23 Musings

At long last Google has announced the launch of some technology on YouTube which aims to protect copyright holders. Called YouTube Video Identification, the system does what Google has been promising to do since June, giving content owners the power to block copyrighted clips as they're uploaded to the popular video-sharing service.

Of course, Google's post on their blog avoids the mention of 'blocking' content and focuses instead on how publishers can 'manage' their content 'proactively'. They also mention all the other steps they have taken to allow content to be managed on YouTube:

• Our strict repeat-infringer policy, which has been in place since our launch, terminates accounts of repeat infringers based on DMCA notices.
• We take a unique "hash" of every video removed for copyright infringement and block re-upload of that exact video file prospectively.
• We require a 10-minute limit on the length of content uploaded to the site.
• We provide content owners with an electronic notification and takedown tool, to help them more easily identify their material and notify us to take it down with the click of a mouse.
• We also publish copyright tips for users in plain English and clear, prominent messaging at the time of user upload.

Great propaganda guys... Here's the details from the YouTube site. Will this be enough to fend off the copyright subpoenas? I think it probably will. This kind of proactive filtering approach is exactly what was needed to secure YouTube from the lawyers. Hopefully Google will continue to evolve this technology and stay ahead of the game with it, so securing YouTube's future and allowing them to focus on the more important issues of monetising the video sharing site.

Some insights into the upcoming YouTube saving copyright filtering technology have been posted on the NY Times technology blog here. The text is a transcript from a session of the Viacom court case and is of one of Google's lawyers trying to explain how the video signature fingerprinting technology will work.

It's all as expected but makes for interesting reading.

A good post from Pete Cashmore on his Mashable blog here. Pete's spotted, and disseminated, what instantly becomes obvious the moment you get onto the MySpaceTV site (launched today). It looks very similar to YouTube!

I'm sure MySpaceTV will be hugely successful amongst the MySpace community, but how successful it will be outside of that will depend largely on the content that MySpace can get onto it's player. It's going to need to use it's relationships with media owners (NBC/News Corp anyone) to get prime content on it's site if it stands a chance of competing. And that's only competing on copyrighted content, how will it fair on user generated content?

As I said, they've got the social networking bonus of MySpace to play on, and you can bet that the player becomes the only video player allowed on MySpace, so they'll get UGC from there. But will it have the pull to attract the guys who are making amateur films etc as those are the ones who have embraced YouTube so completely.

I don't think this will kill YouTube to be honest. I think the connotations of being associated with MySpace won't help, it's my opinion that MySpace needs to adapt to survive beyond being a playground for teens and they currently show no desire to make that shift.

It looks like MySpaceTV has been launched as a YouTube killer, but I don't think it will cut it without a killer gameplan as well!

Steve Chen (one of the founders of YouTube) has posted on the Google Blog to clear up the details of the video id (read copyright protection) software they are trialling.

He again confirms the use of Audible Magic for helping identify the audio content of music partners like Warner Music, Sony BMG, and Universal. And goes on to describe the video system as one that extracts key visual aspects of uploaded videos and compares that information against reference material provided by copyright holders.

His post is in response to the press and blog stories about the video technology.

Bebo have announced that they are now going to use Audible Magic to check content for copyright. This makes them the third social network to use them after first MySpace and then YouTube announced it.

Audible Magic must be doing very well indeed out of all of this, I would imagine they are wishing lawsuits on websites that haven't yet trialled their software...

Finally an announcement from YouTube that they will be testing video fingerprinting technology soon. This comes hot on the heels of their tests with Audible Magics audio identification software so it sounds like they may implement them both.

Apparently tests are going to begin with Time Warner and Walt Disney, so if they can get it right for these two media behemoths then hopefully that should satisfy the other media companies.

The technology should be available in approx a month for testing. I would imagine it'll be rushed out as soon as they can to stop the incoming waves of lawsuits.

Attributor is a new service that to me is very interesting. Attributor is a technology platform that allows publishers to claim their content, discover and understand how and where it is being used and profit from its distribution through content management and licensing. They've just announced their first customer as the Associated Press, which is a great first client to win!

Attributor has indexed 13 billion Web pages (Wow!) and says that it can digitally fingerprint any publisher's content and report back where it appears on the Web.

This is a really smart business idea and one that is sure to reap the rewards of their innovation! I'm particularly interested as I've heard a rumour that it may not just run through their index looking for content but may also spider the web actively hunting down copyright breaking websites.

So now the Telegraph newspaper has come out saying that Google are stealing their copyrighted content by showing extracts in search and news results. The editor has said that they need to act to protect their content in order to protect their brand online.

This has surprised me as the Telegraph has shown a forward thinking approach to the web in the past. They've been rebuilding sections of their website really well and spending time on their information architecture.

