Automating Notice And Takedown
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Automating Notice And Takedown



Presentation given at Progress and Freedom Foundation seminar, "What Goes Up Must Come Down: Copyright and Process in the Age of User-posted Content," March 2007, Washington, DC

Presentation given at Progress and Freedom Foundation seminar, "What Goes Up Must Come Down: Copyright and Process in the Age of User-posted Content," March 2007, Washington, DC



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



3 Embeds 212 210 1 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Automating Notice And Takedown Automating Notice And Takedown Presentation Transcript

  • Slide 1 Automating Notice and Takedown Bill Rosenblatt GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies (212) 956 1045 © 2007 GiantSteps 1 Media Technology Strategies
  • Slide 2 Two Competing Ideas Notice and Takedown Filtering  Provided for in copyright law  Private-sector technology  Reactive  Proactive  Observe one’s copyrighted  Network operator adopts material on a network without technology to identify content authorization  When conetent is uploaded to  Send notice to network operator network, acoustic fingerprinting  Operator removes work technology automatically  Example: YouTube identifies and blocks it  Technology vendors: Audible Magic, Philips, Gracenote, others  Examples: MySpace, iMesh © 2007 GiantSteps 2 Media Technology Strategies
  • Slide 3 Whose Responsibility? Notice and Takedown Filtering  Copyright owner:  Copyright owner: – Monitor networks to identify works – Feed filtering technology vendor it owns content and other info to enable – Send notices identification – Cost: expensive – Cost: cheap* – Scalability: terrible – Scalability: excellent  Network operator:  Network operator: – Respond (reactively) to notices – Buy and maintain technology – Cost: not expensive – Cost: more expensive – Scalability: not very good – Scalability: unknown beyond a certain point  Technology vendor – Maintain database of fingerprints – Ensure accuracy of IDs © 2007 GiantSteps 3 *Assuming small number of vendors. Media Technology Strategies
  • Slide 4 Automated Notice and Takedown (YouTube)  Forms for content owners to fill out to request takedown – E.g., web interface  For content owners: more efficient but not really more scalable  For network operators: highly scalable  Issue: is removal automatic or does it require network operator review? – Should network operator pay to mitigate risk of false positives? © 2007 GiantSteps 4 Media Technology Strategies
  • Slide 5 Filtering and DRM When fingerprint is identified, content owner/licensor can choose action to take, e.g.: – Require payment – Check user’s subscription – Offer a free sample – Require user’s email address – Substitute an encrypted version – Any or all of the above Original vision of Snocap and Mashboxx network © 2007 GiantSteps 5 Media Technology Strategies
  • Slide 6 Two Points Along the Continuum Standardizing Notice and Takedown automation Filtering plus copyright registration © 2007 GiantSteps 6 Media Technology Strategies
  • Slide 7 Standardizing Takedown Notices  Agree on standard protocol for sending notice – E.g., NTML (Notice and Takedown Markup Language)  Content owner sends standard messages to network operators – Via RSS feeds or similar expedient method  Improves scalability on content owner side slightly – Problem of observing unauthorized content remains – Allows content owners to send messages to multiple network operators from same tool – And to add support for new network operators easily  Issue: requires agreement on content identification scheme – Artist and title probably not precise enough – 17 U.S.C. § 512 (3) does not specify © 2007 GiantSteps 7 Media Technology Strategies
  • Slide 8 Filtering Plus Copyright Registration  Neutral entity* Issues: – Standardizes on single acoustic  Choosing the technology fingerprinting technology – Antitrust concerns – Provides service to network – Open standards operators on cost recovery basis – Vendors want to make profits  Add fingerprint registration to – Patent coverage copyright registration process  No technology is 100% accurate  For copyright owners, cheap and – how to adjudicate disputes? scalable  Setting appropriate fees  For network operators, not too  Who pays??? expensive, questionably scalable – Content owners don’t pay for DRM… © 2007 GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies 8 *E.g., Copyright Office
  • Slide 9 Comparison 1: Manual 2: Standardized 3: Fingerprint 4: Fingerprints Notice and Notice Filtering With © Takedown Automation Registration Proactive No No Yes Yes Cost C: expensive C: somewhat C: cheap C: very cheap N: not expensive cheaper than 1 N: more N: same as 3 N: same as 1 expensive Scalability C: terrible C: a bit better C: very good C: excellent N: not good than 1 N: unknown N: unknown N: same as 1 C: Copyright Owners GiantSteps N: Network Operators © 2007 Media Technology Strategies 9
  • Slide 10 Issues that Technology Won’t Solve Who verifies identity of allegedly copyrighted work? Who gets benefit of doubt in disputes? Who pays? © 2007 GiantSteps 10 Media Technology Strategies