YouTube's filtering issues still not 'moot'
A copy of Google CEO Eric Schmidt's speech is available at YouTube
(Credit: YouTube)LAS VEGAS--A year ago Wednesday, Google CEO Eric Schmidt delighted an audience of TV and radio broadcasters when he promised to roll out a system that would mean the end of piracy at YouTube.
"We are in the process of developing tools which are called 'Claim Your Content,'" Schmidt said at the National Association of Broadcasters 2007 conference. "If people tell us this is a licensed copy, our computers will automatically detect that an illegal copy has been uploaded and then automatically delete it."
Schmidt went on to say YouTube was "close to turning this (system) on" and once that happened, copyright violation at the site "becomes a moot issue." But following through on that promise has proven a challenge.
Executives with two entertainment companies that provide YouTube with feedback on its Video Identification system said the company's filtering technology has fared well at times but is nowhere near perfect and overall test results are "inconclusive." The sources, who requested anonymity because of the ongoing relationship with YouTube, added that managers at the video-sharing site continue to try and refine the system.
YouTube defended its efforts to protect copyright.
"Since launching in October, our Video Identification system has shown terrific results in its comprehensiveness, accuracy, and scalability," a YouTube spokeswoman said in an e-mail. "Over 100 partners from independent content creators to large media companies are currently using Video ID to easily manage their content. Many have found it to be a helpful tool in generating revenue and exposure for their content in the world's largest online video community."
For a long time, numerous copyright owners accused YouTube and Google of profiting from piracy and deliberately dragging their feet in developing a way to cleanse the site. They argued that the availability of professionally created content--uploaded by users--is what draws people to YouTube and without that the site would lose much of its luster. YouTube has always denied the accusations.
Nonetheless, the controversy has damaged some of Google's relationships in Hollywood.
Viacom, parent company of MTV and Paramount Pictures, filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google last year. That case is expected to last years before being resolved and it could help decide what, if anything, a Web site's responsibilities are when it comes to policing for copyright violations.
Copyright clips abound
Certainly at this point, it's hard to see much change at YouTube since launching Video ID.
Available on the site are literally countless clips from feature films and TV shows produced by small production companies as well as the largest entertainment conglomerates--including Viacom.
Key into YouTube's search field the names of the last five Academy Award winners in the best picture category and scenes from each will appear. Want to watch the first 10 minutes of the gangster flick, The Departed? They're there. Someone else posted a series of 12 separate scenes from the film, presumably to get around YouTube's 10-minute clip limit.
Fans of Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby can watch the "Mo cuishle" episode on YouTube as well as the coin toss scene from last year's best picture winner No Country For Old Men.
Identifying video is not easy, YouTube execs have long said. About 10 hours of video is uploaded to the site every minute. In addition to policing an enormous volume of video, YouTube must first obtain high-quality copies so it can create a digital fingerprint of the film or show. Ideally, the automated system will recognize when someone uploads an unauthorized copy.
While copyright videos are still plentiful on YouTube, there are seemingly fewer complaints from Hollywood. The sources who are part of YouTube's testing say the entertainment industry has shown a willingness to give YouTube time to improve filtering.
Some content owners may have also concluded that some degree of piracy is inevitable.
"We still see our content pop up on YouTube," CNN.com Executive Producer Sandy Malcolm told the Associated Press this week. "You deal with it. You try to work with them on rights and things, but I don't think you can completely stop it. You just try to beat the tide and try to get your content out as fast as you can."
Google execs continue to say they respect copyright and are working to protect it. Schmidt said protecting copyright was in Google's best interest.
"We are critically dependent upon the production of copyright content," Schmidt told the NAB audience a year ago. "Literally, people come to Google to get to somewhere where there is something of value. It's very important that we not violate copyright."
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Keep repeating the lies put forth by the RIAA and the MPAA and people will start to find their news elsewhere.
The artists and companies who create the copyright material are its owners. If you use YouTube to steal from them, you violate the law with YouTube as your accomplice. By weakening the law, you create an environment where force is the only means to defend rights. Extremes amplify by other extremes and the web devolves from a reasonable medium of exchange into an unreasonable means of making demands and enforcing retribution.
Say NO To Thugs.
A friend of mine worked for the recording industry and told me they're worse than boxing promoters. Except for the few big names who can hire slews of lawyers, they cheat the hell out of young artists, then charge twenty bucks for a lousy CD. They don't mind robbing others but don't dare put that shoe on their foot.
