One Anti-Piracy System to Rule Them All

Hollywood appears to have a preliminary winner in its bake-off of anti-piracy technologies.
For the last year, the film industry, through its Palo Alto-based R&D joint venture MovieLabs, has been testing a dozen so-called “digital fingerprinting” technologies. The technology purports to scan file sharing sites, Internet providers and peer-to-peer networks to identify copyrighted material.

“Fingerprinting Performance” (Leonard Kleinrock, 2007)

Yesterday in Los Angeles, people affiliated with the Motion Picture Association of America talked about the ongoing tests at a day-long anti-piracy workshop that the MPAA co-hosted with the University of California. In his introductory keynote at the event, UCLA professor and Internet pioneer Leonard Kleinrock showed a single slide that suggested that one of the anti-piracy filtering companies had outperformed the other 11, with the highest number of matches of infringing content and lowest number of false-positives. But professor Kleinrock and MPAA execs declined to name the participating companies or who had scored best on the test, saying that secrecy was a precondition for their participation in the tests.

Nevertheless, afterwards, executives from Santa Clara, Calif-based Vobile were crowing in the hallways of the Universal Hilton Hotel.
The two-year old company’s technology, called Video DNA, has apparently bested others from the Royal Philips Electronics, Thomson Software & Technology, and the highest profile digital fingerprinting company, the Los Gatos, Calif.-based Audible Magic, which has deals to filter video sharing sites like YouTube and Microsoft’s Soapbox.

Movie Labs stress-tested the anti-piracy systems by loading hundreds of hours of copyrighted video content into the databases of the various filters, and then by flooding them with thousands of video files, some distorted, darkened and cropped, to try to scuttle their ability to find matches.
In the next phase of the ongoing tests, MovieLabs will see if the systems can handle ever larger quantities of copyrighted works. Theoretically, adding more songs, TV shows and movies in their databases could slow down these systems—and the Internet video sites that use them— since it could take longer to find possible matches.
MovieLabs has been sharing tests results with its member movie studios since the summer. MovieLabs chief executive Steve Weinstein says the technology is ready for prime time. “In a year you’re going to see many Internet companies using it. This technology has shown its viability.”

Full story at The New York Times

Another article in LATIMES

EMI Licenses Snocap

EMI Music has now licensed its catalog DRM-free to Snocap, a move that quickly shuttles the label onto the pages of MySpace. Snocap carries a critical partnership with MySpace that enables artists to position downloads on their profile pages, and offers a revenue between all parties. The latest deal follows an earlier arrangement involving Warner Music Group, though EMI is the first major to lend DRM-free content to the alliance.

The Snocap deal follows an earlier DRM-free deal involving the iTunes Store. Like that arrangement, Snocap MyStores will sell EMI tracks at an elevated price point of $1.30. The tracks will also be encoded as higher-quality files, according to information supplied by the companies. That is part of a larger EMI philosophy that consumers are willing to pay more for higher-quality MP3s, though it remains unclear if the proposition is resonating. After positioning its DRM-free catalog on iTunes in late May, EMI has not offered substantive data on the collaboration.

Warner to put ad-supported video archive online

Warner Music, the world's fourth-largest music group, is putting its archive of music video online and making it available for free to fans.

Revenue will be driven by advertising but music fans will be able to download the videos for an additional fee and Warner will also examine syndicating the content to a third party. The deal includes plans to develop subscription-based services and a version to be used on mobile platforms.

MovieLabs Challenge

Motion Pictures Laboratories, Inc. (MovieLabs) is a non-profit startup based in Palo Alto funded by the six major Hollywood studios to advance research in areas the movie industry regards as critical.

It’s announced an open challenge offering grant money to people who submit proposed solutions to a number of problems the industry feels need to be addressed.

Promising proposals will receive grants anywhere from $25,000 to $100,000 to continue research. Like CableLabs and DARPA, the only goal is to fund research — they won’t be in the business of bringing the solutions to market, and any successful invention will be the property of the inventor, Weinstein assured.

While there’s no mention of digital rights management on the MovieLabs site, the focus is primarily on anti-piracy efforts, including defeating and detecting camcorders in theaters and identifying copyrighted material , even if it’s been transformed (such as mashups or transcoding into alternate formats).

EMI to Release Entire Catalog DRM-free on Amazon.com

Building on last month's news, EMI has announced today a new partnership with Amazon.com, where again the music label's entire catalog will be released DRM-free (to be launched "later this year".)

Similar to the proposed availability on iTunes, the tracks will be of higher quality than the typical $0.99 track. And unlike iTunes, the tracks will be sold in MP3 format, assuring the files are playable and transportable to just about any device imaginable.

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.

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.

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.

