Battling Piracy, BayTSP-Style

“On an average day, there are 16 million violations that we’re finding,” said BayTSP spokesman Jim Graham. Of that, one million violations a month receive takedown notices. “Not all clients want to send takedown notices,” said Graham. “A lot just want to see the data on what’s available out there.”

Here’s how BayTSP works. A client gives it a list of titles (movies, TV shows, etc.) to monitor. BayTSP’s automated hardware then sniffs around major P2P sites, IRC, Usenet groups, public FTP sites and web sites and reports back its findings.

For P2P sites, if a title is found and the client wants to have it removed, BayTSP automatically generates a takedown notice that records the individual’s IP address, date and time identified, and sends it off to the ISP. The ISP then forwards the notice to the individual. Some ISPs and universities are adopting the open source Automated Copyright Notice System to automate the process of notifying infringers.

But what does all this cost? Between $25,000 and $500,000 a month, depending on how many titles you are searching and what services you want performed.

Full story here

The Wall Street Journal did a profile a couple months back:
- BayTSP employs more than 20 video analysts
- Analyst salaries start at around $11 an hour
- Viacom pays more than $100,000 a month to BayTSP
- BayTSP error rate on Web videos is only around 0.1%

Deezer: free and legal music on demand

Deezer (formerly BlogMusik) is a service born in France that lets you search for mp3 files on the web and listen to them in streaming mode for free. Dezeer announced that they came to an agreement with the SACEM, clearing the service of copyright infrigement accusations. The details of this agreement are not are not being disclosed, but other deals suggest it is based on a revenue sharing mode. Deezer’s business model is relying on advertising and affiliate revenue coming from the sales of songs on iTunes and Amazon.

RadioBlogClub, another popular french service was forced a few months ago to change hosting provider following a complaint sent by the same SACEM. The service was interupted a few days and opened again as fresh as new.

Analysts Paid $11 Per Hour To Stop Internet Copyright Infringement

Some computer programs such as Audible Magic (used by YouTube and MySpace), Advestigo, Gracenote, MotionDSP, Philips, and iPharro try to distinguish if the video is copyrighted by compared video fingerprints of copyrighted material with the uploaded content and checking for a match.
However, these computer programs aren’t foolproof and when a video is in the “grey area” it is hard for these programs to identify if the video is breaking any copyright laws.
A company called BayTSP has decided to go the old fashioned root and employ video analysts at $11 an hour to find illegally uploaded content.
BayTSP most important client is Viacom. Viacom pay BayTSP $100,000 every month for the service and the takedown requests have resulted in 230,000 videos being removed from YouTube for Viacom.
Is this the best way to tackle video copyright violations online?

Bolt is dead

Video sharing site Bolt has filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations.

Bolt.com was sued by Universal Music in October 2006 and owes Universal $10 million from that suit; the funds from the GoFish acquisition were to have been used to settle the $10 million with Universal.

French court slaps poor man's YouTube ; Dailymotion guilty of copyright infringement

France's answer to YouTube has been found guilty of copyright infringement. A French high court has ruled against the Paris-based video-sharing site Dailymotion, holding it liable for a copyrighted film posted by its users. Earlier this summer, after a high-profile suit from a man called The Buttock, the same court laid down a similar ruling against MySpace, but its latest order goes a few steps further.

Last month, the President of the High Court of the First Instance of Paris - whose title reads much better in French - issued a "summary order" that classified MySpace as a publisher, arguing that the so-called social-networker is more than just a hosting service and should be held liable for infringing content posted to its site. Well-known French comedian The Buttock - whose title reads about the same in French - sued MySpace after several of his films turned up on its pages. Issued by a separate arm of the court, the new Dailymotion order carries a little more weight - and poses a greater threat to other sharing services. After a film called Joyeux Noel popped up on the site, Dailymotion was sued by the film's producers, and on July 13, a separate arm of the High Court held the site liable for copyright infringement - without calling it a publisher.

In its "proceeding on the merits" - a ruling backed by more legal rigor than a quick-and-dirty summary order - the court ruled that Dailymotion is liable simply because it was aware that the film was on its server.

As the court noted, Dailymotion did not take the film down even after it received a letter of complaint from the producers. The court ordered the site to pay the film's producers 23,000 euros in damages and fork over a 1500 euro fine for each day the movie stays online - though Dailymotion can appeal.

