9 ms·
Facebook Rights Manager
- 6stringmerc 11y agoFound via this article: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/7333040/facebook-tackles-freebooting-with-rights-manager-tool http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/7333040/facebook-tackl...
- jaryd 11y agoFor those of you, like me, who didn't know what "freebooting" is: "the dubious practice where Business Pages and celebs can rip videos from elsewhere, repost the content on Facebook and grow their brands while robbing the content creators of views." (From the article)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- scrollaway 11y agoThere's a linguist inside me all giddy, having seen the birth of a word and seeing it getting adopted into the mainstream. (For those who don't know, the word, in the context of copyright, was invented on the excellent Hello Internet podcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j-tCHzjam4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j-tCHzjam4)
- garrettgrimsley 11y agoIt was adopted for this new use, but like the word "piracy" it has been around for quite awhile. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freebooting https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freebooting
- BHSPitMonkey 11y agoIt's a bit more specific than piracy, since piracy today is more commonly associated with an individual stealing content for personal use, or to resell the content itself.
- filthydumbidiot 11y agoFreebooting is certainly more specific than piracy, but I think you may have missed the word "like" in there. GP means that the word "freebooting" itself is not new, but its new meaning in today's context is (like "pirate") new.
- overcast 11y agoSo basically the majority of the top Instagram accounts. I'm curious to see what they do about that, because those accounts get huge doing absolutely nothing. Especially those "travel" accounts that rip off every other photographer.
- NetOpWibby 11y agoOh nice! It's about time.
- rsync 11y ago"the dubious practice where Business Pages and celebs can rip videos from elsewhere, repost the content on Facebook and grow their brands while robbing the content creators of views." So ... that is the definition of freebooting ... But what is the definition of "believing that freebooting, and things like it, work at all ?"
- Buge 11y agoWhat do you mean? The evidence seems to show that it does work, although I guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve. Although hopefully this update will stop it working.
- sbuttgereit 11y agoWhether or not it works for the bad guy in this situation is an open question (maybe someone has researched it); there's certainly a perception that it does since it keeps happening. But the commentary from those that are the victims indicate that this sort of thing could be very problematic for them. So I do hope that this and this sort of thing helps lock the bad actors out.
- mmanfrin 11y agoNearly every large page that shows up on FB grew by poaching videos. LAD Bible, IFLS, every one of them.
- devy 11y agoIs "freebooting" related to "bootlegging"? https://www.google.com/#q=bootlegging https://www.google.com/#q=bootlegging
- corin_ 11y agoNo, it's not. The 'boot' in 'freebooting' comes from the Dutch word 'buit' which means 'booty', the 'boot' in 'bootlegging' comes from boots you wear on your feet (in the leg of which you could hide a flask of illegal alcohol).
- dmix 11y agoIsn't this Buzzfeed's business model?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Blackthorn 11y agoPlease describe exactly how BuzzFeed does this.
- thomseddon 11y agoWhy would they choose to host this on Wordpress VIP?
- Raphmedia 11y agoBecause it's a one page website that you can have an intern do in about one or two days?
- duaneb 11y agoYea, but it's a hefty bill when facebook runs their own data centers. They could host this for pennies, basically.
- mikey_p 11y agoIt's not really a hefty bill if you figure in the time and energy to put ops people into building an HA Wordpress platform that's equivalent to Wordpress VIP, when Facebook isn't a hosting company in the first place.
- arich 11y agoI'm actually wondering the same thing. Have you seen the hosting cost? $10,000/month avg. Clearly they can handle traffic themselves. What's the advantage here?
- shardo 11y agoIf this works as intended, then it is a step in the right direction. I wonder why it took them so long though.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoFrom a content creator standpoint, I believe Facebook is trying to "sprawl" into media-type endeavors and hosting. As in they'd rather have the super-cool-viral-video in their ecosystem instead of linking out to YouTube. This creates a lot of friction - the notion of enforcement at the potential cost of market growth. I agree it's a good thing they're doing this.
- specialist 11y agoMy guess is turf grab followed by backfilling features needed (demanded) by a mature ecosystem. Started playing with Graph API. I was pleasantly surprised that it had matured with some user privacy preserving kabuki. Like issuing unique user ids per app. An earnest effort to make it harder to aggregate and correlate ids across apps. (Alas, deanonymization is pretty easy.)
- tomtoise 11y agoSo.. how is 'freebooting' different to posting on reddit/HN/imgur/$site ? You're growing your 'brand' as a poster of interesting/funny things (as seen via Karma), I suppose that as long as these entities don't attempt to claim this media as 'original content', I don't really have a problem. If anything, attributing to the original creator is as simple as pressing 'share status' on facebook, instead of posting a direct url to the content in question. edit - I fundamentally misunderstood the term freebooting. Will leave comment intact so replies still make sense, but thank you to child posters for clearing up my misconception.
- manigandham 11y agoThe views are on facebook rather than the originating post/platform because the actual video itself is ripped and posted. This damages rankings, analytics, SEO, editorial control and ad revenue.
- randomgyatwork 11y agoAd revenue is the most important part of this.
- ihuman 11y agoFreebooting is not posting a link to someone's original content. It is when you reupload the content to your page/channel/website, and then link that. The views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator.
- wlesieutre 11y ago90% of content on the default subreddits has been ripped from its original source and rehosted on imgur or gfycat. The remaining 10% are links to YouTube. The people doing it aren't profiting from ads like they would by doing it on Facebook, but they're still taking away the pageviews from the original creator.
- icebraining 11y ago
- NOSHSHNACKERS 11y agoThis sounds like what Google went through with Youtube. I like Youtube.
