RSSTV Networks, Online Video Services Sign Copyright Pact
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 19, 2007, 12:38 PM
The parent companies of the four largest US broadcast networks plus cable content giant Viacom joined with MySpace, Microsoft, and online video providers Veoh and Dailymotion in signing a standards and practices document they hope will become the "Television Code" of online copyright protection.
The document calls upon all services for user-generated content (UGC) to implement appropriate mechanisms to identify and filter out unlicensed content from upload streams, by the end of this year - which is only ten weeks away.
"We recognize that no system for deterring infringement is or will be perfect," reads the preamble for "Copyright Principles for UGC Services." "But, given the development of new content identification and filtering technologies, we are united in the belief that the Principles set out below, taken as a whole, strike a balance that, on a going-forward basis, will result in a more robust, content-rich online experience for all."
The document calls for content companies to provide UGC Services - presumably including Hulu, which pact signers Fox and NBC Universal will jointly run - with reference data (most likely hash codes) that will aid automatic systems in identifying copyrighted content once it's uploaded. But it presumes that copyright holders, obviously including themselves, will be able to provide hash codes or other identifying marks for everything they don't want disseminated without license - obviously a monumental task with which these rights holders are charging themselves.
The document also states that UGC services, once they have identified uploaded content that matches the reference data supplied by copyright holders, should then be able to contact those copyright holders and inquire what to do with the submission. In the absence of a response, a service may then presume the submission should be cancelled.
But in stating this, the "Copyright Principles" document presumes a seemingly permanent and consistent channel of communication should exist between the copyright holders and the UGC services. Such a channel is easy to maintain if, in the case of Hulu and MySpace, you happen to be owned by a copyright older. But YouTube, owned by Google, might face a more daunting challenge if it ever decided to sign onto these principles.
The document appears to go further, with a paragraph that is either suggesting that UGC services and content holders work together to police the entire World-Wide Web, or that may be a little vague with regard to how the rest of the Internet actually works.
"UGC Services and Copyright Owners should work together to identify sites that are clearly dedicated to, and predominantly used for, the dissemination of infringing content or the facilitation of such dissemination," the Principles document states, without going into detail regarding the definition of "sites" in this context. "Upon determination by a UGC Service that a site is so dedicated and used, the UGC Service should remove or block the links to such sites. If the UGC Service is able to identify specific links that solely direct users to particular non-infringing content on such sites, the UGC Service may allow those links while blocking all other links."
Something else the document brings up but fails to define is "fair use."
"When sending notices and making claims of infringement, Copyright Owners should accommodate fair use," the Principles state, in a sentence that constitutes the entire section on the matter. In three other points, the term is raised briefly, suggesting that agents in the video dissemination process should be "accommodating fair use," though again without a clear reference to whether this is the legal or common definition.
Reports yesterday stated the charter signers of the document had forged a new copyright alliance. This is actually inaccurate, as the Copyright Alliance pre-existed. Some of its members signed the pact; other signers are from outside the Alliance's purview.
However, the Alliance's Executive Director, Patrick Ross, did issue this comment: "It is exciting to witness the creative community reaching consensus with the tech community on reasonable rules of the road for online media. These are common-sense principles that recognize the important roles of both industries in respecting and protecting the interests of copyright holders while also acknowledging the value of true user-generated works and respecting fair use. It is also proof of the extensive, ongoing efforts of the broad creative community to aggressively satisfy consumer demand in the digital marketplace."
The UGC Principles
A Giant Leap for Mankind ... or A Small Step into Quicksand
First of all, as a representative of one of the millions of creative individuals and small businesses out here who generate a healthy percentage of all copyrighted works in this country, I would like to applaud the large media, entertainment, and software companies for their efforts ... even as I point out several serious flaws in their approach. I can see how these (User Generated Content, or "UGC", Principles) announcements benefit Viacom in its lawsuit with YouTube/Google and Microsoft in its attempts to regain some degree of industry "leadership" and focused direction in the various copyright industries affected by Internet and CD/DVD piracy.
Do they benefit most companies, or individuals, who create copyrighted works equally? Unfortunately, I don't hink so.
