4 ms·

No, it doesn't work. The problem is not the fact that they scan and (correctly) ignore a vast bulk of material. It's a question of what false positives it hit

No, it doesn't work. The problem is not the fact that they scan and (correctly) ignore a vast bulk of material. It's a question of what false positives it hits, and how important those false positives are. So far we've had two high profile false positives one of which is directly relevant to American civic life. At some point if your errors are high profile enough, or damaging enough, it's irrelevant how few errors you're making, damage is being done. This is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with.

res0nat0r 14y ago
I'd love to know the percentage of false positives out of their overall scan dataset. I'm sure it is extremely small. Note I haven't seen anywhere yet that the claim related to this story is actually incorrect? DNC cable coverage is perfectly copyrightable and you don't have an inherit right to watch NBC's coverage on YouTube of a political convention.
- jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
  The flagged video is on the official barakobama.com account. It is only Michelle Obama's speech and includes no commentary by any network personalities. I would be utterly shocked if the campaign did not hold full and arbitrary rights to the video of the speech. There is no way the campaign and party would not make that part of the contracts with the networks.
- mhp 14y ago
  They should tweak it so there are NO false positives. Maybe they miss a bunch of videos that have to be brought manually to their attention, but then at least the people playing by the rules are not punished. The majority of copyright usage on Youtube is probably illegal or unsanctioned. Most of the time Youtube is doing the right thing and taking down bad videos. But for the small number of people who are playing by the rules, and trying to do the thing they have asked us to do, you can't keep making them jump through hoops. They are punishing the good guys!
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    I'm sure that they would love to see that in action, but I'm pretty sure efficiently scanning the 100 years of video that is uploaded every single day isn't quite as easy as you think. Also if the group of engineers at YouTube are having a hard time getting it 100% correct you can believe it is a hard problem to solve. I'm sure the large majority of people are playing by the rules, just these small exceptions always keep getting posted to HN like they are the end of the world, but in reality they are the extremely small exception.
    - mhp 14y ago
      I don't think it's an extremely small exception. If you have content that could be copyrightable (i.e. classical music, or anything that you've licensed yourself) it will definitely get caught by the automatic filters. Here's dozens of videos in response to a company using the filters fraudulantly http://goo.gl/eI8kj http://goo.gl/eI8kj I've done the research and this affects a large percentage of legitimate users (yes, overall its a small percentage of the TOTAL users, but a large percentage of legitimate users who have copyrighted material in their videos).

res0nat0r 14y ago

I'd love to know the percentage of false positives out of their overall scan dataset. I'm sure it is extremely small. Note I haven't seen anywhere yet that the claim related to this story is actually incorrect? DNC cable coverage is perfectly copyrightable and you don't have an inherit right to watch NBC's coverage on YouTube of a political convention.

jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
The flagged video is on the official barakobama.com account. It is only Michelle Obama's speech and includes no commentary by any network personalities. I would be utterly shocked if the campaign did not hold full and arbitrary rights to the video of the speech. There is no way the campaign and party would not make that part of the contracts with the networks.
mhp 14y ago
They should tweak it so there are NO false positives. Maybe they miss a bunch of videos that have to be brought manually to their attention, but then at least the people playing by the rules are not punished. The majority of copyright usage on Youtube is probably illegal or unsanctioned. Most of the time Youtube is doing the right thing and taking down bad videos. But for the small number of people who are playing by the rules, and trying to do the thing they have asked us to do, you can't keep making them jump through hoops. They are punishing the good guys!
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  I'm sure that they would love to see that in action, but I'm pretty sure efficiently scanning the 100 years of video that is uploaded every single day isn't quite as easy as you think. Also if the group of engineers at YouTube are having a hard time getting it 100% correct you can believe it is a hard problem to solve. I'm sure the large majority of people are playing by the rules, just these small exceptions always keep getting posted to HN like they are the end of the world, but in reality they are the extremely small exception.
  - mhp 14y ago
    I don't think it's an extremely small exception. If you have content that could be copyrightable (i.e. classical music, or anything that you've licensed yourself) it will definitely get caught by the automatic filters. Here's dozens of videos in response to a company using the filters fraudulantly http://goo.gl/eI8kj http://goo.gl/eI8kj I've done the research and this affects a large percentage of legitimate users (yes, overall its a small percentage of the TOTAL users, but a large percentage of legitimate users who have copyrighted material in their videos).