Facebook Developing Copyright ID System To Stem Music Rights Infringement (billboard.com) 42
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Billboard: As Facebook continues to grapple with its role in proliferating "fake news" amidst the heated U.S. election this year, it has another showdown looming on the horizon -- this one with the music industry. In the wake of NMPA president/CEO David Israelite's op-ed in Billboard in October, in which he called out the social media giant for hosting videos with copyrighted music without securing licensing deals or paying creators, Facebook is working to develop a copyright identification system -- similar to YouTube's Content ID -- that would find and remove videos containing copyrighted music, a source tells Billboard. The story was first reported by the Financial Times. One music industry source, confirming Facebook's plans to develop a copyright ID system, says the company has a massive infringement problem in regards to music on the site. "They see the huge amount of traffic music content is responsible for on their platform and don't want to be on the wrong end of an artist fight," the person says. "They also see that there's a potential opportunity to position themselves as friendly to content creators as opposed to YouTube, so they are working fast to get this right." Talks between Facebook and the major labels are underway to license content moving forward, Billboard has learned, though they are still in the preliminary stages. In its report, the Financial Times referenced a source saying a deal would not be done before the spring.
Re:Ha ha I'd love to see them try (Score:5, Interesting)
We need a legal fix here more than a technical fix: FRAND licensing for all streamed music. There's already the equivalent for live performances: pay your ASCAP fees and you can play whatever to whomever. But the point is there should be no "take downs", the copyright owner should simply get a cut of any money made from any given stream. YouTube already has this technology, of course, but sometimes you still see take-downs as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fair Use (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fair(ness) (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
FRAND is just mandatory licensing at a reasonable price. Seems right.
Most "user content" with music is not fair use, though. Lyrics on screen, or dancing to the music? Not fair use. Covers? Not fair use. There's very little you can do with music that's fair use. But that shouldn't matter - the site should give the artist a cut of the ad revenue, and that's that.
streamed games and music = double dip or more (Score:2)
streamed games and music = double dip or more.
As the RIAA wants the game makers and the streamer to both pay for the rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, a legal fix, such as, *A mechanical reproduction is NOT a performance of work*. That would suit me just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm as annoyed as most about the outcome of the election, ESPECIALLY since a lot of it turned on fake news as well as the Russian influence. My call for remedy? Decertify the results and reroll.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what's a better term that means "a work of real-person fiction [allthetropes.org] published with intent to deceive readers into believing that it describes actual events"?
Fair use and your face (Score:1)
Next stop (Score:2)
Malware ridden ads.
A slippery slope when your warts start to show (Score:4, Insightful)
The Facebook has benefited, undoubtedly, from it's inherent ubiquitous relevance.
Though it is plausibly due to the sudden decline in the stock of twitter, we should not be colored surprised at the revelation that these popular forums are as difficult to turn profitable as some of the dotcom companies.
How will this stop copyfraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jay Leno hears a musical bit and includes it in the Tonight Show broadcast (without obtaining the rights to do so).
NBC uploads the Tonight Show to YouTube's ContentID system to declare their right to the 'NBC' broadcast. Except of course it contains the musical bit from someone else. Yet NBC is now claiming ownership of something they most certainly don't
Automated process at YouTube takes down anything matching ContentID except the 'original' content.
Except NBC isn't the owner or the original content. They are just the 900 lb gorilla who gets to throw their weight around.
NOTHING about content online conveys whether it is legal. Clearly it can be legal in MULTIPLE places (though not in this case). If NBC had licensed this, how would ContentID or FB's concept differ between 2 valid instances?
The original artist is under no obligation to register anything with anyone. copyright is granted simply by creating it. yet this system would actively undermine their legal rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Fox did as well.
https://torrentfreak.com/fox-s... [torrentfreak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The really fucked up part about it is that the original creator of the piece could well have his video taken down and even his account banned due to him himself using what he himself created while the entity using his creation in a fraudulent way gets the "right" to use it.
THAT is what's fucked up about it.
NBC violated YouTube TOS (Score:2)
NBC uploads the Tonight Show to YouTube's ContentID system to declare their right to the 'NBC' broadcast. Except of course it contains the musical bit from someone else. Yet NBC is now claiming ownership of something they most certainly don't
This violates the terms of service of YouTube Content ID. A copyright owner that uploads reference material to Content ID is expected to scrub its uploads of all material to which it does not own the exclusive right [google.com].
Re: NBC violated YouTube TOS (Score:2)
Sue the bastards for slander of title (Score:2)
NBC owns copyright in each episode as a collective work. But under the Content ID TOS, NBC is expected to blank and/or mute portions of said collective work used under nonexclusive license from others or under fair use or other statutory copyright limits before uploading the collective work as reference material.
Perhaps someone might end up having to take NBC to court for defamation of title [wikipedia.org] before this stuff is reformed.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? They already have it running (Score:2)
I used a couple of pop songs in my yearly video _last_ year, and it found and removed my post within minutes (it wasn't even public - just for friends).
I had to resort to embedding youtube video, that happily shows ads and allows you to buy these songs - I really wish Facebook had same, since watching youtube video on mobile in facebook client is suboptimal...
Re: (Score:2)
I should upload such footage to my Facebook account. Let them threaten to delete the account, and upload some more.
When they delete my account I can finally tell people that I don't have Facebook because it was deleted by copyright nazis. I'll have something legitimate to say after the inevitable "I don't use Facebook." "Why?" conversation!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It took me over a month to get everything from 2012 thru now. My wife double-checked my work, as the first time I thought I'd gotten everything it turns out FB was (accidentally? intentionally?) holding out on me, almost as though some piece of code detected what I was doi
Re: (Score:2)
Another social tool trying hard to get irrelevant (Score:2)
Hey, Facebook? Ponder a moment, if you will.
Who do you get your money from?
Right, advertisers and people who buy the data you mine from your users.
What do you need for that?
Right, people who put their life online for you to mine, and people to display ads to.
Why do people use your platform to do this?
Right, because you let them display what they create on your platform.
And what could people stop using your platform?
You trashing their videos for some arbitrary reason.
In other words, I hope the *IAA is paying
Developing? Since When? (Score:2)
Are FB working on a revenue-sharing/monetisation model beyond the obviously extant copyright flagger they have now?