Coalition Creates Vague Guidelines for UGC
The cooperation between the major networks (and Veoh and Dailymotion) to create principles for finding and removing copyright infringing content on UGC services is a first for networks previously unable to come together in their digital media strategies. These guidelines are a long time coming.
But getting all networks together to agree on principles for user-generated content and video sharing has resulted in some vague principles and an alliance that leaves room for anticompetitive cooperation down the line.
At a minimum these guidelines will raise the barrier to entry for startups looking to begin file sharing services. I had intended to run through point by point, but it’s dry. So here are the cliffs notes, key points that stood out:
- UGC Services must place warning signs on their site which are visible while you upload and in the terms of use. Most sites terms of use already prohibit infringing uploads anyway - they need that verbiage in there to protect themselves.
- Reference to content identification technology and what that consists of is intentionally vague, meant to adapt to whatever the coalition believes is the best technology at the moment.
Because there are few standards for what constitutes acceptable ID technology it’s up to the coalition to specify what is “commercially reasonable.” Once the major networks partner with providers the potential exists for these accredited sources to engage in anticompetitive pricing or practices forcing out smaller players in the space.
- The guidelines get into specifics on use of reference material to seek out infringing content, blocking that content and working with UGC services to implement ID and pre-emptively, pro-actively and retroactively remove content illegally shared on these services.
- Not only should UGC sites block infringing content, they should also block links to sites that include infringing content. This makes sites even more accountable than most have been so far, and requires increased monitoring of comments and user-controls.
- UGC sites should provide rights holders with enhanced search capabilities to make it easier for entertainment companies to find illegally uploaded content on UGC sites. Basically, the copyright holders want a back-end solution for finding illegal content to make the lives easier for the
- Copyright owners should accommodate fair use. Nice of them to accommodate the law, but what constitutes fair use is still in many cases disputed and open to interpretation.
- UGC sites should keep records related to users and content that has been removed for at least 60 days including IP addreses and time and date consistent with all applicable privacy laws, and should provide that information to copyright holders. Not very end-user friendly.
- If UGC sites adhere to these principles copyright holders won’t sue them. “Copyright Owners and UGC Services should continue to cooperate with each other’s reasonable efforts to create content-rich, infringement-free services” and should work together to test new technology and update these principles as warranted.
Notably missing from this group is Google, which is big enough that it can stand up to the rights holders and seems set on their new world order argument that people are using media in fundamentally new and different ways, and that they will set the guidelines for this.
It’s also interesting that Veoh has aligned themselves with broadcast media companies following their dispute with UMG. Television continues to take a much less aggressive, but no less serious stance than the music industry in fighting copyright infringement, choosing engagement and diplomacy rather than all-out attack.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
[...] from Mark Robertson [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 am
The UGC Principles
A Giant Leap for Mankind … or A Small Step into Quicksand
First of all, as a representative of one of the millions of creative individuals and small businesses out here who generate a healthy percentage of all copyrighted works in this country, I would like to applaud the large media, entertainment, and software companies for their efforts … even as I point out several serious flaws in their approach. I can see how these (User Generated Content, or “UGC”, Principles) announcements benefit Viacom in its lawsuit with YouTube/Google and Microsoft in its attempts to regain some degree of industry “leadership” and focused direction in the various copyright industries affected by Internet and CD/DVD piracy.
Do they benefit most companies, or individuals, who create copyrighted works equally? Unfortunately, I don’t hink so.
Four (4) serious problems exist with this first attempt at regaining some degree of control inte copyright protection arena:
1. Principles that conflict with laws do nothing but create chaos and generate legal fees.
2. Companies who develop over 80% of all new copyrighted works are not represented.
3. Google and Yahoo were excluded for some reason known only in Silicon Valley or DC.
4. This is a connected world nowadays. International compliance is essential to succeed.
Here are my thoughts on these four concerns, as well as an article I posted last week pertaining the largest money-maker from infringement activity of them all … Google.
1. This new alliance will not work as it currently stands, however. It is only guidelines, not law. In fact, it conflicts with existing copyright laws in some areas. That, alone, will create chaos on a battlefield where both sides are armed with tons of cash (did someone say “Google”?).
2. There is no representation of the millions of people who depend on the licensing fees and royalties generated from legitimate copyrighted works in this alliance. I simply cannot believe these huge publicly funded companies haven’t realized it’s not just their billionaire owners who have a stake in this game.
3. Any agreement in principle that does not include the two prominent Internet “eyeball” companies in the United States (Google and Yahoo) among its “members” will not succeed. Simply stated, ALL major players in the copyright industry production and distribution channels have agree to these principles or they should not adopted at all. Democratic principles (i.e. 7 for and 3 against) will not work in an environment whereby any one rogue company can duplicate and distribute billions of perfect copies of just about anything on the planet overnight, and use unlawful infringement activities to actually gain market share.
