Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Set To Filter Content
An anonymous reader writes "Computerworld reports that Google is racing to head off a media industry backlash over its video Web site YouTube and will soon offer antipiracy technologies to help all copyright holders thwart unauthorized video sharing. But YouTube has also said that the process of identifying copyrighted material is not automated and will require the cooperation of media company partners."
Which basically means that google will make recording companies work and watch through each one of the videos beginning to the end, to remove them. So at least I hope.
And more people will know that the industries are evil, will stop buying their product. Then they will claim it was 'piracy', when its their own damned fault for producing crap, and acting like total morons.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So... they just produce "crap," but then people post it and many people watch and enjoy it. Or... it's not piracy if it's crap?
Ultimately they may be shooting themselves in the foot, but the fact is there are LOTS of shows and movies posted on youtube in their entirety. They're idiots if they start taking down short "best of" clips, but I don't think Youtube was ever envisioned as a place where you could go add the complete Boondock Saints to your playlist.
Who goes to Youtube to watch their crap anyways? It's called YOU tube for a reason, if we wanted that crap on there we would have called it payperview.com.
YouTube is mostly filled with shite and personal opinions the likes of which nobody gives a rats ass about (kinda like lf and myspace). Why not just moderate clips before they go public? Oh shit, cuz then you couldn't have everyone and their brother uploading clips [legit or otherwise].
Frankly, I compare YouTube to a mix of "America's Funniest Videos" and myspace. A mass conglomeration of shite I just can't fathom caring about. Combine that with the need for Flash and I have all the reason I need to avoid the site [and the like].
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
... ;)
as TFA mentions, this process of cheching for copyrighted material ist not automated.
i wonder, is there e technical/software based/automated possibility to check contents at all, except for watermarks, etc, embedded in the video? i can't think of any (that's possibly the cause for my being not a millionaire)
I'm ok with this. After all it's called "YouTube", not "TheirTube". People should be posting original works only. That was the point of YouTube in the first place.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
I can't seem to decide whether it was due to the "industries are evil" comment, the "acting like total morons" comment, or the "producing crap comment". Maybe it's all three. Maybe it's desperate hope that filtering copyrighted content from public broadcasts (yes I am aware of the DMCA provisions for these things) will make people think "Bastards! I'll never be entertainment industry slave again!" /flamebait
Seriously though, I see nothing wrong with youtube siding with record industry. Why not? Are they not entitled to their own position on the copyright debate?
In future, add more content, and less name-calling/non-sensical spin.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
...which would probably be enough to prompt a takedown notice from the MAFIAA (and probably the manufacturers of Barbie too)
The problem is not the (quite reasonable) desire to stop flagrent mass distribution of entire copyrighted works. I have little sympathy for the demise of original Napster et. al. - which doesn't mean that I do have sympathy for the record labels, who should be doing more to provide a legitimate, reasonably-priced alternative.
The problem is the conceit that any breach of copyright, however small and technical, somehow does irreperable harm to the copyright holder and justifies lawyers at dawn; and the tendency for the full weight of the law (and the whole DRM circus) to be focussed on such infringements because they are "softer" targets than the organised, large-scale operations that might actually have a commercial impact (and have the resources to work-around DRM).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
finding it with tagging only works so long as users accurately tag the content.
The moment they stop doing that, it becomes a whoooole lot harder to find things.
If you pick and choose and search, there is some good stuff there. I tend to hit the documentaries. And if you use a desktop or online file converter, you can download their flash and make it an .avi or whatever works better for your viewing purposes. I think that is a major must-have, watching flash in a tiny screen is bogus, except for very short clips. Even then it is still flash, which is most always stoopid. Like wesites that for the intro page are all flash? Forget it, and I hope if they are commercial eventually they get bitch slapped with discrimination charges due to the various accessibility acts and are *forced* to get rid of it, or provide a clear cut alternative main page with functional links. Like whatever happened to "skip intro" option on so many sites? That's just webmaster arrogance and laziness. A few big lawsuits and some fines will sort that nonsense out, even the marketing suits will understand that. If it is your private site, non commercial, who cares, your business,make it animated gifflash polka dots, big deal, if you are a commercial site and open to the public, that's a different story altogether-make it accessible, at least have some options and use alt text tags on images and normal (non javascript or flash) links. Webmasters need to remember, all the usability studies say that you only have 5 to 10 seconds to NOT annoy random visitors. If the main page is too big, too noisy, no alternatives to flash or javascript, you will lose customers and eventually if you are charging money for anything you will be losing lawsuits.
But that's just it: fair use allows certain repurposing of the work in other (your own) works. But when all you are doing is stripping out 30 seconds and posting it to a sharing site, you are not adding any new context or value. Copyright holders may turn a blind eye toward such use, but they don't have to.
Producers may not mind yet another repost of Abigail Breslin running around the kitchen screaming or chasing after a VW van, but those people who keep reposting her "funny dance" are essentially giving away the punchline to the entire movie. Never mind that also removes her "funny dance" from its original context and potentially changes its meaning into something much darker than intended, it also blows the ending of a great movie for those who have yet to see it.
The people who invested considerable energy and time into creating such a work deserve the right to protect the work from such misuse. Not forever, sure, but the work needs to be given at least enough time to realize its full potential value.