YouTube Bans Video Essayist; Apparently Commentary No Longer Considered Fair Use
from the sigh dept
On Wednesday, at the Congressional Internet Caucus' State of the Net 2009 conference, during the panel on digital copyright, NBC Universal's Alec French made the case for technology-based filters on various websites, claiming that the filtering technology is so incredibly good these days that it can even understand fair use, and not block it. That seemed like quite a claim, and one at odds with pretty much everything we've seen. Of course, it may be in how he (and the entertainment industry) defines fair use. The example he gave was a Saturday Night Live video that was stitched together from clips from various newscasts, rather than the original SNL video. French pointed out that the software could tell the difference, and such a clip would be allowed to stay up.Unfortunately, things don't always work that way in reality. Michael Geist points out that YouTube has banned a video essayist, claiming that his commentary videos, which included clips from various movies, had to be taken down due to copyright violations -- and since it happened three times (yay, three strikes), his entire account was banned. So, here's a case where it seems that since the clips were used for commentary -- which is a clearly accepted fair use -- and, yet not only were the videos taken down, the guy's entire account was banned.
Geist points out that this isn't YouTube's fault, since it's just obeying the DMCA. But he does fault the DMCA for creating such a chilling effect on commentary and creativity. But there's a larger point too. French insists that computers can somehow tell what's fair use and what isn't -- at a time when humans still argue about it pretty much every day. I'm sure there will be some copyright system supporters who speak up in the comments (as they often do) that we're crazy to think such videos were fair use. Given that, how can anyone actually believe that a technology system can accurately determine in any automated way what is and what is not fair use?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chilling effects, commentary, copyright, fair use, filters, takedowns, videos
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's easy
(The faults of this system are far too obvious and silly to merit a serious response.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really need to proofread better. Stupid DMCA, getting me pissed off like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nuh..nuh-uh!!
PATRIOT Act. Though DMCA is basically tied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just kidding I agree but I think we should start somewhere else like the war agains drugs or the war on terror. We cant ignore the elephant in the room just because its a different color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube is committing suicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At fault or not, YouTube needs to remember where they came from. And tt wasn't DC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woah, slow down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Woah, slow down.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
I hope you left him with a good impression.
We had a nice chat, actually.
Mike, your Scottish.
Huh? Since when?
Perhaps you come off a little rough?
I don't think so. I had a nice chat with him that was quite friendly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been thinking ...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I like the US and our system of government is pretty good if I say so myself. But wiping the law books clean at all levels of government and starting fresh would be a good thing if we could put people with fresh ideas, respect for their fellow americans, and the intelligence to see consequences of their actions beyond the immediate repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been thinking ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been thinking ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course his definition of fair use is, I'm sure, that if your video/audio file/stream contains *any* of their content, it violates fair use. In that case, it's probably pretty easy (comparatively) to filter out. Just ban it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that's stupid, is that guy aware that its programmers who decide how the computers search and what they flag? or does he think computers think and analyze the data by them self's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was almost correct. Corrected version follows.
"Of course his definition of fair use is 'if your video/audio file/stream contains *any* content, it violates fair use'. In that case, it's probably pretty easy (comparatively) to filter out. Just ban it all."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Be Evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Be Evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Be Evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that what DMCA stands for? It's what it does...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it was banned in China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
Yep, and people have a perfect right to come here and criticize them for it too. Don't like? Quit reading here. Go read a book or go outside or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's get the culprit's name correct...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's get the culprit's name correct...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's get the culprit's name correct...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's get the culprit's name correct...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's get the culprit's name correct...
Lots of us "texas fucks" think his opinion is ignorant and uninformed, but your response is equally ignorant and uninformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not incorporate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better late than never....
It was nice to finally meet you last Wednesday. I hope your trip to Europe is going well.
Just wanted to respond to a few issues in this post about my comments at the State of the Net conference. I will also respond to other issues in your 1/16 post in a comment there.
(1)I don't believe that, in my comments at the conference, I insisted that computers can tell what is fair use. I was making a larger point about how the implementation of fingerprinting/filtering technologies by UGC sites demonstrates they can be deployed without impacting fair use. Thus, my point goes to both the vastly improved nature of the technology and the implementation of that technology.
As to the nature of the technology, my point was that the fingerprinting technologies employed by UGC sites (YouTube, Daily Motion, Soapbox, MySpace, etc.) and network operators (universities, corporations, etc.) are now sufficiently refined to 100% correctly distinguish copyrighted works from other works. So, there is no longer a problem with misidentifying the "Harry Potter Book Report" as a Harry Potter movie, which for years was the example cited by many CopyWrongers as to why copyright-monitoring technologies didn't work.
As to distinguishing between copyright infringement and fair use when deploying fingerprinting filters, there is no question that, generally, the distinction has to be made through application of rules developed by the UGC sites or network operators. In other words, once a file is identified as containing copyrighted material, rules govern what happens to such a file. Is it allowed to be transmitted/uploaded because the file contains less than 3 minutes of a movie, even though there is no unprotected material? Is it allowed to be transmitted/uploaded even though it contains more than 10 minutes of protected material because it also contains significant portions of unprotected material? Is it the complete episode of the TV show, with no unprotected material?
Based on the experience so far, I think the rules currently used on UGC sites have been a phenomenal success in preventing the uploading of infringing material without impacting potentially non-infringing material. I pointed out the continued availability of the SNL election clip mashup as one example of such success.
The example that Michael Geist pointed out (wrongful removal of video essayist commentary) appears to have nothing to do with the upload filtering technology employed by YouTube and the associated rules (after all, the material was successfully uploaded several times.) Rather, that material was apparently taken down pursuant to post facto "notice and takedown" demands by a copyright holder. I don't know whether the posted material did, in fact, constitute an infringement or a fair use (the addition of some commentary does not, ipso facto, make copying/distribution of copyrighted material a fair use). However, I would note that there are remedies for wrongful takedowns (suits against copyright holders for wrongful takedowns and counternotifications to UGC sites or network operators). Did the allegedly aggrived party utilize either of these remedies? (I know many will respond that such remedies are insufficient if there is any possibility that a single person's speech would be wrongfully taken down. In prophylactic response, I'd say that only the government can violate free speech rights, not private parties, so a voluntary system that successfully prevents millions/billions of copyright infringements while only very rarely stopping transmitting/uploading of non-infringing material seems like a good system.)
(2) I will take your bait and answer the question you pose at the end of the 1/15 post: "how can anyone actually believe that a technology system can accurately determine in any automated way what is and what is not fair use"?
Though I didn't assert it at the conference, I will now assert that, in some cases, computers CAN with 100% accuracy distinguish between copyright infringement and fair use. For instance, it is a fact that filtering technology CAN identify a file being transmitted through the Internet or posted to a UGC site as an exact, complete copy of our movie Milk with NO additional material included. I would contend that, since Milk is currently in theatrical release and has not been distributed by us in any other format, a computer can be 100% certain that it is, at this time, a copyright infringement to transmit/upload a file containing an exact, complete copy of the movie Milk, and thus can stop the transmission/uploading of that file with NO consequences for fair use.
Would you, and your readers, agree that there is 100% certainty that the transmission/uploading of Milk in this case constitutes copyright infringement? If so, would you and they agree that - in this case - it would be entirely appropriate to implement filtering technology to stop the transmission/uploading of the identified file?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:(
STUPID YOUTUBE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:(
STUPID YOUTUBE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]