How are they trying to roll back anything? At best they are the one's who are pushing for less government control. And who ever said there has to be "net neutrality"? Who came up with that stupidity? Just useless tree-hugging BS if you ask me. And how are they trying to kill free speech? Do private companies the expend millions of dollars each year to provide you with a free soapbox from which you are able to spout whatever gibberish you want legally allowed to decide what is and what is not ok to be posted on their site? Ab-so-freaking-lutely. And the kicker is that you agree to that every single time you sign up for a message board.
If you don't like it then don't sign up. Instead you can invest millions of dollars in the hardware, software, bandwidth, content and advertising to make your site compete with theirs.
As for the music industry, do you have any idea just how many Tom, Dick and Harry's have a garage band with delusions of grandeur? If you don't then just watch one opening episode of American Idol. Are we supposed to somehow create a neutral and level playing field for all of these "bands"?
I certainly don't want that.
And lastly, the music producers don't cheat anyone. The artists sign a contract which clearly states that in exchange for the production company to foot the millions of dollars it takes to promote the band, record the band, create the cd's and get the word out that the production company then get's a significant chunk of the money back.
Or are you so delusional that BMG should be doing this out of the kindness of their own heart.
The artists sign the contract. If they do so without fully reading it and completely understanding what the deal is, well, who's fault is that really?
People like you nauseate me. You want everything to be fair and equal when that's just not reality. Our lives are not improved by diversity. Our lives are improved by adversity. The majority does not work to improve the lot of the minority. Rather it's the reverse.
Do you know how to make aspirin?
Do you know how to build a car?
Do you know how to refine crude oil into gas for producing electricity and plastics to make computers?
Do you know how to get a satellite into orbit?
No, you don't. And yet your life is bettered by these events and thousands more every single day.
Why?
Because a small group, or even an individual, is working their sac off to improve not just your life, you obsequious little turd, but the lives of everyone.
And in the process they get to make some money off it.
No problems with that at all.
Follow me here.
YouTube has copyrighted materials.
That copyrighted material draws in users. By the millions.
YouTube then goes to Advertiser A and says "Hey! We have X many million viewers per day/week/month. Don't you think that would be a great place to slap your ad?"
Advertiser A says "Criminey! That many viewers! Take my money! Please!"
All of a sudden you start seeing Advertiser A being plugged all over YouTube.
Advertisers B thru infinity see Advertiser A on YouTube and then throw scads of money at YouTube for the exact same treatment.
YouTube rakes in the cash.
All on the shoulders of those artists who you are all crying about and not a single one of them get paid a single penny.
Are you all feeling a bit foolish right now?
Or think of it this way.....would you want someone making money off of your hard work that was protected to be yours only?
Sue them to pieces I say, they have made no inroads into removing copyright material from the site. It is all just words.
I see youtube as a way to advertise for free. They should embrace it. People see stuff there, and if they like it, they buy the real deal. Maybe it cuts into profit when people don't buy the real thing if they don't like it. Perhaps that's the real gripe.
The real gripe is that people are using copyrighted materials to make money that should be going to the artists and those who invested in the artists.
Company wants to ensure that it gets to control all money in any way derived from it for those 90 years.
The technology has allowed the distribution of content to be removed from absolute control of the distributor and they want to gain that control back so they make all that money which - BY LAW - is granted to them by the Federal Government (though treaties signed with the EU that we now MUST comply with).
Fair - not really 90 years is a LONG time - but unless we pull out of the treaties and change the Federal Law - we are stuck with that reality.
Tom Philo
http://www.taphilo.com
I am also skeptical that, overall, the copyrighted content is what drives people to watch YT. I think it may actually not be the case. I would certainly not want to watch any movie on YT to save money, at least as long as they don't provide HD content.
- It's About Exposure
- by EAddie April 18, 2008 3:54 PM PDT
- Nobody goes to YouTube to see a Hollywood movie the way anybody wants to see it -- we know everything looks crummy on YouTube -- they go to check out something, get a taste, and then maybe they'll fork over to buy it through conventional means. A taste doesn't even mean just a short clip, either. This is a revolution of access, and if the MPAA and the RIAA can't wrap their heads around what this means to them, then they're going to just **** users off up and down the line. The key, I think, is just to keep YouTube audio and video quality well below cutting edge standard; YouTube can be like the free preview of something, and if you want to see it beautiful, buy it, but at a reasonable price, please. When YouTubers start clicking on links and get the "This Video has been removed" notification, that's going to be a major bummer and discourage everybody, everybody except the studios who somehow will feel that they've "won" by keeping their content away from the eyes of somebody who, heaven forbid, was actually interested in seeing their product. And seeing such a pro-filtering rah-rah piece on CNET is a little startling. But it's sure heartening to hear that the radio and television execs were "delighted" -- they just don't get it at all. Such contempt for their audiences and what they want and expect these days is truly sad and shortsighted.
- Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)