Content ID, Part 2

Another problem with the Content ID system is that it misidentifies content. It is not unusual to see videos that have been matched with a certain song when, in fact, it is actually another song entirely. Many videos I’ve seen with the song “9 Crimes” by Damian Rice are eventually removed from YouTube. However, I have recently seen a few videos using that song; after looking closely, I noticed that the song on those particular videos was mistakenly identified as “Loser” by The Jades. In this example, the mistake actually allowed the video to remain available, but think of all the times where it could do the exact opposite. In some examples, these cases of “mistaken identity” are absolutely absurd.

Here is one such recent example:

This is a video of a man outside, preparing a wild salad. There is clearly no music or copyrighted material of any kind in the video. Yet, this video was matched with someone’s copyrighted content: that’s concerning. In this video the background nature noises were identified as music belonging to Rumblefish.Eventually, after disputing the copyright claim, and being refused, enough attention was called to the issue that Rumblefish took notice, and the issue was resolved. Situations like this are quite concerning to YouTube users and what it could mean in regards to free speech and creativity.

Content ID

In 2007, YouTube implemented a content identification system to better enforce copyright. This Content ID system is made up of the Audio ID system, which identifies audio that belongs to certain parties, and the Video ID system, which does the same thing for video. Copyright owners upload “reference” files to YouTube, and if a match is made, the copyright owner’s chosen method (muting it, blocking it, letting it remain, etc.) determines what is done with the video.

This video distributed by YouTube explains the Content ID process in more detail:

This idea sounds good in theory (YouTube can be better equipped to identify copyrighted material and avoid legal troubles, and companies/individuals can each pick what’s best for them, rather than having every video blocked for copyright infringement), but the system is far from perfect. Because it is focused solely on the copyright aspect (if it matches, you are automatically in the wrong) users‘ creative efforts and ability to express themselves is suppressed. The video you have posted of your students performing a new exercise routine, a fanvid you have edited of your favorite television show, a video of your sister covering a popular song; all of these examples are likely to be identified, and so, are in danger of being blocked. Some material is immediately blocked everywhere, some is blocked in certain countries, some is identified but left alone; it depends on what the copyright owner chooses.

“Fair use” of copyrighted materials does not seem to matter to YouTube and copyright owners. If content matches, it is automatically infringing on someone’s copyright. It does not matter if it IS actually using the material as you would think is acceptable from the fair use legislation. Someone uploading a copyrighted movie or song is treated the same as someone who has created a clever parody or other derivative work; these are not simply copying the original work, but changing them into a new creative work. Common sense and intent is important in determining fair use, but as you might expect, the Content ID system is not able to tell the difference.

This recreation of Laura Bell Bundy’s "Giddy On Up" video is clearly a different matter entirely than someone just uploading the track off of their CD; time, effort, and thought were clearly put into recreating the original work into something new. This spoof of the Jonas Brother’s “Paranoid” music video is another similar example.

Mega-disaster

Recently, in January, the videosharing website Megaupload (and the associated Megavideo) was taken down by the United States government. Following an investigation led by the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI, the website was seized and crew arrested for criminal copyright infringement and involvement in a money laundering scheme. This came at an interesting time, as it happened close to the debate over SOPA/PIPA. The Megaupload shutdown illustrated the fact that legislation, such as SOPA/PIPA, was not as necessary or important as some would have you think. Megaupload/video was heavily infringing on copyright and consequently punished: all done with current rules and regulations. It definitely causes you to question the necessity of new legislation (that could harm other creative efforts) when the current system seems to be doing the job. It would be like taking new medication with harmful side effects to cure an ailment that was already being treated with an existing prescription; it simply doesn’t make any sense.

The Megaupload shutdown also angered many people as everything, not just the blatant examples of copyright infringement, was seized and set to be purged. Maybe someone’s illegal copy of Twilight was removed, but so were your backup wedding pictures, student films, and other creations; this illustrates the government’s lack of care for people’s property and creative efforts. To the U.S. government, it seems that cutting out piracy, at the expense of other’s memories and works of art, is worth the price: a troubling thought indeed!

So?

So, you might ask, why does it even matter if legislation or agreements shut down/punish/block video-hosting websites like YouTube or blogs such as LiveJournal? Why is it such a big deal? How could it affect you? Well, to answer broadly, this would limit freedom of speech and stifle creativity that these websites allow. More specifically, these websites have many useful functions that some people may not realize. Any way you look at it, there are numerous benefits gained through these websites that may no longer exist with new stricter copyright protection rules.

Here are a few examples of benefits that stricter copyright laws might prevent:

*Blogs – websites such as this (Blogger, LiveJournal, Wordpress) contribute greatly to free speech. People can discuss virtually any topic; this is especially significant as it provides an opportunity for people to speak their minds . This can play a much-needed role in the lives of people who aren’t able to have their voices heard in other ways (Penrod, 2007, 17). In a Wired article, LiveJournal is even called “the country's last truly free and public space for political debate.” Websites like blogs also encourage literacy (Penrod, 2007, 22-23). Being more literate gives children a better chance to succeed in life (and hopefully give back to society where they can share their opinions about important issues). As UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) puts it, literacy is “a tool of personal empowerment and a means for social and human development.”

