Google Plans YouTube Piracy Protection Video recognition software may be out this fall Tipped by ColorBASIC 
Earlier this year, Google took a lot of flak for its rapid “ takedown compliance” which pulls potentially copyrighted videos from the site almost as quickly as they’re noted, sometimes causing fair use content to be removed. We wondered at the time whether Google would follow Viacom’s lead in improving their review process. It looks like they’re going the route of new technology to make those improvements. They’re working on video-recognition technology which might be out this fall. “The video recognition technology will allow copyright owners to provide a digital fingerprint that within a minute or two will trigger a block from YouTube whenever someone tries to upload a copyright video without permission”.
|
  RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Certainly can't blame them As deep as Googles pockets are, they're a prime target for lawsuits from copyright owners and need to be very proactive in taking steps to at least be able to say they did everything in their power to try to stop it.
Personally, I still can't get over the fact that they even bought youtube. It seems to me it's a damned if they do and damned if they don't kind of business. Take away the copyrighted material and you have a questionable business model..but keep on offering it and get sued into oblivion.
Why would they want to expose their outrageously successful existing business to something like that in the first place?
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Certainly can't blame them said by Rick:As deep as Googles pockets are, they're a prime target for lawsuits from copyright owners and need to be very proactive in taking steps to at least be able to say they did everything in their power to try to stop it. Personally, I still can't get over the fact that they even bought youtube. It seems to me it's a damned if they do and damned if they don't kind of business. Take away the copyrighted material and you have a questionable business model..but keep on offering it and get sued into oblivion. Why would they want to expose their outrageously successful existing business to something like that in the first place? *sigh* google is now taking away what made youtube what it is today. people aren't going there to see grandmas cats.
filters can always be beat
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | | | | |  herb77
join:2005-02-23
Fort Myers, FL | Re: Certainly can't blame them Whats wrong with having a hooker? The guy with the camera should get a life. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Certainly can't blame them What's wrong? it was just outside of a school zone, out in front of a family style restaurant, and 3 inside of a company owned truck. He was also married and has 3 kids. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Certainly can't blame them There are people starving in this country. Rather than harass someone who was doing something in the back of the truck, in a place that neither the kids nor anyone in the restaurant could see, why not go feed people at a soup kitchen?
Harassing people because you believe they're immoral doesn't do any good to anyone. That the cameraman gets some sick pleasure out of this is even worse. He thinks he's doing something worthwhile because he's the morality police. | |
| | | | | | | herb77
join:2005-02-23
Fort Myers, FL | Re: Certainly can't blame them That camera guy is loser. I bet he looks like Ned Flanders.  | |
| | | | | | | | | OH so it'd okay with your loved one that you went around sleeping with some chick off the street corner? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Certainly can't blame them I wouldn't do that, no, but it wouldn't be any of their business if I did. | |
|
| | | | | herb77
join:2005-02-23
Fort Myers, FL
1 edit | said by hottboiinnc:What's wrong? it was just outside of a school zone, out in front of a family style restaurant, and 3 inside of a company owned truck. He was also married and has 3 kids. Just outside a school zone? Isn't that like everywhere. I got better things to care about. | |
| | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Certainly can't blame them No school zones aren't everywhere.
Edit: you're prolly one of the stupid idiots that speed through them though. | |
| | | | | | | |  FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Re: Certainly can't blame them ohhh the immorality of the oldest profession in world still in existence! | |
| | | | | | | | herb77
join:2005-02-23
Fort Myers, FL | True you got me, kids make great speed bumps | |
|
| | |
2 edits | Hot,
So should we assume you are the idiot that destroyed this man's life and played morality cop? Who gives a crap what he does or who he bangs. Is it your body that'll get the STD? Is it your job being put at risk? Is it your tax money paying this guy's job? He doesn't look like a government worker to me. Now if it was, I'd be all for you reporting him. My tax dollars aren't financing him to have sex on my time. However, this man isn't a public employee. While what he did was wrong morally, and is illegal, it's the oldest profession around. Hell, if he was in Vegas, what he did would be legal. Quite frankly, while I don't agree with his choice, it's none of my damn business. I think if you are the one who recorded this, you need to find better ways to spend your days. Get a life, a job, and a hobby, in that exact order. Btw, I hope this man presses charges on your for breaking and entering. You after all opened the back of a PRIVATELY owned truck that wasn't yours. What you did was a criminal offense. It'd be like breaking into someones car. It doesn't matter if you took something or not. If this man had any bit of a good lawyer, he'd get your evidence tossed out on that basis alone and sue you for all you're worth. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Certainly can't blame them First off I live and work in Fremont OH. This video was shot in OKC. I also work for a different store than what he does. And as far as a job. I work for Lowe's Family of Companies, Inc just as this guy did, but I'm still there. And as far as the truck being privately owned; since I'm a Lowe's employee all I need is my red vest with my name tag and employee ID card, to open any of our trucks. And as far as him being able to press charges for B&E that's up to Lowe's and Lowe's doesn't press charges on any one for anything. A valued customer means more to the company that suing someone, even shop lifters.
