Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Internet Technology

MySpace Begins Rollout of Video Monitoring Tech 90

Posted by Zonk from the need-to-rollout-usability-tech-now dept.
C|Net is carrying an article looking into new technology MySpace is rolling out to combat user violation of copyright laws on their pages. Called 'Take Down, Stay Down', the service will attempt to ensure that once content is removed because of a complaint it can never be uploaded again. "Copyright owners have access to Take Down Stay Down free of charge, according to a release from MySpace. If the social-networking service receives a takedown notice regarding a copyrighted clip hosted through its MySpace Videos hosting service, MySpace's new feature will take a 'digital fingerprint' of the video and add it to a copyright filter that blocks the content from being uploaded again. '(It's) the ability to have a piece of content imprinted and put in a database so we can identify it,' said Vance Ikezoye, CEO of Audible Magic." The article goes on to discuss the problems YouTube is facing with the same issues, as well as recent investigations of this issue in the political arena.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MySpace Begins Rollout of Video Monitoring Tech More

MySpace Begins Rollout of Video Monitoring Tech

Comments Filter:

  • Bogus take-downs. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 13, 2007 @05:30AM (#19102697)
    Are they going to have a mechanism to fix bogus take-downs? Will it be effective? Could someone with an SCO mentality take down half the site?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
      If MySpace is responding to DMCA takedown notices, anyone who fakes them would be violating the DMCA anyhow, but I guess the avenues for abuse of anything are beyond MySpace (which is why so many JavaScript-based worms hit that site).
  • I would expect that, no matter what technology is used, a simple trivial change to the size of the file will negate the fingerprint technology employed. This appears to be another search for the Holy Grail that will probably be as unsuccessful as previous attempts.
    • The workload this'll put on their computers will bring MySpace to its knees.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
        MySpace is already on its knees blowing the content industry (and due to all those "Technical Errors" so common to that hack of a website), so I guess they're going to fully collapse under the computation of video fingerprints, eh? I would hope so just so that something better than MySpace can fully take its place and house all of the world's emos in one centralised location without the need for other websites to offload them.

    • Re:The search for the Holy Grail (Score:4, Interesting)

      by femto ( 459605 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @05:50AM (#19102763) Homepage

      Why bother? Just use another website.

      Every website has a finite time in the sun, and RupertSpace is no exception. There will even be a day (soon?) when people say "Now what was that website called, TheirSpace or something?"

      Who remembers AltaVista? It was as big as Google and RupertSpace in its day. Everyone thought it was the ultimate answer and unassailable when it "indexed the whole Internet". As altavista faded so will RupertSpace (and even Google eventually) and their restrictions on users will be irrelevant.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by owlnation ( 858981 )

        Why bother? Just use another website.
        Very true. It strikes me as a curious irony that anyone with a conscience would continue to use MySpace after the News Corp purchase anyway. You have young bands trying to express themselves free from the record industry parasites, and yet News Corp is indirectly linked to the RIAA through it's MPAA connections.

        Makes no sense. The News Corp purchase should really have been the instant death of MySpace cool.

        • Makes no sense. The News Corp purchase should really have been the instant death of MySpace cool.

          It makes plenty of sense when you take into account the fact the people who most need to care about myspace's MAFIAA connections are the least likely to know about them.

          Young musicians have been signing recording contracts without doing their due diligence for decades, posting to myspace is 10000x more common and easy than that. If they can't do it for the big recording contract, they sure won't do it to use a "free" website.

        • What percentage of the people on MySpace even know what NewsCorp is? I'd wager it's in the single digits, probably less than 5%. One has to remember that most people don't know about the evils of the MPAA, RIAA, NewsCorp, etc, assuming they've even heard of them.
      • > As altavista faded so will ....

        You are certainly correct, but ....

        I'd guess that almost everyone on Slashdot is waiting for their personal vendetta objects to fade, be they Microsoft, Apple, the open source movement, Google, MySpace, the music industry cartel, the movie industry cartel, and a list of thousands more, including for some people (probably not mainstream Slashdotters) large organized nations and religions....

