Nielsen To Offer Web Copyright Protection System

J053 writes "The Nielsen company, along with Digimarc, are planning to offer their digital watermarking technology to web content providers. According to Information Week, the system will provide 'a way to quickly discover unauthorized content on sites. To do that, the system would leverage Nielsen's existing watermark technology, which is used on more than 95% of TV programming distributed today. The watermarks are used by the meters installed in people's home to identify the programs they watch.'"

Comments

fair use

[timmarhy]

as long as they don't just send out blanket infringement notices and obey the law allowing fair use

Re:fair use

[CSMatt]

Which is impossible with an automated system.

Re:fair use

[freshmayka]

History shows us that they WILL INDEED send out blanket "take our stuff off your website NOW or we'll SUE" notices as often and as abundantly as they can.

I'm sure this will have a painful affect on fair use - but the pain will only fuel the coming copyright revolution.

Re:fair use

[Tim C]

Of course it isn't impossible - for example, you could program in a rule that says "if the discovered infringing content represents less than X% of the whole work, ignore it".

Doesn't mean that it'll be implemented, of course, or that it's easy to make it fool proof, especially in edge cases, but it's certainly not impossible.

Re:fair use

[newsdee]

It's "impossible" in the sense that once the cost goes above a certain threshold, no company will ever bother implementing it unless mandated by a court or if it is under watch by a regulatory body (e.g. banks watched by the SEC).

So implementing it is politically unacceptable for a company whose mandate is to maximize profit for its shareholders (like most for-profit companies) but only real product/course of action is to control the means of distribution. The "rights" of the end users are the least they care about. If they could get away with it, they would charge for every pair of eyes and ear every time one "experiences" the content.

I'm not trying to demonize them; but a lot of actions of "content companies" make sense if you take the view that maximizing profit is their main driver. What we need to truly defeat it is either find an alternate (legal) business model for artists or other "content providers", and find ways to (legally) make "content distributors" irrelevant. Of course the latter will fight toe and nail and use every political mean they have to keep their paychecks, like some corporate version of Luddites.

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

Well so what? If it's fair use it can be defended. I object to DRM because it prevents me from using the product I've purchased in fair ways and even worse, it prevents me from ever really owning what I've bought - never knowing when it will be taken away from me by a company's failure or a change in technology. But watermarking does none of that. If it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of the product, then I have no problem with it. I think I even approve as a means of keeping down piracy will encourage companies to sell me products in a way that I want - i.e. as downloads.

Personally, I encourage watermarking.

Re:fair use

[CSMatt]

Fair use isn't just about the length of the work. It's also about the context in which it is used. If your suggestion was implemented, anyone could add a clip and then add nonsense or a blank screen to the bulk of the video to fool the filter.

Re:fair use

[Threni]

> I'm sure this will have a painful affect on fair use -
> but the pain will only fuel the coming copyright revolution.

It will surely make for a few amusing emails on the `legal threats` page of PirateBay...

Re:fair use

[pandrijeczko]

I object to DRM because it prevents me from using the product I've purchased

I always find it amusing when people like yourself make this statement - no, you're by no means not the only one.

But why would you buy such a product in the first place? I like movies and I love my music but absolutely ***NONE*** of it is stuff I wouldn't do without if it was too highly priced or too encumbered by DRM. I don't understand these people who need a movie or a piece of music ***SO BADLY*** that they're prepared to put up with being treated like shit by the manufacturer.

We consumers need to start maturing in the way that we do things. We need to stop blindly falling for hype and advertising, we need to research our purchases more and we need to only buy things when we are happy that we're getting value for money. Once we start doing that, then we demonstrate to the record & movie companies that if they want our money then they have to give us value for money and what we want.

It's the mindless sheeple buying everything they're told to buy in a glossy magazine that make it bad for everyone else.

Re:fair use

[heinousjay]

Probably because putting the movie in the drive and watching it isn't exactly being treated like shit. I guess I should rage against the publishers who don't want me to put their content on the Internet for everyone to freeload, but I just can't work up the righteous lather over it.

Re:fair use

[CRCulver]

I think I even approve as a means of keeping down piracy will encourage companies to sell me products in a way that I want - i.e. as downloads.

I'll keep offering media on file-sharing networks regardless of watermarking, because I'm often using temporary Internet connections in countries where the RIAA isn't going to send an angry letter. Watermarking only scares a small amount of Americans away from sharing, it won't affect the fact that the rest of the world (bar some other Western countries) will continue to enjoy their music and films for free.

Re:fair use

[QuantumG]

Well so what? If it's fair use it can be defended. haw haw haw.. It costs money to defend fair use. It is always cheaper to just go silently into the night.

Maybe if there was some kind of legal fund for defending fair use that you could dip into, you might have a chance.

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

I always find it amusing when people like yourself make this statement - no, you're by no means not the only one.

I'm incredibly curious as to what "people like yourself" means. Please go ahead and describe me. ;) :D

Because there seems to be a misconception here, I'll just clarify that the last "DRM'd" stuff that I bought was from the iTunes store back when PyMusique enabled me to buy the unencrypted formats. I also own a few DVD's from Optimum Releasing who seem to be in the thrall of Macrovision's copy-protection system, but they were mistakes and I returned most of them for a refund. I buy DVD's on impulse normally and having to wait while my system rips them just so I can watch them makes me resentful.

I do, however, own quite a few watermarked PDF's.

Re:fair use

[cliffski]

I'll keep offering media that was made by other people on file-sharing networks regardless of watermarking

Fixed that for you. Nobody cares about you offering *your* media on file sharing networks, But if you do not own the distribution rights, its not for you to offer it. Unless you want to pay a few million to the movie production company that put up the money to make it. You seem to think its great that people get to enjoy the music and movies for free, but the people who pay their rent and feed their family by their job working on big budget movies are hardly likely to share your enthusiasm.

Re:fair use

[CRCulver]

Most of the world doesn't believe that people can control the distribution of content once it's out there. Remember, copyright is a fairly recent invention, and popular support for it is limited to some Western countries. Content-makers can find plenty of way to pay the rent and feed their family without controlling what I do with my computer.

FWIW, the genre of music I enjoy, contemporary art music, doesn't generate much of a profit for a record label even if every single disc is sold; it's mainly funded by state arts subsidies. And we've already read here before about how in Asia, where copying of media is rampant, the music industry has already found new models to survive and even prosper. Instead of delaying the inevitable by hassling individuals, the American content industry would do well to change its business methods fast.

Re:fair use

[darthflo]

Perhaps they could un-automate it a tiny bit. Instead of "Any copyrighted content?" ? "DMCA" : "Go on", building "Any copyrighted content?" ? ("95%+ directly copied from copyrighted work?" ? "DMCA" : "Minimum wage operator, is this parody, educational or other fair use?") : "Go on" could be a possible solution.
If such a system could reduce the workload for human-assisted operators to a sensible level, the operating costs shouldn't be too high. A community effort to raise the cost of DMCA takedowns by issuing counter-notices for all "bad" requests would also help lowering the cost of such a layer.

Re:fair use

[clickety6]

So implementing it is politically unacceptable for a company whose mandate is to maximize profit for its shareholders

Perhaps what is needed is a law that the companies should be obliged to maximize long term profits for its shareholders rather than the current, shirt-sighted trend which is to fill their shareholders' coffers today and screw thoughts about tomorrow.

Re:fair use

[init100]

But why would you buy such a product in the first place?

I think that you misunderstood his post. His objection is exactly the reason why he does not buy DRM-protected content, or that's at least how I interpreted his post.

Re:fair use

[Steeltoe]

So implementing it is politically unacceptable for a company whose mandate is to maximize profit for its shareholders (like most for-profit companies) but only real product/course of action is to control the means of distribution. The "rights" of the end users are the least they care about. If they could get away with it, they would charge for every pair of eyes and ear every time one "experiences" the content.

Its either to make a fair and believable shot at it, or alienate a fair number of your customers, again.

Maximizing profit has nothing to do with suing your customers and acting like a bully or having unfair power and control. Until the corporations starts working for us, the people, they will be more and more marginalized. Which may not be a bad idea after all, so we can make our own culture instead of following the latest soulless meme and trends. If you open your eyes to whats going on, you will see ALOT of people have stopped buying music, watching TV and are meeting in different environments experiencing life other than what is prepackaged and prepared for us by huge corporations.

Re:fair use

[tepples]

Nobody cares about you offering *your* media on file sharing networks Yes they do. Look at what happened to George Harrison in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. Harrison accidentally copied part of the hook from Ronald Mack's "She's So Fine" into Harrison's "My Sweet Lord", and he was successfully sued for seven figures USD. If I write a song, record it, and offer it on a file sharing network, how do I make sure that I haven't accidentally copied someone else's hook?

Re:fair use

[ClassMyAss]

"Any copyrighted content?" ? ("95%+ directly copied from copyrighted work?" ? "DMCA" : "Minimum wage operator, is this parody, educational or other fair use?") : "Go on"

Ah, the fabled sexternary operator, nice to meet you! I can just smell all the minimalist legacy C programmers wetting themselves right now, getting excited over how unintelligible they could have made their code had they had access to such a beast in The One True Programming Language (TM) before they had to be tainted by this whole "class thing" that the kids are so excited about.

Re:fair use

[cliffski]

I agree with you 100%. that sort of thing is crap. But that doesn't vaguely stretch to cover the issue that media companies have with filesharing, which is the mass copying and distribution of perfect digital copies of other peoples work. Surely you agree that this is wrong?

Re:fair use

[tepples]

I agree with you 100%. that sort of thing is crap. But is there a solution for songwriters on the Internet who don't want to end up broke like Jammie Thomas?

But that doesn't vaguely stretch to cover the issue that media companies have with filesharing, which is the mass copying and distribution of perfect digital copies of other peoples work. Surely you agree that this is wrong? I agree that the intentional mass copying and distribution of entire newly published works without the author's consent and without transformative use is wrong. But in general, the U.S. copyright statute is utterly broken with respect to the "intentional", "newly published", and "transformative" parts. Worse, Congress takes too many campaign contributions from entertainment industry giants to have any incentive to fix it.

Re:fair use

[aurispector]

This discussion is getting a bit off track. Although I agree with your take on copyright, the proposed watermarking scheme would make it simpler for copyright owners to deal with illegal distribution, which on the surface seems ok - the content isn't free to produce (especially video). This *shouldn't* have anything to do with fair use. Unfortunately, given recent history it's a certainty that it would be used to target individual fair use. It's disgusting how the RIAA and MPAA want to stretch copyright to it's most extreme. Hopefully viable business models will emerge that make the existing system unneccesary, since it's only a matter of time before watermark stripping software becomes available and the whole cycle starts over.

Re:fair use

[PopeRatzo]

All artists already have the option of renting equipment for their own money and providing the content for free or at the cost of duplicating a DVD on their own computer and sending it in the post to whoever wants it.

There are far better options than that, pal, and ones that don't require showing such disdain, or even outright hostility, for your customers. If you've ever spoken to a musician who's gone around once or twice with the record labels, you'd know that they could have made just as much money by giving away their product than they did by dealing with a record label. It's becoming more and more common to find artists who are making decent livings without dealing with the entertainment/industrial complex at all.

It really is getting amazing just how much the people to whom we give money seem to hate us, no?

Re:fair use

[PopeRatzo]

Just to clarify, in my comment above, I didn't mean to suggest that by giving away their work, artists would be showing disdain or hostility to their customers. Just the opposite. I meant to say that it was the record labels, publishers, and mostly the RIAA that are showing the disdain (and yes, outright hostility) to the people that have provided them with comfortable livings for all these years.

If you are an artist just starting out, you should spend your downtime learning all you can about Creative Commons and other alternatives to becoming involved with an industry that hates you and your listeners. You can make money without playing the fool. You're an artist, use some ingenuity in your business dealings as well as in your craft.

Re:fair use

[darthflo]

You probably meant sestary, but actually it's only a quinary operation (a ternary of which one argument is another ternary resulting in five, not six, arguments).

Re:fair use

[ClassMyAss]

You're right, of course, on both counts - don't know how I miscounted that, guess I hadn't quite woken up yet! I also didn't notice the parenthesis, which would have negated the whole point of my comment! That's what I get for Slashdotting before my coffee...

Re:fair use

[websitebroke]

Of course, this would be written by our congresscritters that have such a good track record of legislating for the long term.

Re:fair use

[Holy69]

The consumers have matured. Why do you think that piracy is at an all time high? Because the average consumer found a way of avoiding the extremely outrageous pricing of music, video, and software. Truthfully, saying that a person shouldn't purchase music because of high prices is absurd. If a person really wants something, they can pay for it, or download it illegally. Saying "stop buying music" to people is never going to change a single thing. The increase in piracy and the fight for the right to share purchased music freely is really the consumers way of saying to the company's; I don't want to pay your prices anymore, and you can't stop me! So realize that it's not an easy change, and take the blind folds off to realize that its an endless battle in a capitalist world.

Re:fair use

[DamnStupidElf]

But why would you buy such a product in the first place? I like movies and I love my music but absolutely ***NONE*** of it is stuff I wouldn't do without if it was too highly priced or too encumbered by DRM. I don't understand these people who need a movie or a piece of music ***SO BADLY*** that they're prepared to put up with being treated like shit by the manufacturer.

You're talking to Walmart nation here, doesn't that tell you something?

In actual response to your question, the problem is that lots of mainstream music and almost all movies use DRM now. Completely restricting one's participation in public culture is not possible in the general sense; if everyone stopped buying DRM material all the mainstream media companies would go broke by stupidly ignoring what customers actually want. They'd just blame it on piracy and put even worse DRM on discs that aren't selling.

Considering that many people watch dozens of movies a month, how are they even supposed to obtain legitimate non-DRM movies when Comcast puts secret limits on their bandwidth? There aren't any retail outlets for CC or non-DRM movies that I'm aware of. Without the contrasting sales, there's no way to indicate to the media companies that DRM-free is what you want, not just an absence of media (or that you're a "pirate").

The fact that Amazon is selling DRM free music is a good thing, because I bet they will start selling DRM free movies within a year or two. Then the *IAA's can observe customer choices using a business model they understand.

Re:fair use

[wall0159]

While I kind of agree with what you're saying, I disagree with the sentiment.

To me, buying music is not like buying coffee. If I buy a coffee somewhere and don't like the service I can just go and get a coffee elsewhere. Some coffees are better than others, but there's a lot of good coffee.

Good music*, on the other hand, is unique. You _can't_ go elsewhere for it, hence DRM screws you over. It's like the great art/philosophy - it's the lastest attempt by human kind to "work it all out".
This may sound wanky, but it's true. I still don't buy DRMd music, just because I can't even use it (I use Linux), but there's no way I'm going to let myself be deprived of the most recent cultural expression of our civilisation.

*I don't mean Top40. That's not music. It's just shit to get people to spend their hard-earned money.

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

Well so what? If it's fair use it can be defended.

haw haw haw.. It costs money to defend fair use. It is always cheaper to just go silently into the night.

So what are you saying here? That if I make a backup of the media that I've bought, that Michael Bey is going to burst through my door with a lawyer under each arm? That I'll get into trouble for moving videos to a new machine or listening to music on a recently purchased player or lending a file to a friend that I trust?

Or perhaps you think the same will happen if I upload a two-minute clip of my favourite movie-moment onto YouTube (though I have no desire to and I don't know if that's covered by fair use or not). In any of these cases, your expectation that you will be prosecuted seems far-fetched to me.

Re:fair use

[LrdDimwit]

Aside from the vast increase in complexity (and therefore expense), this wouldn't even cut it. Here is a good place to start: The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

A check like you propose would certainly be a good attempt, but it isn't going to preserve fair use. It's a much more complicated test. 5% may be acceptable in one case but not in another. Some works are more valuable than others. A leak of an unreleased work in any amount will very likely be found to not be fair use, other things are far more forgiving.

Furthermore, any such rule must account for gaming. People on both sides will try to get cute with any ruleset for the obvious reasons. The immediate problem I see with the specific example, is the person creating this 'work' can easily control this percentage. Say the "kill percentage" is x%. I take the Harry Potter novels, and then grab more and more books from the Gutenberg project or other public domain sources (say, the US Tax Code) until the percentage of the "work" I've created falls below X. Then I distribute the resulting .zip file. Is this fair? No, it's cheating. But it might fool the filter: x% or less is copyrighted -- the fact that the x% is the only thing people want in the first place is glossed over.