So before you go accusing someone of B&E and me living in OKC you better get your facts straight. I even said on my first post that I work for Lowe's but NOT at the store he works at NOR do I live anywhere NEAR him. You should learn to read. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Certainly can't blame them First, the driver could probably press charges. No matter how you look at it, it's still a private truck and the guy trespassed into it. Second, sorry for assuming it's you. However the idiot that filmed this needs to get a life. I hope that guy who is caught uses the tape to sue the other person. Not only was that evidence obtained illegally (through trespassing / breaking into a car per say), but the camera man also broke the law. I wouldn't be hard pressed to say that camera man has a good time ahead of him too. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Certainly can't blame them I'll give you that it's a private truck but when a driver has it out using it for business use Lowe' is still the one in charge of it. Such they'd be the one that would have to press charges. The store's do not even own, or have rights to the trucks that they use. Our Corp. Office (in Wilksboro, NC) "leases" them to each store. The lease agreement is basically maintenance; which comes out of the store budget. Each truck has plates from the state they're used it but insurance and everything of that such from NC. Even our truck inspections by DOT are preformed by NC; how ever in the hell they manage that one-LOL.
But as far as pressing charges against the camera man, it won't happen. It is Lowe's policy never do anything that could jeopardise any potential business. That' why we don't press charges on shop lifters or anyone else such as this guy. The chances of Lowe's doing anything to the guy but firing him; are very slim to none; only because of the potential shopper thing. Customer satisfaction is #1 NO matter what we have to do. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Certainly can't blame them I think your logic is a bit flawed. Look at it from this perspective. If you are driving a rental car, and someone carjacks you, is the rental car company the only one that can press charges? No. If you are driving a company truck, you are still considered the operator of it. While I am sure laws vary by state, it should still be pretty standard. He was under the control of the vehicle, whether as an owner or operator gives him the right to press charges. One last scenario, pretend you borrow a friends car and someone breaks in and steals your purse. Your friend could press charges for the car, but you can still press charges on the stolen purse. Hence, this man can still press charges if he has a good lawyer, on the guy for breaking and entering. While he does not own the truck, he was in control of it at the time. What the man did was no vandalism but trespassing. Two different beats. If the truck was vandalized then it'd have to be lowes that did it most likely. Being that the camera man "broke into the truck" and then illegally gathered evidence, I am sure the guy has a leg to stand on both criminally and civilly. A good lawyer could make a strong case here. After all, the man showed himself opening the door that was closed. If it were open, then the man would have no argument. It wasn't and the camera man took the initiative to tresspass. | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Certainly can't blame them It maybe flawed but like i said I work for Lowe's I know how their policies work when working for them. When hired by Lowe's you agree to their policy says that you agree to follow their policy regarding that. The first person you call is Lowe's no matter what.
I actually work in Lowe's Delivery. There is a lot of stuff they do that doesn't make sense but its the way Lowe's runs the company. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | if hes a local driver then shame shame, if hes a long hauler i dont blame him for getting some. these guys are alone in their cabs for a week or more and hey sometimes ya gotta get some. he was just showing the hooker the hardwood he kept in the truck.....
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | ha. People will just jump ship if it becomes to bad, theres so many youtube clones now adays.. | |
| | | | Re: ha. said by ztmike:People will just jump ship if it becomes to bad, theres so many youtube clones now adays.. Take your pick 
AtomUploads
Blip.tv
Bolt
Break.com
Brightcove
Clip4e.com
Clipfish
ClipShack
Dailymotion
FlickLife
Flixya
Flukiest
Flurl
GoFish
Grouper
Guba
HolyLemon
IFILM
Jumpcut
Kewego
LiveDigital
LiveVideo
Metacafe
Motionbox
MySpace Videos
Myubo
MyVideo
Revver
SelfcastTV
Sevenload
Sibir.bg
Soapbox(MSN)
Stage6 (DivX)
Tubearoo
Uberme
UnCut Video (AOL)
Uvouch.com
Vbox7
Veoh
Videotube
Viddler.com
vidilife
Vimeo
VuMe
Yahoo! Video
Zabim
Zeec
ZippyVideos.com
Zoopy
--
"Time does not actually exist beyond an artificial measure we create in our minds to separate events we experience into blocks that are easier to reference instead of as a whole single event that just happens and continues happening" - evolvedant | |
| | | | | Re: ha. you forgot pornotube | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: ha. and...
quickfap
xtube
youporn
yuvutu
redtube
badjojo
rude
megarotic
slutaddict
shufuni
timtube
cliphunter
(3x)uploads | |
|
| |  ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23 | said by BodyBumper:said by ztmike:People will just jump ship if it becomes to bad, theres so many youtube clones now adays.. Take your pick AtomUploads Blip.tv Bolt Break.com Brightcove Clip4e.com Clipfish ClipShack Dailymotion FlickLife Flixya Flukiest Flurl GoFish ....(snipped) What, no hyperlinks??? 
j/k Nice list.
