[3249] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Did YouTube Really Block Michelle Obama's DNC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (PRIVACY Forum mailing list)
Wed Sep 5 18:24:22 2012
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:05:13 -0700
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Message-ID: <20120905220513.GF12895@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
From: PRIVACY Forum mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Did YouTube Really Block Michelle Obama's DNC Speech for Copyright
Infringement?
http://j.mp/OQe20R (This message on Google+)
- - -
http://j.mp/OQexrV (Slate)
"Either way, this amounts to something less than a copyright
apocalypse. Michelle Obama's speech is still available on plenty of
other YouTube channels, including here, here, and here. But on the
heels of the Hugo Awards debacle, it's another reminder of the need
for human vigilance against overzealous digital-rights-management
algorithms. In a statement chalking up the glitch to "a technical
error on YouTube," an Obama campaign official added, "We do not expect
tonight's coverage will be affected." Copyright bots, the gauntlet has
been thrown!"
- - -
Irrespective of this particular case, this whole area (not just
YouTube) of automated content flagging needs serious attention from a
number of standpoints. Here's an example of what has happened to me
(and many other people). I uploaded a video of mine that included a
segment of old, definitely public domain material. Shortly
thereafter, my entire vid was flagged by YouTube's Content ID. Why?
It took some digging to figure out, but it turns out a Content ID
partner had uploaded a video of their own that happened to include a
section of the same public domain material I had used. This
apparently made it look like my video was infringing, since Content ID
assumed the section of my vid that matched their vid was in violation.
Wrong! But Content ID partners get the assumption of being correct,
and there's no way for an average user to assert that something is
public domain a priori. I was able to get this reversed by careful
explanation on the appropriate forms, but I wonder how many people
would just throw up their arms and say, "To hell with it!" and not
bother? This is not an easy situation to solve, but the explicit
assumption that Content ID partners are correct and that takedowns or
other actions are immediate -- with a protest required to get blocks,
etc. removed after the fact, strikes me as increasingly problematic.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
