Resistance is Futile!
Wall Street Journal – December 18, 2006:
To deal with the mounting copyright issues swirling around video and other content online, a start-up founded by some respected Silicon Valley executives is taking a novel approach: combing the entire Web for unauthorized uses.
Privately held Attributor Corp. of Redwood City, Calif., has begun testing a system to scan the billions of pages on the Web for clients’ audio, video, images and text — potentially making it easier for owners to request that Web sites take content down or provide payment for its use.
The start-up, which was founded last year and has been in “stealth” mode, is emerging into the public eye today, at a time when some media and entertainment companies’ frustration with difficulties identifying infringing uses of their content online is increasing. The problem has intensified with the proliferation and increasing usage of sites such as Google Inc.’s YouTube, which lets consumers post video clips.
Its co-founders, former Yahoo Inc. executive Jim Brock, and Jim Pitkow, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has sold companies to Google and VeriSign Inc., claim to have cracked the thorny computer-science problem of scouring the entire Web by using undisclosed technology to efficiently process and comb through chunks of content. The company says it will have over 10 billion Web pages in its index before the end of this month.
“If it works, it’s a fantastic invention,” Mr. Iser says.
Think of all the cease and desist letters that will be sent if this works! And if it doesn’t work, there’ll be counter-suits! Either way the lawyers will win big.
That’s why Mr. Lawyer is so happy!
What if a website’s copyright dictates that it shall not be scanned for violations? Who is being more violated?
Just so wrong on so many levels.
Will likely create many false positives like spam filtering software.
How can you properly determine a Jpg when the original was a six mega-pixel and someone scales it to 1024×768?
Every Jpg has embedded info inside of it, like the camera used and datetime. It’s very easy to get rid of. Same for video files, convert and strip into another format.
That means that kids & grannies, that simply do a cut & paste will receive takedown notices, and not the Pro’s.
Damn all lawyers
First off, whether you agree with it or not, great idea for a company.
#1: Johnny: A web site can not have a copyright saying “it can not be scanned”, any more than a billboard can be copyrighted saying only some people can see it. Any tags on web sites that say “don’t scan me” (ie; for the search engines), are voluntarily observed. If you want to put something private on the web, use authorization checks and/or encryption.
#2: I’m not sure why its wrong “on so many levels”. Please explain. As for the false positives, they have *nothing* to gain, and *everything* to lose by issuing false “take down” notices, or going the legal route. And if there software PROPERLY determines stolen or misused intellectual property (even when jpgs are scaled, in your example), good for them, good for their scientists who figured it out.
As to the methods behind spam filters, there is good science and legwork, and bad ones. I use Yahoo, and they are damn near perfect (though some JPG’s with the stock tips have been getting through lately). And besides, spam filters are a convenience for us, they are looking for real criminals. I doubt they are going to go after somebody adding the beatle’s “Birthday” to a video on a family web site, but we’ll see. My guess they’ll go after a commercial site that adds a beatle song as background music. Who knows at this point?
#4, lou
Good argument. I agree.
As for the false positives, they have *nothing* to gain, and *everything* to lose by issuing false “take down” notices, or going the legal route.
The RIAA has proven otherwise.
2: Watermarks in images have been around for a while in Photoshop…if you register with digimarc they will scour the web for images that contain your watermark. And it makes no diff if you resize or resave the jpg. They claim that if you print such an image and scan it, the resultant image will still contain the watermark.
(what happened to the School Mac/PC thread?)
#7. “what happened to the School Mac/PC thread?”
It’s still where we left it.
Linky no worky.
(FWIW…the school should reconsider Macs because of their dual-boot capabilities…ditch the PCs! (I forgot about this))
Editors’ note: It’s back.
Oh, and where did that pic of Jeri Ryan come from?
GOTCHA!
and what happens when NTP or SCO decides that this was their technology all along, and decides to sue for copyright infringement?
then what?
#11. “and what happens when NTP or SCO decides that this was their technology all along, and decides to sue for copyright infringement?”
Obviously the machine would have recognized that its own code was a copyright violation and would have turned itself into the BSA for deletion.
borg chicks are hot.
Its interesting, the amount of DATA on the web.
Not including secure sites.
You are looking at BILLIONS to the BILLIONth power of data.
but I dont think they are looking at graphics…they are looking for DATA.
thats easy to mess up…
Everyone,
we need to rename files..
LIKE DUH…
we can either rename then Different from what they are, This way they will need to DL all the files and view them, to find anything.
OR we can all ADd to the effort, by nameing files after Songs and movies, no matter the size.
This way, If we have a file that says “Over the hedge” it has to be DL’ed to be checked…IF they file a lawsuit BEFORE they check…WOW, we can take them for ALOT of money.
There was a proposed “jam echelon day” a while back. This is even worthier. Should be a snap to put up things that’ll fool this.
Milo,
Yep very easy to Mess it up..
Best part, is how many are going to PAY money to watch it work.
And when they come up, and give me a warrent. I will laugh myself to the BANK.
To DL and test EVERY file out there, even just movies and Music…
Go for it, and everyone join in..
RENAME site files Please.
The real fun is, I the GOOD stuff should be behind firewalls and such, or should be. Or in invisable DIRs, Or encrypted, some how if they are putting them ONLINE for sale, or other..
so they are going to HACK ALL these system to FIND copyright infringement.
LOVe to catch them doing it online…TALK about a BANKROLL, you and your family could be set for LIFE, and then the GRANDKIDS.
But can you put out strings of pseudo-data that won’t jam up the search engines we use to navigate the internet?
17,
What? You are going to search the net for Eragon the movie and THINK you will find the DL??
If you are stupid enough to open it, and NOT get a virus/bot/Spammed Or a Bot that sends a little msg to some corp that traces it back to you…
DO you THINK in your dreams that it will be anything like the movie??
Then if you do the search, and 100,000 sites pop up with that file??
This could be fun..