--
"tick...tick...tick..." »www.jtf.org/ | |
|
| | More than that... Google is going down a slippery slope when offering to censure content on YouTube by pre-filtering content. First, they are not liable for material posted on their site up until they receive a take-down notice from a legitimate copyright owner. Secondly, the pre-filtering system can be rigged to abuse or deny the free speech rights of citizens in the areas of protected parody and political speech.
Whatever happened to the truism that any publicity is good publicity, especially free publicity? Why doesn't it hold true when applied to copyright holders IP posted on YouTube?
The whole DMCA is a crock of shit when applied to non-commercial use of IP. Google/YouTube ought to ban any smartass anal-retentive copyright owners material from EVER appearing on any Google search, or Google controlled website, once the first takedown notice is delivered to YouTube. Make copyright owners PAY for any and all publicity/advertising everywhere on the wwweb, period. Fuck'em if they can't take a joke! | |
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: More than that... Media companies already pay for their advertising on the web. They have ads posted on sister sites, TV guide and all over the place. Plus why do they need ads about their company when the shows do all the advertising for them? Also this isn't a joke. It's a matter of who owns what. I'm sure if you spent X amount of millions of dollars creating a show and putting it on TV and had to sell commercial time to pay for the channel YOU wouldn't want it to appear on YouTube or anything else for free to the public. You in return lose money from people not watching your channel; ie you lose ad revenue.
Free speech does not apply to uploading/stealing someone else's content and re-posting it else where for others.
And just to let you know Google isn't King of anything. Media companies have deeper pockets then Google will ever have and they can do without Google, they did without them long before they were created and will long after. You forget Time Warner is the largest media company in the world. They have UnCut video if they want to upload their shows; which is heavily advertised. | |
| | | | | Re: More than that... said by hottboiinnc:Media companies already pay for their advertising on the web. They have ads posted on sister sites, TV guide and all over the place. Plus why do they need ads about their company when the shows do all the advertising for them? Also this isn't a joke. It's a matter of who owns what. I'm sure if you spent X amount of millions of dollars creating a show and putting it on TV and had to sell commercial time to pay for the channel YOU wouldn't want it to appear on YouTube or anything else for free to the public. You in return lose money from people not watching your channel; ie you lose ad revenue... And, you don't have a god damn clue about what YouTube does for copyright owners in terms of publicity they would otherwise NOT have. No one who posts a snippet of a performance, or of a TV show, does anything more than promote that performer or TV show by posting it. It potentially generates interest where none may have existed; i.e., FREE advertising/publicity. Presumably, the entire TV show will have been broadcast over the air, including commercials sold to advertisers to cover the costs of production, the recording of which falls under Fair Use. Reposting a cut from such a broadcast merely promotes interest in seeing any re-broadcast of the entire programming to people who otherwise may never have seen any of it at all. No one is STEALING anything.
Additionally, Free speech will be the first thing to suffer if pre-filtering is applied to postings on YouTube that may be parodies of whatever product/performer/production that is involved.
No one is talking about uploading complete programming to P2P torrents prior to release, or even after release.
If Time-Warner, or anyone else, wants to profit off the popular culture, then they had better be ready to share it around a little. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: More than that... Anything that is recorded by any media company is not allowed to be uploaded or re-distributed in any form. Read the copyright for them. It doesn't matter if its a 20 second or even 15 second clip. It's still stealing the that part of the show.
Also actors have NO say so in what happens to their shows once they sign on a contract. The Media company does. They paid the actor for the terms of the contract and thats that. The Media company owns the show that the actor was in. Not the actor. Commercials are also copyrighted. They're owned by the company that has their product in them. The product name is copyrighted or is trade marked.