To not grasp the concept of the huge benefits that being listed in Google gives them is crazy! What do they want to do? Charge Google if they want to include their news in the results? Google will just delist them if that happens, then they lose the huge benefits of being part of the most used search engine in town. And when they come crying that their traffic has plummeted to Google? Well Google will of course charge them to be relisted.

How narrow minded can old-media still be!!

Apparently Google is very near to launching a filtering service that would prevent copyright content from being uploaded to YouTube, CEO Eric Schmidt said yesterday.

The new system, which he called Claim Your Content, will automatically identify copyright material so that it can be removed. Judging from that it would seem copyright owners will have to go to YouTube to register and stake their claim to the content before it is removed, if I'm correct in that assertion that may not be enough for copyright owners.

Schmidt said that they are 'very close' to turning the functionality on...

Autonomy, the firm who make excellent search and data mining products have announced a new extension to their video search and management tool Virage. Virage Automatic Copyright Infringement Detection, or ACID for short, enables copyright owners such as broadcasters, production houses and publishers to maintain control of their Intellectual Property by automating the detection of illegal distribution of copyrighted material on the Internet.

Autonomy say: Using Autonomy's unique Meaning-Based Computing, which includes patented image and audio analysis technology, and powered by the Intelligent Data Operating Layer (IDOL), ACID offers a fast, accurate and scalable method of detecting breaches of copyright, wherever they are located and whatever format they are in. By automatically detecting any rich media that infringes an organization's copyright, Virage ACID eliminates the need for content owners to spend hours trawling through video sharing websites, or manually scanning p2p file contents.

This is perfect for media owners, this will actually watch the video footage for you and report back on whether it breaches your copyright or not. I'd imagine it's going to act as a software agent that you can send off to scour the web for video that may be in breach. Takes me back to the days of Autonomys' search agents symbolised by the dog (long time ago).

A very timely release if you ask me, and it's bound to get some take up with the current hype around video copyright. Autonomys' technology is already in use by the video search engine Blinkx. Perhaps YouTube should get Autonomy onboard to help negate their own failure to provide copyright protection?

Google have replied to Viacoms lawsuit and their lawyers letter to the press with their own letter to the editor in the Washington Post. Glad to see they don't labour the point and make valid comments regarding DMCA safe harbour.

Still doesn't see them out of the woods I reckon, there will be many more lawsuits in the lifetime of YouTube and these things can have a habit of dragging on and dirtying reputations.

Rather than taking it like a behemoth, Microsoft has run away from the issue of video copyright and shut it's Soapbox site for a couple of months. Soapbox is the Microsoft competitor to YouTube etc and is a fairly nice app although not getting the visits required to be any sort of threat. They've seen Soapbox fill up with copyrighted clips since it launched and with no protection and (so I've heard) a long winded method of taking down clips they're seeking to improve.

Microsoft have signed up to the NBC/News Corp. deal and as such need to be seen to be making efforts to prevent piracy. There was a real risk that they could have been dumped from the deal if (like YouTube) they were found to be carrying large amounts of the media companies content.

So in reality it's a sensible move which will prepare them for the coming distribution deal, however I can't help feeling that they have wimped out by taking it offline rather than just releasing updates and keeping it accessible!

After lengthy negotiations over copyrighted clips on YouTube, Viacom has hit Google and YouTube with a lawsuit accusing the popular video-sharing Web site of "massive intentional copyright infringement" and seeking more than $1B in damages.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York states that nearly 160,000 copyrighted clips of Viacom's programming have been available on YouTube and that these have been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

This seems like another disgruntled media giant trying to force Googles hand into coming up with a proper way to share revenue. I can't see the case resulting in Google paying out, however it could result in a takedown notice being issued for all the offending clips.

If Google don't get some form of copyright protection out the door along with an attractive revenue sharing scheme this could get very messy for GooTube as other media owners joing the current lawsuit bandwagon! This is the first really clear example of the troubles YouTube could bring to Google, all cases so far have been minor and easily settled, this one could be a little more tricky.

Mark Cuban has changed tack from pressuring Google on his blog to filing a subpoena in federal court in Texas now. Cuban, who famously said that the purchase of YouTube for $1.65bn was moronic, has now put his lawyers into the fray.

Cuban is a partner in Magnolia Pictures, a film distributor; Magnolia is demanding that YouTube/Google reveal details of users who uploaded clips of its movies. The subpoena demands the details be handed over by 20^th March; Google has issued its standard silent response so far.

Cuban has made it clear the filing about making a point to Google. He told Reuters: "We don't expect to get valid user information. If we do, we will contact them and ask them what induced them to upload content they don't own."

Probably the last thing Google needs right now is a subpoena from someone who’s not doing it to force their hand on an advertising deal. Where as Fox obviously subpoenaed them to force the issue of a partnership deal, Cuban seems to just be doing it to make life difficult for them.

A success story for YouTube this week following on from all the takedown requests and lack of commitment from some major US media companies.