*YouTube – video sharing websites such as YouTube also bring helpful benefits. Users often make “Vlogs” (essentially, video blogs) where they share their view on anything from politics to the latest television show. Besides letting users freely express their thoughts, users also illustrate creativity through original videos, and derivative works such as cover songs and fanvids. In David Gauntlett’s book Making is Connecting, he explains why creativity is special and how it brings people together: “Everyday creativity refers to a process which brings together at least one active human mind, and the material or digital world, in the activity of making something which is novel in that process and evokes a feeling of joy" (2007, 76).

These are examples of a few fanvids:

*Fanfiction –– websites such as fanfiction.net grant users the power of creativity through writing fiction. As it sounds, “fanfiction” is fiction written by fans of various books/television shows/movies/comics that is based on said entertainment. These stories may be very similar to the show (an alternate ending to a scene), or almost completely different (an alternate universe story where the characters are put in a totally different environment). By coming up with countless different scenarios and imagining how the characters would act in those situations, fans are able to express creativity (and practice writing as well).

By trying to catch the ne’er-do-wells that pirate a vast amount of material, innocent individuals trying to speak their mind or embrace creativity through “fair use” may be squashed as result. So, the hardcore pirates keep doing what they have been doing, but now, the average person’s Internet freedom has been stifled – not even in exchange, but instead.

References
Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is Connecting. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Penrod, D. (2007). Using Blogs to Enhance Literacy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & 
     Littlefield Education

SOPA/PIPA/ACTA - The New Copyright Alphabet

Piracy is a huge concern for big music companies, film studios, and related groups, such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). The RIAA says that, due to global music piracy, music industries have “$12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings” and have lost “$422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes.” Given these statistics, it is no surprise that these studios and organizations are greatly supportive of legislation to make copyright rules stricter and severely limit piracy.

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act, the Senate version) and PIPA (Protect IP Act, the House version) are two recent measures by the United States Government to better enforce copyright and bring an end to piracy. This legislation would have granted the U.S. Justice Department power to shut down/block websites that seemed to violate copyright. This was a significant concern for many people and organizations; would their websites be censored for simply mentioning a television show or containing a link to a video of copyrighted content? Worrisome still, once the Government had the power to do this, would they stop at copyrighted materials, or would they use that as an excuse to block unfavorable information? In addition, the legislation wouldn’t even completely fix the piracy problem it was trying to fix; to prevent access to a website the Government would shut down the DNS address, but pirates could still get around this by simply entering the ISP number and accessing the website that way. Because of this, and concerns about limited speech and stifled creativity, many people protested the SOPA/PIPA legislation. For now, due in part to these protests, this legislation has been tabled, but it (likely after revision) could come back at any time.

Even if SOPA and PIPA never reappear, there will be other measures to try and have better control of Internet copyright and piracy: ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is one such example. In the U.S., ACTA was largely discussed behind closed doors; this seemingly secretive nature put many Americans on the alert. Unlike the SOPA/PIPA attempts by the U.S. government, ACTA is an agreement between many different countries. It has been signed by countries such as Australia, Canada, and Japan; the U.S. signed the agreement in October 2011. Some believe that the more global nature of the agreement is what is needed for something like this to actually succeed; Wired quotes Mariam Sapiro, deputy U.S. trade representative, says that “No government can single-handedly eliminate the problem of global counterfeiting and piracy. Signing this agreement is therefore an act of shared leadership and determination in the international fight against intellectual property theft.”

Whether it is SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, or something similar, certain companies and governments will fight for more aggressive pro-copyright/anti-piracy policies, while others, who feel this inhibits their creativity and free speech, will continue to fight against such measures.

Copyright & Intellectual Property

Today people spend a great deal of time and energy communicating and creating on the Internet. Intellectual property is defined as “a creative work of art, writing, film, or software that belongs to a legally protected owner” (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, 2012, 534). Basically, as you would gather from the name, it is considered the “property” of the person/company that created it. Copyright is “the legal right to control intellectual property” (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, 2012, 534). Copyright holders have the privilege to legally sell, use, or license the copyrighted material however they wish. Controlling/protecting intellectual property on the Internet is a huge concern of many people and companies; copyright infringement is a hot topic. Protecting intellectual property is important, but how far is too far? Good intentions don’t necessarily guarantee that the means to control intellectual property are reasonable to the content holder AND the many individuals using the Internet.

Copyright was designed to give some credit/compensation to creators, encouraging others to create as well (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, 2012, 454). This is only temporary; eventually works should be considered “public domain,” where they are considered “everybody’s” property and people can freely use them. Well, that’s the idea anyway; the U.S. Congress has passed legislation that extends copyright protection way past the intended lifetime of the author (currently, it is the author’s lifetime + 70 years) and the Supreme Court is even considering “re-copyrighting” some works (such as HG Wells’ Things to Come) already in the U.S. public domain.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) is a piece of legislation that was passed in 1998; it was intended to update copyright rules to allow for modern technological advances (such as CDs). It introduced the “anti-circumvention provision,” which made it a crime to do things like duplicating certain media (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, 2012, 272). This act is also significant because of the “safe harbor” provision which gives websites, such as YouTube, some protection in regards to hosting copyrighted material. As long as YouTube removes videos in response to DMCA takedown notices, initiated by unhappy copyright holders, YouTube won’t be held responsible just because a user uploads copyrighted material. This has given creativity a chance to grow, but at the same time, also allows abuse of the DMCA takedown notice.

Reference
Straubhaar, J., LaRose, R., & Davenport, L. (2012). Media Now. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.