspace.com/StepUpUK Mind you if that horrible attempt is /dev/nulled I've no compliants.

  26. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So as well as viewing web pages by people who can't design web pages, I have to listen to music written by these same people who can't write music :(

    Having music playing on a web site is crap as it is, but forcing them to use crap copyright free music is worse.

  27. even more relevant by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    is http://musicbrainz.org/. It's an open source music fingerprinting project that can, for example, take a hard disk full of untagged MP3s, and tag them all up fairly accurately. It's free, and it works. I *think* it uses the same engine as the UK Shazam! mobile phone service where you could ring a premium rate phone number in a club, hold your mobile up near the speaker for 15 seconds, and it'd text you back the track/artist details seconds later.
    Presumably it'd be trivial for Myspace to run this in the background on the boxes where they keep user audio content...

    1. Re:even more relevant by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      15secs us not enought to tell the difference.

      Look songs like "Cheokee People" and Tim McGraw's "I am Cheokee", there are other examples of riffs that are the same for more than 15secs. But then these are stil commerical songs (all songs are copywritten).

      Now take a sound track that is open to copy, say Bethoven (he been dead along time). Have 15sec riff in a song that is his but is also in another currently commerical copywritten source. Does it pass or fail?

      What happens if the beat been sped up or slowed down. To most they sound the same. But some one with prefect pitch they are different. A math model normally is prefect pitched, unless you want to get alot of false positives!

    2. Re:even more relevant by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      I vaguely remember the 5 civilized tribes from school, but I don't remember anything about Cheokees.

    3. Re:even more relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see a python wrapper around a C++ lib and I'm not sure what the analyser is doing. C++ really isn't my thing, what I can tell you is that there's nothing clever that couldn't be easily defeated if this is the fingerprinting code.

    4. Re:even more relevant by RMH101 · · Score: 1
      Two points:

      1) It doesn't have to be particularly accurate, and false positives don't matter either. If they're not sure, Myspace will block it.
      2) 15-20 secs *is* enough to identify stuff. I have no relation to this company, but as I said, in the UK there's a service called http://www.shazam.com/music/portal that does exactly this - hear a song in a club or on the radio, ring a premium rate number on your mobile, hold the phone up so it can hear the song, and 20 secs later it will cut off: 10 seconds later you'll have a text message with the track name, artist and a link to where you can buy it. It's a waste of money, but it *does* work, I've done it. If you're in the UK, you can try it now at a price...

    5. Re:even more relevant by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, either. I got interested in this when I had about 20 gigs of badly-tagged MP3s (don't ask!) and wanted them neatly imported into iTunes. It worked amazingly well: it tags everything it's confident about, and for anything it's unsure about presents options so you can choose. If it has no idea, you can manually tag and submit the result for future people's reference.

      I *think* what's going on is that Musicbrainz are using a commercial fingerprinting service, in the same way that Shazam! do. I seem to remember it's a blackbox fingerprinter and their code just plugs in data at one end and retrieves the tags from the other...

    6. Re:even more relevant by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      If they're not sure, Myspace will block it.

      That is point. Blocking a valid song, becuase they are not sure. They are erroring to side of evil, the burdon of proof is on you.

    7. Re:even more relevant by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Sorry, not completely open sourced - a portion of that project is closed\licensed as I recall. The fingerprinting portion also finds plenty of dupes in my experience. A good example though, I will be surprised if Gracenote does better.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    8. Re:even more relevant by msblack · · Score: 1

      Beethoven may be dead and his works are public domain. However, recent performances of his music are copyrighted works of art. I doubt Gracenote technology can distinguish the subtleties or whether they'd even bother. How many pimple-faced teens are ripping "classical" music?

      --
      signature pending slashdot approval
    9. Re:even more relevant by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1

      > Beethoven may be dead and his works are public domain. However, recent performances of
      > his music are copyrighted works of art.

