Slashdot Mirror
Web Scanning Technology for Copyright Violations
eldavojohn writes "I've heard a lot of talk about software being used to detect pirated media anywhere on the web, but haven't seen a lot of details. PhysOrg has a good article on one of the tools out there. Automatic Copyright Infringement Detection (ACID) boasts a patented technology dubbed 'meaning-based computing' that is reportedly capable of finding relationships among 1,000 different types of files. The important thing is that this is not tagging-based searching. 'Autonomy's search technology uses automatic hyperlinking and link clustering that the company claims isn't built into keyword search engines. According to the company, this technology allows computers to perform searches with greater context, so it finds a wider range of related documents or research citations than is possible from keyword searches.' For more details on how this magic works, check out Autonomy's patent and the many patents by its subdivision, Virage."
I find it ironic how stuff like this ends up being the among the more practical applications for AI. I mean, science fiction is usually about robots taking over. Instead, we end up with an internet full of bots trying to sell viagra, bots trying to block viagra, bots trying to break captchas, bots trying to detect copyright infringement, p2p systems to insure privacy, and so on.
I don't think this sort of searching for pirated content is going to be terribly effective, though. I mean, it might be able to catch the blatant stuff like youtube, but ultimately, they're never going to kill p2p, especially once private trackers become more common.
The actual patent reads like a maths paper with lots of buzzwords. Sorry I try not to to read too much of the patent since the Legal Jargon actually gives me a headache. Maybe that is intentional for all patents. What annoys me is this patent is not really an invention since it defines how their software does something which is not even physical. I suppose the physical aspect occurs when someone is taken to court.
P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
Please note I am against software patents in general although I am not against closed source or copyright and trademarks although these can also be a "can of worms". As far as I am concerned this should never be granted as a patent since it is another thing that takes away freedom in programming or even the basic human thinking process. Still if you have money and Patent lawyers on retention I suppose you could patent anything like http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
These jokers were trying to get us to sell their desktop search engine to our clients about 5 years ago. IMO they were pretty overstuffed and FOS. (how is that for buzzwords)
I am surprised they survived the internet bubble (or lack of)
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Publishers using this tool will presume that any found copies are infringing examples of copyright violation. But what happens when a work "created" and copyrighted in 2006 turns out to be "infringed" by something created in 2000? If the pubisher's "original" copyrighted work turns out to not be so original after all, then things could get sticky. I wonder how many cases of plagiarism will be uncovered in which the publisher/copyright holder becomes the defendant.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.