        Much as I would like to fantasize to the contrary, even if you believe in future sh
      • Yep- all the people at my school use Facebook now.
      • I remember AltaVista. I miss it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )
      Well if they are using MD5 SHA1 or SHA256 hashes for their 'digital fingerprinting' like they do for Computer Forensics dealing with files and/or entire drives.

      All you would need to do to defeat their 'digital fingerprinting technology' would be to change a single bit in a file to something else then the odds of getting the same hash would be astronomical.

      So yeah, I'm thinking its something along the lines of a publicity stunt by Myspace to look like they are actually doing something. Also they are required

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by J'raxis ( 248192 )

        They do have to honor put-back requests, but there's a 10-14 day delay required by the law in question [wikipedia.org] before taken down material can be put back. This gives people who want to have time-sensitive material removed from the site (e.g., content that could affect an election, or a protest, or somesuch, a couple days from now) a very big advantage.

        • If MySpace takes down a file and every file matching it with this new software, and whoever put the first file up is successful with his put-back request, then will MySpace put everything that matches back as well? Or will everyone have to make a put-back request of his own (inc. people who are DMCA-illiterate) to get the matching files back?
    • For the vast majority of folks who are not fluent with video editors, this might be enough. It might be good enough to make sure that most folks can't upload. Sure, altering the speed by 1 to 5% might screw up the digital signature. But then there was that case of a classical piano artist whose husband had been caught passing off other performances are her own.

      It might come down to another technology arms race. Or it might come down to an uneasy truce, if the lawyers can keep their paws off of things....

  • hacking call to arms (Score:4, Insightful)

    by plierhead ( 570797 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @05:33AM (#19102707) Journal
    I guess I've never really understood the hacker ethic but reading this it sounds almost like some kind of challenge...

    And then there's the issue of how well it will actually work, or if MySpace is just trying to save face. Cynical observers might be quick to ask how soon clever hackers will figure out a way to work around or even completely circumvent the "digital fingerprints." According to Ikezoye, it's not going to be easy because Audio Magic's patented technology is more complicated than simply generating a "hash value" for a file.

    "A fingerprint is much more robust at identifying the content. Hashes identify files," he explained. If a Colbert Report clip were pulled at Viacom's request, for example, MySpace's filter would block all other forms of the file from MPEG to AVI, all various degrees of quality, and even video clips that contained only part of the content from the piece that had been taken down. "We simulate the human perception of the same content," Ikezoye said.

    And to circumvent the filter, he added, a hacker would have to "screw up the content itself so it wasn't recognizable," to a degree where it wouldn't even be worth uploading in the first place.

    But given hackers' long history of being able to get through just about anything, experts remain a bit skeptical.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      could probably get around it by playing with the signal in CMYK, keep the black channel mostly undistorted while making everything else rainbow colors.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Blue Stone ( 582566 )
      >If a Colbert Report clip were pulled at Viacom's request, for example, MySpace's filter would block all other forms of the file from MPEG to AVI, all various degrees of quality, and even video clips that contained only part of the content from the piece that had been taken down.

      Translation: In Rupert'sSpace there is no Fair Use.

    • Actually, what I'm wondering is what this really accomplishes in the long run.

      If everybody is showing a 5 minute clip from some TV show that Big Media Conglomerate (BMC) owns the copyright on, and assuming this is foolproof, does BMC think "Oh gee, when those dirty filthy kids can't 'steal' my content, they'll be sure to pay me to use it?".

      This is a classic case of:

      1) Stop everybody from listening/watching my content
      2) ?????
      3) Profit!

      I was flipping through the XBox 360 the other day, and I realized they're
      • There are two benefits to buying The Colbert Report off iTunes or XBOX:
        1. No advertising!
        2. Permanency. Less of an advantage.
        It's not as easy to record programs permanently as it used to be. DVD recorders for TVs are scarce, VCRs and their tapes are rare, and standard DVRs tend to delete things after a certain amount of time--or, for the one I used to use, an uncertain amount of time. This, of course, is the MPAA's fault.
        South Park has reached syndication. It's on over-the-air stations now--truly fr

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
        Unless you "steal cable", your TV subscription is most certainly anything but free. Of course, if you've got cable internet, you probably had to get basic cable since it would end up costing the same regardless on whether or not you got the basic cable subscription in the first place. In that case, it's basically free.