      IANAL, but it's my understanding that unless there is something distinctive about the recording, copyright of performances of classical music is difficult. So most recordings, even recent ones, are as good as public domain. That is, assuming you don't name the musicians and conductor on the recording you're copying.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    10. Re:even more relevant by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      Presumably it'd be trivial for Myspace to run this in the background

      I think you presume too much. Myspace would have to have the millions of banned fingerprints for the songs the record labels put in the blacklist. And they would have to have a process for acquiring new stuff added to the blacklist by the labels in reasonable time. Who's going to do that for them? What if there are bugs in the system? Who is going to fix that for them with any guarantee of correctness or promptness? Who is going to run the servers? Does MySpace have to do that themselves, or are they going to rely on some public servers somewhere with no guarantee of availability or throughput?

      What I presume is that they discarded your entire notion as unworkable for a real company with record company lawyers breathing down their backs. More likely they examined all of the available commercial solutions and settled on the one that seemed to fit their needs. (I also presume they examined Shazam as part of their process, not in musicbrainz incarnation, whatever that really is.)

    11. Re:even more relevant by redcane · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain musicbrainz wrote their original algorithm, but they have since partnered up with someone to share their algorithm. I think the benefit to the "commercial party" is that heaps of people are sending in fingerprints that the commercial party can then add to their database. Even so, muscibrainz is only intended to work on whole songs AFAIK. In my expreience it still does ok if the end of the mp3 is cut off, although sometimes this will give it a lower confidence and it will suggest some other songs as well.

    12. Re:even more relevant by saladasalad · · Score: 1

      MusicBrainz isn't exactly a fingerprinting project. It is a database that links fingerprints to a particular track on a particular release. All the fingerprinting is done by MusicIP's software and/or Relatable's TRM software, both of which are closed source. MB's data is open source though.

  28. Only possible advantage by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

    Maybe it could block a few of the jackass wanabee videos by mistaking pain screams for Celine Dion.

    Not that I care anyway. When they are trying to remove themself from the gene pool, at least, they're not playing M-rated videogames.

  29. Macwold? by franksands · · Score: 1

    Found it strange that macworld reported this story?

  30. Its to bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its to bad they can invest the time and the money to keep music from being pirated, but they cant implement any kind of security on their login page to keep peoples user names and passwords from being sent in clear text.

  31. Not much music then by crosbie · · Score: 1

    Apart from a few dusty 78rpm shellacs, pretty much all music recordings are copyrighted, so MySpace is going to find itself pretty barren.

  32. Rupert Murdoch (FoxNews, Sky, etc.) owns MySpace by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    Sorry, Murdoch's NewsCorp never had a "don't be evil" policy!

  33. DMCA "safe harbor" provisions by yuna49 · · Score: 1

    Under the terms of the DMCA, ISPs cannot be held liable for copyright infringments by their users if they follow certain procedures, particularly the "take-down" procedures whereby a copyright holder can request the removal of allegedly infringing material.

    This provision applied a "common-carrier-like" regime to ISPs, treating them as conduits rather than as publishers or editors. Once you start reviewing uploads for potential infringment, doesn't this undermine the conduit model and open the ISP to potential claims of contributory infringement? Once ISPs begin reviewing content, they become editors and not simply conduits. I would think this is a dangerous road for an ISP to tred.

    1. Re:DMCA "safe harbor" provisions by Cynshard · · Score: 1

      MySpace is not an ISP.

    2. Re:DMCA "safe harbor" provisions by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      From: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID 127

      "A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof." [my emphasis]

      I think MySpace clearly qualifies as a "provider of online services." The definition of "ISP" in the law is much broader than entities providing Internet access services. For instance, the Napster decision specifically excluded Napster from the safe-harbor provisions of this law. Section 512(c) specifically mentions "the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider."

      So, yes, with respect to the DMCA, I believe MySpace is an ISP.

  34. Oof by Lewrker · · Score: 0

    I misread "Myspace" as "Youtube" and I almost cared.