The BBC has signed a deal with YouTube to bring specially commissioned content and news clips to the video site. The director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, said the deal is a ground-breaking partnership between the BBC and YouTube and "fantastic news for our audiences". He added in a statement: "It's essential that the BBC embraces new ways of reaching wider audiences with non-exclusive partnerships such as these."

The main BBC channel on YouTube will include news clips along with short-form promotional content linked to popular programmes such as Doctor Who. Video diaries by stars of the shows - including tours of the sets - will also appear. The BBC Worldwide entertainment channel will show clips from shows such as Top Gear and Spooks, along with factual programmes and a "limited amount of advertising". BBC World will offer around 30 news clips per day to users outside of the UK and will also be funded through advertising.

YouTube has also announced 1000's of deals with small content owners.

Viacom, Fox and NBC however are still staying away. Viacom claims that traffic to it's websites has risen sharply since they had the content and clips pulled down from YouTube (they obviously don't understand the point of cross promotion!). A deal with CBS has also failed to appear, it's all gone very quiet from both camps on this subject.

Ultimately, I'm sure they all really want to get a deal done, it seems YouTube need to come up with a better offering for these media behemoths in order to hook them into their service.

The BBC's foray into YouTube is said to be advertising funded, perhaps that funding is not enough for the large US media companies? Or maybe they are just waiting for some proper copyright protection to come into force?

This report claims that a 20th Century Fox Television spokesperson has said that Google (and Live Digital) complied with subpoenas issued by the U.S. District Court in Northern California and disclosed to Fox the identities of two individuals who illegally uploaded entire episodes of "24" prior to its broadcast and DVD release. Fox also said that YouTube user who goes by the handle "ECOTtotal" uploaded 12 episodes of the popular animated show "The Simpsons."

Fox says that it intends to pursue the two users under copyright laws, it remains to be seen whether they could bring a case against them.

Actions such as this could really harm YouTube. Rather than shopping users to copyright holders it would be much less harmful for their brand if they had put in place a copyright protection system that would have negated the need to do this. It remains to be seen whether users will tolerate this kind of policing, if nothing else it could stop them submitting sensitive details about themselves (that could be used to identify them), potentially it could make some move on elsewhere.

Google has been ruled against in a copyright case in Belgium which has the potential to influence courts in other European countries. Probably not in the United States where laws are more permissible than ours.

The court ordered the Google to stop from showing excerpts of articles from French- and German-language Belgian newspapers on Google News and Google's Web search site for Belgium, reaffirming the earlier ruling by the same court against the company. Google faces a daily fine if it fails to heed the order, although the court reduced this from $1.3 million to $32,500 (still a fair whack, but easily affordable by Google). Google have said they will appeal the ruling.

This is all connected to the way Google caches the copy from results and displays extracts. Google are not the only people doing this (we did this many years ago with a portal which used intelligent agents to scrape the web) so if the ruling remains upheld in Europe I'd expect other sites to get taken to court (unless of course this is more anti-Google than anti-free press...).

It is of course the newspapers who will lose the most from this ruling. I'm certain Google will just stop indexing their sites and then how are they going to attract visitors considering around 60%+ of most websites visitors tend to originate from the search engine...

Yes, they've announced it before YouTube (come on GooTube, time to do something to please the copyright holders!), Myspace will be implementing audio filtering technology from Audible Magic to safeguard copyright on videos that are uploaded to the site.

The technology filters the audio tracks in videos searching for anything it can identify as a known copyright. How effective this will be is yet to be seen, but it's a step in the right direction and will please traditional media companies and copyright owners.

So, pressure's on for Google, they need to implement the long promised copyright filtering technology quickly or they may find deals being struck with MySpace instead of them!

Viacom have told YouTube to take down all of its content. This raises a big question around the ability of YouTube's management team to build lasting relationships with big media, from where it gets most of it's content.

Viacom had been in months of negotiations with YouTube and Google to try to come to a deal around content. Viacom owns brands such as MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central which it says account for more than 100,000 video clips on the YouTube site, which had generated more than 1.2bn video streams.

Apparently the break down is over disputes about splitting advertising revenues. Viacom execs are also frustrated that YouTube has failed to implement a copyright checking system, as it had previously promised.

Maybe YouTube's announcement that it would share the wealth is not enough for Viacom?

After the request from Japanese copyright holders for YouTube to put some kind of copyright checking system in place before videos are uploaded YouTube has now answered the request.

They've agreed to post a copyright warning in Japanese that will only be shown to users using the Japanese language version of the site. A small acknowledgement of the problem, and I'm sure it won't stop all copyright abuses with the videos posted, but it may satisfy the Japanese organisation involved (time will tell).

YouTube have also agreed to visit Japan and meet with copyright holding media companies to discuss the issue which is a shrewd move as that gives them a great opportunity to strike a deal!

The Japanese companies plan to meet Friday to discuss YouTube's response.