User-Generated Content Is Top Threat to Media and Entertainment Industry

NEW YORK; April 16, 2007 –Media and entertainment executives see the growing ability and eagerness of individuals to create their own content as one of the biggest threats to their business, according to results of a survey released today by Accenture.

In its annual survey of senior executives in the media and entertainment industry, Accenture examined the growth strategies of companies across the landscape of advertising, film, music, publishing, radio, the Internet, videogames and television.

More than half (57%) of the respondents identified the rapid growth of user-generated content — which includes amateur digital videos, podcasts, mobile phone photography, wikis and social-media blogs — as one of the top three challenges they face today. In addition, more than two-thirds (70%) of respondents said they believe that social media, one of the largest segments of user-generated content, will continue to grow, compared with only 3% of respondents who said they view social media as a fad.

The new landscape offers opportunities as well as challenges, according to the study, as two-thirds (68%) of the respondents said they believe that within three years their businesses will be making money on user-generated content. 62% said they believe their companies will make money through advertising and sponsorships of social media. Other sources of profits cited were subscriptions (21%) and pay-per-play offerings (18%). However, a quarter (24%) of respondents said they do not yet know how their businesses will profit from user-generated content.

Asked to identify which type of content offers the highest growth potential for their industry over the next five years, the greatest number of respondents — 53% — cited short-form video, followed by videogames (13%), full-length film (11%) music, (11%), consumer publishing (9% and business publishing (4%).

Methodology

Accenture surveyed 110 senior executives at advertising, film, music, publishing, radio, Internet, videogame and television companies in North America (60% of the respondents) and Europe (40% of the respondents).

CBS announcement for online distribution

CBS is announcing today its own “Interactive Audience Network” to distribute free television shows such as CSI, Late Show with David Letterman, and Survivor through all sorts of online platforms. The network has made arrangements with AOL, Microsoft, CNET Networks, Comcast, Joost, Bebo, Brightcove, Netvibes, Sling Media, and Veoh to showcase its content, and Akamai to deliver it.

MGM & Apple

MGM Studios has signed a deal with the iTunes store to sell catalog titles but not new releases. The 24 new films bring Apple’s motion picture library up to a meager 500 films, which would make for a small video rental shop indeed. As Variety points out, the $9.99 price point for back catalog titles is more than bargain-bin DVDs like MGM’s Dances With Wolves might sell for otherwise.

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.

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:

Jamendo goes Platinum! 1.5 million albums downloaded

Jamendo, the P2P music-sharing site, reports that they have distributed, freely and legally, nearly 1.5 million albums; 1 million through BitTorrent alone. Jamendo supports other P2P protocols including Kazaa and eMule/Donkey.

Jamendo promotes themselves as a free and legal place for artists to distribute their songs. As Jamendo operates under the Creative Commons license, they’ve provided a way for artists to broaden their reach while retaining full ownership of their content.

Unamed (?) News Corp./NBC Universal joint venture: Google’s inside moniker

The full lenght press release here.

NBC and News Corp takes on YouTube - with help from MySpace, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft

By Don Dodge

The LA Times announced that NBC and News Corp are teaming up to launch a new video service to compete with YouTube. At first I thought this was a dumb idea... just like when the record labels decided to launch their own music site to crush Napster. But this is different.

NBC and News corp. will use MySpace, AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others to distribute their video. Don't you think MySpace, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft will do everything possible to make this attractive, build a huge audience, and crush YouTube? NBC, News Corp, Viacom, and others know who their friends are...and they are all too happy to help.

In my opinion the Keys To Success are:

• Distribution partners - MySpace, AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft. Great! Now add Facebook, BrightCove, and any other cool social site that wants to play.
• Content partners - NBC and News Corp own lots of great content. Now add Viacom, Sony, Time Warner, other TV networks, and film producers. The content must be complete. You must be able to find anything to be regarded as a true destination site.
• Have it your way - The video must be available in short clips, "best of" montages, and full length. Just making the same 60 minute, or longer, shows available on the web will not be very interesting. There are much better ways to experience video...like DVR's, Tivo, DVDs, etc.
• Allow User Generated Mashups - YouTube is cool because you can find short clips of the funniest moments of The Comedy Show, or the best clips of a football game, or a crazy compilation of bloopers. Individuals spend hours editing long videos to find just the right clips. The wisdom of the crowds identifies the winners. The TV and film studios need to find a way to leverage the talent of these consumer editors.
• Multiple business models - They will obviously use advertising, but should also consider pay per play, subscriptions, and rentals like Netflix. This could be a huge revenue stream if they get creative with how to monetize it.
• Flexible pricing - All videos are not created equal. Clips are not worth the same price as full length videos. Old catalog TV shows should have a different price than last night's episode of 24.

