Archive for the ‘copyright infringement’ tag
YouTube Content ID Tool Capable of Muting Video Sound
- YouTube now mutes recognized copyrighted songs in user’s videos.
As the court cases against YouTube and similar services, they are testing the employment of various strategies to keep them out of hot water. One such tool, YouTube’s Content ID Tool, is capable of identifying music in the audio stream of a video and muting it. This link to YouTube, YouTube: Joni Mitchell - Summertime (1998) !STEREO OPTION!, clearly demonstrates their ability to remove the sound from a video. In this particular case, the user, MYoutcastOR, clearly was infringing the song “Summertime” by Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder and Joni Mitchell that is featured on the album Gershwin’s World, which is a Polygram Records record. Ploygram Records is owned by Universal Music Group, who is currently battling tube site Veoh.
This has several intended and unintended effects. On the upside, it allows youtube to leave creative works that might have um, “borrowed” some tunes to help them make their point in arguably viewable and working order. Whatever visual and textual messages were contained in the video are not lost. However, on the negative side this filter cannot determine when the occurance of such music would fall under the terms of fair use, and other exceptions to the copyright doctrines. And finally, for the users it results in un-removed YouTube dead pages like the one meationed in this article, which frustrates users, and hurts user exerpience.
Exclusive Interview with RemoveYourContent.com
We approached top removal specialist firm RemoveYourContent.com about their perception of the online market with respect to infringement. They were kind enough to stop sending DMCAs for just long enough to answer a few of our questions.
In your travels, would you say that copyright infringement is becoming a more pervasive problem?
I think that it’s not more pervasive… rather more organized and user-friendly. Back in the early days of the net… Usenet and IRC were pretty much common place for folks wishing to exchange pirated media. Nowadays, you can find that same level of piracy, but now on the web and you don’t need any knowledge related to IRC clients or Usenet newsreaders to access it.
Would you say that the degree of expertise required to acquire infringed materials decreasing?
Most definitely decreasing. The explosion of free file hosting server farms make downloading media as simple as clicking your mouse.
Besides your services, what other means of intellectual property rights control do you think content owners should exercise?
Content producers need to start suing copyright infringers (of their media) and holding people accountable for their actions. Internet piracy has become the equivalent to “jay walking”. The crazy thing about this whole process is that each copyright infringement is a violation of FEDERAL law, if one resides within the United States. Robbing a bank is a federal offense (here in the United States) and investigated by the FBI. The same could be said about copyright infringement, however, the government fails to see the tangible losses.. thus they do next to nothing in enforcement.
Do you think penalizing the end-user for doing the uploading is an effective strategy?
There’s a place for people who violate laws. It’s called jail or the penitentiary. If someone goes into convenience store,
shoplifts and is caught.. they go to jail. What’s happening online is tantamount to that very same crime.. yet nobody is “penalized”. There’s something very wrong with that.
Are there any sites that seem to accommodate you removing infringed material as a part of their expected business plan?
Answer related to pirated sites:
Not to my knowledge. We work with a lot of “pirate” sites directly.. to get client content down faster than just bombarding the host with Dmca notices. It’s not because we like what’s going on, it simply more efficient for everyone involved, except for the uploader that is.Answer related to clients:
We now keep our client site list confidential. I can say that we do work for approximately 67 producers worldwide.. including online mainstream, reality, hentai, sologirl, gay, shemale and fetish.. as well as a large portfolio of DVD lines.
Do you notify the advertisers that appear on a page containing infringing material?
Not anymore. We changed out terms of service to specifically
include that verbiage as well.
If so, do they respond? How?
Most, non-content producers do not respond or take any action against copyright infringement sites.
Do you feel removal requests received by infringers from your company tend to receive more attention than a similar request from a lesser known organization?
Honestly, I’m not sure. I would hope they would address every infringement notice they receive as equal. We’ve had our notices made public on more occasions then I can recall. Maybe that’s why.
What is the biggest trend in infringement that no one is talking about?
Affiliate infringement
We appreciate RemoveYourContent.com taking their time to speak with us about this issue. We look forward to speaking with them again about their ongoing endeavors.
Eircom Instates “3 Strikes Policy”
I thought “3 strikes” was an american concept, but Irish Internet Service Providor, Eircom, announced that it would be placing such a policy in effect. At current, no American ISP has such a policy, but it is certain that they will be watching closely to determine if such measures are successful internationally. AVN reports, AVN: Irish ISP Adopts ‘Three Strikes’ Policy for Copyright Offenders, saying:
Irish internet provider Eircom has agreed to a “three strikes” policy that will disrupt service for those who violate copyright laws.
Eircom Group is the largest telecom in Ireland. The music industry and other corporations dealing with copyrighted entertainment are watching closely to see which ISPs follow with similar agreements.
