Sources, Annotated for Your Convenience
Last updated: Nov. 20, 2014
“About Vevo.” Vevo, LLC, n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2014. <http://www.vevo.com/c/EN/US/about>
Where Twitch is the hub of gaming video, Vevo is the hub of music video. Brought to my attention in a comment, this will be the basis of one potential solution. Since I have not addressed Vevo in a post so far, I instead ask you here to read about it. Vevo has established a huge presence on YouTube and has become known for official music videos and concert footage.
Agrawal, Swati, and Ashish Sureka. “Copyright Infringement Detection of Music Videos on YouTube by Mining Video and Uploader Meta-data.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8302 (2013): 48-67. PDF file. 18 Sept. 2014.
This article discusses how YouTube is used by many musicians and discusses ways in which Copyright Infringement Detection can be used to protect the rights of those musicians. The article begins by presenting the issue of copyright infringement and piracy and its prevalence, despite YouTube’s efforts to prevent it. It discusses many technical problems with implementing a system to automate copyright detection but proposes a possible solution: retrieving video and uploader meta-data (information about who they are and what they are uploading). By doing so, it should result in an auto-verification that the user is licensed to use the files. What’s important here is the idea of verification, an important part of eliminating false flags. The article also mentions how some musicians and music companies have official YouTube channels through which they gain revenue and promotion, but there are fake channels as well which infringe upon copyright and profits. This is one way in which the music industry, in particular established musicians, are affected by copyright infringement on YouTube and why they should be interested in keeping Content ID and perhaps improving it.
“A Guide to YouTube Removals.” eff.org. Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals>
For those interested in the legal and music side of Content ID, this guide is for you. It details the three reasons for a video removal on YouTube: Terms of Service violation, Content ID flag, and DMCA Takedown Notice. It also details when to combat and when not to combat, with the general idea that you’re contesting a music company. If you’re interested in this topic from a gamer’s point of view, look below at the McArthur article. This informs how Content ID flags are automated, and disputing them results in a manual review. Conversely, DMCA Takedown Notices should be manual, which means the reviewer has a specific reason for requesting the video to be taken down. It brings up how music companies are unlikely to sue when they can take easier routes such as a Takedown Notice, but it warns that disputing a claim or counter-claiming a Takedown Notice may light a fire, fueling a company to make a point, if they believe there is infringement. Whereas the McArthur article suggests disputing Content ID flags immediately, this guide recommends caution, illustrating the difference between the opinions of video game and music companies in regards to copyright.
Baker, Elizabeth “Boo.” “Changes To Audio In VODS.” Twitch Blog. Twitch Interactive, Inc., 6 Aug. 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2014. <http://blog.twitch.tv/2014/08/3136/>
For those of you interested in the gaming side of this discussion, here is a look at Twitch’s Audio Recognition system. A partnership with Audible Magic, this scanned VODs (Videos On Demand, archives of past broadcasts) for copyright-infringing video. There was no link between content holders on Audible Magic and streams on Twitch, so it was possible for official broadcasts to be muted for their own copyrighted content. Similarly, there was no whitelisting. Any infringing content in a 30-minute section caused that entire section to be muted. The appeals process was by email to Twitch with similar weight as a DMCA Takedown Notice, which was rather extreme for an automated system. In August 2014, Twitch suddenly implemented this system without much warning and was met with a large community backlash. In response, they made some changes, but the system was not much improved. If nothing else, this illustrates the problem I am researching in this blog and sheds light on some things which can be fixed.
Chambers, B. “How to monetize gaming videos legally.” AlloySeven.com, 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 2 Oct. 2014. <http://alloyseven.com/memberposts/item/172-monetize-gaming-videos>
For those of you interested in the gaming aspect, in particular monetization, this and the article by Mike Futter below are for you. This particular post provides, in great detail, many game companies and their current status on using their games in videos, particularly for monetization. Under each game company’s title is their current status (often with accompanying quote), the source of that status, and the list of games that covers. If you’re thinking of making a review or Let’s Play of your own, I would suggest looking at this article first.
“Channels with Verified Names.” Google, n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2014. <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3046484?hl=en>
As I begin to talk more about fixes to current automated copyright infringement detectors, I intend to add references to some existing solutions. This is one of these: YouTube’s verification system. Through a variety of information, including outside verified sites and subscriber count, a YouTube channel is automatically verified. It is these verified channels which become the content holders of YouTube’s Content ID, stopping just anyone from claiming content as theirs. While perhaps not perfect, it is a large and necessary step toward a perfect system.
