Weekly Edition
Return to the Security page
| |||||||||||||
Security quotes of the week
Very unfortunately at 7:43 p.m. Pacific time, the channel was automatically banned in the middle of an acceptance speech by author Neil Gaiman due to “copyright infringement.” This occurred because our 3rd party automated infringement system, Vobile, detected content in the stream that it deemed to be copyrighted. Vobile is a system that rights holders upload their content for review on many video sites around the web. The video clips shown prior to Neil’s speech automatically triggered the 3rd party system at the behest of the copyright holder.
-- Brad
Hunstable explains why Ustream stopped showing the live stream of the
Hugo Awards
Our editorial team and content monitors almost immediately noticed a flood of livid Twitter messages about the ban and attempted to restore the broadcast. Unfortunately, we were not able to lift the ban before the broadcast ended. We had many unhappy viewers as a result, and for that I am truly sorry. As a long-time Firefly, Stargate and Game of Thrones fan among others, I am especially disheartened by this.
Here's an example of what has happened to me (and many other people). I uploaded a video of mine that included a segment of old, definitely public domain material. Shortly thereafter, my entire vid was flagged by YouTube's Content ID. Why? It took some digging to figure out, but it turns out a Content ID partner had uploaded a video of their own that happened to include a section of the same public domain material I had used. This apparently made it look like my video was infringing, since Content ID assumed the section of my vid that matched their vid was in violation. Wrong! But Content ID partners get the assumption of being correct, and there's no way for an average user to assert that something is public domain a priori. I was able to get this reversed by careful explanation on the appropriate forms, but I wonder how many people would just throw up their arms and say, "To hell with it!" and not bother?
-- Lauren
Weinstein(Log in to post comments)
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 1:34 UTC (Fri) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]
If a 'bot has the authority to cut off Lauren's video that same 'bot should get the authority to automatically cut Lauren a check to compensate him for time and aggravation. With great power comes great responsibility... oops; copyright violati@&*#(^$carrier dropped
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 3:55 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
The fundamental problem with these "content ID" services: they don't offer a counter-notice mechanism. The DMCA allows users to provide a counter-notice, saying that the content should go back up, and taking full responsibility for it; that then indemnifies the hosting service, and effectively tells the entity making an infringement claim "sue me if you think you have a case". However, these "content ID" services don't have such a mechanism.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 3:56 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
(To clarify, the existence of these services seems like a bug in the first place, but the issue I mentioned seems like the most *fatal* problem with their operation other than their existence.)
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 10:14 UTC (Fri) by Tjebbe (subscriber, #34055) [Link]
right, the fundamental problem there is that it is 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' and not the other way around.
It's also one-directional; there do not seem to be any penalties if the 'rightsholders' make false claims (automated or not). So there is no incentive for them not to overshoot.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 13:03 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
The fundamental problem here is people assume that "Intellectual Property Law" is legitimate just because it's a law or that 'people have a right to make money from their work'.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 11:27 UTC (Fri) by mina86 (subscriber, #68442) [Link]
Uh? Where did you get that information from? If your video gets flagged on YouTube you can say that you have the right to publish it and the it will not be blocked. Of course, if the video really infringed, you may expect a threat from some lawyer.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 14:51 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
I haven't had a video flagged personally, so this information comes from reports I've seen over the last several years; as I understand it you have an option to claim that it doesn't infringe, but that option doesn't do anything except cause the entity flagging your video to re-examine it, and if they say "no" again then you have no further recourse.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 15:37 UTC (Fri) by mina86 (subscriber, #68442) [Link]
According to my understanding of what http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid_dispute says (and what in fact I know from other sources inside Google), if person uploading the video fills a form claiming that it has been misidentified, the video is immediately unblocked and owner of the original video that matched has to fill an DMCA if she still believes uploader infringes copyright.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 7, 2012 15:55 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
Nothing on the page you linked to says that the video will be immediately unblocked, and I've seen many reports from people with blocked videos who have specifically said the video remains blocked. "We then notify the content owner whose reference material was matched. The content owner will then review the match. If the content owner disagrees with your dispute for any reason..."
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 10, 2012 7:36 UTC (Mon) by mina86 (subscriber, #68442) [Link]
All right, found a better source <http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/04/content-id-and...> which states that “Once you've filed your dispute, your video immediately goes back up on YouTube.”
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 10, 2012 7:14 UTC (Mon) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
> Uh? Where did you get that information from?
I guess from everyone who ever tried to appeal the automated ban due to copyright violation. There are lots and lots of horror stories on the Internet. Bottom line: if you're not a megacorporation, nobody really cares about you.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 10, 2012 7:28 UTC (Mon) by mina86 (subscriber, #68442) [Link]
The only horror stories I've heard was of people who *did not* dispute the ContentID match in fear of later legal actions from the owner of content that matched. This is a completely different issue.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 8, 2012 4:07 UTC (Sat) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
It's not just "contentid", there appears to be a thriving little industry of people going around and fraudulently claiming ownership of random files— especially old uploads of inactive users— so they can collect ad income. It's not like youtube is incented to be be especially critical of the claims or repeat abusers— they make money on those adds too.
One of the lame side effects of this is an enormous amount of the whole youtube collection becoming inaccessible to Firefox HTML5/Webm: The ads require flash.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 8, 2012 20:34 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
The system appears to be Working As Designed.
But isn't there a prescribed way, under the law, to make the putative content owner pay a penalty for falsely claiming ownership? Isn't there a business opportunity there? And the "service" that reports "violations" ... don't they have a responsibility to their customers not to expose them to liability like this? I.e. they should be indemnifying their customers and paying the penalties themselves.
Maybe an injunction is in order, until these "services" can develop some scruples.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 9, 2012 7:52 UTC (Sun) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
DMCA claims are made under oath. So yes, your rogue bot technically opens you to lawsuits for perjury. The problem is, nobody being falsely accused of copyright infringement opened such a lawsuit yet.
Security quotes of the week Posted Sep 10, 2012 0:52 UTC (Mon) by Fowl (subscriber, #65667) [Link]
The problem is that these bots aren't making DCMA claims, theyr're just participating in an entirely voluntary process invented by the provider.
Obviously there is coercion/pressure being placed on providers by rights-holders to implement these systems, although I would have thought the providers would be very wary about waiving their safe harbour protections by interfering in this way.
|
|||||||||||||