        Also, the TV shows you download on Xbox Live are ad-free and whatnot. It's pretty much the iTunes Store, but by Microsoft instead of Apple.

  • Not so simple.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by janrinok ( 846318 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @05:41AM (#19102727)
    OK, if it is able to identify 'content' - and does not use a human to provide this function but achieves it entirely in software - then it must take a series of snapshots of the video and use some form of key (or hash?) for each snapshot. That is not a hash for the entire file but a series of hashes which can provide a unique fingerprint. The processing power required to do this, and to subsequently search submissions in an attempt to find a matching hash will be immense. Pattern recognition is improving all the time but it is still nowhere near able to recognise content(i.e. girl dancing in bedroom, skateboarder falling arse over tit etc) with sufficient accuracy to enable PR to be used. If this problem HAS been solved, I would expect the military and other scientific fields to be investing in it far more than a web video hosting site.

    • If this problem HAS been solved, I would expect the military and other scientific fields to be investing in it far more than a web video hosting site.

      The military would pay some amount of money for it, and it would take 2 years to cut a deal with them. Google and MySpace on the other hand will lose untold wealth in just a few months - if they don't come up with a way to get the lawyers off their backs.

      These smart guys have the right technology at the right time. They're cashing out big time.

      • Perhaps in the US, although I am not convinced, but there is a sizeable investment going on around the world for this sort of technology, particularly for weaponeering. For example, imagine being able to identify someone who is about to fire a rifle as apposed to someone carrying tools around his garden. Or all those cameras in the UK. Being able to identify a crime taking place automatically would be a huge benefit to If the problem of PR has been solved I don't think that your government or mine would h
        • That's a completely different technology - you're talking about object identification. They're just using pattern-recognition (ie. hashing frames and comparing the hashes) and dedicating a CPU or two on the video server to it. It just means videos will go through a validation procedure prior to being fully uploaded. They'll probably just look at whatever keywords you provide, see if they match any in a blacklist (ie. Family Guy, Fox, Simpsons, whatever copyrighted videos), and then use the same flagging sys
          • That could lead to some interesting keywords. I see "pr0n" and "warez" a lot already. We might get "51mp50nz" videos if keyword checks are done before hashes are.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mikael ( 484 )
      They already have. Do a google search for:

      image classification
      image retrieval
      texture classification
      texture retrieval

  • Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by evilgrug ( 915703 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @05:48AM (#19102749)
    The bold claims made in this article make me even more skeptical. If the technology could really identify 'content' in the way they describe -- handling different forms, resolutions, lengths partial clips, watermarks and other changes --- with reasonable time and processing constraints, it would be a lot more valuable in other fields than as a form of DRM protection. At the very least I would be wondering if it would only be monitoring the audio track of the accompanying video to determine its matches.

    It reminds me of the claims made by various "smart" porn blockers that "know" naked flesh from regular skin tones and photos -- generally it's nothing but baseless hype, or it's going to find a lot of false positives.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      Well, here's my idea. It's right off the top of my head, so it's probably patented:

      To create the fingerprint:
      1. Transform the frames to contrast edges. I forget what the filter is called but it'll basicly give you an outline of all the edges, with very little info
      2. Split the frame into squares, calculate a brightness value from the edge frame
      3. Throw all of this into a database

      To check the fingerprint:
      1. Decode a few keyframes
      2. Calculate same info for those frames
      3. Use a quick sort on brightness to find

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lawpoop ( 604919 )
        A few questions: Couldn't this method be defeated by applying various photoshop effects to each frame? Is it a question of how much you change?

        Also, wouldn't the video editors change the frame rate and do some other transformations in the video? What about various encoding schemes?