Re:fair use

[geekoid]

The problem is It doesn't distinguish who broke the copyright.
The other problem being, 'it won't work.'

Re:fair use

[CSMatt]

Except that this would undermine the concept of a free market, which dictates that a company that doesn't make smart decisions deserves to fail in the long run.

I agree that companies should not base their motives solely on profit (especially short-term profit) but at the same time I do not believe that we should force them to take initiative by enacting a law requiring them to do so.

Re:fair use

[CSMatt]

If you open your eyes to whats going on, you will see ALOT of people have stopped buying music, watching TV and are meeting in different environments experiencing life other than what is prepackaged and prepared for us by huge corporations. Well if that is indeed the case, than it is definitely relative. I can tell you for a fact that if you go to an average college campus today you will find that the bulk of the populace is still composed of mindless sheep. They still blast the latest hip hip singles out of their car windows and still buy brand-name clothing because it's what everybody else is doing.

Re:fair use

[vuffi_raa]

as long as they don't just send out blanket infringement notices and obey the law allowing fair use haha that's a good one- everyone knows that fair use doesn't exist anymore

Re:fair use

[CSMatt]

Perhaps, but that just makes the filter that much more complex, and the MAFIAA is impatient enough for this thing as it is, so it's unlikely that this will be implemented, at least initially.

A community effort to raise the cost of DMCA takedowns by issuing counter-notices for all "bad" requests would also help lowering the cost of such a layer. That, and we could actually enforce the penalties for sending frivolous takedown notices that exist in the same law that instated them. I've heard of many stories about companies getting caught sending these frivolous notices, but none that indicate that the company was ever punished for it.

Re:fair use

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright is quite old.
The 'Statue of Anne' in 1710 introduced the idea of the author holding copyright and a term of protection for published works.

Compared to Art, it is just a baby. Human beings have been making art since we were painting the walls of caves, and probably even well before then, but few things have survived for so long. Some of what we still consider our greatest stories and plays and sculptures and paintings were created thousands of years before copyright first came into being.

So no, copyright is actually pretty new.

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

You're an idiot.

I'm baffled. What in my post is incorrect and why?

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

How long something has existed for (and a few centuries is plenty long enough in terms of law), is no basis for deciding if it is beneficial or not, it only provides further evidence on which to assess the matter. If someone produces music or a film that I enjoy, I want that person to be rewarded. Out of recognition that my tastes aren't universal, I'm even magnanimous enough to want artists to be rewarded for things other people like which I don't. Unless an artist is to hire their own thugs to go around taking back unpaid for copies, or unless people universally pay voluntarily what the artist wants to charge, then some sort of law seems necessary, does it not?

Re:fair use

[cpt kangarooski]

If someone produces music or a film that I enjoy, I want that person to be rewarded ... Unless an artist is to hire their own thugs to go around taking back unpaid for copies, or unless people universally pay voluntarily what the artist wants to charge, then some sort of law seems necessary, does it not?

Yes, if that were your goal. But that has never been the goal of copyright.

Copyright is meant to benefit the public, not authors. It benefits the public if authors create and publish more works, so an incentive is created to get authors to create and publish works that they otherwise would not have. (For authors who would've done so anyway, there's no reason to give them a copyright -- the incentive would be wasted on them) It harms the public, however, to have to suffer from restrictions as to what they can do with a work, so the incentive provided should again only be granted where necessary, rather than watefully, and should be minimal, rather than excessive. Ideally, copyright should provide the greatest possible public benefit for the least possible public detriment, thus producing the greatest net public benefit.

There's nothing in there about rewarding authors as a goal in and of itself. Anything authors get isn't a goal of the system, it's just a means to an end. The end is to help the public at large, which would ideally want lots more works, and to have those works in the public domain immediately, since that is where they are of the most public value.

You can, of course, choose to give artists a special reward personally -- a 'tip,' if you will -- but it would be terrible public policy to have anything like that implemented in the law.

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

I don't agree with you. Where you say:

You can, of course, choose to give artists a special reward personally -- a 'tip,' if you will -- but it would be terrible public policy to have anything like that implemented in the law.

Wow! Harsh! It would be a terrible idea to have anything implemented into law that helped someone profit from their work? That is what most of your post is saying. That if I slave away for a couple of years over a novel, society has the right to rip it away from me because that benefits society? And that, I quote: "any incentive provided should be minimal." Again, wow! No artist should be able to negotiate with their customers an agreed value for their work?

Because that's what copyright law does - allows negotiation. It allows someone who produces a work to set a price on that work. People can then either accept that price or leave it. The producer of the work in turn sells according to the value society is willing to place on their work. Thus society rewards people in accordance with perceived value - a streamlined and efficient system.

You seem to want to remove the ability of an artist to negotiate a price for their talents as if anyone has some sort of obligation to produce work for society at a price dicated to them. They don't.

What movies do you envision being made, songs recorded or books being written in this world where each of those is instantly taken from those who produced it and distributed to any who want it without any reward to the artist?

I sincerely hoping you're not going to suggest state funding as an alternative. As to people donating tips to authors or film directors... why enforce a model of business on people? Let an artist choose how to trade with people. Copyright law doesn't prevent an artist donating their work to the public domain for free if they choose, but removal of that law would prevent people having the freedom to choose other models of business. You say that the sole purpose of copyright law is to benefit society, but do you really consider the benefit of the majority to be the criteria for determining what is right? I am sure that you don't.

Re:fair use

[cpt kangarooski]

It would be a terrible idea to have anything implemented into law that helped someone profit from their work?

No, only if that was the goal. If the goal is to advance the public interest by promoting the progress of science, and the best means of doing so happens to involve helping authors to profit from their creative works, then I'm entirely in favor of it.

