• On The Insider: Sexiest Magazine Covers of All Time
April 18, 2008 4:00 AM PDT

YouTube's filtering issues still not 'moot'

A copy of Google CEO Eric Schmidt's speech is available at YouTube

(Credit: YouTube)

LAS VEGAS--A year ago Wednesday, Google CEO Eric Schmidt delighted an audience of TV and radio broadcasters when he promised to roll out a system that would mean the end of piracy at YouTube.

"We are in the process of developing tools which are called 'Claim Your Content,'" Schmidt said at the National Association of Broadcasters 2007 conference. "If people tell us this is a licensed copy, our computers will automatically detect that an illegal copy has been uploaded and then automatically delete it."

Schmidt went on to say YouTube was "close to turning this (system) on" and once that happened, copyright violation at the site "becomes a moot issue." But following through on that promise has proven a challenge.

"Key into YouTube's search field the names of the last five Academy Award winners in the best picture category and scenes from each will appear. Want to watch the first 10 minutes of the gangster flick, The Departed? They're there."

Executives with two entertainment companies that provide YouTube with feedback on its Video Identification system said the company's filtering technology has fared well at times but is nowhere near perfect and overall test results are "inconclusive." The sources, who requested anonymity because of the ongoing relationship with YouTube, added that managers at the video-sharing site continue to try and refine the system.

YouTube defended its efforts to protect copyright.

"Since launching in October, our Video Identification system has shown terrific results in its comprehensiveness, accuracy, and scalability," a YouTube spokeswoman said in an e-mail. "Over 100 partners from independent content creators to large media companies are currently using Video ID to easily manage their content. Many have found it to be a helpful tool in generating revenue and exposure for their content in the world's largest online video community."

For a long time, numerous copyright owners accused YouTube and Google of profiting from piracy and deliberately dragging their feet in developing a way to cleanse the site. They argued that the availability of professionally created content--uploaded by users--is what draws people to YouTube and without that the site would lose much of its luster. YouTube has always denied the accusations.

Nonetheless, the controversy has damaged some of Google's relationships in Hollywood.

Viacom, parent company of MTV and Paramount Pictures, filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google last year. That case is expected to last years before being resolved and it could help decide what, if anything, a Web site's responsibilities are when it comes to policing for copyright violations.

Copyright clips abound
Certainly at this point, it's hard to see much change at YouTube since launching Video ID.

Available on the site are literally countless clips from feature films and TV shows produced by small production companies as well as the largest entertainment conglomerates--including Viacom.

Key into YouTube's search field the names of the last five Academy Award winners in the best picture category and scenes from each will appear. Want to watch the first 10 minutes of the gangster flick, The Departed? They're there. Someone else posted a series of 12 separate scenes from the film, presumably to get around YouTube's 10-minute clip limit.

Fans of Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby can watch the "Mo cuishle" episode on YouTube as well as the coin toss scene from last year's best picture winner No Country For Old Men.

Identifying video is not easy, YouTube execs have long said. About 10 hours of video is uploaded to the site every minute. In addition to policing an enormous volume of video, YouTube must first obtain high-quality copies so it can create a digital fingerprint of the film or show. Ideally, the automated system will recognize when someone uploads an unauthorized copy.

While copyright videos are still plentiful on YouTube, there are seemingly fewer complaints from Hollywood. The sources who are part of YouTube's testing say the entertainment industry has shown a willingness to give YouTube time to improve filtering.

Some content owners may have also concluded that some degree of piracy is inevitable.

"We still see our content pop up on YouTube," CNN.com Executive Producer Sandy Malcolm told the Associated Press this week. "You deal with it. You try to work with them on rights and things, but I don't think you can completely stop it. You just try to beat the tide and try to get your content out as fast as you can."

Google execs continue to say they respect copyright and are working to protect it. Schmidt said protecting copyright was in Google's best interest.

"We are critically dependent upon the production of copyright content," Schmidt told the NAB audience a year ago. "Literally, people come to Google to get to somewhere where there is something of value. It's very important that we not violate copyright."

Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg.
Recent posts from News Blog
EA Mobile, Eidos Interactive sign agreement
Sprint first to offer HTC Touch Pro
Flipping out: RIM BlackBerry Pearl Flip 8220 debuts
Sprint HTC Touch Diamond outed early
Woman to virtual ex: 'I won't be ignored!'
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 16 comments
CNET has become a mouthpiece for the MPAA?
by sismoc April 18, 2008 5:08 AM PDT
This type of MPAA propaganda is below the standards of respectable journalism.

Keep repeating the lies put forth by the RIAA and the MPAA and people will start to find their news elsewhere.
Reply to this comment View reply
Rotten, aging, theiving corporations
by cybervigilante April 18, 2008 6:47 AM PDT
These rotten old companies are just a bunch of greedy scum trying to roll back the tide of the new Internet economy. They're also trying to kill net neutrality and freedom of speech. They stink.