        Basically, could you transform it enough to repost it and defeat the matching algorithms?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )
          Everything is a question of how much you change. But the constrast lines are the lines in the image, you can't change those easily without creating ugly artifacts. There's a few other tricks you can do like alter the aspect ratio/crop or adding bars to throw the "grid" off, but I think that could be compensated for. Changing the framerate would help in that simple example but I imagine you'd translate it to time offset instead of frame offset. Encoding schemes wouldn't matter unless they introduce enough ar

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by slart42 ( 694765 )
      I dunno, but I think someone could come up with a reasonable scheme which could catch many cases of uploading the same content.

      My cell provider offers this service where I call a number, leave it connected for 30 seconds, and it will reply with an SMS with the artist and name of the song which is currently playing. It works extremely well, even in crowded bars with lots of noises, and it requires only a 30 second clip. It's quite impressive.
      But then again, nobody actively tries to fool this thing to gain so

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        My cell provider offers this service where I call a number, leave it connected for 30 seconds, and it will reply with an SMS with the artist and name of the song which is currently playing.
        Does it work with live performances of music or only with published, UPC'd recordings?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by slart42 ( 694765 )

          Does it work with live performances of music or only with published, UPC'd recordings?
          It is only supposed to work with published recordings. But I once tested it on a cover version of a johnny cash song, because i wanted to find out who was performing, and it gave me the original song instead. So it might actually detect some live perfomances.
          • So the music recognition system thought a cover band was Johnny Cash.
            I hope MySpace's system doesn't do the video equivalent. I hope it doesn't treat parodies of commercial copyrighted work the same way as actual commercial copyrighted work, and take all the parodies down with the less-than-legitimate videos...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
        Audio fingerprinting is a lot more advanced right now than video fingerprinting; it's much easier to do it with audio.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by slart42 ( 694765 )
          Audio fingerprinting is a lot more advanced right now than video fingerprinting; it's much easier to do it with audio.

          Well, only fingerprinting the audio track would still suffice to get rid of pirated south park episodes.
          • Yes, but it would also get rid of parodies using those audio tracks. That may not be a big issue with South Park, but I bet it would crimp the style of Star Trek and anime fans.
  • What if someone requests a takedown of someones content because the offending person uploaded a copy of their original content that is already (legally) on youtube- wouldn't this filter remove both copies?
    • What if someone requests a takedown of someones content because the offending person uploaded a copy of their original content that is already (legally) on youtube- wouldn't this filter remove both copies?

      I don't think so. Although MySpace and YouTube are both announcing that they are going to use similar copyright-protection systems, they are not part of the same system, so if a video is taken down on MySpace, it won't necessarily be taken down on YouTube.
      • I substituted subjects unintentionally- forgive my mistake. I meant that if someone posted a copy of the video on the same service, what happens when the rightful owner requests a takedown.

  • Thats just about everyone (Score:3, Insightful)

    by twakar ( 128390 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @06:09AM (#19102865) Homepage
    As I see it, anyone who has ever written something.. ie an essay, a love letter, a dmca takedown notice, or someone who has taken a video, or a photo is automatically a copyright owner. Given that, I guess we'll have to see how this goes because we should all have access to this "Take Down, Stay Down" crap... never mind the legitimacy of the complaint.
    Will there be some kind of registration for commercial copyright owners? This is how it looks to me:
    • We're all copyright owners of some sort, so we all should have access
    • No mechanism in place to determine the validity of the complaint, or even who the complainant is.
    • Fair Use out the window again
    • Too much possibility for white noise
    • Infringement isn't the same from country to country, what maybe illegal in country, may be legal in another

    I guess the new ISP monitoring tools in place from an earlier article will be able to trackdown rogue posters.
    I've really had enough of this crap. Commercial copyright owners will never learn that any exposure, that is non-commercial, or motivated by profit is good for your content. Serve it up and people will pay (;|;)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      Will there be some kind of registration for commercial copyright owners?
      The United States Copyright Office provides a service for copyright owners to register works. It involves donating two copies to the Library of Congress, filling out a form, and enclosing 45 USD.
    • This is a particularly interesting quotation from Thomas Jefferson:

      It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered th

    • We're all copyright owners of some sort, so we all should have access
      Don't be silly. Only those who can afford expensive lawyers and multi-million dollar lawsuits are copyright owners. The rest of us are either consumers or pirates.

