Prompt's TechBlog
Google to "Fingerprint" Videos
17 October 2007
Posted by Zach
An article in yesterday's New York Times tracks the development of Google's new "fingerprinting" system for its Youtube videos. In theory, Google's internal developers have created a way to encode videos with a digital fingerprint that can identify uploaded items that violate copyright law.
Google's actions stem from a long list of complaints from media companies, generally claiming that Google's video service, Youtube, makes it far too easy for anyone to upload video and violate copyright laws. Youtube's current user interface makes it possible for anyone to upload content and takes only a few clicks. The current system used to determine if the material is copyrighted requiresthe media companies to review the site and request it to be removed retroactively.
The fingerprint system being tested would require media companies to submit their content to Google, to have it automatically encode the files. If any future attempt to upload a video that matches the fingerprint is made then the content is denied.
The surprising twist to this article is the response from the media companies: they aren't impressed. One legal representative for a media company is quoted: "I think this is a completely inadequate solution, it is too late in coming; it offers too little protection." A Viacom Exec claimed: "We obviously have suffered significant damages in the past", indirectly referring to Youtube's dominance over the online video market.
It seems that when it comes to online video clips the media companies have a bigger problem and they are just using copyright infringement as a scapegoat: they can't seem to win the popularity contest and they know this is costing them money.
Most media companies which are listed as testing this new service (including NBC, CBS, and Viacom) have their own distribution sites for online downloadable content. It's not that NBC doesn't want you searching for Saturday Night Live clips, they just want to make sure you go to their site for them first.
Through Google's robust brand "Youtube" is becoming as colloquial as "iPod". Currently NBC has "NBC 24/7 Video" and CBS has its "Innertube", online portals to download the same type of clips that are being removed from Youtube regularly.
This seems like a case of 'Keeping Up with the Googles', where media companies are doing everything they legally can to keep a hand in the competition. Google beat them all to the digital video punch when it acquired Youtube, and the media companies have been back peddling ever since to pick up online market share.
Maybe the media companies should be a little more appreciative of what Google has done here. Google currently claims that it works within copyright law, by removing any content that is found to be violating copyright law. Media companies have complained that retroactive removal hasn't been enough, so Google has stepped up and found a preemptive way to address this.
If Google is going to offer this service, the media companies should be grateful to have the option, at least until they can come up with a better solution on their own.
I am an employee at Prompt and this post reflects my personal views, and does not necessarily represent those of Prompt Communications or its clients.
Google's actions stem from a long list of complaints from media companies, generally claiming that Google's video service, Youtube, makes it far too easy for anyone to upload video and violate copyright laws. Youtube's current user interface makes it possible for anyone to upload content and takes only a few clicks. The current system used to determine if the material is copyrighted requiresthe media companies to review the site and request it to be removed retroactively.
The fingerprint system being tested would require media companies to submit their content to Google, to have it automatically encode the files. If any future attempt to upload a video that matches the fingerprint is made then the content is denied.
The surprising twist to this article is the response from the media companies: they aren't impressed. One legal representative for a media company is quoted: "I think this is a completely inadequate solution, it is too late in coming; it offers too little protection." A Viacom Exec claimed: "We obviously have suffered significant damages in the past", indirectly referring to Youtube's dominance over the online video market.
It seems that when it comes to online video clips the media companies have a bigger problem and they are just using copyright infringement as a scapegoat: they can't seem to win the popularity contest and they know this is costing them money.
Most media companies which are listed as testing this new service (including NBC, CBS, and Viacom) have their own distribution sites for online downloadable content. It's not that NBC doesn't want you searching for Saturday Night Live clips, they just want to make sure you go to their site for them first.
Through Google's robust brand "Youtube" is becoming as colloquial as "iPod". Currently NBC has "NBC 24/7 Video" and CBS has its "Innertube", online portals to download the same type of clips that are being removed from Youtube regularly.
This seems like a case of 'Keeping Up with the Googles', where media companies are doing everything they legally can to keep a hand in the competition. Google beat them all to the digital video punch when it acquired Youtube, and the media companies have been back peddling ever since to pick up online market share.
Maybe the media companies should be a little more appreciative of what Google has done here. Google currently claims that it works within copyright law, by removing any content that is found to be violating copyright law. Media companies have complained that retroactive removal hasn't been enough, so Google has stepped up and found a preemptive way to address this.
If Google is going to offer this service, the media companies should be grateful to have the option, at least until they can come up with a better solution on their own.
I am an employee at Prompt and this post reflects my personal views, and does not necessarily represent those of Prompt Communications or its clients.
Labels: google
# posted by Zach at 3:04 PM 
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home