Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Developing Copyright ID System To Stem Music Rights Infringement (billboard.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Billboard: As Facebook continues to grapple with its role in proliferating "fake news" amidst the heated U.S. election this year, it has another showdown looming on the horizon -- this one with the music industry. In the wake of NMPA president/CEO David Israelite's op-ed in Billboard in October, in which he called out the social media giant for hosting videos with copyrighted music without securing licensing deals or paying creators, Facebook is working to develop a copyright identification system -- similar to YouTube's Content ID -- that would find and remove videos containing copyrighted music, a source tells Billboard. The story was first reported by the Financial Times. One music industry source, confirming Facebook's plans to develop a copyright ID system, says the company has a massive infringement problem in regards to music on the site. "They see the huge amount of traffic music content is responsible for on their platform and don't want to be on the wrong end of an artist fight," the person says. "They also see that there's a potential opportunity to position themselves as friendly to content creators as opposed to YouTube, so they are working fast to get this right." Talks between Facebook and the major labels are underway to license content moving forward, Billboard has learned, though they are still in the preliminary stages. In its report, the Financial Times referenced a source saying a deal would not be done before the spring.
We need a legal fix here more than a technical fix: FRAND licensing for all streamed music. There's already the equivalent for live performances: pay your ASCAP fees and you can play whatever to whomever. But the point is there should be no "take downs", the copyright owner should simply get a cut of any money made from any given stream. YouTube already has this technology, of course, but sometimes you still see take-downs as well.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The Facebook has benefited, undoubtedly, from it's inherent ubiquitous relevance.
Though it is plausibly due to the sudden decline in the stock of twitter, we should not be colored surprised at the revelation that these popular forums are as difficult to turn profitable as some of the dotcom companies.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
We need a legal fix here more than a technical fix: FRAND licensing for all streamed music.
FRAND (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing) is probably not the best example in the case of copyright music, since it's not an essential standard or patentable idea. Most user content that includes copyright music more than likely comes under fair use (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) but the social media site owners are making the money off of it so they're the ones who should pay the royalties. So yes, people engaging in fair use need to be protected and those making money out of copyright material need to pay for it. I doubt that there is an fundamental legal ambiguity here; it's just the big corporations litigating their way to market dominance.
how will this stop copyfraud?
Jay Leno hears a musical bit and includes it in the Tonight Show broadcast (without obtaining the rights to do so).
NBC uploads the Tonight Show to YouTube's ContentID system to declare their right to the 'NBC' broadcast. Except of course it contains the musical bit from someone else. Yet NBC is now claiming ownership of something they most certainly don't
Automated process at YouTube takes down anything matching ContentID except the 'original' content.
Except NBC isn't the owner or the original content. They are just the 900 lb gorilla who gets to throw their weight around.
NOTHING about content online conveys whether it is legal. Clearly it can be legal in MULTIPLE places (though not in this case). If NBC had licensed this, how would ContentID or FB's concept differ between 2 valid instances?
The original artist is under no obligation to register anything with anyone. copyright is granted simply by creating it. yet this system would actively undermine their legal rights.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
You don't think they'll actually *delete* your account, now, do you? If so, you're incredibly naive. What they'll actually do is lock your account down so you can't use it, but retain everything they know about you. That's what's in their interests. Actually deleting your data, though... Well that's in your interests, and they don't care a lick about that.
It took me over a month to get everything from 2012 thru now. My wife double-checked my work, as the first time I thought I'd gotten everything it turns out FB was (accidentally? intentionally?) holding out on me, almost as though some piece of code detected what I was doing and chose to stop showing me everything in my history.