  • And to circumvent the filter, he added, a hacker would have to "screw up the content itself so it wasn't recognizable," to a degree where it wouldn't even be worth uploading in the first place.
    AudibleMagic claims to have invented an algorithm that can recognize the same video in different forms better than the human brain can, across any format? That must mean the video is decoded into it's component frames before hashing, since that's how our brains get it. And better yet, this "Hash-Every-Frame" routine (which is apparently better than any other by leaps and bounds) will run on a site the size of MySpace without a BlueGene/L driving it? Uh-Huh. Say, NewsCorp, I've got this old bridge...

    Hypothesis: AM's claim is bullshit.
    Test: Everyone try uploading the same video, but add static and drop random frames from the start/end.
    Outcomes: If hypothesis is true, AM and the Copyright Mafia look incredibly stupid. Again. If hypothesis is false, they handed us a free DDoS to push MySpace off the 'Net with by consuming all their processor time with hash checking.

    Conclusion: Regardless of outcome, hackers win. Once again, DRM and everyone associated with it are Lolcows, unable to stop others from milking their stupidity for our amusement.
    • Yes. Because obviously they'll be running the hashing on the same servers serving the website. Oh, wait...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )
      Audible Magic software is one of the tools used by the RIAA "expert" in that recent RIAA suit where the RIAA expert was knocked down:
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/28/2 0 2206:/ [slashdot.org]
      http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonDepositionTranscript:/ [ilrweb.com]
      Nothing like relying on trade secrets and black box algorithms to make you sure that you're taking down the right files and leaving up the clean ones.

    • AudibleMagic claims to have invented an algorithm that can recognize the same video in different forms better than the human brain can, across any format? That must mean the video is decoded into it's component frames before hashing, since that's how our brains get it. And better yet, this "Hash-Every-Frame" routine (which is apparently better than any other by leaps and bounds) will run on a site the size of MySpace without a BlueGene/L driving it? Uh-Huh. Say, NewsCorp, I've got this old bridge...

      I reckon it wouldn't be too difficult to implement, actually. First, there's no need to examine every frame; one in every 50 would probably be enough. Then, the procedure is probably as follows:

      1. Convolve the image with a Laplacian of a Gaussian to identify interest points ("blobs"), say at two different scales. Compression artefacts mean that there probably wouldn't be any point in trying to identify features smaller than say 1/8 of the height of the frame, and that will probably give you enough point
  • So they are trying to take down copyrighted content? Doesn't that mean that they can no longer claim protection from DMCA safe-harbor provisions?

    So if someone puts some of my content up without my consent can I sue them? What if it was uploaded by an anonymous person using Tor as a browser registered using fake information for the purpose of suing?...

    This seems like a bad idea.
    • So they are trying to take down copyrighted content? Doesn't that mean that they can no longer claim protection from DMCA safe-harbor provisions?

      IANAL either, but from my understanding you are still protected under safe harbor if you proactively remove copyrighted content or questionable content. As in... Youtube is still protected by safe harbor if they remove a video which was too obscene or violated its ToS without going through DMCA hoops. You don't have to have a common carrier status to be protected f

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      Not really. Clearly any site has the right to reject or remove content which they feel is in violation of their ToS. I doubt any "failure to detect" by an automated filter will ever change that. 512 C) 1) A) states that you mustn't have any knowledge and C) states that you need to take it down. It comes down to B):

      "(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity"

      Advertising i

  • Underlying technology... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't know if Audible Magic's come up with anything special for video, but for audio, the underlying technology is at least partly based on MFCC [wikipedia.org]. You can find some more details here [uspto.gov] and here [uspto.gov].

    Also, they have to apply this filter only when content is added to a page, not every time it is played, so its a little less computationally intensive than some people have suggested.

    It may be more expensive to search all existing fingerprints every time a new take-down request comes in.

  • Copyright owners have access to Take Down Stay Down free of charge, according to a release from MySpace
    So, as a copyright owner, where do I sign-up?
  • And i will only become even more powerful.

