3 ms·

Not only do these exist, there are significant institutional practices that exist to facilitate the sharing of detection signatures between companies and betwee

Not only do these exist, there are significant institutional practices that exist to facilitate the sharing of detection signatures between companies and between companies and various governments. It's good to prevent the re-sharing of child pornography, but a lot of companies don't like to talk about the systems because they're very much the same systems that the same companies are busy telling the content industry that they can't build to enforce copyrights. So they're generally kept pretty hush-hush by a kind of gentleman's agreement. I think general copyright is actually a thornier problem and this secrecy is unnecessary. CP is just something you can block if you see it. Tracking down exactly which uses of a copyrighted work are intended to be allowed and which are not is really much harder. And I think that's a legitimate argument, especially because it recasts the copyright debate in terms of compromises that make sense: if clearing a bunch of rights is confusing, maybe certain types of compulsory licenses are more attractive. But that debate is for another thread...

pyre 13y ago
| I think general copyright is actually a thornier | problem and this secrecy is unnecessary 1. When we talk about 'detecting copyright infringement' there is an implicit assumption that we're talking about the IP of major corporations. No one is going to bend over backwards to prevent copyright infringement of 'the small guy'[1]. 2. Even if you detect that a video contains copyrighted material, there is no central registry for you to determine if the person (or entity) has permission to distribute/use that material. Even if there was such a registry, how do you link it to an online id on some random website? 3. There is no middle-ground for fair use. Fair Use is something that is usually only definitively determined after a court battle. If restrictions are too strict, then the only way for one to exercise their Fair Use rights is a court battle. This effectively means that Fair Use would be dead for all but some rich, motivated people (at least on large content networks, e.g. YouTube). [1] Unless it wins brownie points with the public for getting a system in place to protect the 'big guys,' who are obviously the only ones that matter.

pyre 13y ago

| I think general copyright is actually a thornier | problem and this secrecy is unnecessary 1. When we talk about 'detecting copyright infringement' there is an implicit assumption that we're talking about the IP of major corporations. No one is going to bend over backwards to prevent copyright infringement of 'the small guy'[1]. 2. Even if you detect that a video contains copyrighted material, there is no central registry for you to determine if the person (or entity) has permission to distribute/use that material. Even if there was such a registry, how do you link it to an online id on some random website? 3. There is no middle-ground for fair use. Fair Use is something that is usually only definitively determined after a court battle. If restrictions are too strict, then the only way for one to exercise their Fair Use rights is a court battle. This effectively means that Fair Use would be dead for all but some rich, motivated people (at least on large content networks, e.g. YouTube). [1] Unless it wins brownie points with the public for getting a system in place to protect the 'big guys,' who are obviously the only ones that matter.