  35. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA by Se7enLC · · Score: 1

    We can only hope that myspace puts as much effort into this feature as they did into all the other great and well-designed features on their site. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

  36. You're the only one, just because. by slaida1 · · Score: 1

    ..hehehaCut it. That rebellious act stops right here and right now. Either you're with slashdot or you're with myspace. I'm seriously suspicious if you live in a basement even.

    This myspace story is here only to make fun of myspacers and you blatantly abused the goodwill of the poster by not ridiculing them. Immediate remedy is required here, do something fast, even poor joke about myspace and you can keep your license to nerd.

    --
    Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  37. How can the Gracenote DB not be "infringing"? by mwa · · Score: 1

    Just asking...

    1. Re:How can the Gracenote DB not be "infringing"? by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Umm, they can be licensing the right to use whatever music they're using from the owners of the music.

      I'm not asserting that they do so, but the fact that they license song lyrics from the publishers makes me think it's pretty likely that they do.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  38. Simple Remedy - Avoid MySpace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build a website from scratch instead. It might be harder, but the results are

    more flexibility than using MySpace,
    can use music that is in the creative commons or any music, in any format.
    Don't have to worry about false positives as opposed to using musing music on myspace.

    Conclusion, who needs MySpace?

  39. It's amazing by gelfling · · Score: 1

    We have officially invested more brainpower, money and technology into correcting and restricting technology compared to simply using it to its own best expression.

    Why can't someone somewhere do something like this for identity theft? Oh yeah I forgot, because WE'RE ALL FUCKING SHEEP BEING LEAD AROUND BY CORPORATE ATTORNEYS !!!

    My bad.

    1. Re:It's amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the hell are you talking about? Identity theft isn't even remotely comparable to copyright infringement.

    2. Re:It's amazing by gelfling · · Score: 1

      They're both about proving something. A right, an identity. Technically they're the same thing.

  40. "Speak Softly..." by EssTiDee · · Score: 0

    lest someone hear you say something copyrighted... then you'd better be carrying a big stick. Of course I think that's paraphrased from somewhere else =] -- now that it's in writing is that suddenly copyright infringment? If this is truly "MySpace" through which I'm allowed to express myself, why should I not be allowed to post content that I legally own in a manner in which other people can enjoy it and perhaps share something in common with me (thereby gaining insight into who I am). How is this different than playing your favorite song for someone? Is a public broadcast of music from a CD I bought now illegal? I guess I'd better not EVER let anyone listen to a song off my iPod anymore -- they didn't buy the CD so unless they're lucky enough to hear the song on the radio between the 45 minutes of advertisments per hour they're just simply S.O.L.

    1. Re:"Speak Softly..." by trongey · · Score: 3, Funny
      ...Is a public broadcast of music from a CD I bought now illegal? I guess I'd better not EVER let anyone listen to a song off my iPod anymore -- they didn't buy the CD so unless they're lucky enough to hear the song on the radio between the 45 minutes of advertisments per hour they're just simply S.O.L.

      Finally! A slashdotter who understands U.S. copyright laws.
      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  41. Re:Rupert Murdoch (FoxNews, Sky, etc.) owns MySpac by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    To expand on that a bit, Murdoch has a "DO be evil" policy.

  42. Fair Use. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Show me where it's codified into law, that I am able to take any copyrighted piece and place it onto an open network for all to take free of charge?

    1. Re:Fair Use. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      In the last 100 years, has anyone ever been sued over clipping out pictures from magazines and pasting them into their scrapbooks, then showing them off to friends? That's really what myspace is, isn't it? Or have I missed some part of Myspace where the majority are carefully crafting elaborate display spaces and using them for significant profit*? Copyright is intended to be a commercial restriction, though I'm sure every content provider organization would like to make it otherwise.

      *as apposed to using them as a hobby

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Fair Use. by trezor · · Score: 1

      You obviously missed the point about "Fair use" when I mentioned "Fair use", as I never mentioned full blown copyright infringement.

      Better luck next time.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    3. Re:Fair Use. by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "In the last 100 years, has anyone ever been sued over clipping out pictures from magazines and pasting them into their scrapbooks, then showing them off to friends? That's really what myspace is, isn't it?"