4. Any major initiative that includes practical changes ot the way we monitor and enforce copyrights in this country must be agreed to be all members of WIPO to have a chance to succeed. Today, a server in Bangladesh can do the exact same damage as one in Los Angeles, or Peoria, and with even less cost to the infringing company, or “pirates”. Tough sanctions MUST be enforced against foreign countries who violate the intellectual property rights agreed to in Berne Convention and in the WIPO treaties in the late 1990s. Administration officials have talked a big game here for years. Talk is cheap. International Enforcement Action is what is required if we are at all serious about this mission.
Once again, I believe this is a step in the right direction. At least more attention is being paid to one of the most serious criminal and social epidemics of all time … stealing over the Internet and counterfeiting goods in the streets. I just hope the copyright industries stick with this and make the changes needed for this important mission to succeed.
Now onto Google ….
****************************************************************************
Google’s Video Voodoo
Like everything else it does, Google only advances technology solutions that also advance its own cause … willful blindness, extraordinary profits, inflated egos, exponential market share growth, and/or unilateral control of all of the world’s data and images.
What is needed here is an industry-wide set of standards and procedures to combat widespread piracy.
Not just for video, but for digital music, movies, illustrated artwork, recipes, poems, photographs, short stories, news articles, and all other copyrighted works as well. Each industry segment needs to endorse its own workable and reasonable set of standards. Believe it or not, this is far easier than you might think.
Some of these standards have already been set. My small graphic arts content development company here in Virginia has developed a workable solution for new electronic clipart illustrations, design templates, cartoons, logos/symbols, and animations. Even photography.
We have tried to share these standards with the Google’s and Microsoft’s of this world, but they make far more profits from continuing to display and distribute infringing works, and sell online advertising beside them, than they would if they were to demand compliance or change their own internal operating procedures, even those that require little work on their part. They have, for the most part, ignored our offers to help curb piracy in our graphic arts content markets.
If you remember nothing else from this article, please remember this one thing. “Piracy” is the most lucrative business model there is for these giant search and advertising driven companies, like Google, Ask.com, AOL, and Microsoft. They make the same gross revenues, and other “eyeball” benefits, with absolutely no cost of goods sold. They are not going to stop promoting piracy until we all force them to comply with the laws of this land. The solution requires the perfect balance of preventative industry standards upfront and strong enforcement (civil and criminal) against those who break the rules once they are caught. Willful pirates and willful distributors of stolen works.
Industry accepted standards force two groups and two groups only to the back on the line … pirates … and those middlemen like Google who profit from the distribution of stolen property! Those who steal your work, or who steal the work of others that ultimately forces what you pay for things to go much higher. And those who cover up such unlawful distribution and create “red herrings”. This country has always called these people “crooks”. Why are the Googlites having such a hard time adapting to a world that respects copyrights? Think about it. How many Google billionaires did you see on the recent Forbes list of the top 400 billionaires in this country?
Companies simply don’t trust Google the way Google apparently still thinks they do … especially companies who own copyrighted material. Don’t individual company solutions often create monopolistic business practices that in turn lead to greed, corruption, hypocrisy, and other illegal and/or unethical activities? Neither Google nor Microsoft deserve this kind of trust, or market power, from my experience. They have simply not earned it.
This new Google video “solution”, a legal red herring if I’ve ever seen one, forces companies to send all of their work through Google in advance. And when an infringement occurs, the companies have to expend yet additional resources to monitor the infringements and choose between three options as to how to proceed to protect their property. Google gathers valuable data throughout the entire process. Google continues to sell AdWords and AdSense along the way. Who needs a Westlaw or an Appeals Court under this scary scenario?
And doesn’t this approach of endorsing “after the fact” licensing further encourage pirates to continue their evil ways? Copyright defense lawyers will have a ball with this one. Just you wait and see. Think about it. If the penalty for stealing $200 worth of merchandise from 7-11 was your picture on a poster and a fine of 100 bucks, how many people would turn to this way of life?
Google continues to make a fortune at each stage of their recommended “process”. What a joke. Voodoo. Let Google donate their technological solution to an independent third party monitoring service if they are serious.
I thought we had laws in this country that cover this critical subject matter. Or is this yet another new “law of Googlism”. Only two things will fix this serious piracy problem. VERY strict enforcement of our existing laws (civil and criminal) and industry standard ways of using technology to discourage or prevent piracy.
No self-serving efforts are needed on this one, Google. Thanks anyway. The stakes are simply way too high!
Here’s the net. It is high time we held Google accountable for their role in spreading Internet piracy beyond a controllable issue in all parts of the world … and intentionally I might add. And I base my view on facts I’ve gathered, not just speculation. They have contributed to making copyright infringement an epidemic of enormous economical and social importance. A white collar crime epidemic, the likes of which we have not witnessed in this country in a long, long time. They should not be applauded for this new technology. They should be condemned for their efforts in creating a world that requires technological safeguards to correct economic imbalances and engineering defections in its moral and ethical compass.
If you can’t see this handwriting on the wall, then you are either very naive or have some sort of vested interest right along with Google (or perhaps even Microsoft) in fabricating these smokescreens.
Please reconsider your position. We need as many people in this copyright protection boat as we can possibly muster.
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
DailyMotion a founding member of “Disney Principles”…
…