Microsoft: We're not Google, and we're proud of it
ASPEN, Colo.--Microsoft lashed out at Google's YouTube video-sharing site on Tuesday, saying its own Soapbox is far more responsible and doesn't take advantage of "loopholes" in copyright law.
Thomas Rubin, Microsoft's associate general counsel for copyright, said that unlike YouTube, Microsoft's Soapbox video-sharing site is designed to work in concert with copyright holders and that it represents an effort to be a good corporate citizen. Soapbox uses Audible Magic fingerprinting technology.
In a swipe at Google, which has been sued by Viacom over the presence of numerous copyrighted videos on YouTube, Rubin said at the Progress & Freedom Foundation's Aspen Summit that Microsoft "could have looked for potential loopholes in the DMCA or the fair-use provisions of the Copyright Act...but it would have done nothing to address the significant and legitimate concerns of the content industry." (The DMCA is, of course, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which sets rules for Web site liability.)
"Before a video is uploaded to the site, before it gets posted, there is a fingerprint taken of the file that identifies what that file is, and it's checked against the database that the content industry has created and populated (to tell) whether the uploaded file is infringing," Rubin said. "If it is, we don't allow it to go up. It's that simple."
If current court precedents are any indication, Google may not be legally required by the DMCA to implement pre-emptive filtering techniques. A takedown procedure based on reports of infringing videos may be sufficient. But a Google attorney has said in the Viacom case that some kind of YouTube filtering will be in place by September.
"It's important to point it out because it really should serve as a model for all in the content and technology industries," Rubin said.
Alan Davidson, a Google representative in Washington, responded by saying "Google has valued" its relationship with "hundreds of content creators."
Microsoft has long been more copyright-friendly than Web-centric companies, as evidenced by its support for stronger copyright laws, artificial limits placed on its Zune media player and the remarkable steps it took to embed digital rights management (DRM) for "premium content" into Windows Vista (even to the extent of limiting usability).
One reason why Microsoft is more copyright-friendly than Google, of course, is that it makes nearly all of its revenue not from online advertising but by selling copyrighted software. Google doesn't.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
They are often better done and more entertaining then what the hacks in the entertainment industry usually come up with.
MS is fooling themselves if they think they have a system that protects copyright while allowing for legal fair use and user generated content.
The entertainment industry is slowly getting a clue. The number of companies that are allowing DRM free content is slowly growing and they are all starting to realize the advertising value of many of these posts on YouTube, and elsewhere. There are signs that they finally are realizing that DRM only punishes its honest customers.
IF DRM worked, then no one would be able to pirate Windows. DRM does not work, but it does hurt those that employ it.
Like usual MS is behind the times. They thought the world wide web was going nowhere and now they are attaching themselves firmly to DRM as more and more companies move away from it. They are slowly sinking into the tar pits and are desperately grabbing at anything to try and save themselves.
reasons), weak music player, and overall "me too" products that rip
from other companies...
Sheesh. And MS is probably sitting back wondering why nobody's using Soapbox, despite it being so "copyright friendly". YouTube is far more copyright friendly in that it respects *both* sides of copyright law, and that's a big reason why it's so popular.
DRM limits usability, protects companies and keeps the consumer from truly owning their own legally bought content. I won't be visiting Soapbox any time soon.
These entire films and TV episodes on GoogleTube may be "fair use" to you (or this "other man"), but that doesn't make it so.
Fair use is clips, etc, not all of a Sopranos episode.
Google is as callous with IP on their video site as they are being for scanning and distributing folks' written works.
ventures would have been successful.
This Vista DRM myth needs to stop. Vista or MS supports DRM....so does Apple, or any other company that sells copyrighted material for profit. MS or Apple don?t impose or create DRM, in fact they don?t do anything to add DRM unless the media, as in the stuff they did not create, flags the OS to use it. All of this total BS about Vista DRM is starting to get de-bunked.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673
As far as Youtube?it?s mostly a collection of human garbage in video format. If the comments sections below most videos represents the future of society we are all doomed.
Youtube has been quoted by many beyond MS as being a target for lawsuits, and its almost monthly we read about them having to pull down stuff for fear of getting sued.
MS probably supports copyright laws more publicly because their products are so pirated. I can even imagine how much money they would be worth if everyone paid for the MS software they are using.
Vista DRM is draconian. Any DRM is bad, but MS goes into the evil territory with what they have done with Vista.
