Automating Notice And Takedown

1,411 views

Published on

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

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,411
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
213
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Automating Notice And Takedown

  1. 1. Slide 1 Automating Notice and Takedown Bill Rosenblatt GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies billr@giantstepsmts.com http://www.giantstepsmts.com (212) 956 1045 © 2007 GiantSteps 1 Media Technology Strategies
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Slide 6 Two Points Along the Continuum Standardizing Notice and Takedown automation Filtering plus copyright registration © 2007 GiantSteps 6 Media Technology Strategies
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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

×