4 ms·

Several companies have falsely filed claims on the stock sounds in Final Cut Pro and GarageBand as well. It irritates me to no end. More importantly though, it

Several companies have falsely filed claims on the stock sounds in Final Cut Pro and GarageBand as well. It irritates me to no end. More importantly though, it illustrates how Google likes to make sweeping solutions based on generalizations. They created a system which allows content owners to claim they own any and all content, regardless of the veracity of their claim.

revelation 15y ago
Certainly Google doesn't "like" to make any kind of solutions to help a dying industry. The content recognition system likely cost in the tens of millions in development and is probably eating up lots and lots of processing power just to operate it.
- gergles 15y ago
  Which makes one wonder why they pandered to the content industry with it at all. There's no requirement they make such a system, and it makes their service less desirable and usable. Google's responsibility is to respond to DMCA notices; that's it. They have no requirement to create a Draconian copyright monitor. (The standard response is "so the content industry would work with us!!!" Who gives a shit? Oh no, we wouldn't have any of the shitty "Vevo" channels laced with advertising without Content ID. What a terrible loss that would be.)
  - jdietrich 15y ago
    If the record industry is dying, how much do you imagine they're willing to spend on lobbying to delay their fate? Any regulation of the internet places a disproportionate burden on Google, simply because of their size. They know this, the RIAA/MPAA know this. The RIAA would happily spend billions and kill Google in the process if it bought them another few years of the good old days.
  - jaylevitt 15y ago
    Because responding to DMCA notices would take people, and Google always prefers algorithms over manual labor. I'm half convinced that the whole reason they're developing driverless cars is for Google Maps, the one Google property that requires a huge labor force.
- rickmb 15y ago
  Excuse me, but despite Google's opposition to SOPA, which was purely motivated by self-interest, they have put themselves firmly in the camp of the copyright mafia. They have been very outspoken in their support for the "fight against piracy", and have regularly implemented "solutions" without any legal obligation to do so. One example being filtering "piracy related terms" from it's autocomplete feature in Google Search. Google actively supports that "dying industry", because certain parts of Google, like YouTube, have a vested interest in good relations with said industry.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Perhaps, or it could be their answer to "how can we avoid fighting frivolous lawsuits". Remember, Big Content can sue Google for any reason they want to. If Google can placate them and they back off, that might be in their short-term best interest. (I work for Google but know nothing specific about this beyond what I've observed as a user of YouTube.) To me, content filtering seems like a nice bullet point in the "we don't condone copyright infringement" department. It reduces complaints that result in lawsuits, and doesn't really hurt anyone. If anything, it discourages reuse of RIAA/MPAA content and encourages the creation of new free-as-in-speech content, and that's definitely a good thing. Your cat video doesn't need a top-40 soundtrack to be enjoyable! (It's similar to how Microsoft's attempt to lock up the web with proprietary technology resulted in Free Software web browsers becoming usable. Remember the days of "This site only works in IE"? Now pretty much every site works in pretty much any browser. Epic win.)
    - mukyu 15y ago
      Their content matching system came about in the middle of a billion dollar lawsuit from Viacom. Given that youtube was full of Viacom's assets (such as videos of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report) I find it hard to classify such a lawsuit as 'frivolous'. Which makes more sense, youtube implementing a content matching system and running it on all of the videos uploaded or Viacom and every other copyright holder making their own systems (or buying into one) that tries to go through every video uploaded to youtube?
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  So why are they doing it then? They are not obligated to do this for the big labels. They're voluntarily doing it because they want to be on the labels' good side, now that they want to sell music and other content.
jasonlotito 15y ago
The same thing has happened for videos created with iMovie. Specifically, a video I made for friends using the trailer creator feature.
jrockway 15y ago
More importantly though, it illustrates how Google likes to make sweeping solutions based on generalizations. How would you scale YouTube? Extrapolating from historical data, YouTube gets 1.3 million uploads per day. That's a lot of videos to sort out.

revelation 15y ago

Certainly Google doesn't "like" to make any kind of solutions to help a dying industry. The content recognition system likely cost in the tens of millions in development and is probably eating up lots and lots of processing power just to operate it.

gergles 15y ago
Which makes one wonder why they pandered to the content industry with it at all. There's no requirement they make such a system, and it makes their service less desirable and usable. Google's responsibility is to respond to DMCA notices; that's it. They have no requirement to create a Draconian copyright monitor. (The standard response is "so the content industry would work with us!!!" Who gives a shit? Oh no, we wouldn't have any of the shitty "Vevo" channels laced with advertising without Content ID. What a terrible loss that would be.)
- jdietrich 15y ago
  If the record industry is dying, how much do you imagine they're willing to spend on lobbying to delay their fate? Any regulation of the internet places a disproportionate burden on Google, simply because of their size. They know this, the RIAA/MPAA know this. The RIAA would happily spend billions and kill Google in the process if it bought them another few years of the good old days.
- jaylevitt 15y ago
  Because responding to DMCA notices would take people, and Google always prefers algorithms over manual labor. I'm half convinced that the whole reason they're developing driverless cars is for Google Maps, the one Google property that requires a huge labor force.
rickmb 15y ago
Excuse me, but despite Google's opposition to SOPA, which was purely motivated by self-interest, they have put themselves firmly in the camp of the copyright mafia. They have been very outspoken in their support for the "fight against piracy", and have regularly implemented "solutions" without any legal obligation to do so. One example being filtering "piracy related terms" from it's autocomplete feature in Google Search. Google actively supports that "dying industry", because certain parts of Google, like YouTube, have a vested interest in good relations with said industry.
- jrockway 15y ago
  Perhaps, or it could be their answer to "how can we avoid fighting frivolous lawsuits". Remember, Big Content can sue Google for any reason they want to. If Google can placate them and they back off, that might be in their short-term best interest. (I work for Google but know nothing specific about this beyond what I've observed as a user of YouTube.) To me, content filtering seems like a nice bullet point in the "we don't condone copyright infringement" department. It reduces complaints that result in lawsuits, and doesn't really hurt anyone. If anything, it discourages reuse of RIAA/MPAA content and encourages the creation of new free-as-in-speech content, and that's definitely a good thing. Your cat video doesn't need a top-40 soundtrack to be enjoyable! (It's similar to how Microsoft's attempt to lock up the web with proprietary technology resulted in Free Software web browsers becoming usable. Remember the days of "This site only works in IE"? Now pretty much every site works in pretty much any browser. Epic win.)
  - mukyu 15y ago
    Their content matching system came about in the middle of a billion dollar lawsuit from Viacom. Given that youtube was full of Viacom's assets (such as videos of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report) I find it hard to classify such a lawsuit as 'frivolous'. Which makes more sense, youtube implementing a content matching system and running it on all of the videos uploaded or Viacom and every other copyright holder making their own systems (or buying into one) that tries to go through every video uploaded to youtube?
nextparadigms 15y ago
So why are they doing it then? They are not obligated to do this for the big labels. They're voluntarily doing it because they want to be on the labels' good side, now that they want to sell music and other content.

jasonlotito 15y ago

The same thing has happened for videos created with iMovie. Specifically, a video I made for friends using the trailer creator feature.

jrockway 15y ago

More importantly though, it illustrates how Google likes to make sweeping solutions based on generalizations. How would you scale YouTube? Extrapolating from historical data, YouTube gets 1.3 million uploads per day. That's a lot of videos to sort out.