YouTube to use copyright filter

YouTube will start using technology to recognise copyright-infringing videos on its site by this Autumn, according to one of its lawyers.

Recently three major content owners- Viacom, music publisher Bourne and the Premier League- have filed lawsuits against YouTube. These have been combined for trial purposes before US District Judge Louise L. Stanton.

During the US trial last week, YouTube lawyer, Philip S. Beck, told the judge that the firm was working "very intensely and cooperating" with major content companies on video recognition technology as sophisticated as the fingerprint technology used by the F.B.I.

Beck said the video recognition technology would allow owners of videos to provide a 'digital fingerprint' so that if anyone tried to share a video that infringed copyrights, the system would remove it within a minute or so.

View: Full Article @ Netimperative

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nvidia took graphics share from AMD last quarter

Next Story

Vista Performance and Reliability Pack Unofficial Release

19 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

me personally i think there just greedy! ... cause they trying to milk the average joe for everything there worth screw excessively greedy people!

cause who really cares if a music video is online or some other form of stuff... cause it aint like those guys are exactly poor.

the way i see it... is as long as u aint posting entire movies or full songs from albums (not counting music videos) then i dont really see a problem with this.

i hope there filters fail.

p.s. i dont think it's gonna be the death of youtube if they remove that sorta stuff as theres still a moderate ammount of stuff thats worth watching that is made by the average joe ... dont get me wrong though im sure the majority of it is just STUPID (like people doing stupid crap on webcams) , but u get my point

Here's an idea... instead of removing all of them, why not just remove videos that have the original advertising stripped out of them? That way the networks are just getting their stuff pushed out even more, advertisers are happy, and the consumer is happy that there is a copy of the show on there or whatever.

This filter means the end of illegal videos, also pigs can fly, Santa Clauss exist (and works for Hasbro), Elvis was abduced by the Aliens...

How would this work anyway?

Yes, the article did say they will use digital fingerprint technology. But what is stopping you from re-encoding the files to a different format and upload it - will they still spot it?

It's got nothing to do with what format the video is, but the content. It can be badly encoded, be a small clippit, or be exact same video as what the content owners have in their archives, the "fingerprinting" technology will be able to determine whether it's an infringing video regardless in the same way we can tell using our own eyes and ears. Well that's the theory, whether it will work in practice is to be seen.

Should people be allowed to freely redistribute copywritten songs (for example) because they are accompanied by a girl dancing for her webcam?

Perhaps they can also violate copyright by including a download of Vista? Or product keys for Office?

There has to be a set of rules, as this should not be a copyright free-for-all.

MrCobra said,
A 12 year old girl dancing to her favorite music is hardly distribution.
Do you really want to discuss the legality of redistributing someone's music under copyright, just by accompanying it with a dance?

Oh, yeah. Since she added video content, that is perfectly legal.

I wonder why the premier league are wanting money?

Football fans that go and watch premier league football already pay to watch the games.

If someone posts some action on youtube, what does that matter?

Not like they are posting 90 minute games.

What you see with your own eyes will become copyrighted also I guess.

Because they own the rights to those clips. If they're freely available on youtube then other legal broadasters and internet sites won't want to pay as much for them. Premier league highlights are worth millions. Why should other broadcasters have to pay but youtube gets to show them for free.

Youtube now owe the premier league millions in royalty fees and the premier league have every right to demand that money from youtube.