Quote :

"Google to filter copyright videos by September Posted by Greg Sandoval YouTube will launch a system in September designed to prevent pirated material from going up on the site, a Google lawyer said in court on Friday. Google, which acquired YouTube in October, plans to generate a library of digital video fingerprints that would be used by a computer system to screen clips being uploaded to YouTube, said Philip Beck, one of the attorneys representing Google and YouTube. Beck added that the screening process would take only a few minutes to determine whether a clip is copyright material. Google, Viacom and the class of copyright holders that have filed suit against Google and YouTube within the past year, were in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, for a scheduling hearing. Beck's statement is significant because it would appear to be the first time that anyone from Google has set a firm launch date for a filtering-system roll out. The company has frustrated numerous media executives by promising to produce better copyright protections for YouTube but not delivering. Critics are quick to note that many of YouTube's competitors already screen content. What may not go over well in Hollywood is that Google appeared to hedge once again when asked to respond to Beck's statement. "We hope to have the testing completed and technology available by sometime in the Fall," said a Google spokesman in an e-mail. "But this is one of the most technologically complicated tasks that we have ever undertaken, and as always with cutting-edge technologies, it's difficult to forecast specific launch dates." Louis Solomon, an attorney with Proskauer Rose, who along lawyers from the law firm Bernstein Litowitz, were appointed interim class counsel at the hearing. Solomon indicated that Google's filtering system would have little impact on the massive damages being claimed for past infringement. In the class action suit filed in May by a group that included several European sports leagues, the plaintiffs have asked for billions of dollars in damages. "If in fact Google puts this (system) in place, it is obviously way too late," Solomon said. "But we encourage Google to come forward and do what other companies have already done and treat all the content providers fairly. Not just the favorite few who have agreed to share advertising revenue with YouTube." During the court proceeding, lawyers from both sides estimated that pre-trial discovery could take more than a year. That means there's a chance that YouTube's copyright issues may not be resolved until late next year."

Well, I guess Youtube will lose 90 % of its users if they didn't kicked them out already for uploading "obscene" material. original videos are great, but the music videos and the tv shows that are no longer access on basic cable or even premium cable are the meat and potatoes of youtube. Google has gone insane and are being absolutely ridiculously. Most of the copyrighted material / are either commercials and tv shows and music videos that don't get played on any other media outlet. Guess youtube should have never sold its soul to the devil

8/2/2007 2:20:15 PM

you honestly think this was Google's idea??

think about it...

8/2/2007 2:21:24 PM

worst thread ever

this is a good thing

8/2/2007 3:02:06 PM

Quote :

"Most of the copyrighted material / are either commercials and tv shows and music videos that don't get played on any other media outlet."

well those are probably safe, then. The filtering depends on making a digital fingerprint of the media, then storing it in the YouTube database. I'm guessing it will be up to the content providers to make the fingerprints and provide them to youtube. Therefore, the content providers will focus mainly on their current content, like TV shows. So when a new The Office airs, NBC will upload a fingerprint of that show, so any clips from that show will be filtered out after it airs.

But will they bother to create finger prints of every single episode of, for example, Knight Rider, just to keep some obscure clips off of youtube? Not likely. It's not like the system will automatically "know" that something is copyrighted - the copyrighted content has to be identified first.

Google has not gone "insane". Do you recall they were sued for a billion dollars by Viacom? Who's the insane one? I would go with the company who thinks they are losing a billion dollars of business from college kids uploading and sharing their favoirte The Daily Show and South Park clips (which, as we all know, drive more people to actually watch their shows).

And if YouTube hadn't have "sold its soul", they would likely have been sued into oblivion anyway, and they wouldn't have been able to defend themselves, or they would have been forced to put up filtering systems anyway. Just like Google is doing.