      In the way that putting stuff on P2P is sharing music with your "friends." Yet I've run into people who (incorrectly) understood that copying a CD for a friend was fair use, and thus putting it in a share directory to share with their 10,000 closest friends was the same thing. Really.

      At any rate, this would be a great conversation to pick up again when somebody gets sued for having a copyrighted photo on their MySpace page. In the meantime there's the issue of some MySpace users effectively turning their pages into unlicensed radio stations, and that makes some copyright owners mad. In terrestrial radio, the RIAA doesn't see the license fee (it all goes to the composers and songwriters) but with web radio, the RIAA managed to get the law changed so that they get a cut, and they have more lawyers than ASCAP and BMI.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    4. Re:Fair Use. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I'll give you the scalability argument - that's a hard one to reconcile (which is why I conveniently ignored it ;-)

      In the meantime there's the issue of some MySpace users effectively turning their pages into unlicensed radio stations, and that makes some copyright owners mad. I

      Yes, it's the few "bad apples" problem...again. As always, I wish we had the NRA on the consumers side in this one.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Fair Use. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      You're a teacher. You can use some material to educate your students.

      You're a punk ass high school brat who likes Britney Spears.

      One is Fair Use. The other is infringement.

  43. How does it work? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    I've wondered about this, ever since buying a Neuros mp3/ogg player, which theoretically could identify for you which song from the radio you were recording.

    It seems like the most naive approaches would be far too brittle: a bit-by-bit comparison or an MD5 sum, for example, would be thrown off by just eliminating or adding one audio sample in the song.

    Even something like spectral analysis would be subject to errors: unless the reference copy they kept of a spectral analysis was produced using exactly the same start- and end- sample in the recording, as was used when checking a newly submitted recording, even the spectra might mismatch.

    So how do they do it without getting a ton of false positives and/or false negatives? (Or do they not even manage to avoid those errors?)

    1. Re:How does it work? by preimer · · Score: 1

      Two macusers at macworld do the verification for Gracenote. One listens to the myspace song then tells the other user what it sounded like or some lyrics from the song and asks user 2 if he's heard it before. If he says "yea, it's on the radio", user one goes "oh yeah" and it's deleted. No false positives, a lot of missed ones though.

  44. Re:I'm glad they're working on this important feat by geoffspear · · Score: 1

    I agree. The programmers working on integrating music fingerprinting technology into their website really should be more involved in making sure your friend doesn't get harrassed online.

    Just like all of the theoretical physicists out there should be working on a cure for cancer. Dumbass.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  45. Doesn't matter while music player is broken by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1

    Until they fix their media player this doesn't really matter - you can't play any track that's been added in the last six months or so where the uploader hasn't marked it as available for download. So about 80% of all tunes on various MySpace artists' pages are now completely unlistenable anyway.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter while music player is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a feature.

  46. Everything is already copyrighted, so just settle. by tepples · · Score: 1
    since it took a court to decide whether the two songs were legally different, will such a recourse be available in the even of something similiar happening - the MySpace audio fingerprint detecting a new composition as copyrighted, for example.

    The recourse is for the alleged infringer to just settle, as all possible songs are likely to be substantially similar to something that's already copyrighted.

  47. This is NOT to stop copyrighted material appearing by mei_mei_mei · · Score: 1

    It's plausible deniability for Myspace/Newscorp - so they can tell all the other media companies they're doing their best to remove infringing material.

    It doesn't have to actually work. In fact it's better for MyCorp if it doesn't work, because then they get to keep using all the copyrigthed stuff that attracts so many users to their site.

  48. Err... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't license the right to make a copy of my music, not even for comparison with their database. Uploading sections of CC tracks under share-alike/noncommercial use would be copyright infringement, no? Or are we all allowed to redistribute segments of copyright material to compare them against our databases?