Just because your name is Maclover, doesn't make you any less of an MS astroturfer.
Oh Really..?
Microsoft is one of the major producers, and distributors of "DRM". I find it hard to believe that anyone in the computer-industry wouldnt know about Microsofts, numerous "DRM" products, and technologies.
Furthermore, it is technically impossible to install, or run, "Vista"... without the various "Trusted Computing", "Media-access control", and "WGA", components (all of which fall under the "DRM" umbrella). In fact, "MS Driver-signing" (despite uninformed, or intentionally-deceptive, -public- claims to the contrary), is, -primarily- about "DRM compliance" (read the Official-MS "White-papers", sometime).
And, after reading the article you linked to... it was quite obvious that it does not actually support your sweeping-claim that "Vista-DRM" is a myth. The author of the article mostly took exception to some of the claims (apparently made by one researcher) that "DRM" inflicts a serious performance-hit, on computers running "Vista"... a position, which I think, is hardly settled by the article in question (or, the ensuing, often heated, public-debate). And, in light of the far more numerous articles and discussions, regarding the "Vista DRM" quagmire... as well as my own personal-experiences... I would have to say that the truly-hostile nature of "Vistas DRM" is hardly a non-issue or, merely, anti-Microsoft "FUD".
Additionally, I fail to see the relevance of your -personal opinion-, regarding the actual user-created content of "Youtube", or the purpose of your reference to poor-Microsofts battle against -piracy-... if Microsoft is only -protecting- the content of others...
Finally, our IT-support company has (along with quite a few other companies) chosen to completely abandon "Vista"... because of price, performance, compatibility, and "DRM", issues. Thats not "FUD"... Thats fact. So, Id have to conclude that it is your post, which is actually, the REAL... "FUD", around here.
Do they hold a patent on this?
is to diss their competition.
disadvantage.
All that and Vista isn't working right.
No, seriously - they've been focusing on Google so hard, it has negatively affected most of everything else they do (see also Vista).
If they're not careful, Google will end up destroying them without doing a thing to make it happen.
/P
people are wed up with it. Xbox 360 is falling apart, Office sucks -
too many changed acctually I don'r like it anymore...
OX S, Linux, Unix, plenty of choices.
I say F MS.
Why should movies, music, tv shows, which represent hardwork and creativity of so many companies and people be released for free on video sharing sites for people like you to enjoy ?
Their hardwork deserves that we pay them appropriately.
Copyright is an AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CONSUMER AND THE PRODUCER FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.
When exactly did it become a defensive wall and/or attack strategy for companies to use to screwjob society as badly as they can?
department?) to enter and it doesn't work fine with Safari, OS X
standard browser.
Yes a multimedia site without Apple OS X support to race with
Youtube. What does MS Share holders say about sinking
hundreds of millions to race with already established de-facto
standard sites still making same mistakes?
It's worth pointing out that every single skateboard video, video blog and clips of somebody's pet hamster is automatically copyrighted too. Those people seem perfectly willing to deal with YouTube. MS doesn't care about those people, though, which means they don't care about "copyright". They care about business and profit. That is not the same thing as caring about copyright.
YouTube just started serving ads with video today, btw. So if it's all about "getting paid", YouTube's just as in the mix as MS is. And YouTube's got about 10,000 times more traffic.
Copyright goes both ways. You obviously do not understand the intent of copyrights.
- Browser Not Supported... "Why?"
-
by david.r.jennings
August 22, 2007 10:12 PM PDT
- Ok so I read the haughty words from the Microstupid team and
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- Microsoft's reasons
-
by canckaer
August 22, 2007 11:21 PM PDT
- Why, you ask, are MS's websites never working in anything else than their own software? Well, they are not a software firm, but a company of lawyers. They have 2 driving goals:
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (46 Comments)thought I would take a look at Soapbox. But, as others have
stated, I just got the default message that, "My Browser or
Operating System is Not Supported". (I'm running Safari on OSX).
I have designed MANY Websites and just don't understand what
these guys are doing that makes their little applications not run
in other systems? Why build something that's exclusive by
nature? Especially when you want your product to match the
globally accessible nature of YouTube. Dumb!
Soapbox is yet another bad "committee created application"
from Microsoft.
- their bottom line
- their illegal monopoly
They only care about their users in so far as it serves the 2 goals.