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.
Which is correct and as it should be. If someone wants to have their work represented and distributed professionally and through traditional means, they make a deal with a publisher or label or studio to do so. That artist then goes back to making art, and the distributor does the distributing, for a cut. (How big is the cut? How onerous are the terms? They're specified in the contract you just signed. Print too small? You're too naive? Get a lawyer.)
Or you can distribute your stuff yourself, via outlets like YouTube, and let the wonderful viral-ness of the 'net's waves push your masterpiece from desktop to desktop around the world. The promotion is free, and you can get compensated via donations (*ahem*) and by selling tickets to your performances (good luck with that, you novelists...)
Which distribution method is better? Don't know, but at least with Google being forced to obey the law, the artist will have a legitimate choice.
The dirty secret, the Truth Which Dare Not Speak Its Name, in all this, is that the chuckleheads lip-synching to "Barbie Girl" and doing art-school Claymation re-enactments of the Trojan War got off on having their work up there on the virtual shelf next to Madonna's and Jon Stewart's and Spielberg's. Now that they are once again being sent back to the children's table, the whining (ostensibly about "artist's rights" and "fair use") will be deafening.
... ;)
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.
I have to agree that copyright holders need to have the rights over their content, whether or not it is on youtube.
Copyright holders can certainly help find content that should not be on youtube. But finding piracy of their works should not be a burden on them.
The responsibility really lies with the uploaders to obtain proper releases for works they are not fully in charge of.
On the flip side, copyright holders have to realize the marketing potential of such media as youtube. From what I have seen, the video is either downgraded in its capture and/or the connection speed, so its not like you are getting purchase quality, though audio is not so bad.
I've seen numerious videos where credit is given and even where to get purchase quality.
But as a marketing tool, the work is findable in the search engine with taging.
I'd hate to see alot of the content vanish. but there is alot of duplication too.
Perhaps what is needed is some assurance from youtube that the quality will always be under what you can purchase, unless there is some formal release is on hand.
in the mean time, and I probably shouldn't do this as slashdotting a resource won't help me use it, but there is a firefox plugin for capturing such video to your local hard drive, but it goes thru another url to do so and sometimes its overloaded. Get your favorite videos that may vanish, while you can.
It's free for me to watch it over the public airwaves, and copy it with my VCR, DVD, or on my computer. So maybe this isn't really about copyright. Maybe it's about ad revenue. Something the media companies don't get when it's shown on YouTube, or shared no matter what the medium or source.
Yet YouTube gets ad revenue whenever a page is shown....hmmmm...me thinks a smart media company would have a solution here. Create your own page for your own show, and upload the videos in slightly better format than the crappy YouTube format, but still not as good as a direct copy. Work out a deal with YouTube for a percentage of the ad revenue, or put a 10 sec. ad in front of it like NBC does for the shows you can watch on their site and get revenue from that advertiser.
It's like getting caught in a rip tide. You can fight it, but the rip tide won't go away. Or, you can learn to work with it a little bit, ease the fight, and eventually get out of it.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
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.
the process of identifying copyrighted material is not automated
Well, it *could* be, if they implemented RFC 3514.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert