News YouTube rolls out anti-piracy tool

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/10/16/youtube_rolls_out_anti-piracy_tool/1

Google has rolled out a new anti-piracy tool onto YouTube, which identifies pirated video as it is uploaded to the site.

 

Seriously how is this going to work? Does each TV company have to upload everything (bar repeats) their about to broadcast each day into Youtubes' filter?

Hitachi best speed up the rollout of those 4TB drives think Google will be doing a bulk purchase.

If I worked for Fox or Viacom I would be uploading my entire back catalog now, bring Youtubes servers to its knees then wait for the flame from Youtube blaming me of a denial of service attack.

 

Well I don't really care how it works as much as I care IF it works. If it does then at least Youtube will save on bandwidth bills cos honestly how many people go to Youtube for original content, huh?

 

The revenue sharing idea sounds like a good one - maybe that would shut them up. They get their cake and we can eat it... or something like that.

 

I don't think Google / YouTube will need to keep a copy of everything uploaded (though they probably can and will - Google's bandwidth and storage capacity is almost unfathomably large, and a mass upload of a network's back catalogue would bring the network's servers to its knees before Google even noticed the additional bandwidth usage). Instead, this will work in a similar way to Shazam, which analyses samples and produces abstracts (as stated in the article), which are effectively signatures or fingerprints and are MUCH smaller than the original content. Uploaded video is then compared (using Google's unparalleled search expertise) against the database of fingerprints to see if it matches. It is really quite a clever and - I guess - effective system.

The problem is that it goes against the fundamental principle of copyright law in that it places the onus on the copyright holder actively defend its rights, rather than automatically protecting the rights of content owners. Much like the Google Books, which was much derided for offering to remove content specifically complained about by the copyright holders or to refrain from uploading content where specifically asked to do so by publishers, rather than requesting permission individually from the copyright holder of each and every work (which would have been utterly impractical!). It is unfortunate, because the Books project was potentially amazing - an immense online searchable library of everything. Similarly, if YouTube fails in its endeavours because of copyright holders' compaints on this technical point of law, it will be a sad day.

 

WTF does he want? Seriously, burn in a hole

Sweet

Edit:
Not sarcastic BTW, if everyone benefits, it sounds good to me, i don't mind watching 2 mins of adverts in family guy or whatever, better then it being blocked

 

copyright law has to be revised in an urgent fashion.... it is highly impractical these days... as are patents....

 

This is awesome, can you imagine a lawsuit:
RIAA etc:"you are sharing our copyrighted material"
Google:"you didn't give us a copy to compare stuff with, so its your fault"
RIAA etc:"oh *runs away with tail between legs*"
Artist to record company:"it was your job to protect my work *sues*"
end of RIAA etc

 

arggg

 

Everyone will just migrate to another service...

Its retarded that our world is hell bent on throwning ad's and media down our throats, BUT dont share it! Retards. I pay for my satellite, so why do I get ads on it? Come on people, wake up...