8/2/2007 3:05:09 PM

Quote :

"well those are probably safe, then. The filtering depends on making a digital fingerprint of the media, then storing it in the YouTube database. I'm guessing it will be up to the content providers to make the fingerprints and provide them to youtube. Therefore, the content providers will focus mainly on their current content, like TV shows. So when a new The Office airs, NBC will upload a fingerprint of that show, so any clips from that show will be filtered out after it airs. But will they bother to create finger prints of every single episode of, for example, Knight Rider, just to keep some obscure clips off of youtube? Not likely. It's not like the system will automatically "know" that something is copyrighted - the copyrighted content has to be identified first. Google has not gone "insane". Do you recall they were sued for a billion dollars by Viacom? Who's the insane one? I would go with the company who thinks they are losing a billion dollars of business from college kids uploading and sharing their favoirte The Daily Show and South Park clips (which, as we all know, drive more people to actually watch their shows). And if YouTube hadn't have "sold its soul", they would likely have been sued into oblivion anyway, and they wouldn't have been able to defend themselves, or they would have been forced to put up filtering systems anyway. Just like Google is doing."

But google has already banned videos that showed satires of politicians and even videos that made fun of mundane political commentors like michelle malkin and bill o'reilly. Since youtube merged with google , there were never any users who were banned from uploading videos because of SATIRE. This tells me that googtube worries about its image more than the first amendment .Another user got banned from youtube for playing copyrighted music in the background while dancing in his room. Won't be to long before transforms into the generic basic cable we are all too familiar with.

Quote :

"But will they bother to create finger prints of every single episode of, for example, Knight Rider, just to keep some obscure clips off of youtube? Not likely. It's not like the system will automatically "know" that something is copyrighted - the copyrighted content has to be identified first."

what are you babbling about? The filtering system google created is supposed to block out any type of copyright material not original to its uploader. Sure , it may take awhile for the copyrigted content to be identify by the user , but nonetheless, the copyright material will not be up there permanently and who wants to wait around for several minutes for another user to upload the same material?

8/2/2007 3:23:28 PM

Quote :

"worst thread ever this is a good thing"

+1

Quote :

"Since youtube merged with google , there were never any users who were banned from uploading videos because of SATIRE."

It wasn't a merger- there's a big difference. I'm going to go ahead and assume that your misspoke in your quote. I think you intended to say 'prior to' instead of 'since'. I believe you're wholely incorrect if you think:
a) this was google's mistake, and similar lawsuit wouldn't have happened under youtube ownership
b) content would be removed based on political influence. in case you haven't heard, google has given a live/online audience to practically every presidential candidate thus far- suggesting a relatively unbiased perspective. what would be their motive for banning authors of satire material? perhaps the satire content you're referring to was copyright material?

8/2/2007 4:05:42 PM

Quote :

"worst thread ever this is a good thing"

Holy crap is this thread dumb.

8/2/2007 4:13:01 PM

i watched a very interesting docu on Google the other night on PBS

8/2/2007 4:34:02 PM

Quote :

"This tells me that googtube worries about its image more than the first amendment"

The 1st amendment doesn't apply here. Google/YouTube is a business. They can filter anything they want on their own services and products. Just like TWW - the owners/moderators can delete anything they want, and you can't go crying "1st amendment" about it.
Do I like it? No. Do I think most media outlets are taking the wrong approach to this? Yes. Is it well within Google's right to do so? Obviously.
Even if they take down political videos or satire or parody which is protected from copyright (and therefore should be allowed to stay up), it's still up to Google to take down whatever they want. You don't have an inherent right to host whatever video you want on YouTube.

Quote :

"The filtering system google created is supposed to block out any type of copyright material not original to its uploader. "

I seriously doubt it. Read the article, then use common sense.
"Google, which acquired YouTube in October, plans to generate a library of digital video fingerprints that would be used by a computer system to screen clips being uploaded to YouTube"

Only videos that are uploaded that create a match with the "library of digital video fingerprints" will be flagged. Now, logically, what does that mean....
1) It means that in order to be flagged as copyright infringement, a fingerprint of the video has to be stored in the YouTube library.
2) So, how does the fingerprint get stored in the library? Well, either Google or the content originator/provider has to create the fingerprint and put it in the library.
3) It's is nigh impossible to populate the library with fingerprints of every copyrighted video ever made.
so therefore, 4) there will be plenty of copyrighted video who's fingerprint was never created nor stored in the library, and will therefore go undetected.

8/2/2007 4:39:28 PM

protest google copyright filtering system users with less than 1000 posts being allowed to post topics

8/2/2007 7:00:06 PM