News Corp., NBC pull together to challenge YouTube

News Corp. and NBC Universal plan to announce as soon as today that they are creating an online video site stocked with TV shows and movies, plus clips that users can modify and share with friends.

The two companies enlisted help from some of Google's biggest Internet rivals. The News Corp.-NBC Universal partnership has deals with Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., Time Warner Inc.'s AOL and News Corp.'s MySpace to place videos in front of their collective audience of hundreds of millions.

The new venture could launch this summer.

In addition to Fox and NBCU, Sony has also joined the discussion. There may be a fourth content player (not Time Warner, may be CBS Corp). The project will be capitalized to about $100 million, with each player pitching in with $25 million.

Google continues to alienate big media, letting it slip that its internal nickname for the joint venture is “Clown Co.”

18 Reasons why Google and YouTube are Guilty of Copyright Infringement

Below, Viacom's argument as presented in their official complaint, filed in New York federal district court.

1. YouTube's value is largely based on infringing works.
2. Google maintains control over YouTube's business, and contributes to YouTube's infringement by syncing Google Video search with YouTube's library.
3. Although individual users are the ones to upload videos, YouTube copies the videos to its servers, indexes the metadata, and creates thumbnails. YouTube then publicly displays and performs the infringing works. The complaint: "Thus, the YouTube conduct that forms the basis of this Complaint is not simply providing storage space, conduits, or other facilities to users who create their own websites with infringing materials. To the contrary, YouTube itself commits the infringing duplication, public performance, and public display of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and that infringement occurs on YouTube’s own website, which is operated and controlled by Defendants, not users." (* This is an important point, since Google has argued -- as any ISP or file storage provider would argue -- that they are not liable for illegal actions taken by users, as they are not aware of that activity until notified by a third party.)
4. Embedded videos and e-mailing vidoes from YouTube constitute public performance, too.
   
5. The embedded videos that attract the most users are copyrighted works, and YouTube displays its brand over them.
6. YouTube doesn't have a license for these works.
7. "Defendants have actual knowledge and clear notice of this massive infringement, which is obvious to even the most casual visitor to the site. The rampant infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights on YouTube is open and notorious and has been the subject of numerous news reports." (* Should this case go to trial, Viacom will have to somehow prove that Google has continuous knowledge of the infringement. Seeing that there are infringing works on the site and seeing that fact in a database that you monitor are two different things.)
8. It's not like the infringement is a secret, since keywords pointing to copyrighted works are apparent in the tags, and since the content owners' logos appear in the works.* Anecdotal? I'm sure Google could argue that they can't possibly police tags and visual clues, especially given that several content companies upload their own material for various reasons.
   
9. "YouTube derives advertising revenue directly attributable to the infringing works, because advertisers pay YouTube to display banner advertising to users whenever they log on to, search for, and view infringing videos. Through the embed function and in other ways, infringing videos also draw users to YouTube’s site in the first instance, and YouTube then derives additional advertising revenue when those users search for and watch other videos on the site. In either event, there is a direct causal connection between the presence of infringing videos and YouTube’s income from the additional “eyeballs” viewing advertising on the site. The draw of infringing works has also made an enormous contribution to the explosive growth of YouTube, resulting in the remarkable $1.65 billion valuation Google placed on it only a short time after its founding. Thus, infringement of Plaintiffs’ works contributes substantially and directly to the value of YouTube’s business."
   
10. YouTube has the right and ability to control the videos on its site, and even imposes terms of use on uploaders. YouTube also proactively removes pornography.* The active policing of pornography is a big point. Google/YouTube is obviously able to apply some content standards, but only when it suits their purposes it would seem. However, Google may be able to argue that the detection of porn -- via filters that monitor skin tones and/or keywords -- is different from detecting the wide variety of copyrighted works that are uploaded.
    
11. YouTube also sends cease and desist letters to persons and companies that provide services allowing people to copy videos off YouTube's servers. YouTube does this because they can't profit if users don't come to the site. "Thus, when it is in YouTube’s financial interest to do so, it proactively polices conduct it regards as unauthorized, even on other websites."
    
12. "In stark contrast, because it profits directly from the infringement of Plaintiffs’ works on its website, YouTube has failed to employ reasonable measures that could substantially reduce, or eliminate, the massive amount of copyright infringement on the YouTube site from which YouTube directly profits. Even though Defendants are well aware of the rampant infringement on the YouTube website, and YouTube has the right and ability to control it, YouTube’s intentional strategy has been to take no steps to curtail the infringement from which it profits unless notified of specific infringing videos by copyright owners, thereby shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube’s infringement onto the victims of that infringement."
    
13. Even if a company issues a takedown notice, the video reappears with only a small part changed. YouTube doesn't block repeat offenders from doing this, and doesn't prevent users who have been kicked off from signing up again.
    
14. There is an inevitable time lag between when a video appears on the site and when a content owner sends a takedown notice.
    
15. YouTube is also deliberately interfering with copyright owners' ability to find copyrighted works. YouTube limits searches to returning only 1,000 results, thus limiting an owner from seeing all the infringing works. Even if the owner issues a takedown notice for 1,000 works, another 1,000 will appear.
    
16. YouTube also allows "friends" on the site to share videos privately, and which can't be seen by copyright holders.
    
17. Despite all this, YouTube offers protections to companies that sign license agreements. "By limiting copyright protection to business partners who have agreed to grant it licenses, YouTube attempts to coerce copyright owners to grant it a license in order to receive the protection to which they are entitled under the copyright laws."
    
18. Even if Google eventually provides copyright protection, that won't compensate content owners from the damage already incurred.

Viacom sues Google over YouTube clips

By Anne Broache
http://www.news.com/
Story last modified Tue Mar 13

Viacom on Tuesday slapped Google and YouTube with a lawsuit accusing the wildly popular video-sharing Web site of "massive intentional copyright infringement" and seeking more than $1 billion in damages.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York contends that nearly 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming have been available on YouTube and that these clips had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

Viacom said it has asked the court for an injunction ordering a halt to the alleged copyright infringement in addition to the billion-dollar payout.

In a statement, Viacom blasted what it deemed YouTube's "clearly illegal" business model, riding on advertising sales and traffic tied to "unlicensed content." The media giant accused YouTube of building "a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."

"In fact, YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden--and high cost--of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement," Viacom said in a statement.

The suit is the culmination of what the New York-based company called "unproductive" negotiations with the Web giants. In early February, Viacom asked YouTube and parent Google to remove all offending clips and said the companies had agreed to pull down more than 100,000 videos produced by Viacom properties, including MTV Networks, Comedy Central, BET and VH-1.

Update: Official Viacom stance

“YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws. In fact, YouTube’s strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement.

This behavior stands in stark contrast to the actions of other significant distributors, who have recognized the fair value of entertainment content and have concluded agreements to make content legally available to their customers around the world.

There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in the process. This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity.

After a great deal of unproductive negotiation, and remedial efforts by ourselves and other copyright holders, YouTube continues in its unlawful business model. Therefore, we must turn to the courts to prevent Google and YouTube from continuing to steal value from artists and to obtain compensation for the significant damage they have caused.”

Microsoft's outreach memo

Company's letter offers anti-piracy aid
By BEN FRITZ, Variety

Looking to strengthen ties with Hollywood as it delves deeper into online video, Microsoft on Tuesday sent a memo to top execs at all the major media congloms offering to work closely with them to combat piracy, but not to implement the kind of filtering technology Viacom is demanding on YouTube.

Confidential memo obtained by Daily Variety was sent by Microsoft to media toppers such as News Corp.’s Peter Chernin, NBCU’s Jeff Zucker and Disney’s Bob Iger as well as heads of the major labels. It outlines the tech giant's approach to Soapbox, its newly launched viral video service on MSN that is going up against YouTube, MySpace Video and others.

In the letter, media and entertainment VP Blair Westlake said Microsoft is developing "what we believe content owners want and need: industry-leading notice and takedown ... practices, including tools that enable our content partners to more easily find content that is rightfully theirs and give us prompt notice so we can respond even more efficiently and expeditiously."

There's no mention of filtering technology that prevents users from uploading copyrighted content.
.../...
Sources at Microsoft said the company doesn't yet consider any filtering technologies on the market to be effective enough for itself and users. "Filtering is a complex issue and not a magic bullet," one person at the company said. "We believe this approach actually provides content owners more control than if Microsoft attempted to monitor content itself."

Many critics have complained filtering technology isn't precise and sometimes screens out content that is similar to other copyrighted material or is legally used, such as short clips for parody.

However, takedown requests by big media companies aren't perfect either. When Viacom told YouTube to pull more than 100,000 clips featuring its content, some users complained their personal videos were inaccurately named by the conglom and removed in the process.

Soapbox, which is still in a public beta trial run and has a miniscule amount of content and visitors compared with YouTube, already has numerous copyrighted clips from "South Park," "High School Musical," "American Idol" and other TV shows, films and musicvideos.

Staying on Hollywood's good side is a priority for Microsoft, which distributes studio movies and TV shows on its Xbox Live service and licenses its Windows Media DRM to virtually every music and video download store except iTunes.

Though most congloms have indicated they would prefer to see their copyrighted content filtered out, a person at one major studio indicated they're pleased to see Microsoft proactively reaching out, noting it's a preferable approach compared with many other online video operators.