And you'll never see a damn penny from Time Warner or Viacom in terms of their programming- get over it. | |
| | | | | FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Re: More than that... fair use, anyone? | |
| | | | |
1 edit | said by hottboiinnc:Anything that is recorded by any media company is not allowed to be uploaded or re-distributed in any form. Read the copyright for them. It doesn't matter if its a 20 second or even 15 second clip. It's still stealing the that part of the show. Also actors have NO say so in what happens to their shows once they sign on a contract. The Media company does. They paid the actor for the terms of the contract and thats that. The Media company owns the show that the actor was in. Not the actor. Commercials are also copyrighted. They're owned by the company that has their product in them. The product name is copyrighted or is trade marked. And you'll never see a damn penny from Time Warner or Viacom in terms of their programming- get over it. And, once again, you entirely miss the point. NOBODY, except YOU and some copyright owners, gives a damn about copyright infringement vis a vis YouTube postings, most people just want to share their experiences with others. Furthermore, NO HARM is done to anyone by posting a snippet of a copyrighted work on YouTube. It only serves to popularize the greater work, and introduces the work to those who may have never otherwise known about it, thus providing free advertising/publicity leading to greater interest in the work in question. Non-commercial use of bits and pieces of a work, with attribution, doesn't harm anyone. Non-commercial copyright infringement is NOT STEALING, you myopic retard.
No one mentioned anything about actors, or production assistants, or first grips, electricians or any other trades people, nor has anyone suggested they have any control over the copyrights of the productions they work on.
Commercials advertise all manner of things to targeted demographic units, but they usually must pay for transmission through chosen media. On YouTube, deserving commercials are given a free ride, and reach a larger audience that focuses more attentive eyeballs on the messages conveyed therein. Can that be bad for the makers?
Who gives a fuck about Time-Warner, or Viacom? if they want to isolate themselves to a smaller market, so be it. I'm not looking to profit off Time-Warner or Viacom, or anyone else for that matter. I would say the same about people who post on YouTube. They are simply sharing their experiences with others. Don't like it, don't look.
As for the long term viability of DRM, or locked down, copyrighted work, there is none. It will fail because it ignores the underlying basis for a successful works popularity. Copyright nazis wouldn't have a thought in their pointy little heads if the cause they proselytize for was actually successful; i.e., every related thought they have was probably written and copyrighted by some self-appointed, self-aggrandizing propaganda entity or another (insert: RIAA/MPAA, as appropriate) before they assumed it was their own. | |
|
| | another good site bites the dust. Move over Napster here comes Youtube! | |
| | FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Re: another good site bites the dust. But don't MORE of the same sites/p2p's show up after the math of laywers gets finished?
Its like Pablo Escobar in Colombia.
Yea the CIA sent millions down to the country, pumping up proxy armies in the region, and with this heavy hand they took Esco out. BUT they failed to realize that the underdogs who were once afraid of Esco and his empire suddenly felt they had a chance to rize to the top...afterall the boss, was out the picture. And so Colombia turned into a much worse situation, having to deal with 9 or 10 different groups warring together instead of one maniac...
Same ish applies to YouTube IF it goes down... | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: another good site bites the dust. There are already dozens of other sites like youtube. I believe a previous post lists quite a few, but most of those you have to sort through all the Porn and most are not Safe for viewing at work. I was a huge downloader when napster was a free for all but when they started removing content what was the point of going there?
most of the fun of the internet is getting stuff for Free. The lawless nature of the internet is beginning to fade, well of course there is always 4chan.org, crap did I say that out loud, nuf said. | |
| | | | | | Re: another good site bites the dust. Oh noes! You did mention 4chan... although even Moot and other Mods have tried to prevent people from doing raids (and uh, Captain Picard if you get my jist)... but still it is pretty close to a free-for-all. | |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Blow Me Google F*ck Google, f*ck YT, and most of all, f*ck all the video copyright infringement crybabies. If it wasn't for YT, their sh*t wouldn't get one-tenth of the **FREE PR** it now receives courtesy of YT exposure. When Google starts pre-filtering content to appease the crybabies, they'll kill the goose laying the golden eggs. And I for one, can't wait for Google to suffer that blow. They need to experience a giant failure or five to put them back in place.
--
The Toll
| |
|
1 edit | Better way. What is so wrong with requiring a court order? I honestly would rather youTube send a message to the original poster saying you have 24 hours to remove the video before we remove it, or reply and dispute the notice to keep the video up. Then whoever sent the notice gets the reply and knows if they feel their claim has merit, they will have to go to court. To me it would seem that google should be stressing that the poster of the video is responsible, and they are not. If google starts taking responsibility, it's going to become illegal to host a site like this in the US. | |
| | | those filters never work right there's TONS of copyrighted material on youtube and there always will be-also, bit torrent search engine site isohunt.com has a filter and TONS of copyrighted material still shows up-when google uses this new technology, there's a very good chance that hackers will find a way to remove the digital fingerprint-there will always be ways around these filters-THEY WILL NEVER STOP US!!!!! | |
| | |  ?
| |
|
| |
|
|