I'm just saying that the goal of copyright is to maximally benefit the public. You're confusing the means for the end.

That if I slave away for a couple of years over a novel, society has the right to rip it away from me because that benefits society?

Not quite. First, there is no right for an author to get a copyright. Congress can grant copyrights, or not, however it sees fit, with only a few limitations on to whom it can make the grant, the duration of the grant, and the subject matter to which the grant pertains. We happen to have a long history of granting copyrights, but we're not obligated to do so. Second, there is no power under which authors can be forced to create works, or publish them; if they want to not create a work, or to keep the work private, that is entirely their decision. However, we can choose to only grant copyrights for published works, say, in order to incentivize authors to do what we want them to do. That is, copyright is basically about carrots, not sticks. Third, it is understood that some authors will only create works because of the incentive of a copyright. Provided that the public benefit derived from granting the copyright exceeds the public cost borne by suffering under the restrictions of the copyright, then it is not only allowable, but actively desirable to grant the copyright. It would be self-defeating for the public to offer copyrights but then not actually grant them when the time came. So why would it be done. (Though this doesn't foreclose the possibility of reforming copyright in such a way that the incentive is lessened; there's a difference between trying to improve our implementation of policy and merely being cruel in a Lucy van Pelt sort of way)

And that, I quote: "any incentive provided should be minimal." Again, wow! No artist should be able to negotiate with their customers an agreed value for their work?

Ah, this is a simple misunderstanding. I'm talking about the incentive of the copyright itself. That is, if an author would be willing to create a work for, say, a five year copyright, then it is not in the public interest to grant him a 100 year copyright; the extra 95 years are wasted. I don't care at all about what prices an author charges his customers. Certain other business practices involving consumers may be against policy or abusive, however, and warrant attention (e.g. DRM, EULAs).

Because that's what copyright law does - allows negotiation. It allows someone who produces a work to set a price on that work. People can then either accept that price or leave it. The producer of the work in turn sells according to the value society is willing to place on their work. Thus society rewards people in accordance with perceived value - a streamlined and efficient system.

Yes, but at the significant cost of imposing a monopoly on that work. The price set by the author is a monopolist price, usually far in excess of the price of copies of that work, which are commodities, in a free market. I'm willing to tolerate state-created monopolies on occasion, but only if it serves the public interest. There is no excuse whatsoever for a state-created monopoly that is bad for the public! Sure, the monopolist probably loves it, but why should I want to support him? Why should everyone else want to support him? Unless it is in our best interest, or unless the government is severely corrupt, it should not happen.

I sincerely hoping you're not going to suggest state funding as an alternative. As to people donating tips to authors or film directors

There is a place for state funding of the arts, and there is a place for pa

Re:fair use

[QuantumG]

Every thing you said I said which I didn't and then your indignant reply to yourself.

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

Every thing you said I said which I didn't and then your indignant reply to yourself.

I think you may have hit reply to the wrong post? You said:

haw haw haw.. It costs money to defend fair use. It is always cheaper to just go silently into the night.

And I questioned what exactly you expected to be sued for? The chief aim of fair use for me is to use my purchased file in an unrestricted way - putting it on new machines, backing it up, having it in an open format that I'm not dependent on a company to maintain. Even lending the file to a friend. I don't see myself ever being prosecuted for that whilst your "haw haw haw" and your "it takes money to defend" seem to indicate that I would require a hefty legal defense fund. As to other instances of fair use such as use in parody or works that reference, I'm not an expert on where it begins and ends and I think it is decided on a case by case basis, but watermarking your files doesn't alter the current circumstances. If you produce some work that uses part of a copyrighted piece then it's normally attributable to you anyway.

That point was followed by your comment:

You're an idiot. Go take a chill pill.

I didn't realise that I was angry - thanks for pointing that out over the Internet. :) Anyway, my posts are containing noticably more content and less name calling than yours are, so if you want to actually dispute what I've said then... dispute what I've said. Tell me what I said that was wrong and what fair use you expect a watermark to prevent? I'm very anti-DRM because it reduces the value of the product and alters the marketplace in a negative way; I've found no good reason to be anti-watermarking.

Re:fair use

[QuantumG]

You didn't question anything. You claimed I said you were going to get sued for X, Y and Z and then went on about how wrong I was.

My point is that if someone wants to sue you for infringing your copyright and you think "Ha! Fair use allows me to do what I did!" then you better think again cause they can still sue you and you can still end up being bankrupted by the time you've proven that fair use is an adequate defense. Then you can happily try to find a "no will no pay" lawyer to recover some of your legal costs.. at which point you'll discover that you can't.

Which is why, if you ever get a cease and desist letter, feel free to ignore it at first, but if you get a second one, or a call from a lawyer or summons to appear in court, do whatever the hell you can to settle cause you can not afford to play the game.

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

You claimed I said you were going to get sued for X, Y and Z and then went on about how wrong I was.

You said I would be unable to defend myself against claims of copyright infringement. I listed the things that I thought constituted fair use and said that I didn't think any of them would result in a law suit. I'm asking you for the third time what in there was incorrect and why. If you're going to say that watermarking will result in people engaged in fair use being sued (and my point all along is that it will not), then you're going to have to say how, rather than just call me an idiot and tell me to "take chill pills."

Re:fair use

[QuantumG]

I said if you were sued. Otherwise it is just pointless talking about the fair use defense isn't it?

Re:fair use

[h4rm0ny]

I said if you were sued. Otherwise it is just pointless talking about the fair use defense isn't it?