AT&T to police the Internet

Though details are vague, the LA Times reports that AT&T is joining forces with Hollywood and the recording industry in a concerted effort to begin more aggressive policing of its network in order to prevent users from sharing pirated content, such as films and music.

This is a sea-change for a major Internet provider, where there exists a tradition of remaining hands-off towards content passed over the network. James W. Cicconi, an AT&T senior vice president explained the change on policy, saying that as AT&T has begun selling pay-television services, the company’s interests have become more closely aligned with Hollywood.

Last week, about 20 technology executives from Viacom Inc., its Paramount movie studio and other Hollywood companies met at AT&T headquarters to start devising a technology that would stem piracy but not violate privacy laws or Internet freedoms espoused by the Federal Communications Commission.

Azureus Facing Lawsuit in France

Azureus, Shareaza and Morpheus are being sued by the music industry group Société des Producteurs de Phonogrammes en France (SPPF) under the new provisions of copyright law passed by the French Parliament last year, according to French blog Ratatium (English translation).

The software creators could face criminal penalties including up to three years in prison and a €300,000 fine if the case is successfully prosecuted in French courts.

Morpheus has declined in popularity since being successfully sued already, and Shareaza is entirely non-commercial. But Azureus is leveraging the popular BitTorrent client for its Vuze network which delivers authorized downloads of video and audio. Though that fact could potentially be used in its defense as proof that the software is not exclusively for illegitimate distribution.

The new copyright provisions, abbreviated to DADVSI, is similar to the DMCA in that the intention was to update laws in order to address issues surrounding digital technology, as well as bring France in line with the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty.

Amendments to the DADVSI, sponsored by then Minister of the Interior and now current President Nicolas Sarkozy and dubbed “The Vivendi Amendments,” added the criminal penalties of imprisonment and fines for makers of software that are meant to transmit copyrighted material illegally. Though the suit could become a forum for DADVSI detractors to challenge the constitutionality of these provisions.

So the SPPF can expect the full support of Sarkozy and his UMP party in their suit. As an indication of the change in the climate surrounding copyright in France, during a recent hunt for Sopranos video I discovered even the somewhat notorious Dailymotion appears to be getting more thorough in policing their site for unauthorized clips (and may soon be competing with YouTube for Francophonic users).

French sports groups join suit against YouTube

France's top soccer league and its national tennis organization are the latest to join legal action against video-sharing site YouTube.

The Federation Francaise de Tennis and Ligue de Football Professionnel, as well as New York-based Cherry Lane Music Publishing, have joined a class action lawsuit that accuses YouTube and parent company Google of copyright violations, according to Louis Solomon, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the suit.

The suit was initially filed last month on behalf of the lead plaintiffs in the case: Bourne, a music publishing company and the Premier League, England's most prestigious soccer league.

France wants to track file sharers

The French Council of State decided last week that record companies can automatically track P2P users that share more than 50 files within 24 hours and keep their records for further legal proceedings.
The decision comes as a blow to the French National Commission for Data protection and the Liberties who ruled in the fall of 2005 that automatic surveillance of P2P networks violates local privacy laws.

Canal Plus goes to court over clips

Company claims $1.5 million damages in suit.

PARIS -- Canal Plus will take legal action against French-based video clip hosting service Kewego for alleged copyright violations -- the first litigation of its kind in France.

The network believes Kewego has done too little to prevent the inclusion of Canal Plus content in the form of viral videos on its site despite repeated requests to take appropriate action since November.
A Canal Plus spokesman cited the positive steps taken by Google and Kewego's French competitor, DailyMotion, in developing tools that prevent posting of the network's content without prior permission.

Politicos take on YouTube, video's future

WASHINGTON--It was an atypical start for a Capitol Hill hearing--arguably the first time a politician ever paused his opening remarks to grab a digital video camera and capture the scene around him for a few seconds.

"I thought we could have the first ever YouTube video of a committee hearing from the chairman's perspective," Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said as he aimed the palm-sized silver gadget at a table lined with video tech executives, including YouTube CEO Chad Hurley, billionaire investor and HDNet founder Mark Cuban, and the CEOs of Slingbox and TiVo.