    1. Re:Err... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Are you actually arguing that a service provider needs the permission of the person uploading a file to copy that file onto their disk? Don't you think that maybe the act of actually sending them the file implies that you're granting them a right (assuming you have the right to do so) to receive it? Are you really that dumb?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Err... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
      Are you actually arguing that a service provider needs the permission of the person uploading a file to copy that file onto their disk? Don't you think that maybe the act of actually sending them the file implies that you're granting them a right (assuming you have the right to do so) to receive it? Are you really that dumb?
      No, I think you've missed the point entirely...

      Let's say I write and master a song, and then share it with the world at large under the CC license.

      Now let's say someone has that song in their library. So, they fire up their jukebox software, which happens to use GraceNote to ID songs. They run a scan on their entire library, and 20 seconds of the song gets sent off to GraceNote to compare it to their database.

      Gracenote is a for-profit company using a proprietary system to ID songs. They charge their customers (not usually the end user, but the companies that integrate their system) for access to that database, and don't provide unobfuscated access to that information. If GraceNote actually stores the 20 seconds of that CC song that has been sent to them, this could be construed to be copyright infringement, as the use of that song goes against the CC license agreement.

      However, copyright is not carte blanche one way or the other. It could be argued that 20 seconds of a song used for reference purposes does not infringe copyright; nobody gets to hear those 20 seconds, and it is not enough of a sample of the song to argue that a person has copied a sizeable portion of the song for infringing use (unless the song is under a minute long). So, even though the CC license becomes void due to how GraceNote is using the data, copyright law itself allows for such quoting of original material. This means that in most cases, what GraceNote does is perfectly legal.

      However, keeping a complete database of song lyrics and album art requires permission of the composer or artist who created the work in the first place. If they put THIS information in their database for a CC work, they would indeed be breaking copyright law as well as the CC license.

    3. Re:Err... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Gracenote almost certainly doesn't serve album art that's licensed under CC_noncommercial or any album art that they're not licensed to use. They certainly claim that they have licenses from the publishers for all of the lyrics they serve, and unless someone can show that they've got CC lyrics they're not entitled to serve I see no reason not to assume they're working in good faith.

      As for music identification, it's not entirely clear to me that actual music snippets are sent to Gracenote to be identified; it seems to me (and I haven't seen a complete description of the exact details to be sure) that a fingerprint is generated for the song and then compared to their database. If the fingerprint computation is done of the client machine, there's no doubt whatsoever that this isn't a copyright violation, since nothing's being copied.

      I think I'm not missing the point at all, though, as the AC I was replying to seemed to be implying that it would be illegal for MySpace to take the music he uploaded to them and then to do these calculations on it because he hadn;t licensed the music to them, which is patently absurd.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    4. Re:Err... by redcane · · Score: 1

      Maybe nothing is being copied, but is the "fingerprint" a deriviative work? Of course to take that fingerprint, one has to copy it from the disk into RAM to process it..... Kind of in the same way a cd player copies the data off the cd to convert it to analogue....

  49. Re:I'm glad they're working on this important feat by AEton · · Score: 1

    I guess to clarify without sounding like I know anything about the company's organization:
    The problem I identified is managerial, not technical. The people involved in hiring programmers to do fancy RIAA CYA business should also hire more customer service representatives to handle "CYA from federal law" business. It just makes sense. Even PayPal had to do this eventually.

    I apologize for sounding like I was blaming somebody (a computational audio expert) for doing their job. I meant to suggest that somebody else entirely (a CEO, or perhaps a controlling company) was not doing their job.

    --
    We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
  50. The problem with that technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that nobody will be able to submit their hip-hop compositions anymore...

  51. Musicbrainz? by feld · · Score: 1

    God I hope they aren't using Musicbrainz.... they'll rape their bandwidth, and then they'll not give any money back to that project. The new audio fingerprinting is so accurate there it's not funny.

    1. Re:Musicbrainz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, MySpace, owned by a multi-million (billion?) dollar company, is going to use a free tool provided and controlled by somebody else without asking and hope that the millions of hits doesn't affect the availability of said tool.

      Did you even think before you posted that?