And I've been saying all along, and very clearly and explicitly, is that I don't think it plausible that I will be sued for fair usage of a watermarked product. If you're not disagreeing with me on that point, then why have you been trying to argue with me for the last four or five posts? Have I been trolled?

Okay, let's just wind this up. I don't think anyone is still reading this thread but you and I.

Regards,
-H.

"Unauthorized content"

[iminplaya]

What a lovely concept. How long until they outlaw the things I remember? FREAKS!

Re:"Unauthorized content"

[SolitaryMan]

How long until they outlaw the things I remember?

They won't outlaw them. You will just have to pay a monthly fee as long as you remember [to do it].

Re:"Unauthorized content"

[JWSmythe]

They already have. Your memory implant keeps a perfect record of what you see, here, and experience. You've therefore made illegal copies of said works. Either pay the fines accordingly, or have the device destroyed.

    What? It would be fatal to remove it from your brain? Who cares.

    Those of us with flawed implants have nothing to worry about. :)

Actually somewhat sane.

[SanityInAnarchy]

The only problem I have with this is the potential to completely automate the process.

But if we must have the DMCA, I'd much rather have takedown notices than outlawing circumvention.

Historically speaking

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Anybody want to start a betting pool? My money says that there'll be software to remove the watermarks within a week of the technology being implemented.

Watermarks are hogwash.

[Jartan]

The record industry put a lot of work into trying to make watermarking work. The article claims the system is an audio only watermarking system too. If Nielsen really had a system that worked their first customers would of been the RIAA.

By the time they get "watermarking" to work what they'll have is a pattern matching machine that can match tv shows to youtube clips. They are a long ways from doing that though due to the amount of content it would have to work through in a timely manner.

Re:Watermarks are hogwash.

[Mike89]

By the time they get "watermarking" to work what they'll have is a pattern matching machine that can match tv shows to youtube clips. They are a long ways from doing that though due to the amount of content it would have to work through in a timely manner.

It's not like that'd be hard. Just have a list of their TV shows, then send them in search requests to Youtube. Then check each title to make sure it contains the searched text in the right order (eg. "How I met your mother" - and possibly spelling variations).

Re:Watermarks are hogwash.

[Tony Shepps]

Watermarking audio would be an easily defeated form of DRM, but they did try it at one point.

Audio watermarks are used all the time. The company I work for uses them to assist in identifying ad plays on broadcast radio. (The company I work for also identifies audio without watermarking. You don't need watermarking, it just makes things easier.)

Careful Comerad, they listen always.

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

Watch it - online gamboling (much like copying protected content or circumventing copy-protection) is massively illegal in the US!

My thoughts about this (and the tech where your personal info is embedded in your legal/bought copy of movies/music) as follows.

Would you have to actually remove the watermarks? If they are designed so that they don't corrupt the media enough for you to notice/care, it should be simple to write random white-noise over the watermarked sections. Hopefully the new data would also be of very little nuisance to the viewer, while their signal would be lost in the noise. Monitoring software is useless when it no longer recognizes the watermark.

Granted, I have no clue what I'm talking about. Enlighten me, is this viable?

Re:Careful Comerad, they listen always.

[sqrt(2)]

It's probably a bit trickier than rewriting some tags or metadata that is padding the file. If the watermark is made to personally identify the user it was sold to you could get two different copies from two different users and figure out what is different. The difference is the watermark. After that it's up to some ingenious coder to figure out the best way to remove or render the watermark unidentifiable. Probably as simple as merging/averaging the two.

Re:Careful Comerad, they listen always.

[tepples]

If the watermark is made to personally identify the user it was sold to you could get two different copies from two different users and figure out what is different. The difference is the watermark. After that it's up to some ingenious coder to figure out the best way to remove or render the watermark unidentifiable. How will this work if there are two separate watermarks, one to personally identify the user and one merely to identify the owner of exclusive rights in the work?

Re:Careful Comerad, they listen always.

[sqrt(2)]

I suppose you would need a clean copy then. Or maybe learning how the user data is stored could reveal how the watermark is embedded in the file and lead to a way to defeat it. But in practice just removing the user data is enough to keep p2p operating as normal, since there'd be no way to identify the original source of the file and hold them responsible for distributing it.

Re:Careful Comerad, they listen always.

[tepples]

But in practice just removing the user data is enough to keep p2p operating as normal, since there'd be no way to identify the original source of the file and hold them responsible for distributing it. But with a watermark that only identifies, say, the U.S. Copyright Office registration number of a work, the copyright owner can still go after anyone who has it shared.

Re:Careful Comerad, they listen always.

[sqrt(2)]

How is that different than our current situation? Maybe more automated and less false positives but they'd still have to go through the same process we have now.

Re:Careful Comerad, they listen always.

[FredFredrickson]

TFA is more about identifying the content as copyrighted so that they can offer takedown notices- not to identify the source. The idea is to utilize the same system they have to generate the ratings data- just identify each program by the watermark, making it easy to filter by the watermark. In no way does this imply there'd be a new watermark for each viewer.

Additionally, TFA says that if there's no watermark, they'd generate a digital signature and compare that. So strip the watermark, and it'll take a tad more CPU to see if it's copyrighted.

The only REAL defense we have is to *cleanse* the big database of patterns and watermarks that they'll have.

That does it...

[B5_geek]

Time to goto the library. I am completely fed-up with all these media companies.

This is my New-Years resolution, starting now;

No paid TV subscriptions. Bell ExpressVu you are history.
No paid radio subscriptions. Sirius good-bye.

TV will be limited to OTA access only.

Media center linux-box will serve-up my movies.

That should save me ~$90/month. That can offset the cost of a very fat internet pipe.

Re:That does it...