Four (4) serious problems exist with this first attempt at regaining some degree of control in the copyright protection arena:
1. Principles that conflict with laws do nothing but create chaos and generate legal fees.
2. Companies who develop over 80% of all new copyrighted works are not represented.
3. Google and Yahoo were excluded for some reason known only in Silicon Valley or DC.
4. This is a connected world nowadays. International compliance is essential to succeed.
Here are my thoughts on these four concerns, as well as an article I posted last week pertaining the largest money-maker from infringement activity of them all ... Google.
1. This new alliance will not work as it currently stands, however. It is only guidelines, not law. In fact, it conflicts with existing copyright laws in some areas. That, alone, will create chaos on a battlefield where both sides are armed with tons of cash (did someone say "Google"?).
2. There is no representation of the millions of people who depend on the licensing fees and royalties generated from legitimate copyrighted works in this alliance. I simply cannot believe these huge publicly funded companies haven't realized it's not just their billionaire owners who have a stake in this game.
3. Any agreement in principle that does not include the two prominent Internet "eyeball" companies in the United States (Google and Yahoo) among its "members" will not succeed. Simply stated, ALL major players in the copyright industry production and distribution channels have agree to these principles or they should not adopted at all. Democratic principles (i.e. 7 for and 3 against) will not work in an environment whereby any one rogue company can duplicate and distribute billions of perfect copies of just about anything on the planet overnight, and use unlawful infringement activities to actually gain market share.
4. Any major initiative that includes practical changes ot the way we monitor and enforce copyrights in this country must be agreed to be all members of WIPO to have a chance to succeed. Today, a server in Bangladesh can do the exact same damage as one in Los Angeles, or Peoria, and with even less cost to the infringing company, or "pirates". Tough sanctions MUST be enforced against foreign countries who violate the intellectual property rights agreed to in Berne Convention and in the WIPO treaties in the late 1990s. Administration officials have talked a big game here for years. Talk is cheap. International Enforcement Action is what is required if we are at all serious about this mission.
Once again, I believe this is a step in the right direction. At least more attention is being paid to one of the most serious criminal and social epidemics of all time ... stealing over the Internet and counterfeiting goods in the streets. I just hope the copyright industries stick with this and make the changes needed for this important mission to succeed.
Now onto Google ....
****************************************************************************
Google's Video Voodoo
Like everything else it does, Google only advances technology solutions that also advance its own cause ... willful blindness, extraordinary profits, inflated egos, exponential market share growth, and/or unilateral control of all of the world's data and images.
What is needed here is an industry-wide set of standards and procedures to combat widespread piracy.
Not just for video, but for digital music, movies, illustrated artwork, recipes, poems, photographs, short stories, news articles, and all other copyrighted works as well. Each industry segment needs to endorse its own workable and reasonable set of standards. Believe it or not, this is far easier than you might think.
Some of these standards have already been set. My small graphic arts content development company here in Virginia has developed a workable solution for new electronic clipart illustrations, design templates, cartoons, logos/symbols, and animations. Even photography.
We have tried to share these standards with the Google's and Microsoft's of this world, but they make far more profits from continuing to display and distribute infringing works, and sell online advertising beside them, than they would if they were to demand compliance or change their own internal operating procedures, even those that require little work on their part. They have, for the most part, ignored our offers to help curb piracy in our graphic arts content markets.
If you remember nothing else from this article, please remember this one thing. "Piracy" is the most lucrative business model there is for these giant search and advertising driven companies, like Google, Ask.com, AOL, and Microsoft. They make the same gross revenues, and other "eyeball" benefits, with absolutely no cost of goods sold. They are not going to stop promoting piracy until we all force them to comply with the laws of this land. The solution requires the perfect balance of preventative industry standards upfront and strong enforcement (civil and criminal) against those who break the rules once they are caught. Willful pirates and willful distributors of stolen works.
Industry accepted standards force two groups and two groups only to the back on the line ... pirates ... and those middlemen like Google who profit from the distribution of stolen property! Those who steal your work, or who steal the work of others that ultimately forces what you pay for things to go much higher. And those who cover up such unlawful distribution and create "red herrings". This country has always called these people "crooks". Why are the Googlites having such a hard time adapting to a world that respects copyrights? Think about it. How many Google billionaires did you see on the recent Forbes list of the top 400 billionaires in this country?