  52. !Re:Doesn't matter while music player is broke by jt418-93 · · Score: 1

    that's incorrect. i added 2 songs to my spaceverb profile about 3 weeks ago, neither is marked for dl, both play just fine. feel free to check it out for yourself http://www.myspace.com/spaceverb

    --
    -.no
    1. Re:!Re:Doesn't matter while music player is broke by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1

      Nope, neither of them play for me at all - when you click on the link the track name goes green, then white and does nothing.

    2. Re:!Re:Doesn't matter while music player is broke by jt418-93 · · Score: 1

      that's weird as hell. i loaded them up in ff without being logged in. is it an ie thing?

      --
      -.no
    3. Re:!Re:Doesn't matter while music player is broke by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1

      I've had the same problem in IE and FF, doesn't seem to be browser-related. The only discussion about this I've found anywhere is right at the bottom of the comments here. I found a couple of Myspace pages where people had said that they'd had this problem and had contacted Myspace who had apparently fixed the issue, but despite their blogs saying their player works now, they still don't work for me.

  53. sampling by benicillin · · Score: 1

    what of the folks who sample songs for their own use... wouldn't this always come up as copyrighted?

    --
    "i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
  54. Missing the Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that a lot of you understand the technical aspects of this sort of procedure, but I think that many of you are missing the point. The playing of copyrighted materials in public space is grounds for ASCAP to contact the venue to collect royalties. In real world situations, the venue is responsible for paying a fee to ASCAP each year that is in scale with the number of people that are visiting their venue (or the number of residents for a city license, for Music in the Park, Summer festivals, etc.) and the number of copyrighted works that are played in their venue.

    ASCAP then distributes the royalties to the holders of the copyright. In many cases these days, the owner of the copyright is the record company, as that is something that is negotiated when signing contracts.

    However, for the artist that has held onto their copyrights, anytime their copyrighted work is performed or played publically, they are to receive a royalty. That includes not only their own recording of the work, but also all "covers" of the work as it is performed or recorded by other groups (and, these covers are legit - anyone can cover anyone else's work after it has been recorded).

    Given that the filtering, as I understand it, is meant to protect the copyright holders, how do they plan on finding all of those covers that are being used on MySpace and protecting those as well?

  55. legal consequences to the other person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are not wearing your seat belt, it is much, much more likely that you will be injured or killed in an accident. When that happens, the legal consequences to the other person increase (if the accident is found to be their fault).

    Note the key word "found" to be their fault. It might not have been their fault, but it could still be found to be their fault, and they could be up against involuntary manslaughter charges.

    So, by not wearing your seat bealt, you are legally imperiling everyone on the road around you.

    Same goes for motorcycle helmets.

  56. legit vs illegal files by amigabill · · Score: 1

    MacWorld reports that MySpace is going to start implementing audio fingerprinting to prevent copyrighted material from appearing on their site.

    Weird Al had recently posted for free download a couple of his songs from his new album. Ironic that one of those free downloads was his song "Don't Download This Song". But those are HIS songs, and I assume that by posting them he had made sure with his producers and whatnot that they agreed to it as well. Will MySpace now prevent Weird Al from posting his own songs of his and his producers' own free will, because they also happened to be available for purchase on CD at your local music store? Will there be a way for people to legitimately post their own copyrighted works, or are legit artists now going to have to find a different site to post their own works that they wish to post?

    1. Re:legit vs illegal files by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Will MySpace now prevent Weird Al from posting his own songs of his and his producers' own free will, because they also happened to be available for purchase on CD at your local music store?"

      As long as he has the distribution rights, no.

      "Will there be a way for people to legitimately post their own copyrighted works, or are legit artists now going to have to find a different site to post their own works that they wish to post?"

      FINALLY somebody who gets it!

      MySpace' success was founded on catering to musicians. They actively invite musicians to create a presence on MySpace, upload music, and so on.

      Now along come kids who play and promote tracks which don't happen to be from bands that have a MySpace presence. Or, they play a track from a band that happens to have a MySpace page, but MySpace would really rather have the listener be on the band's page.