- falcolas 11y agoI'll be curious to see how they will handle "strikes" against an account - will it be similar to YouTube, where 3 strikes shuts you down, or will it be more lenient? I notice there's no recovery mechanism mentioned when it's not a DMCA takedown, other than "We'll tell you".
- jlgaddis 11y ago> It's our policy to disable the accounts and Pages of people who repeatedly infringe others’ intellectual property rights when appropriate.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoI wonder if "when appropriate" could be further clarified. Nasty email? Letter from a lawyer? Hm.
- dexwiz 11y agoDoes this only work if you also upload to Facebook? If so, this forces you to use Facebook if you want to be "protected" by Facebook.
- tokenizerrr 11y agoWould you expect Facebook to contact third parties on your behalf?
- DanBC 11y agoI understood dexwiz to be saying: Ann is a content creator. She doesn't use facebook. Bob is a freebooter, and steals Ann's content, and posts it to his facebook page, grabbing views and ad revenue. Is Ann protected by this new thing from Facebook? Or does Ann need to become a Facebook user to become protected by this thing?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- astazangasta 11y agoAgain, the world where our main priority is assuring 'compensation' and 'rights' for our 'content' is the same one where rent-seeking assholes exploit artists. Steve Miller's rant was only yesterday. The harder we let corporations ossify the notion that all knowledge should be owned and paid for every time it is used, the more we will suffer. Finally, you can't steal what is given away free. It's time for a paradigm shift, humanity. Slay this dragon.
- kayoone 11y agoNot a native speaker so i might not get the point, but most if this content is free anyway but the creators are getting robbed from views an increasing their own reach while others directly benefit from that. So many dubious facebook "celebrities" that use this to extend their audience which they can then sell ads to, it is really sickening.
- astazangasta 11y agoTo be clear: to hell with 'views' and attaching ad revenue to art.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dreamdu5t 11y agoThey aren't robbed of views - they didn't have those views in the first place and didn't create them - the freebooter did
- Agustus 11y agoIn the knowledge business world, the ability to do something requires a huge amount of capital to just get an initial product out the door. For a photographer to take an amazing photo of Zion National Park, they have travel, equipment, and time expenses. In this case, how does the photographer get compensated for all of this if some celeb or background site takes the photo and writes on it: "My home on the range." The huge back-end that is required to make something is the unseen portion of the economy, there should be a rights warehouse making it easy to put things on and declare usage fees. *Edit: their to there, because I is grammatically correct.
- tomclancy 11y agoRipped content - It's what made YouTube grow and what made FB Video grow. FB is taking steps to crack down on copyright theft now that the video platform is large enough (just like what YouTube did).
- samstave 11y agoSo... Hypocrisy?
- chinathrow 11y agoWell planned stages, I'd say.
- untothebreach 11y agoyes, but in this context it's called "capitalism"
- TheLogothete 11y agoNobody said capitalism is without faults. It's just the only realistic option.
- magicalist 11y ago> So... Hypocrisy? on who's part? Did I miss an outraged lawsuit coming out of Youtube over freebooted videos?
- jonlucc 11y agoNot that it's any more legal or ethical, but there's a large difference in perception between stealing content from large companies (media companies) to rehost on a free platform and stealing from starving artists and claiming it as your own. It is my understanding that YouTube grew largely by the former.
- brokentone 11y agoFB also seems to be a bit of the former. Here (https://www.facebook.com/GoodMorningAmerica/videos/10153372841517061/ https://www.facebook.com/GoodMorningAmerica/videos/101533728...) is an anecdotal clip that ABC/GMA stole from this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU13ByIYkew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU13ByIYkew) with no credit, they flipped, and re-watermarked his video. They got 22mm views on something the author only has 0.5mm views. Terrible ABC, terrible.
- gadders 11y agoI wish they'd crack down on "Like Farmers" first (EG Picture of injured dog with "Like if you are against animal cruelty")
- milkey_mouse 11y agoBut that's not blatantly illegal. Annoying, but not illegal.
- superzamp 11y agoRelevant explanation of the issue from In a Nutshell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q
- felipesabino 11y agoSmarter Every Day has a good take on it as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA
- iamleppert 11y agoIs it just me or are there others who think the only one who wins here is Facebook? They are literally sucking up all original content, everywhere. They want you to upload your entire IP library to them so they can check and see if its being used "for you".
- smilekzs 11y agoThe library does not have to be full-resolution, no?
- dmoy 11y agoI dunno, it sounds to me like it's just a clone of youtube ContentID. In that sense, they're maybe doing it at their lawyers' behest to try and stop looming lawsuits.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- 0xADADA 11y agoDING DING DING "Digital Rights Management" more like "Digital Restrictions Management"
- dbot 11y ago>Do I own the copyright to something that I filmed from television or a live concert or sporting event on my own camcorder or phone? ... Just because you recorded a live event or publicly broadcasted show onto your own recording device, doesn’t necessarily mean that you aren’t infringing the rights of the person or company that owns the copyright to the television show or performance. This is an area of copyright I have the biggest problem with. If I'm at a venue, copyright holders should not be able to exercise copyright claims over what I see/hear while attending, unless the ticket itself puts a restriction on recordation. In the latter case, that becomes a function of license enforcement that cannot be effected thru the DMCA. Imagine you record a video with friends - the band is playing in the background. Copyright law allows the band to takedown the clip.
- fluxquanta 11y ago>unless the ticket itself puts a restriction on recordation They almost always do (at least in my experience), it's just rarely enforced.
- dreamdu5t 11y agosomeone should randomly generate images and copyright every combination of pixels possible.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]