January 23, 2009
Free linking is the lifeblood of the web, without it there would be no interconnections between websites in fact the web wouldn’t be so much a web as a load of separate entity sites which only come together in a list of search results. Imagine you had to get approval for every link you wanted to refer to? That could kill the web, couldn’t it?
There’s a court case going on in the U.S. which could decide the future for this. To me it seems impossible that this could ever get a ruling in favor of the plaintiff, but what if it did? Where would you see the web a year after linking was outlawed?
Court case details here (on The Boston Globe)… oops, that’s a link!
October 16, 2007
At long last Google has announced the launch of some technology on YouTube which aims to protect copyright holders. Called YouTube Video Identification, the system does what Google has been promising to do since June, giving content owners the power to block copyrighted clips as they’re uploaded to the popular video-sharing service.
Of course, Google’s post on their blog avoids the mention of ‘blocking’ content and focuses instead on how publishers can ‘manage’ their content ‘proactively’. They also mention all the other steps they have taken to allow content to be managed on YouTube:
- Our strict repeat-infringer policy, which has been in place since our launch, terminates accounts of repeat infringers based on DMCA notices.
- We take a unique “hash” of every video removed for copyright infringement and block re-upload of that exact video file prospectively.
- We require a 10-minute limit on the length of content uploaded to the site.
- We provide content owners with an electronic notification and takedown tool, to help them more easily identify their material and notify us to take it down with the click of a mouse.
- We also publish copyright tips for users in plain English and clear, prominent messaging at the time of user upload.
Great propaganda guys… Here’s the details from the YouTube site. Will this be enough to fend off the copyright subpoenas? I think it probably will. This kind of proactive filtering approach is exactly what was needed to secure YouTube from the lawyers. Hopefully Google will continue to evolve this technology and stay ahead of the game with it, so securing YouTube’s future and allowing them to focus on the more important issues of monetising the video sharing site.
July 31, 2007
Some insights into the upcoming YouTube saving copyright filtering technology have been posted on the NY Times technology blog here. The text is a transcript from a session of the Viacom court case and is of one of Google’s lawyers trying to explain how the video signature fingerprinting technology will work.
It’s all as expected but makes for interesting reading.
June 15, 2007
Steve Chen (one of the founders of YouTube) has posted on the Google Blog to clear up the details of the video id (read copyright protection) software they are trialling.
He again confirms the use of Audible Magic for helping identify the audio content of music partners like Warner Music, Sony BMG, and Universal. And goes on to describe the video system as one that extracts key visual aspects of uploaded videos and compares that information against reference material provided by copyright holders.
His post is in response to the press and blog stories about the video technology.
June 14, 2007
Bebo have announced that they are now going to use Audible Magic to check content for copyright. This makes them the third social network to use them after first MySpace and then YouTube announced it.
Audible Magic must be doing very well indeed out of all of this, I would imagine they are wishing lawsuits on websites that haven’t yet trialled their software…
June 12, 2007
Finally an announcement from YouTube that they will be testing video fingerprinting technology soon. This comes hot on the heels of their tests with Audible Magics audio identification software so it sounds like they may implement them both.
Apparently tests are going to begin with Time Warner and Walt Disney, so if they can get it right for these two media behemoths then hopefully that should satisfy the other media companies.
The technology should be available in approx a month for testing. I would imagine it’ll be rushed out as soon as they can to stop the incoming waves of lawsuits.
May 31, 2007
Attributor is a new service that to me is very interesting. Attributor is a technology platform that allows publishers to claim their content, discover and understand how and where it is being used and profit from its distribution through content management and licensing. They’ve just announced their first customer as the Associated Press, which is a great first client to win!
Attributor has indexed 13 billion Web pages (Wow!) and says that it can digitally fingerprint any publisher’s content and report back where it appears on the Web.
This is a really smart business idea and one that is sure to reap the rewards of their innovation! I’m particularly interested as I’ve heard a rumour that it may not just run through their index looking for content but may also spider the web actively hunting down copyright breaking websites.
April 25, 2007
So now the Telegraph newspaper has come out saying that Google are stealing their copyrighted content by showing extracts in search and news results. The editor has said that they need to act to protect their content in order to protect their brand online.
This has surprised me as the Telegraph has shown a forward thinking approach to the web in the past. They’ve been rebuilding sections of their website really well and spending time on their information architecture.
To not grasp the concept of the huge benefits that being listed in Google gives them is crazy! What do they want to do? Charge Google if they want to include their news in the results? Google will just delist them if that happens, then they lose the huge benefits of being part of the most used search engine in town. And when they come crying that their traffic has plummeted to Google? Well Google will of course charge them to be relisted.
How narrow minded can old-media still be!!