      MySpace wants to be in control. They want to own the music-delivery experience and have the leverage when it comes to dealing with bands who want to have a MySpace presence. And kicking all the non-MySpace music off of the site is the first step.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:legit vs illegal files by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      MySpace wants to be in control. They want to own the music-delivery experience and have the leverage when it comes to dealing with bands who want to have a MySpace presence. And kicking all the non-MySpace music off of the site is the first step.

      Umm, and why do you think this? Their strategy has worked very well for them up to now, so why would they change it in such an obviously detrimental way? The most obvious (and, frankly, correct) reason is that they are now filtering out copyrighted content to avoid lawsuits from record labels. Just like YouTube was forced to do. Where does all of this paranoia on slashdot come from anyway? Remember Occam's Razor whenever the conspiracy theories kick in...

  57. It may be hard to defeat, I worked on audioprints by jdoeii · · Score: 2, Informative

    Depending on specifics of the algorithm, it may be very hard to defeat it if you still want the music to be recognizable by the listeners. I am familiar with the audio fingerprinting algorithm from another company. The false positives are not a problem. The hash space is huge thus collisions are very rare. The false negatives can be a problem, but if they can weed out even 95% of attempts to upload copyrighted music, their life is going to be much, much easier. And if you distort the music enough to defeat the fingerprinting, then maybe you just have created a new masterpiece (c) you :-).

  58. MySpace doesn't allow uploads by msblack · · Score: 1

    Does MySpace actaully permit users to upload MP3s to their servers? I've seen dozens of MySpace users upload their MP3s to our webserver and then MySpace leeches the bandwidth from us instead of MySpace servers. Am I seeing this wrong or are the users loading their MP3s to our servers to avoid MySpace TOS problems? I am not a MySpace user.

    --
    signature pending slashdot approval
  59. "The evaders will win" - not necessarily by jdoeii · · Score: 1
    In the end, the evaders will win.

    There is a serious limiting factor that has to be accounted for - listeners. When you uploading music you want your listeners to enjoy it, right? If you add too much noise or other distortions, the music will sound like an old scratched vinyl. I worked with this audio fingerprinting system. The hash space is huge. The false positives are very rare. The rate of false negatives can be controlled by tweaking parameters. Then MySpace doesn't need 100% recognition. Even if they prevent just 95% of copyrighted uploads, it would create too much hassle to upload copyrighted music on purpose. Also, myspace would get a lot better legal standing by demonstrating that it's actively fighting the copyrighted uploads.

  60. I wonder... by MaestroSartori · · Score: 1

    ...how good this fingerprinting is - will it detect the Beastie Boys / Dan the Automator mashup I've posted on my own Myspace page, which is two copyrighted tracks combined?

    1. Re:I wonder... by neminem · · Score: 1

      Presumably wouldn't detect anything of the sort.

      On the other hand, people will laugh at you for using myspace for distributing your work, because myspace sucks royally. Half the time I don't even bother to click GYBO threads that link to myspace, because there's a good chance I'll end up with broken crap on the other side.

      P.S. If you make mashups, and you haven't ever seen GYBO - fix that. You'll be glad you did.

  61. From "About Gracenote" by haggie · · Score: 1

    Current:

    "Gracenote provides businesses with critical embedded software and metadata that ENABLE consumers to better MANAGE, ENJOY, and DISCOVER digital media."

    Updated:

    "Gracenote provides businesses with critical embedded software and metadata that PREVENT consumers from MANAGING, ENJOYING, and DISCOVERING digital media."

  62. I bet it's a Self-Organizing Map by primalgod · · Score: 1

    I bet it uses one of the Self-Organizing Maps variants to identify the sound snip. You may be able to fool this algorithm by injecting sound frequences in your upload that are too high to hear for people, but is still represented digitally. Of course this depends on *how* you inject the sounds as not all microphones would pick it up, but if you just edited it in a studio or patch program, no problem.