Other witnesses included the creator of the hit television series Everybody Loves Raymond and executives from the Disney and ESPN networks and Qualcomm's MediaFlO unit, which recently rolled out live TV capabilities for mobile phones.

The purpose of the morning meeting was to explore the future of video.
But it quickly became apparent that the hearing wasn't just a playful show-and-tell for the companies represented, as some politicians proceeded to put YouTube in the hot seat over its copyright policies.

full article here

YouTube’s New Caste System

YouTube’s eagerly anticipated system for rightsholders to discover and flag unauthorized uploads of their material, “Claim Your Content,” has gotten bit closer to reality.

“It’s entering the testing phase,” YouTube co-founder Steve Chen told BusinessWeek’s Spencer Ante in an extended interview for BusinessWeek’s Blogspotting.

What seems to be happening is YouTube content creators are being divided into camps. Based on how I understand Claim Your Content might work — namely, that it won’t pro-actively screen and block infringing content — it’s doubtful YouTube will ever open up its new revenue-sharing program or “Claim Your Content” to all users, so if your home-produced video goes viral unexpectedly, don’t expect to cash in and defend your turf against copiers.

Google responds to Viacom lawsuit

"Viacom's complaint in this action challenges the careful balance established by Congress when it enacted the Digital Millenium Copyright Act," Google's response begins. "The DMCA balances the rights of copyright holders and the need to protect the Internet as an important new form of communication. By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom's complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression. Google and YouTube respect the importance of intellectual property rights, and not only comply with their safe harbor obligations under the DMCA, but go well above and beyond what the law requires."

Google's response denies all allegations made by Viacom in the original complaint. Google requests a jury trial.

Specifically, in response to Viacom's allegation that Google and YouTube promote direct copyright infringement via public performance, Google cites the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. In response to Viacom's allegation that Google is making unauthorized copies of protected works, Google cites fair use. Google also cites the substantial non-infringing uses of YouTube.

Google's response is available for download here.

Two Big Reasons Why a YouTube Filter Will Lead to More Problems

A YouTube filter won't prevent Google from being sued. And it won't help in their current lawsuit with Viacom. In fact, if it works, a filter could actually demonstrate that infringing content acts as a customer draw. And that, in itself, presents some very big legal problems.
Below, two big reasons the filter will cause more problems.

1. The filter will help demonstrate how much infringing content is on YouTube
If the filter works -- a big if, of course -- then traffic will go down. Not total traffic, mind you, that could still go up. But traffic to certain areas of the site and certain types of content. A litigant against YouTube could request that data, much like Titan media requested -- and received (yesterday!) -- that data from vid share site Veoh.

According to some interpretations of A&M Records v. Napster, it's illegal for copyrighted content to act as a draw when the host of that content receives financial benefit. Veoh argued that they never benefited financially from porn, but according to court documents, "at least one district court has concluded that..."a broad definition of ‘direct financial benefit’ would encompass even a ‘future hope to monetize.’” That court was deciding Perfect 10 v. Google.

2. The filter won't work, and thus will make YouTube liable
There's a danger that YouTube could make itself legally vulnerable by implementing a filter that doesn't work like the media companies want it to. After all, if YouTube is aware of the infringing activity then, under the DMCA, they're liable.

This was exactly the issue a few months prior in MGM v. Grokster, which is still kicking around in LA district court, where the only defendant left is Streamcast. Streamcast, beaten and about to implement a filter, is worried that any filter it does provide will be imperfect, and thus open them to liability.

That's why, I assume, Schmidt is calling this new program "Claim Your Content." (emphasis mine.) I'm willing to bet that any filtering mechanism on the site won't really be a proactive filter, it'll be a post facto filter that allows content owners to expeditiously search and remove content. That removes Google from the liability of having foreknowledge of infringing content, and allows them to provide the filter without input from the media companies.

Viacom Admits Error in YouTube Takedown; Groups Drop Lawsuit

San Francisco - A lawsuit filed against Viacom by the creators of a parody video removed from YouTube as a copyright violation has been dropped, after Viacom admitted that it erred in seeking to have the video taken down.

Digital civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project filed the suit on behalf of MoveOn.org and Brave New Films, whose "Stop the Falsiness" video parodied and used elements of Viacom's "The Colbert Report" program. The groups said the video falls under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, and thus the takedown notice from Viacom was unfair.