What continues to be unclear is whether groups like the RIAA are being honest regarding their removals of content, and reports of infringement. Side stepping the court’s ability to determine the validity of such claims, and going direct through the ISP will probably result in a lot of “de facto” actions that may not actually be fair to the end users. See IPHRA: User Counter Claims for YouTube Videos Removed by Warner Music Group
What penalties if any would apply to companies filing invalid or dubious complaints?
Rapid Share Instructed by Courts to “Do More”
In a federal ruling, GEMA won a small victory against file hosting company Rapid Share. The company argues that it already employs MD5 checking to prevent files that were previously reported from being uploaded again. AVN reports,AVN:Court Rules RapidShare Must Eliminate Infringing Content More Efficiently, that the German Government wasn’t buying it, and needs them to do more:
a German court has ruled that RapidShare’s efforts to fight piracy are lacking. The Hamburg district court’s decision states that RapidShare must take action against infringing content the moment copyright holders make the company aware it…
In addition to quickly taking down copyrighted content, Rapidshare also has to “proactively check content before publishing it.”
RapidShare employs a MD5 filter to prevent the upload of previously removed content, but the court’s ruling says infringers need only to alter a few bytes of a file in order to evade the filter.
German courts have ruled several times in the favor of content owners, and may be one of the more favorable court systems in the world for people holding claim to intellectual property rights.
Veoh, Safe Harbor, and Encoding
An intersting argument had been put forth in the case of Veoh vs Universal Music Group. Universal alledges that Veoh could not invoke the protections afforded to hosts under “Safe Harbor” because the video providor encoded the files from the original format to a web-friendly FLV format, thus enabling the infringer. As Xbiz reports, XBiz: U.S. Judge Rules for Veoh in Infringement Case, the judge ruled that this did not eliminate safe harbor provisions:
Veoh claimed in its response that UMG had failed to provide “any information about the alleged infringement that would allow Veoh to adequately assess UMG’s threats,” but UMG countered the argument, claiming that Veoh did not qualify for safe harbor provisions on the grounds that some functions of Veoh’s software, including those that create copies and deliver videos to users, were ineligible for protection.
U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz rejected this argument and ruled in Veoh’s favor because “Veoh, he found, had no ability to prescreen content, and there was no evidence that Veoh fostered infringement for profit,” according to DRM Watch, a website that publishes analyses of all things DRM.
User Counter Claims for YouTube Videos Removed by Warner Music Group
The Los Angeles Times reports that some users are filing counter claims against Warner Music Group for their removal of popular YouTube videos.
Chatham, who plays in a bluegrass group called the Whappers (no, they’re not signed to Warner), is fighting back. Since receiving the e-mail from YouTube regarding Warner’s claim, Chatham has filled out copyright counterclaim papers. If Warner doesn’t respond within 10 days, YouTube may put the banjo video back online, according to a YouTube support page.
He says he can’t understand how the innocent clip of him playing his cover version on a couch — a video that was once chosen by YouTube to be featured on its home page — could be illegal.
“It’s me just sitting there, playing on my banjo,” he said. “If someone actually stopped and looked at it, they would be like, Oh, well, that’s just some guy being silly.”
Neither Warner, nor the company’s lawyer, nor YouTube would …
… comment on the case. But Chatham appears to have been dinged for performing a copyrighted song without permission. The legal definition of “performance” in situations like these remains a gray area and may continue to be until YouTube hobbyists begin to bring these cases to court.
This and other cases of removal has left many users wondering what exactly their protections are against big media companies like the Warner Music Group. While it is understandable that YouTube fears legal proceedings from Warner Music Group more than from its users, it does not make the legal rights of the users any less valid. Perhaps Warner Music Group’s removals have been overzealous? What if any legal responsibility should concern Warner regarding removals?
User Outrage:
Adult Affiliate Compay EuroRevenue Removes DRM
EuroRevenue, the adult affiliate company behind GermanGooGirls.com, 666Bukkake.com, ExtremeBukkake.com, and Teen18.com, recently removed Digital Rights Management from their member’s areas. Company representitive, Todd Glider, shared his thoughts on EuroRevenue’s 4 years of DRM usage with adult news outlet Xbiz in an article entitled, Xbiz: DRM is Dead, Long Live DRM. Overall, they saw DRM protection as necessary and cite still having to spend hours searching illegal websites for stolen content. When asked to explain the move they said:
So why did we do it? Why did we move away from DRM?
Simple: Windows stopped supporting it and we found no suitable alternative that was both secure and hassle-free. Truth be told, if Windows had not dropped the ball our DRM protections would still be in place.
Reports like these indicate that although resistance to DRM has been strong, and the support for DRM may be waning, the market for such a technology may be as strong or stronger than ever.