  63. A whole new industry by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    MySpace has created whole industries around it and this will be another. People will setup sites using Adsense as a revenue source. The sites will input a sound clip and output the same clip in a way that will bypass the audio fingerprinting.

  64. Throwing away potential revenue?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not strike a deal with a music store like iTunes to allow users to purchase songs to be placed on their profile instead of banning copyrighted material outright?! News Corp are dumb.

  65. Doesn't prevent "copyright material" by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
    MacWorld reports that MySpace is going to start implementing audio fingerprinting to prevent copyrighted material from appearing on their site.


    Which is clearly not true; anything subject to copyright is copyrighted simply by the act of creation, so unless "audio fingerprinting" can somehow identify that a work is a original creative work legally subject to copyright, it won't "prevent copyrighted material from appearing" anywhere. Even the slightly more detailed Gracenote press release (or perhaps the MySpace policy is referred to) seems confused about this.

    It will prevent material which (according the matching algorithm used), "matches" material that is found in the "Gracenote Global Media Database". It supposedly will block "unauthorized copyrighted material", though the article isn't clear about any method to verify that the use is "unauthorized".

  66. Typical. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    I ask for something concrete and I get "But you can cut pictures out of a magazine for your scrapbook!!!1"

    When that BMW I cut out of the Car and Driver can actually drive me to work, then I'll be impressed.

  67. Simple solution... by camg188 · · Score: 1

    Stop using myspace.

  68. This means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't be able to get any more material from Chinese Elvis impersonators ?

  69. So wait... by evileyetmc · · Score: 1

    Myspace can't stop the barrage of stalkers and child predators, but they will be able to find and remove copyrighted files? Sounds like Murdoch's priorities need a bit of realignment.

  70. Re:It may be hard to defeat, I worked on audioprin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but if they can weed out even 95% of attempts to upload copyrighted music

    But copyright doesn't reside in the music and can't be detected by listening to it or measuring it. The bits of a copyrighted song stay exactly the same if the owner releases it to the public domain.

  71. Fill the Database with Every Sound in the Universe by codermotor · · Score: 1

    Send them so much chaff to Fingerpint that no one can upload any audio whatsoever. At that point the site, hell maybe all such sites, will be worthless. Let's make the whole fucking Internet deaf and blind. Maybe then the greedy bastards will get the point.

    Apparently, the *AA think information wants to be useless. So, let's give them more useless information than they can handle.

  72. whaaaaaaaat? Inconvenience ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    You call that a inconvenience or a relief you can't visit a website without (A) protecting your ears or (B) turning the speakers down? I find it relaxing to know I can visit a website without smashing my brains out...

    Although; it is because the RIAA wants to set a standard how they think music (artistic works) should be treated; they don't think about the middle-man or the end-user; they just care about what gets back to them and supposedly the creator; who is getting paid a cent from the cuts they take...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  73. Biggest Corporate Copyright Infringement Yet... by vfp_guru · · Score: 1
    Has MySpace *really* bought a copy of all the music that they fed into their fingerprinting system, so that it will be able to recognize copyrighted songs that are uploaded?

    That's one HUGE music library!

  74. well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Einstein, please name the most popular way of posting copyrighted material on Myspace. I'll give you a hint since you and the other 300 "omg its not youtoob!!!1!" posters are unable to put two and two together: It rhymes with poocube.

  75. Re:I'm glad they're working on this important feat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck does Vietnam have to do with anything! What the fuck were you talking about?

  76. Re:I'm glad they're working on this important feat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit dude, I'm sorry --

  77. Oh please... by keith134 · · Score: 0

    How many myspace users actually host media files on myspace servers vs. those who just host them on other servers? Even the 13 year old MyspaceWhore(tm) could bypass this.

  78. Re:It may be hard to defeat, I worked on audioprin by jdoeii · · Score: 1

    You are right, but myspace will be using an external database to determine if the music is copyrighted. The audio print tells them something like "this record is equivalent to db entry #123458783 with probability of 97.4%". If that entry happens to be marked as public domain, the upload can proceed.