Comments on: New MySpace copyright tech turns heads, raises brows

Site launches feature to combat unauthorized use of copyrighted video content, but can "Take Down Stay Down" stay up?

[bobby_brady]

That "digital fingerprint" is just a

fingerprint of the audio track, which can probably be very easily distorted and therefore get through any filter. However, in the end, the less that is allowed the less popular the site will become.

Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, China will become the country where most websites are operated from.

[bobbydi]

Change the title or convert it

I change the title of the file so the original is not recognizable. And I usually have to convert it from one file type to another- that usually changes the file type from the original copyright file type, by accident.

[ballssalty]

If it works as I expect, a complete waste of time and money

All you have to do to reload your video is open it in a HEX editor and change one freakin' value and you bypass the fingerprint block.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Easier than that...

Why not just cut 10 seconds off the end of the clip. Or add a transition to the front of it. Or do any number of things to it that would change the finger print.

Robert

[Crapatoa]

Nice technology, but...

they still can't find a way to look up sex offendor databases to prevent registered sex offendors from creating profiles? Guess if it isn't where the money is it's not so important.

[make_or_break]

Moot argument

Profiling pedophiles isn't the responsibility of media companies. Protecting their copyrighted material is. Ask any of their shareholders. Companies that create DRM and similar technologies have copyright holders who are more than willing to pay for that protection, however fleeting it may ultimately be. If law enforcement and government is will to pay for profiling and tracking strategies for the sicko perverts of the world as much as they'll pay for the next Ultimate Killing Machine platform, then software developers will be climbing all over themselves to get a piece of [i]that[/i] pie.

But like others have said...even that will likely be hacked as well...

[Renegade Knight]

Overkill & Subject to Abuse

Some copyrighted material that's used fall under legitiate fair use. As such it should not be taken down even at the request of the copyright holder.

Further sites like MySpace tend to err on the safe side. There ends up being no provision for users to make a case that the content should stay up. So even if they are legally in the clear on their posted content they still suffer from having it taken down.

Lastly since no real proof is needed in a take down notice that there actually has been a copyright infringment take down notices can be used to the point of abuse by copyright holders who then have no requirment to prove a harm when they are questioned by the party who was just harmed by the takedown notice.

I'd like to see a system that does it's job.
Fair use is allowed, Copyright holders need to prove their case when asked or their takedown notice is invalidated.

[ajhoughton]

No real proof in a takedown notice?

Well that's not really true. You have to swear on penalty of
perjury that you believe your copyright has been infringed. OK,
so that's not proof, but going to jail for perjury is a pretty
reasonable deterrent I think.

Oh yeah, on the other point, I'd also like to see a system that
does its job. A *copyright* system that does its job. Currently
the system is failing badly, and it's failing because it was never
intended to deal with the consequences of large-scale infringing
behaviour by the general public, or with the problem of the
Internet making a lot of copyright-protected material accessible
across many legal jurisdictions all with different rules.

The point is that the copyright system has been the engine
behind a number of sectors of the economy for some
considerable time. If it continues to fail, producers may abandon
copyright completely and just use technological means to
restrict what can and cannot be done with their material. That
would be bad for everyone.

[theflamingpoptart]

this IS a big deal

If this works like the company says it does, than this new technology is not as easily circumvented as changing part of the file, whether a single bit or an intro or conclusion. The technology can recognize a given song, for instance, no matter whether it has been converted into different formats, resampled, or cut in with other material. To get around it requires changing the actual way the actual audio sounds to the user, at which point you're listening to something different.
This is not nearly so much of a "hackable" problem as removing the DRM from a file you already have.
If users of MySpace wish to continue posting this type of content, they will have to find another site to do so on, and my guess is that this will only last until that site becomes big enought to attract "old media" attention.

[CommandHerTaco]

Almost . . .

This technology is actually many decades old. It may date back to the 1950s.

You do not need to remove DRM from a file. It simply means that you need to find another method to distribute the media.

A flash player that supports encryption might make it harder for service providers to filter content. If a file gets removed, reencrypt it and repost it along with the key. Copy and paste the key into the player to get the audio/video. Make the key very hard to get automatically. The human intervention required and an endless stream of keys would be a challenge.

[CommandHerTaco]

You are correct.

It is not a "digital fingerprint" signature or hash based on the bits. It is based on the analog output.

Just as pirates can defeat any protection by playing audio into a tape recorder, service providers can filter anything based on what it looks or sounds like.

[n122103]

One possible solution

As far as I can tell this is either a) a hash (which as people have said before me isn't a big deal) or 2) Some form of algorithm that tries to "listen to" / "watch" each media file uploaded and develop some way of categorizing the results. A solution to 1 seems trivial but a solution to 2 seems almost as easy: Develop an extension to a popular codec that allows for some rudimentary form of encryption... then have users publish the key on their Myspace page (or heck, use their Myspace username). While this probably can be used as evidence against them for purposes of willfully violating copyright, It just might get passed Myspace security.

[matale5]

Wont work

Myspace will just take down all encrypted videos, or since the key will have to be posted, they will just decrypt the files.

[skatestuderic]

It Figures but be carefull

I always need to make a point I agree with Copyright laws BUT its the way those laws are abused by Media Corporations I am Against. Its no shocker that MySpace would make things easy for its fellow MediaMaffia members (remember MySpace is owned by Fox) to Abuse Copyright laws. Now MySpace can make whatever rules they want as long as they dont violate Laws BUT giving this much controll to Corporations who have already abused the laws and in many cases engaged in ILLEGAL actions is a DANGER to the American Public.

I can recall another site who sent thousands of users Take Down notices when Viacom "Claimed" copyright violations when in fact MANY claims were unfounded.. yes I am 1 who had content removed that had NOTHING to do with Viacom much less a copyright violation.

Giving the MediaMaffia the ability to Take Down content on the spot without due process is Censorship for one but could could possibly be an illegal action if the trend of unfound claim of Copyright violations continues... and it will.