The EFF also said Viacom initially denied asking YouTube to remove the video, but later conceded it was the source of the request. The company agreed to create a website and e-mail hotline to review any similar complaints over takedown notices in the future.

Jobs Unlikely to Push for Lift of Video DRM

Full article

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs may be pushing for music labels to lift copyright protection on digital music but he doesn't appear so eager to do the same for video content, despite his position as the largest shareholder in Walt Disney Co.

When asked during the EMI conference call about the potential of lifting DRM from video, Jobs said: "Video is pretty different from music right now because the video industry does not distribute 90 percent of their content DRM free. Never has. So I think they are in a pretty different situation and I wouldn't hold it to a parallel at all."

Jobs was referring to CSS (Content Scramble System), technology that comes on DVDs that prevents users from copying the videos. He is arguing that CSS makes the video market different than the music industry because music CDs don't come with copy protection. As a result, Jobs' argument has been that digital music should be sold in an equivalent manner as CDs-- without copy protection.

Anti-DRM activists and analysts don't buy that explanation.

The reason that Jobs can negotiate with the music industry and encourage announcements like the one with EMI is because the iTunes store represents about 10 percent of music sales in the U.S., said McQuivey, a principal analyst at Forrester Research. By contrast, the iTunes store has only recently begun selling video and the store has yet to prove itself as a money-maker for video content producers. That means that even if Jobs did want to push for DRM-free video, he wouldn't have the same negotiating position with the movie studios as he does with the music labels.

YouTube Not Built on Big Media’s Back?

Videos removed at the request of copyright owners accounted for just 5.93 percent of the site’s 6,725 most-viewed videos over the last three months, according to a study by video-tracking site Vidmeter (full report).

Four times a day, Vidmeter checks YouTube for the 100 most viewed videos of all time, the month, the week, and the day. For the purposes of the study, it compiled a list of URLs where videos had been replaced with a takedown notice alert. The disappeared videos accounted for 9.23 percent of top videos and 5.93 percent of 94,187,203 views of these videos — not anywhere near the majority.

Apple to release EMI music without anti-piracy technology

In agreement with music label EMI, Apple is making EMI songs available without digital rights management (DRM) through its iTunes music store. The music will be higher quality (Songs will be encoded at 256kbps AAC (current is 128kbps)), and tracks will cost $1.29(EUR1.29/GBP0.99), or 30 cents more than the standard 99 cents (EUR0.99/GBP0.79).

Entire album purchases will stay at the same price, but have the higher audio quality and will be DRM free.
EMI music videos will be available DRM free with no change in price.

Slides From Press Call:

Viacom sued over Colbert parody on YouTube

Viacom is misusing U.S. copyright law by forcing YouTube to remove a parody video of The Colbert Report, according to a lawsuit filed against the media conglomerate Thursday.
The video in question is itself a parody of news coverage on Viacom's Comedy Central.

The suit, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in federal court in San Francisco, accuses Viacom of filing a baseless copyright complaint and takedown notice on YouTube, and infringing on the free-speech rights of the makers of the video--activist group MoveOn.org Civic Action and Brave New Films.

The tongue-in-cheek video, called "Stop the Falsiness," uses snippets from The Colbert Report for parody. That approach, the EFF said, is permissable under the "fair use" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, just as The Colbert Report uses excerpts from real news shows in its segments.

"If you watch this clip for 01 seconds it is clear that it's a parody and it is fair use," said Corynne McSherry, staff attorney at the EFF, which is working on the case with Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society.

Under the DMCA, service providers like YouTube, which is owned by Google, are immune from copyright suits if they respond quickly to takedown notices filed by content owners.
The suit seeks damages and attorneys' fees, as well as an order allowing the video to be reposted to YouTube. The EFF also has sent a counter notice to YouTube alleging that Viacom's takedown notice was illegal; if YouTube agrees, the video could re-appear on the site within 10 days, McSherry said.

Submitted by Mike

Infringing videos on iFilm could cause problems for Viacom

Even as Viacom sues YouTube for what it describes as "brazen" copyright infringement, some of Viacom's own dirty copyright laundry is being aired. Ars searched one Viacom property—iFilm, which was acquired by Viacom in October 2005 ($49 million )—and found several instances of infringing video hosted by iFilm—content for which Viacom does not own the copyright. Does Viacom hold its own properties to the same standard?