YouTube Filtering Is On-Line

ghostcorps writes "After months of promises to IP-holders, the long-awaited filters system for YouTube has gone online. The new system will make it easier, the company claims, for copyrighted clips to be removed. 'YouTube now needs the cooperation of copyright owners for its filtering system to work, because the technology requires copyright holders to provide copies of the video they want to protect so YouTube can compare those digital files to material being uploaded to its website. This means that movie and TV studios will have to provide decades of copyright material if they don't want it to appear on YouTube, or spend even more time scanning the site for violations.'"

perks of the job

[LiquidCoooled]

a few weeks ago the poll was what perks do google get, well now we know:

unlimited copyright tape library.

Sergey and Larry must have a lot of popcorn.

Yay

[somersault]

One step down the path for Google to catalog every movie ever made, and provide live streaming of any movie you want direct to your home!

Remember folks

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair use is only a defense to the use of copyrighted material. It is not a right you can assert.

Rubbish

[suv4x4]

Copyright owners don't need to provide "decades of copyrighted material".

The system will help with reuploads. This means, when a video is marked as pirated, the system will be able to recognize the duplicates and mark them for removal.

This means companies don't need to track the duplicates manually any more but just point to a single sample.

Re:Opt Out!?

[LiquidCoooled]

Actually, its already opt-in.

I have to opt-in to create an account to upload stuff.
I have to confirm I have licenses for the data I am uploaded (it is mentioned in the T&Cs of your youtube account).

If there is something wrong the copyright holder should go after the uploader not the site.

B. You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service.

http://youtube.com/t/terms [youtube.com]

Re:Remember folks

[imgod2u]

It's actually the other way around. Copyright law and copyright enforcement have to be justified. The inherent right of "fair use" falls under the 1st amendment that protects free speech (and subsequent expression in any form, including giving a disc you burned to your buddy). Any restriction on said ability must be justified through a court case and is granted Constitutional validity by Article I, section 8:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

Re:copyright holders aren't going to provide anyth

[John Hasler]

> The problem is that Congress has created a safe harbor in the DMCA.

That's not a problem. It's a solution. It just happens to be a solution that the studios don't like.

Re:Circumvention Ideas

[GrievousMistake]

Those wouldn't even fool image fingerprinting technology from the 80's.
If the people that made this had their hearts in it, and if they were willing to allow some small amount of false positives, I'd assume that there's no way to trick it without also significally inconviencing human viewers.

Re:Circumvention Ideas

[TheGreatHegemon]

Or just use another online video service - far easier than circumventing this stuff.

Re:Yay

[Socguy]

Absolutely, This is a brilliant scheme by Google. All it takes is one change of copyright law and Google is sitting on a library of all the content that copyright holders have uploaded to it! Heck, they don't even have to digitize it, the copyright holder does it for them!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Naruto

[Inquisitor911]

Hopefully this will mean the 8 million Narutp videos will vanish from YT.

Re:It's A Shame They Won't Take the Offer

[Anonymous Coward]

The sale of copyrights is unconstitutional? You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of the word "exclusive" in the clause. In the context of the clause, exclusive simply means that the authors and inventors have the initial rights to their "writings and discoveries" over all others. In no way, does this mean that the authors and inventors are precluded from voluntarily selling or contracting away their rights to others, such as to "patent trolls" or "record companies." The only significance of the word "exclusive" in the section is as a default rule -- authors and inventors start off with the full and unchallengeable rights to their writings and discoveries. What they do with those rights is up to them.

If the sale / transfer of copyrights were unconstitutional, there would be a MASSIVE chilling effect on "the progress of science and useful arts" since every single author / inventor would be forced to become a salesman / entrepreneur in order to making a living off his/her writings and inventions. In terms of efficiency, this would be diasasterous -- authors and inventors aren't necessary good at (and shouldn't be forced to waste their time) setting up their own businesses in order to sell their creative products. Some might want to and have the talent, but there would be an overall decline in productivity -- their time simply is better spent on their "writings and discoveries" just the average businessman's time is more efficiently spent negotiating contracts for artists than by trying to create music of his own.

That having been said, your much better argument is the "limited times" one. The fact that Congress has continually extended copyrights is arguably a perversion of the Framer's intent that they be limited in nature. There's no principled reason that the definition of "limited time" is longer now than it was when the Constitution was ratified. I definitely agree that Disney's incessant lobbying should not be the determining factor on the proper length of copyrights as it has been in the past.

Re:perks of the job

[madsenj37]

You got me thinking about that. If Google were to mark the videos they use with copyright dates, the videos given to them by copyright holders, they could effectively know when the copyright ends on a particular work. This would allow them to then upload a video the day the copyright ends, thus having easy access to once copyrighted stuff. Google could future proof itself and have free information to make available to the public first.

Re:Jihad on YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

...but Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens.