Whitelisting

Following last week’s post about content verification, here is a second possible solution to the problem of imperfect copyright infringement detectors: whitelisting. For those of you who do not know, whitelisting is the practice of approving a person to use material they would otherwise not be allowed to. It is the opposite of blacklisting: restricting people from using material which is normally public. Essentially, when you blacklist, you give a list of people who can NOT use/access the material; everyone else is allowed. Consider it like a ban list on a website. Conversely, when you whitelist, you give a list of people who CAN use/access the material; everyone else is not allowed. Consider it like with Google Docs, where you can set it so only specific people can view or edit a document. The question is, should a copyright infringement detection system use whitelisting or blacklisting? There is really only one thing to consider.

Will the majority of people be allowed or disallowed to use the material? If most people are allowed, there should be a blacklist. If most people are disallowed, there should be a whitelist. Whichever the case, whitelisting or blacklisting must be a manual process. It grants exceptions, which means there should be few. Still, the fact of the matter is that manual processes are more work. It’s why Content ID cannot be manual: there is too much material to go through by hand. In order to make whitelisting/blacklisting feasible, users should only be manually considering a few users for approval/denial.

While US law is generally “innocent until proven guilty,” copyright law is the opposite. No one is allowed to use someone else’s material without their permission. Without their permission. Sound familiar? Yes, copyright is essentially a whitelist already. In fact, whitelisting is a possible answer to the problem presented last week. Who should be the content holder when multiple people have the rights to material? Trick question: all of them.

So, the solution seems simple enough, right? Combine content verification with whitelisting, and the problems are fixed. Only people who own material can be content holders and stop people from wrongfully using their content. If they give someone the right to use their material, they just add them to the whitelist and never have to worry about having to manually approve each and every video they approve. It’s a simple fix, and everyone’s happy! …well, it would be if both content verification and whitelisting were perfect.

The truth is, verification isn’t perfect. Once someone is approved as a content holder, what they upload isn’t necessarily monitored to confirm that it’s theirs. They can claim someone else’s material, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and they would be the content holder of that material until it’s contested.

The truth is, whitelisting isn’t perfect. Say you produced a song and let a game use it (think Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Dance Dance Revolution; even games like Grand Theft Auto have radio stations with real songs). If that game company allows people to upload videos of the gameplay, it would include in-game music, which is copyrighted music. Since it is part of the game, the game company determines whether it can be used or not. However, the automated system would flag it as the music, and the whitelist wouldn’t transfer… Add onto that the fact that sometimes you don’t need permission to use copyrighted material (i.e. Fair Use), and there’s quite a few odd cases.

Now, does that mean it’s not a good idea? No. A combination of content verification and whitelisting is a very good first step. If done correctly, it will make the system near-perfect, with only a few problems which can be manually caught. Can it be improved? Perhaps. Perhaps with difficulty. Perhaps easily. Regardless, the minimum requirements of a good copyright infringement detection system is a mix of content verification and whitelisting. Without it, you get situations where people flag their own content.

Looking forward, how can we counter some of these problems? Is there a good way to monitor claimed content? Should whitelisting be transferable, and how so? How do you account for Fair Use in copyright?

Content Verification

As mentioned last week, there are many possible fixes to the system. This week, I will be looking at the first proposed solution: verification.

Regardless of whether you’re a gamer or musician, verification is extremely important. If just anyone can claim they own content, there is a problem. Someone can claim rights to a game or song that no one else has claimed yet, and they would reap in the profits until someone noticed. Now, on YouTube, you may notice that some channels have little checks next to their names. This means they are verified as who they say they are. Yes, YouTube already has a verification system in place.

The solution sounds simple, then, right? Only allow verified users to claim content, and trust them to claim only their own content. This is definitely the first step to a good system, but there are a few things it does not take into account.

1) Can we trust everyone to know what they own and what they don’t?

When a musician publishes a work, oftentimes they go through companies. Take Adele for example. In the USA, she works with Columbia Records, who are a part of Sony Music Entertainment. Now, let’s look at her song Skyfall, which was featured in the movie of the same name. The movie was produced by Eon Productions and distributed by MGM and Sony.

With this one song, there are five different people associated: Adele herself, Columbia Records, Sony, Eon Productions, and MGM. Each of them might include the song as content holders. They would all be verified, and they would all have reason to include the song, whether by itself or as part of a movie. Now, say someone uploads the clip of the song playing in the movie. Who decides whether that’s allowed?

Movies aren’t the only unclear cases. Many games use licensed songs. Games like Dance Dance Revolution, Guitar Hero, and Rock Band prominently feature licensed songs! If a game company gives permission to use their game in a video, does the video maker have to also get permission for the individual songs? Simply put, when the music is used as part of the game, the game maker determines whether or not it can be used. Will the system distinguish between these cases? It’s difficult to, and this is one source of false flags which verification cannot solve.

2) What about content holders who are ineligible for verification?

According to YouTube, there are certain requirements to be eligible for a verified name. The concerning one is “a substantial number of subscribers.” You may be able to verify that you are who you say you are. You may be able to verify that you own what you say you own. However, if you are not popular enough, it appears that YouTube doesn’t care if people rip off your songs. Perhaps this is not a big factor into the verification process, and perhaps it would only create a few problems. Regardless, it is something to consider when attempting a perfect system.

---

Even if verification is not perfect, the presence of verification is of great importance. Just this simple addition minimizes the chance of fraud and resultant false flags. Admittedly, even if the system is perfectly verified, so every content holder owns everything they say they own, it will not be perfect. There will be mismatches. There is no sense of fair use. However, verification is an easy step toward making the system as perfect as possible.

What are your thoughts on the above? How should verified content be handled in situations where there are multiple content holders? Any ideas about potential improvements to a verification system?

The Problem – What makes a good system?

Over the past few weeks, I’ve introduced you to the basics: the general problem, the game industry, and the music industry. From here on out, we’re going to be looking for a solution to this problem. What problem? Constructing a copyright detection system which is as good as possible by improving on the current ones. In order to do that, we need to look at what makes a good system.

The two industries I’ve brought up are important, as they show the two sides of the system. On the one hand, you have the music industry. They fiercely attempt to protect audio copyright, with cases such as Vanilla Ice eventually paying royalties for “Ice, Ice Baby” to Queen for copying part of “Under Pressure” and Men At Work being sued for royalties for “Down Under” to Larrikin Music for copying part of “Kookaburra.” They care very much that copyright is being followed, and they will not hesitate to sue if they believe a substantial (no matter how small!) part of a song is being copied without the appropriate license. They do want a harsh flagging system: it catches many things that they would miss.

On the other hand, you have the game industry. They are much more lax, allowing reviews, walkthroughs, and general game content to be uploaded, even for profit, without a problem, as it normally increases publicity and doesn’t detract from sales. Some things which, by law, are copyright infringement, they purposefully turn a blind eye to, when they don’t explicitly allow it. They do not want a harsh flagging system: too few relevant videos are caught to make it worthwhile.

How do you balance these conflicting opinions? You can’t just remove a content flagging system: the music industry would object. There cannot be a manual system: it is near impossible to search through the same amount of material (“Content ID scans over 400 years of video every day”). Even an automated system has its problems: the current system has had many false flags, as discussed earlier. There must be a blend of automated and manual systems, but there must also be improvement. The current system needs to return as few false flags as possible, basically improving its precision. In order to do this, we need to figure out why false flags are being returned, and eliminate the causes. I have some ideas, but I’m always looking for more…

1. Verify – One big problem is when someone claims to own content that they don’t. Assuming the best, they may actually believe it theirs but are mistaken. Alternatively, someone’s own content is flagged on their behalf. To fix this, the system needs to verify who owns what. Admittedly, that’s already happening, as it is one of the simplest fixes, but it is not perfect.
2. Whitelist – On a similar note to the above, people may give permission to use content in a video. If so, there needs to be a whitelist function. They exist, and they are reasonable for small cases, but game companies may want to whitelist many videos, resulting in much extra work for them. A mass whitelist is perhaps better in that case, but it ends up missing valid flags…
3. Alter the Options – Currently, a content holder can choose to monitor, block, or monetize flagged videos. Monitoring is perfectly fine, but it doesn’t make the music industry happy. Blocking is better, but it means a few seconds can cause the removal of an entire video. Monetizing is worse, as it opens the potential for fraud, if people can game the system (e.g. there is no Verification). Still, monetizing can essentially take the place of a music license if done legitimately.
4. Selective Muting – Following the above: since there is technology to detect matches in audio (it’s what these systems do), there is also technology to segment that audio and mute only the copyrighted parts instead of blocking the video or rerouting funding. YouTube offers it as a suggestion, but it doesn’t really solve the problem of false flags.
5. Audio/Video Processing – This is a difficult task. Basically, the program looks at a video or listens to audio, scans it through the database, and, if there is a match, checks whether it is fair use or not. For simplicity, let’s just say it categorizes it as a “Gaming Video” or not. Perhaps machine learning could be a step in the right direction here, but this is the most difficult, albeit the best, fix to the system, in my opinion.

These are my thoughts so far, and I’ll be expanding on them in future posts. For now, I’d like to ask your thoughts. What problems do you see in the current system? What problems to you see in my suggested fixes? Do you have other possible routes to suggest? Please, throw out whatever thoughts you have! Whatever you give can only help open up more alternatives for research. I look forward to your suggestions!

Covers, Remixes, and Compilations – Copyright in the music industry

In my last post, I talked about the gray areas of video game copyright. Now, it’s time for music to take the stage.

First, covers. These are songs which do not belong to the band that plays them, but they play them anyway. Simply put, you need a license if you plan on playing these songs in public or for profit. If you want to play it in public, odds are the venue already has a license. If you plan to make recordings, you have to pay a mechanical license (about 10¢) for each individual recording. If you wish to play a song in a video, it requires a synchronization license. However, if you wish to publish on a site like YouTube, the synchronization license is different: the copyright holder sets the price of the license. It could be as little or as much as they want, or they could simply not allow you to upload the video. For more detailed information on what you need where, this FAQ is helpful.

Second, remixes. This is a much grayer area of copyright law. A remix is when a song is altered, often by combining it with another song or by adjusting the genre of the music. Since it heavily relies upon existing music, most are derivative and require a license to use the music. However, in some instances, they are transformative (sufficiently altered, often for a different purpose than the original) and may be protected under fair use. Here is the gray area: how much must something be remixed in order to be considered transformative? In some cases, small changes can greatly change the genre of a song, while in others, large changes may not.

Third, compilations. These are the visual version of remixes, utilizing combination heavily, normally with a song or remix played alongside. Again, the question of derivative vs. transformative comes into play, with most being derivative. These often use substantially more sources than remixes, such as clips from multiple shows, images and art found online, and audio from possible multiple sources. As such, the risk of infringing copyright is higher and carries a heavier penalty. Still, shouldn’t these to some extent be considered transformative?

So. Here we have three different types of audio/video uploaded to YouTube. Each of them would be flagged by Content ID in most cases, drawing attention to it when it might otherwise be ignored or overlooked. YouTube handles the synchronization license by allowing content holders to impose ads on the videos and earning ad revenue. If they would prefer, they can block videos with their music instead. However, where does and where should they be protected by fair use? Sure, a remix may be based off a song, but if it is substantially different, shouldn’t it be its own work? How much needs to be changed, or how different need it be? Sure, a compilation takes many works and combines them, but if it is substantially different, shouldn’t it be its own work? Where should the line be drawn between creative and derivative? Rights should be protected, but so should creativity be encouraged. These questions need to be considered if systems such as Content ID are to be improved.

Let’s Play! – Game reviews and copyright

Let’s Play (LP) – a growing term and a growing marketplace. For those of you not aware of what they are, here is a brief explanation.

An LP is a playthrough of a game, where the players provide their own commentary and reactions on top of the gameplay. It is not a walkthrough or a speedrun; these players may not be skilled at the games they’re playing. It is more akin to a video review: the players shows through example and speech what they do and do not like about the game. It provides unbiased information (compared to a trailer) about how the game actually plays and can be entertaining (the most successful certainly are). Some of the most successful LPers have made it their job; they have built a following large enough that they can earn enough through ad revenue to make a living.

Many game companies allow monetization of LP’s. Some, however, do not. Since it can vary between companies and even between games of the same company, you should do research before making an LP. The big debate is: does adding commentary over the gameplay footage make it fair use? Should these people be making money off of game reviews?

Reasons For

• You can argue a transformative use of the material. These players are reviewing the game and providing their individual experiences.
• Publicity. Simply put, many people watch LPs. A famous LPer playing your game will present your game to a large population, often creating sales.
• LPs take a lot of work. To be good at it, that is. You have to build a following. You have to be entertaining. They should be quality videos released on a mostly regular basis to keep viewers. With so much work, it is akin to a job, and LPers should be able to make it their job.

Reasons Against

• It’s not their material. The game companies make the games, so they should be the ones profiting.
• Does it replace playing? If the LP is comprehensive enough or the game linear enough, people may not buy the game; they’ve already “played” it.
• Flooding the market. These videos are often many parts. A search of a game title may return LPs well above official trailers or official gameplay footage.

What do you think on the debate? Are these LPers infringing on copyright (where not given permission)? Who should be making money from these videos?