[bigmouth_strikes]

Just make sure you know what companies are owned by the media corporations:

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

You wouldn't want to purchase your "fat internet pipe" from the very same corporation that used to provide you with television.

Re:You guys rule

[Duncan Blackthorne]

..and whiny entitled cries of "entertain me!" Blah blah blah.

Listen to the radio much lately? Or watch TV? Go to the movies? Most of what's being produced as a result of this "economic incentive" you speak of is total absolute crap.

..and don't be bringin' your "freeloading" bullshit around here either, laddy-boy. It's been a long, long time since ANYbody got ANYthing in this category for free. Commercial announcements not only for 15 minutes out of every hour, but embedded into the content as video "pop-ups", or overlaying the bottom quarter of the picture; product placement in television shows and movies. We pay extra for "expanded basic" channels on cable (Discovery, TLC, SciFi, etc) but we are still subjected to the same 15/45 ratio of commercials to program content; so we're paying twice for the same content? Where's the "freeloading" in that? To make matters worse, if television networks had their way, any sort of consumer recording device (VCR, DVD recorder, DVR, computer video capture, friggin' tape recorder even!) would be outlawed, being caught with one would ruin you financially for the rest of your life, all for sake of their bottom line.

..oh, and so far as this sense of entitlement you speak of? In my experience, there's a sense of "entitlement" that comes exclusively from having large amounts of disposable income, and it's magnitude is directly proportional to the amount of disposable income. You, you must be independently wealthy. :p

Signed,
Some Guy Who Doesn't Want To Take Out A 2nd Mortgage To Go See A FSCKING Movie

Re:You guys rule

[CRCulver]

Of course, the central point ignored by the greedy entertainment collectors who don't wish to pay for the collection is the underlying truth that if you remove the economic incentive to create entertainment, people aren't going to do it any more.

The music I listen to generates almost no profit in CD sales. Rather, it is funded by state arts subsidies or private patronage. Charging people for every copy of the music is not the only way to create economic incentive.

Re:Mod Parent up.

[Fizzl]

four-factor test ffs

Well, for fucks sake, go and write and article about it to wikipedia, because there was no information about this fucking four fucking factor fucking test for fucks sake. And stop being such a fucking pussy with your insults, for fucks sake.

Uhm....

[BlueParrot]

This could theoretically be used in an acceptable non-evil manner. The problem is that when you have a choice of implementing a sensible system that doesn't interfere with customers' rights, and implementing a broken overzealous piece of crap which causes a hassle for everybody without really deterring copyright infringement, our incompetent friends among the record companies will choose the latter.

Still waiting for Google-Tunes ...

Other uses for Watermarks

[fhage]

Watermarks might be just the thing to let DVR's distinguish Show from commercial. Even if Tivo wouldn't build this in, a small standalone device could listen for the watermarks and send pause and record commands via the IR remote interface.

Re:Other uses for Watermarks

[cpt kangarooski]

If the system is hostile enough toward you to support watermarking, do you really think there is the slightest chance that it will be friendly enough to you to support automatically skipping over commercials?

Legal representation is still expensive

[tepples]

If it's fair use it can be defended. Out of what income do you plan to pay legal counsel to demonstrate to a judge that a particular use is a fair use?

"Leverage"?

[Sockatume]

"Leverage" is a noun, perhaps they mean "lever"? Or more likely, "use"?

Re:"Leverage"?

[The_reformant]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Leverage

Or more likely the "verb form"? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Leverage

Re:"Leverage"?

[Sockatume]

(I'm just being all offended by the vagueness and content-free nature of the verb form, it's nothing serious. New-fangled usages, grr.)

Re:"Leverage"?

[pluther]

Yeah, I hatred it when people usage a noun verbly like that.

Re:You guys rule

[tepples]

We pay extra for "expanded basic" channels on cable (Discovery, TLC, SciFi, etc) but we are still subjected to the same 15/45 ratio of commercials to program content; so we're paying twice for the same content? We pay for Internet access but are still subjected to SWF banners, SWF pop-ups, and SWF interstitials on "free" web sites. (Most web users don't know how to put SWF on a domain whitelist.)

Welcome to the circus

[giafly]

Of course, the central point ignored by the greedy entertainment collectors who don't wish to pay for the collection is the underlying truth that if you remove the economic incentive to create entertainment, people aren't going to do it any more.

Fortunately there is an almost infinite number of Internet trolls, fanboys and 1337 haxxors eager to be my personal clown and entertain me for free, no "economic incentive" needed.

Watermarking is fine

[Sgs-Cruz]

Spread-spectrum frequency domain watermarking is the most desirable "solution" that the studios can implement right now. The algorithms are designed so that the watermark is not detectible by humans watching the video (or listening to the audio) but any leaked copies can be traced back to their source. This way, if I buy a DVD (or Blu-ray or whatever) I can continue to use various tools to copy it to my hard drive, make a copy for my friends (as long as I trust them not to put it on the Internet), etc. but the guys at the theatres that are releasing 0-day telecines of new movies can be caught and fired/blacklisted from the industry/whatever. I don't really see a disadvantage to this, other than the supply of videos on the torrent sites drying up somewhat. Plus if this kind of thing becomes widespread it should be interesting to see the tools that are written to strip the watermarks!

Why is Neilson still in business?

[zippthorne]

Don't like 70% of American households have cable? (or equivalent)

I'd think that over a hundred million samples would be quite a bit better than a few thousand, no matter how well-chosen those few thousand are. As for privacy concerns, I'd specifically choose a cable company that tracked what shows I watch, since it'd mean that shows I like wouldn't get canceled because by some fluke, a few thousand people chosen for their willingness to keep a diary of their viewing habits, happened to not like it (or maybe just didn't notice it was available). They'd get canceled because I really am the only one actually watching.