Companies simply don't trust Google the way Google apparently still thinks they do ... especially companies who own copyrighted material. Don't individual company solutions often create monopolistic business practices that in turn lead to greed, corruption, hypocrisy, and other illegal and/or unethical activities? Neither Google nor Microsoft deserve this kind of trust, or market power, from my experience. They have simply not earned it.
This new Google video "solution", a legal red herring if I've ever seen one, forces companies to send all of their work through Google in advance. And when an infringement occurs, the companies have to expend yet additional resources to monitor the infringements and choose between three options as to how to proceed to protect their property. Google gathers valuable data throughout the entire process. Google continues to sell AdWords and AdSense along the way. Who needs a Westlaw or an Appeals Court under this scary scenario?
And doesn't this approach of endorsing "after the fact" licensing further encourage pirates to continue their evil ways? Copyright defense lawyers will have a ball with this one. Just you wait and see. Think about it. If the penalty for stealing $200 worth of merchandise from 7-11 was your picture on a poster and a fine of 100 bucks, how many people would turn to this way of life?
Google continues to make a fortune at each stage of their recommended "process". What a joke. Voodoo. Let Google donate their technological solution to an independent third party monitoring service if they are serious.
I thought we had laws in this country that cover this critical subject matter. Or is this yet another new "law of Goooglism". Only two things will fix this serious piracy problem. VERY strict enforcement of our existing laws (civil and criminal) and industry standard ways of using technology to discourage or prevent piracy.
No self-serving efforts are needed on this one, Google. Thanks anyway. The stakes are simply way too high!
Here's the net. It is high time we held Google accountable for their role in spreading Internet piracy beyond a controllable issue in all parts of the world ... and intentionally I might add. And I base my view on facts I've gathered, not just speculation. They have contributed to making copyright infringement an epidemic of enormous economical and social importance. A white collar crime epidemic, the likes of which we have not witnessed in this country in a long, long time. They should not be applauded for this new technology. They should be condemned for their efforts in creating a world that requires technological safeguards to correct economic imbalances and engineering defections in its moral and ethical compass.
If you can't see this handwriting on the wall, then you are either very naive or have some sort of vested interest right along with Google (or perhaps even Microsoft) in fabricating these smokescreens.
Please reconsider your position. We need as many people in this copyright protection boat as we can possibly muster.
George P. Ridd***, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
gridd***@imageline2.com
Score: 0
|I'm confused.
Isn't it already legal to watch ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and CW over the airwaves without paying?
If so, why should anyone freak out about people downloading the episodes if their VCR or DVR is on the fritz?
Score: 0
|you are downloading all the episodes from a 3rd party website it hurts the shows ratings... which in turn hurt its revenue.
Score: 0
|Or it could be that ratings are suffering because TV SUCKS this season. Not one premier show has even made it into the top ten.
Score: 0
|Ultimate p2p concept.
Torrent system have torrents to encrypted content.
Keys are distributed on back channel of said network once IP is verified as clean and uncorrupted (the key is basically built into the torrent file itself); possibily similar to PGP. IE not the MPAA or RIAA or their cohorts of their racketeering movemnet.
The entire network exists on subnetworks using secondary IP numbers like that used in Hamachi.
Its very very close to this now... all it will take is a little prodding to evolve into this. and the industry will have very little they can do to stop it. There is very little they can do to stop what is already out there...
BTW this same system can already be done with online services like Youtube, and they have no clue what the encrypted content stream is if they do not have the torrent subkey hash to view it... Anything the MPAA sees online is scrambled and uncheckable using the normal checks this sets in place.
Ultimately They are going to have to start to offer things themselves for free or next to free in order to keep themselves legitimate. Its already happening. More and more each day that the studios, are taking it upon themselves to offer the content online for free. Thats progress. The RIAA and the MPAA have yet to recognize that their own members are revolting against their lunacy.
Personally I see the ultimate path that PGP and DRM may someday become one and the same, and ultimate be used to keep the industry from seeing things online, that others have keys too see. Illegal or not. Thats a progress I would love to see happen within a years time to the technology.
Post scrambled content on youtube, Use P2P to distribute the key and whamo everyone sees it. Good use of DRM if you ask me. Completely against what its intent was, but if we are forced to have it, Why not make it work for us instead of against us?
Score: 0
|