A friend of mine worked for the recording industry and told me they're worse than boxing promoters. Except for the few big names who can hire slews of lawyers, they cheat the hell out of young artists, then charge twenty bucks for a lousy CD. They don't mind robbing others but don't dare put that shoe on their foot.
Reply to this comment View reply
I know about copyright, but...
by marrofkane April 18, 2008 7:03 AM PDT
youtube is the place to see things and hear things you may not get to experience. I've bought DVD's and Music CD's because of what I saw on youtube!! Hell, it's free advertising!! The videos are not anywhere the quality of a DVD, and the songs are not in stereo. And they are all compressed, so the quality is not near what the original is. I understand the copyright laws, but I think they are silly when it comes to youtube. And why are we lax on immigration laws, but not copyright laws?? Because of money!! I don't believe there is a substantial loss for studios for content posted on youtube. I could be wrong, but what I think it is, is that the RIAA and MPAA wants complete control of what people can see and hear. Some stuff, you cannot even buy. Why is that?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Sounds like a waste.
by mbenson111 April 18, 2008 7:28 AM PDT
Why bother fighting pirates on youtube? If they are watching something on youtube, they aren't watching it the way it was intended. Small and blurry, or full screen and very blurry. yay. "But I saw it for free!" Who cares?

I see youtube as a way to advertise for free. They should embrace it. People see stuff there, and if they like it, they buy the real deal. Maybe it cuts into profit when people don't buy the real thing if they don't like it. Perhaps that's the real gripe.
Reply to this comment View reply
Its the Money
by taphilo April 18, 2008 9:11 AM PDT
Problem: Something is created that a compnay has EXCLUSIVE rights to make money on. A 3rd Party posts it onto YouTube and now YouTube makes money from it - not the company (or person) who has exclusive rights to it for 90 years (a person gets Life of Person + 70 years).
Company wants to ensure that it gets to control all money in any way derived from it for those 90 years.
The technology has allowed the distribution of content to be removed from absolute control of the distributor and they want to gain that control back so they make all that money which - BY LAW - is granted to them by the Federal Government (though treaties signed with the EU that we now MUST comply with).
Fair - not really 90 years is a LONG time - but unless we pull out of the treaties and change the Federal Law - we are stuck with that reality.

Tom Philo
http://www.taphilo.com
Reply to this comment
How many were not claimed?
by AbuLafya April 18, 2008 10:16 AM PDT
A key data point missing from the article is how many of the copyrighted videos were not claimed by media companies, such that YT could not take it down?

I am also skeptical that, overall, the copyrighted content is what drives people to watch YT. I think it may actually not be the case. I would certainly not want to watch any movie on YT to save money, at least as long as they don't provide HD content.
Reply to this comment
It's About Exposure
by EAddie April 18, 2008 3:54 PM PDT
Nobody goes to YouTube to see a Hollywood movie the way anybody wants to see it -- we know everything looks crummy on YouTube -- they go to check out something, get a taste, and then maybe they'll fork over to buy it through conventional means. A taste doesn't even mean just a short clip, either. This is a revolution of access, and if the MPAA and the RIAA can't wrap their heads around what this means to them, then they're going to just **** users off up and down the line. The key, I think, is just to keep YouTube audio and video quality well below cutting edge standard; YouTube can be like the free preview of something, and if you want to see it beautiful, buy it, but at a reasonable price, please. When YouTubers start clicking on links and get the "This Video has been removed" notification, that's going to be a major bummer and discourage everybody, everybody except the studios who somehow will feel that they've "won" by keeping their content away from the eyes of somebody who, heaven forbid, was actually interested in seeing their product. And seeing such a pro-filtering rah-rah piece on CNET is a little startling. But it's sure heartening to hear that the radio and television execs were "delighted" -- they just don't get it at all. Such contempt for their audiences and what they want and expect these days is truly sad and shortsighted.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
Resource center from News.com sponsors
You Need The Speed of Norton 2009
Introducing Norton Internet Security™2009

Click Here!
With one-click, one-minute install, under 8MB of memory usage and fewer, shorter scans, it's the fastest security suite anywhere. Norton. Smart Security, Engineered for Speed. Get a FREE trial today!

Click Here!
The Fastest Security Suite Anywhere

Experience the revolutionary Norton Internet Security™ 2009. With Norton™ Insight, a new feature, you get precision security that targets only at risk files for fewer, faster, shorter scans

Win a Trip to Space!*

Enter the Blast Off with Norton Sweepstakes for your shot at a trip to space. You could experience being fast and weightless, just like the new Norton 2009. *No purchase necessary; click for full details.

FREE Trial!

Act now to get your FREE trial of Norton Internet Security 2009. Try it for the protection. Love it for the speed

Norton Safe Web NEW!

A community-based system that rates web site safety

Norton Labs NEW!

Users can download new security technologies and share input directly with developers. Help us shape our future products!

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

News Blog topics

Featured blogs

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right