Google (the owner of YouTube) has just announced the release of a beta version of a video filtering tool. It has named it YouTube Video Identification. This supports Google's corporate copyright law compliance (and survival against legal threats).
It is also another step towards protecting content owners whose copyright work is uploaded into YouTube without permission and then copied over, in virus-like fashion, to innumerable other sites. It's a massive problem for audio-visual content owners. For many of them YouTube is a punk, not a new kid on the block.
YouTube Video Identification has been developed internally after looking outside algorithm fortress Google. As for audio copyright works (largely music), in February 2007 Google licensed copyright filtering technology for YouTube from AudibleMagic.
Google's announcement emphasises that its latest attempted technology fix is part of a package of protections.
Before assessing Google's move, here's the 15 October 2007 Google announcement in part (emphasis ours):
Video Identification joins the following policies and tools:This Google copyright compliance package therefore includes legal and policy restrictions on users, a continuing 10 minute limit on the length of videos, takedown software tools provided to copyright holders, and copyright tips.
However, beware of Google bearing copyright tips. Google is famous for pushing copyright law beyond traditional limits. Conveniently for Google, its copyright tips only reference United States copyright law.
against copyright infringement in YouTube. Reported cases include: (1) Viacom's in the US, (2) English soccer's Premier League, and (3) the Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers.
Google's deep pockets help. Additionally, the location of Google's servers may make some difference for blocking anti-Google actions. However the location of servers made no difference in the loss by the US defendants in Gutnick v Dow Jones and Company Inc. (under Australian defamation law) or the massive loss by the defendant in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [Kazza case] (under Australian copyright law). Kazaa in late July 2006 agreed to pay A$152 million (US$115 million) compensation for past IP infringements. Perhaps the ongoing Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) court case against Google may shed light on the extent of the difference the location of servers makes. Google remains arguably the leading force worldwide in re-framing what is lawful under copyright law today.
Let's talk about your intellectual property, commercialisation and business law needs.
Login
Register