    Its time to get their heads out of the sand, the entire concept of 'content rights' is out the window.

  • Learn from the past (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mattpointblank ( 936343 ) <mattpointblank AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @08:52AM (#19103639) Homepage
    All I can say is: why won't people learn from history?

    Almost 10 years ago now there was a little app some of you may remember called Napster. It offered mp3 downloads that, at the time, could take half an hour or more to complete. But it was worth it, because you couldn't get the music anywhere else (for free, anyway). Napster got closed down, but everyone just moved their collections over to Kazaa, Limewire, BearShare, etc etc. A few years later, the music industry catches up and realises that users are resilient and know what they want. This the iTunes Music Store (and its rivals) were born.

    Now we're in a faster internet age, the same is happening with video. People want on-demand content. If someone tells me about a funny Colbert clip, I'm not going to check the TV guide for a repeat showing. I'll stick it into YouTube and watch it there. YouTube delete the Colbert clips? I'll watch it on DailyMation. Repeat ad infinitum.

    Myspace can block out videos but people will find a way, and continue to find a way until the networks realise that in 2007, for the first time, the audience is starting to control the media.

    • If someone tells me about a funny Colbert clip, I'm not going to check the TV guide for a repeat showing
      Not to mention, that there is generally no 'repeats' for shows like Colbert Report or The Daily Show. If you missed it and didn't get it on a DVR, you're out of luck.
      • there is generally no 'repeats' for shows like Colbert Report or The Daily Show

        Yeah, except for the 3 times the next day (or sometimes the next week) that they replay it. They also throw up repeats when they take a week vacation, but that's not good if you're looking for something specific. I'm just wrangling...
    • You forgot to mention tape recorders and VCR's.. Before napster, these inventions were to end all paid programming just like ufo's took all the dinosaurs away... I saw that on quality programming brought to you by... There is always a way to do something. And since television can't mesmorize you/me with half a$$ off budget shows, we will make them spend their hard earned money to battle the consumers paying for it. Is this like the food chain. hmmmmm... I'm not a business major, but how do you make money d
    • You know, iTunes sells The Colbert Report. You can get any given episode there if you have iTunes. Or are you insisting on free?
  • How is a computer supposed to tell, with exact certainty, whether a video matches content pulled for content violation? There are so many problems with this idea: -If you make it so it only picks up exact copies, people will resize or make some other small video adjustment. -If you make it aggressive enough so it can pick up on those modifications, it will probably hit a bunch of false positives. -If it is possible to make it smart enough to pick up on videos and not get false positives, it will hammer the

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      What happens when an owner of a copyrighted video is blocked by a fake request? What is the unblock mechanism?
      Falsely accused uploader files a counter-notice. Video goes back up after two weeks. Copyright owners making repeated false accusations are sued for perjury.
  • Audible Magic software is one of the tools used by the RIAA "expert" in that recent RIAA suit where the RIAA expert was knocked down:
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/28/2 0 2206 [slashdot.org]
    http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonDepositionTranscript [ilrweb.com]
    Nothing like relying on trade secrets and black box algorithms to make you sure that you're taking down the right files and leaving up the clean ones.

  • Myspace's priorities (Score:4, Insightful)

    by British ( 51765 ) <british1500@gmail.com> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:08AM (#19104127) Homepage Journal
    So they roll out this technology for the relatively unimportant issue of video piracy, yet they let the spambots roam free? Myspace's biggest problem, IMO is the gazillions of fake accounts being made every minute. It ruins the site. No, they are more interested in video piracy, jeesh.
    • Yes, they are more interested in video piracy than spambots. If they let video piracy continue, something even worse than spambots comes: LAWYERBOTS!!! (queue the ImperialMarch.avi file, please...)
  • Oh please, this is moronic. I'm with the posters here that are calling bullshit on the claims that they can fingerprint all content even when it's been modified.

    But if it's true then there will be so much content marked for takedown that the site itself will be completely unusable. If nothing else people will mark every video as in violation just out of spite.
  • Oh, wonderful. How long before Uri Geller starts going apeshit [slashdot.org] on Myspace?

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close