Edge, Nathan. “Evolution of the Gaming Experience: Live Video Streaming and the Emergence of a New Web Community.” Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications 4.2 (2013). Web. 31 Oct. 2014. <http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/821/2/evolution-of-the-gaming-experience-live-video-streaming-and-the-emergence-of-a-new-web-community>
For those interested in gaming and what exactly Twitch is, this article is for you. It discusses how Twitch created a more social culture of online gaming and eSports, moving from pre-recorded or individual material to live broadcasting. Instead of watching footage or commercials or playing games on their own, gamers can play online with and, more importantly, view and talk with other viewers and participants. The article discusses eSports as its example of the community and the impact of Twitch, but I would like to take the time to talk about Twitch Plays Pokemon (TPP) Admittedly, this article was written before TPP began, so it is not discussed, but it is a more recent and personal example while still remaining relevant to the article. In February 2014, this social experiment began, where viewers on the channel used the chat to enter commands to a single game of Pokemon. At its peak, tens of thousands of people were inputting commands simultaneously, making this cooperative game extremely chaotic. Still, the community that it created formed a strong bond through the chat and still exists a full eight months later, though diminished to 500-1000 or so viewers. This unique system was made possible by Twitch and demonstrates the community-gaming aspect of Twitch and how it has changed gaming.
Futter, Mike. “Here’s Where Publishers Stand On YouTube Monetization And Copyright Right Now.” Game Informer, 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 2 Oct. 2014. <http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/12/13/here-s-where-publishers-stand-on-youtube-monetization-and-copyright-right-now.aspx>
For those of you interested in the gaming aspect of this topic, this article is for you. This serves two purposes. First, it provides a helpful list of popular game companies’ stances on using their content in videos as of the time false flags for Content ID hit hard. For a more comprehensive, up-to-date list, see the article by B. Chambers above. Second, it provides evidence that there were a large number of false flags on gaming-related videos around early December, 2013, as a large number of these companies publicly expressed intent to help resolve these conflicts.
Lessig, Lawrence. “Free(ing) Culture for Remix.” 2004 Utah Law Review (2004): 961-975. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/utahlr2004&g_sent=1&collection=journals&id=971>
This article discusses music copyright and how it is applied to remixes, as well as how the author believes it should apply to remixes. Lessig begins by describing the history of copyright law, including how it changed with the introduction of the camera and how copyright expanded from initially covering commercial publications to eventually covering noncommercial publications and commercial transformations as well. He addresses how remixes are derivative, but he argues in their favor that they are creative. Through this article, it should be clear that remixes require licenses to create and distribute, but they exist in a gray area, an area of potential change for copyright law. To what extent remixes should require licensing is an important question which still has not been answered today, ten years later.
Matsuoka, Shogo et al. “Music Copyright Management by audio separation method on content distribution.” IEEE Proceedings, International Conference on Information Technology: Research and Education (2003): 118-122. PDF file. 20 Nov. 2014.
As I begin to talk about possible fixes, I intend to provide references to existing solutions. This is one of these: an audio separation tool. While the paper may be a bit tech-heavy, the general idea is as follows: (1) take a sample that contains copyrighted audio, (2) use a reference of that audio to isolate it in the sample, (3) subtract the copyrighted audio from the sample, and (4) what should be left is the sample without the copyrighted audio. While the results were not perfect (it created extra noise and reverberation), the ideas are sound, and the process has been and continues to be improved upon. Since Content ID and the like use audio detection with a reference, it should be relatively simple to remove the detected audio with an audio separation tool such as this.
McArthur, Stephen. How to Beat a YouTube ContentID Copyright Claim – What every Gamer and MCN Should Know. Gamasutra. Gamasutra, 24 June 2014. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://gamasutra.com/blogs/StephenMcArthur/20140624/219589/How_to_Beat_a_YouTube_ContentID_Copyright_Claim__What_every_Gamer_and_MCN_Should_Know.php>
If you’re interested in Content ID from a gamer’s point of view, this is for you and describes the legal aspect in its entirety, even mentioning specific instances for examples. This is a blog post by a video game lawyer detailing why false claims happen for YouTube’s Content ID and what to do about them. He explains why some content is erroneously flagged, how to know if you are infringing on copyright, and how to combat a false flag. He discusses how an overwhelming majority of the gaming community gets its gaming news and entertainment from sites such as YouTube and Twitch. Both have recently implemented automated content-flagging systems (YouTube in 2008, Twitch in 2014). He describes Content ID, mentioning how it is automated and can reroute funding from, track, or block flagged videos. He mentions tips for avoiding notices, such as muting game/background music, avoiding trailers, getting explicit permission from the publisher, joining Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs), and bewaring embargoes. Then he discusses disputing an appeal: dispute unless you know you’ve infringed copyright; if the dispute fails, consider whether you should make an appeal; beware that a turned-down appeal results in a DMCA Takedown Notice, 3 of which will remove an account. However, if a Takedown Notice is falsely filed against you, you may make a Counter-Notice. This is a legal action, but it should definitely be done if a Takedown Notice was falsely filed. He ends with an explanation of Fair Use, which would be helpful to read if you do not know how Fair Use works in terms of Copyright, and a Summary of Tips, which would be helpful to read if you do not wish to read the entire post. Addendum: If you’re interested in the music side of this issue, see the EFF guide above.