Re:Why is Neilson still in business?

[ChrisA90278]

"I'd think that over a hundred million samples would be quite a bit better than a few thousand," You are right and if you'd ever studied statistic you'd know how to calculate exactly how much better. So you do the math and find out your result is something like 2% more accurate. Inother words you reduce the 2% margin of error to nearly zero. The next question is was that 2% worth the cost. Every few years you have to re-evaluate becasue the cost might change but I doubt they will ever need to sample more then a small percent of the viewers

Re:Why is Neilson still in business?

[greg1104]

Being able to extrapolate doesn't eliminate the selection bias that comes from the fact that only people willing to fill out the Nielsen paperwork are submitting results right now.

Re:Why is Neilson still in business?

[Rakarra]

This is only true if the people chosen for the Neilson ratings as well as the people who honestly participate in them are a totally random sampling of the TV watching population.

Re:You guys rule

[gsslay]

Most of what's being produced as a result of this "economic incentive" you speak of is total absolute crap. Thanks for introducing whine number two, right on schedule. "I don't want to pay for it, cos it's crap, yet strangely I still want to waste my time viewing it as long as it's free". Just how much consideration should we give to the opinions of someone who values their time so little and has so little taste? And if root of this problem is the "economic incentive", what do you suggest replaces it? Just what else is going to get Hollywood out of bed and spending millions making TV/films that aren't crap?? Cos I'm telling you now, the warm glow of knowing that people can see it for free on Youtube isn't going to cut it.

..and don't be bringin' your "freeloading" bullshit around here either, laddy-boy. Are you suggesting that web-sites are hosting unauthorized content, but keeping the adverts in the content, so that makes it alright because that represents payment as far as you're concerned? The adverts are not shown, they are the first things to come out. So no-one is obliged to watch them, and no-one is either paying for the content, or buying from the advertisers who in part paid for the content. So please, remind us, just exactly is being contributed here that exempts it from the "freeloading" tag?

if television networks had their way, any sort of consumer recording device (VCR, DVD recorder, DVR, computer video capture, friggin' tape recorder even!) would be outlawed, being caught with one would ruin you financially for the rest of your life

Some Guy Who Doesn't Want To Take Out A 2nd Mortgage To Go See A FSCKING Movie Wow, them there's some mighty wild strawmen you're building. Care to come back and join us in reality? But wait.. . hang on, why would you want to pay anything to see "A FSCKING Movie". They're "total absolute crap", remember?? Just what strange world do you live in that forces you to hand over a 2nd Mortgage to see something you don't want to see??? Or is just everything you're saying a smokescreen thrown up to disguise the unpalatable truth? Maybe you have no positive suggestions because you're happy with things as are. You want to see it but you don't want to pay for it. There's a word for that....

95% of all TV worldwide?

[grahammm]

Is 95% of all TV Neilson watermarked? Or is it only in the USA? If so, do other country's media producers not deserve the same protection from being illegally posted to web sites?

Fair use is never "provided", it must be "taken"

[brundlefly]

Content owners hate fair use. They are never going to help enable it.

My peeve in fair use these days is ringtones. What about making a 10-second sample of a song for use as a ring-tone violates fair use? (You're just playing 10 seconds of a song you already "own" on a "music player" called a phone, right?) And yet, if you look at iTunes, they will only allow you to make ringtones of songs that the owners have explicitly permitted such usage.

Feh.

Re:You guys rule

[Rakarra]

Listen to the radio much lately? Or watch TV? Go to the movies? Most of what's being produced as a result of this "economic incentive" you speak of is total absolute crap.

Then why do you want to watch it? I dislike our copyright laws, but many people on my side are also under the delusion that somehow the quality of popular art will somehow improve if there was no copyright.

Some Guy Who Doesn't Want To Take Out A 2nd Mortgage To Go See A FSCKING Movie

The work is FUCK, as in "fucker," "fucking," and "fuck-o-rama." Calling it fsck just looks stupid, even to nerds who get the reference. Everyone knows what you mean, changing the u to an s doesn't magically make it not profanity.

problem with 'vote with your dollars'...

[big_paul76]

Try and spend a day or two spending money only on the things that you ethically/morally support. It's next to impossible.

You can hypothetically 'vote with your wallet' and not buy drm-ed products (do you count DVDs in that, btw? It's a debatable point, where there is DRM on them, but it's so trivial to get around...), but once you expand the scope of "stuff I won't buy because ethically, I don't support the actions of the producers", well, try and buy a computer that wasn't manufactured with near-slave-labor conditions. Or a pair of sneakers. Try and buy food that isn't screwing up the environment in and around where it's produced. Don't even get me started on fossil fuels. Do you like the idea of your dollars going to support the ruling regimes in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

One of the troubles with a market economy, is stuff you buy is so disconnected from you that you can't really even get a grip on the total effects of your purchasing decisions, let alone decide to behave ethically.

So I think any argument around "vote with your wallet" is probably flawed. After all, if _everybody_ stopped buying CD's until the RIAA stopped suing children and grandmothers, they'd jerk the numbers and claim it's due to piracy.

I don't know what the solution is to bad behavior of corporations, maybe it's trade treaties, maybe it's regulations, maybe not, but I have minimal confidence in the effectiveness of consumer boycotts.

Re:Mod Parent up.

[cpt kangarooski]

Wikipedia covers the fair use analysis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law

You can see the factors listed as 1-4. Then the next bold headings further down in the section about US fair use cover the factors, each in turn.