NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Mars vs. Copyright vs. YouTube
Mars vs. Copyright vs. YouTube
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000976.html
As NASA's "Curiosity" probe made a spectacular and picture-perfect
landing on the red planet a few days ago, much of the world was
gathered around their televisions and computer screens to see the live
show (luckily, since the interplanetary performance wasn't limited to
NBC, we didn't have to wait for a prime-time delayed presentation).
In the wake of the landing, vast amounts of associated NASA-generated
video -- all of it in the public domain -- has been incorporated into
shows and other videos being uploaded by users of Google's YouTube.
But the incredible popularity of this new NASA footage has once again
spotlighted an enduring issue with YouTube, which in general has been
a matter of increasing concern and irritation for many YouTube users.
As we've discussed previously, the rights issues surrounding videos on
YouTube can be very complex, as is the history of YouTube itself --
not to mention ongoing legal actions such as Viacom's massive (and
many would argue, significantly hypocritical) associated lawsuit
against YouTube/Google.
Google employs a number of mechanisms to try deal with these
complicated intellectual property concerns, relying mainly on
automated systems to process the vast amount of video uploaded to
YouTube continuously -- almost 8 years worth of video every day. To
instead pre-screen and pre-approve such a mountain of materials with
human screeners would obviously not only be impractical, but raise the
specter of outright censorship as well.
There are basically two enforcement systems on YouTube. One is
"copyright strikes." These are the really serious ones. A strike (a
specific claim by a video owner that material is directly infringing)
results in the immediate removal of the video in question, and three
strikes can result in the removal of all the user's videos and closure
of their account. Strikes can take about six months of "good
behavior" to expire.
Much more common, and by virtue of this fact probably far more
irritating to far more users, are Content ID (CID) hits. These are
generally fully automated events on YouTube (and on Google+ "Live On
Air" Hangouts as well), triggered by pattern content matches against
materials and resulting templates provided by participants in
YouTube's CID program.
CID hits don't impact the overall status of user accounts. There is
not (as far as I know) any limit to the number of CID hits an account
may accumulate.
But CID hits do matter, and they can be maddening.
Because they are fully automated, "false" CID hits are extremely
common. In same cases, these are the result of overzealous (or even
fraudulent) CID users.
There can be an incentive for such behavior. The "owner" of a CID
claim can effectively choose the penalty -- which can then be
arbitrarily changed at any time. This can range from blocking of the
video globally, in certain countries or regions, or -- more
commonly -- the displaying of ads along with the video, with revenue
going to the CID claimant, not the party who uploaded the video.
Sometimes this CID ad model works out well. It has permitted many
YouTube users to use music in their videos without appropriate
licenses, often subject only to a "Buy the music here" or other
ad-related insertions.
But if a video uploader feels that they are using all public domain
materials, or materials they created solely by themselves, even the
presence of outside ads can be irritating -- and obviously it's much
worse when video blocking due to CID claims is in play.
The CID "video reuse" problem is a classic example of how things can
go wrong, and one that people ask me about in relation to Google
nearly every day.
For example, if party A (not a CID participant) uploads a video that
contains some public domain or original material, and party B (a CID
participant) uploads a video that also uses some of the same public
domain content (or even some of party A's original content), CID may
in some cases flag party A's video as being in violation of party B.
I've had this happen myself. I've had both public domain video and
public domain music excerpts falsely flagged by CID.
And this is also what's been happening with the new NASA Curiosity
footage. Various ordinary YouTube users who displayed that public
domain material in their uploaded videos are in some cases reportedly
being swamped by Content ID hits from CID participants like news
agencies and the like, who also used that same public domain footage.
When a Copyright Strike or Content ID hit occurs, YouTube sends the
associated user an alert and pointer to forms for disputing the claim.
These forms have been significantly improved recently, becoming easier
to understand and covering more common use cases -- though there are
still situations that can be difficult to accurately characterize via
the forms.
Typically, when you file a dispute -- e.g. "The material in question
is public domain." -- videos are essentially immediately restored and
outside ads pulled down, until the claimant responds to the dispute.
Sometimes this process flows reasonably. Other times, claimants seem
to perform what amount to pro forma rejections of disputes (returning
the videos to their blocked/ad-insertion status), leaving the typical
uploader with no practical further recourse.
Fundamental to many person's complaints about this situation is the
implied "guilty until proven innocent" nature of the system. Even
with the dispute mechanism in place, this strikes many observers as
fundamentally unfair.
On the other hand, Content ID is fundamental to letting people upload
video at all without pre-screening authorization. Trying to handle
this primarily without the use of automated systems would be
unthinkable.
Answers to these dilemmas don't come easily. You can't simply assume
that the first party to upload material has the rights to it.
But it could be useful for parties who generate a great deal of public
domain video (like NASA) to have an easy way to quickly indicate the
status of their videos, so that included footage would not be used as
triggers for CID hits.
A bit more "friction" in the system when dealing with materials that
are not already known to be widely abused could also be useful.
In such cases, instead of blocking/ad-insertions immediately applying
upon the triggering of CID, perhaps a warning could be sent out to
both parties allowing them to discuss/negotiate the status of the
footage in question (say up to 24 hours or some such) before primary
CID-triggered actions (such as ads/blocking) would be deployed.
Some might argue that this would create a "window" for purposeful
uploader abuse, but I believe this could still be limited
algorithmically. Another counter-argument could perhaps be that busy
media firms with large video holdings might not always be able to
respond within a short time frame.
All that said, the underlying YouTube "penalty first, then try prove
your innocence" status quo, even given the existing dispute
mechanisms, seems increasingly untenable.
Legitimate rights holders most certainly should be able to protect
their content.
But we should also be able to do better all around to create a more
equitable framework for dealing with these situations, which would
include the automated systems, routine dispute processes, and a means
for escalated appeals.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad