Facebook Launches Its Own Version Of ContentID, Which Will Soon Be Abused To Take Down Content
from the watch-this-space dept
Last year, after a bunch of YouTube video creators started slamming Facebook for allowing people to re-upload their videos to Facebook (they called it "freebooting"), Facebook insisted that it, too, was building a ContentID-like system to automate the process of taking down videos based on infringement claims. Last fall, the company announced that it would be using the same system basically everyone other than Google uses: Audible Magic as the backend system of that tool. And now Facebook has officially announced its product, called "Rights Manager."Today we’re announcing the launch of Rights Manager, a set of admin and workflow tools that help publishers and creators manage and protect their video content on Facebook at scale. With Rights Manager, we want to give video publishers the confidence that their content is protected across Facebook, as well as provide them with increased flexibility and greater control over the use of their video.Of course, these days, thanks to pressure from copyright holders, large platforms all feel compelled to offer something like this, even if it's not legally required. It's amusing that even in an age where the legacy players are demanding a "notice-and-staydown" system for copyright claims, they're still not happy that basically all the large platforms are already creating platforms that do exactly that.
But what's totally missing from the announcement is how Facebook will avoid the kind of abusive takedowns that YouTube's ContentID sees all the time. There's no mention of how it will protect against bogus claims. There's no mention of how it will handle disputes. Facebook just seems to pretend that the system will work perfectly and it won't be abused. There's little basis to think that's true given how widely ContentID is abused on a regular basis. The company also says that it has updated its "repeat infringer" policy, which is the new hotness thanks to some recent lawsuits over what qualifies as a reasonable repeat infringer policy.
Perhaps Facebook's system won't be nearly as abused as ContentID since it doesn't appear to (yet!) include ContentID's "monetize this use" feature -- but it still seems destined for abuse. And that's especially true since the company notes that the new system will be used against live content:
Video publishers and media companies can also provide reference streams of live content so that we can check live video on Facebook against those reference streams in real time.So I'm sure we'll start seeing examples of livestreams being killed mid-show thanks to a snippet of music playing in the background. Considering that Facebook is betting big on live streaming, a few false flags taking down events that were livestreamed due to incidental copyright-covered content playing in the background may raise questions about how viable a tool this is.
To be clear, this is a difficult position for platforms to be in. They obviously feel strong pressure to take down infringing content, and an automated solution feels like it makes sense. But we've seen how these things are abused, and it's at least a little concerning that Facebook doesn't even seem to acknowledge that possibility in its announcement.
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: automated systems, content id, copyright, notice and staydown, rights manager, takedowns
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One-sided penalties and the results from such
Fail to shut down a legitimate instance of copyright violation? Huge problem, potentially legally.
Shut down, by accident or deliberate action something that is not infringing? No problem, no penalty.
When the law heavily incentivises a 'Shoot first, ask questions only if the if the target fights back' mentality it's not surprising that all the focus would be on the takedown half, with almost none put to the 'What happens if legitimate content is taken down by the system?' half.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh wait, Mike never discusses that HUGE part of the equation. Why let context get in the way of a mindless, FUD-packed rant?
Techdirt, apologizing for piracy yet too chicken shit to discuss the hard issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're more than welcome to write and share articles focused on your "millions" of instances at your next office meeting. I'm sure you have a coworker polite enough to pretend to listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt: Fabricating abuse before it even happens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
basis of their needs
I have no clue on what basis they have decided I don't need this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: basis of their needs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And - yes, this has already happened on youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-gets-bogus-youtube-copyright-claim-bir ds-singing-background.shtml
Followup:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/13044117890/rumblefis h-ceo-claiming-copyright-your-incidental-recordings-birds-was-merely-series-unfortunate-errors.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the decline of Facebook begins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Write a story from that perspective, and perhaps it might mean more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your side's perspective lost all meaning when you decided to go for the "cry wolf" approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Free advertising is a bitch. Advertisers love bitches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The damage due to piracy is negligible, while the damage due to abusive claims is massive, it silences people and forces them out of any participation in culture and politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps this is their goal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought they had it already?
Well, as soon as it had finished uploading and farcebook started processing it, they blocked it on the grounds that it contained copyrighted material.
How the hell did they manage that if they didn't have something in already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought they had it already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The system will work perfectly
It will work perfectly, the advertisers will be pleased and continue to buy ads. The Facebook users, well they don't really count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]