Pike, George H. “Google, YouTube, Copyright, and Privacy.” Information Today 24.4 (2007): 15-17. PDF file. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1636395>
This article discusses the risks associated with running video-sharing sites such as YouTube due to prevalence of copyright violation cases. Reading this should give you insight into YouTube/Google’s side of the issue and why they decided to perhaps overcompensate by implementing the current Content ID system. He mentions Napster, Grokster, KaZaa, and LimeWire as websites which allowed sharing music (and for some, videos and music as well). This devolved to mainly exchanges of copyrighted material, and large suits were filed against these companies, leading to their eventual destruction. YouTube, understandably, is scared of being in the same place. In fact, a large suit (TBA to the reading list) was filed against YouTube for copyright infringement in 2007, during which Content ID was implemented though only later suffered large abuse. Pike discusses how YouTube may be at fault for streaming, even though it does not create a copy, due to storing the file on YouTube’s servers and making it easier to access. In addition, if they were not to remove disputed videos, they would undoubtedly be at fault.
Truong, Ba Tu, Chitra Dorai, and Svetha Venkatesh. “Automatic Genre Identification for Content-Based Video Categorization.” IEEE Proceedings, 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition 4 (2000): 230-233. PDF file. 20 Nov. 2014.
As I begin to talk about possible fixes, I intend to provide references to existing solutions. This is one of these: video processing for genre identification. Admittedly, this article is quite tech-heavy and focuses on movie genres. However, the concept carries over relatively well: (1) take a sample video, (2) isolate key parts which mark it as a certain genre (e.g. video game, music video, lyric video, etc.), and (3) use a computer algorithm to categorize the video. Once the video has been categorized, it is possible to apply different standards to it. For example, the music industry is generally more harsh on music copyright, so a music/lyric video may have a wider margin of error, so it doesn’t miss infringing videos. Conversely, the game industry is generally less harsh on video game copyright, so a video game video may have a smaller margin of error, so it doesn’t falsely flag a large number of videos. This is definitely a more complicated and much more difficult fix, but being able to categorize videos would be very helpful in improving accuracy of these systems, especially in situations where copyrighted music is included in games which allow monetization of their content.
United States. Copyright Office. Fair Use. Washington: GPO, June 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html>
Fair Use is an important and complicated topic, describing where and when copyrighted material may be used without prior permission. It is this section of law which causes problems for automated systems: there are no clear boundaries between what is or is not fair use, since only guidelines are offered. As mentioned here, “The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined.” As a result, any automated system must ignore fair use in order to avoid missing infringing material. This leads to false flags, especially in gray areas of law where fair use is concerned. If these gray areas can be cleared up, perhaps these automated systems can be improved. The best thing to take away: When in doubt, get permission first.
United States. Copyright Office Summary. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1988. Washington: GPO, Dec. 1998. PDF file. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf>.
YouTube implemented Content ID for a reason, a reason evidenced in the article by Pike above. For background knowledge on the United States Copyright laws as they apply to the internet, you should read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a summary of which is cited here. I will attempt to point out the parts which are relevant to YouTube and Content ID in particular here. Devices or services which 1) are primarily designed or produced to circumvent technological measures that prevent unauthorized access to or copying of unauthorized content, 2) have limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent those same technological measures, or 3) are marketed for use in circumventing those same technological measures are against the law. If a majority of videos on YouTube were found to be providing access (or allowing copying) of copyrighted material, and YouTube were not to do anything to stop this, YouTube could get sued. In addition, YouTube profits from ad revenue of videos shared thereon. This makes it a commercial venture, and YouTube would be at fault for profiting from copyrighted material. Upon receiving notice or coming aware of copyrighted material, a host must take down or block the infringing material, which is why Content ID immediately blocks or redirects funding to the (alleged) copyright-holder. If or when I begin to discuss Twitch.tv and its own, more recent Content ID-like implementation, the area regarding broadcast licenses for digital broadcasts will become relevant.
Wardein, Katharine. “Copyright Infringement: What’s Covering the Cover Band?” Entertainment Law Seminar – Perritt, Henry H., Jr., Spring 2012. PDF file. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/courses/seminar/katherine%20wardein%20Final%20Paper.pdf>
This article goes in-depth regarding music and copyright, with focus on cover bands: bands who specifically play songs which other bands wrote. While some of this material is present in other sources noted here, the cover band section is important and different. Essentially, both the band and the venue are liable for copyright infringement if they do not have a license. In addition, the venue is liable for infringement for allowing a band to play in their venue without a license, unless the venue’s license extends to bands performing inside. Most often, it is the venue which takes the brunt of the offense, and it is for this reason that YouTube was pressured to implement anti-infringement software. It appears that cover bands (and venues) do not worry about obtaining licenses, and this creates a misconception that covers are okay. Similarly, venues do not understand the risks they take, and onlookers do not understand why YouTube needs to worry about copyright when the uploaders are committing infringement.
audiocopyright 