automating notice and takedown

GiantStepsMedia Technology Strategies© 2007 1

Automating Notice and Takedown

Bill RosenblattGiantSteps Media Technology Strategies

[email protected]://www.giantstepsmts.com

(212) 956 1045


Two Competing Ideas

Notice and Takedown Provided for in copyright law Reactive Observe one’s copyrighted

material on a network without authorization

Send notice to network operator Operator removes work Example: YouTube

Filtering Private-sector technology Proactive Network operator adopts

technology to identify content When conetent is uploaded to

network, acoustic fingerprintingtechnology automatically identifies and blocks it

Technology vendors: Audible Magic, Philips, Gracenote, others

Examples: MySpace, iMesh


Whose Responsibility?

Notice and Takedown Copyright owner:

– Monitor networks to identify works it owns

– Send notices– Cost: expensive– Scalability: terrible

Network operator:– Respond (reactively) to notices– Cost: not expensive– Scalability: not very good

Filtering Copyright owner:

– Feed filtering technology vendor content and other info to enable identification

– Cost: cheap*– Scalability: excellent

Network operator:– Buy and maintain technology– Cost: more expensive– Scalability: unknown beyond a

certain point

Technology vendor– Maintain database of fingerprints– Ensure accuracy of IDs

*Assuming small number of vendors.


Automated Notice and Takedown(YouTube)

Forms for content owners to fill out to request takedown– E.g., web interface

For content owners: more efficient but not really more scalable

For network operators: highly scalable

Issue: is removal automatic or does it require network operator review?– Should network operator pay to mitigate risk of false positives?


Filtering and DRM

When fingerprint is identified, content owner/licensor can choose action to take, e.g.:– Require payment– Check user’s subscription– Offer a free sample– Require user’s email address– Substitute an encrypted version – Any or all of the above

Original vision of Snocap and Mashboxx network


Two Points Along the Continuum

Standardizing Notice and Takedown automation

Filtering plus copyright registration


Standardizing Takedown Notices

Agree on standard protocol for sending notice– E.g., NTML (Notice and Takedown Markup Language)

Content owner sends standard messages to network operators– Via RSS feeds or similar expedient method

Improves scalability on content owner side slightly– Problem of observing unauthorized content remains– Allows content owners to send messages to multiple network

operators from same tool– And to add support for new network operators easily

Issue: requires agreement on content identification scheme– Artist and title probably not precise enough– 17 U.S.C. § 512 (3) does not specify


Filtering Plus Copyright Registration

Neutral entity* – Standardizes on single acoustic

fingerprinting technology– Provides service to network

operators on cost recovery basis

Add fingerprint registration to copyright registration process

For copyright owners, cheap and scalable

For network operators, not too expensive, questionably scalable

Issues: Choosing the technology

– Antitrust concerns– Open standards– Vendors want to make profits– Patent coverage

No technology is 100% accurate – how to adjudicate disputes?

Setting appropriate fees Who pays???

– Content owners don’t pay for DRM…

*E.g., Copyright Office


Comparison

1: Manual Notice and Takedown

2: Standardized Notice Automation

3: Fingerprint

Filtering

4: Fingerprints

With ©Registration

Proactive No No Yes Yes

Cost C: expensive

N: not expensive

C: somewhat cheaper than 1

N: same as 1

C: cheap

N: more expensive

C: very cheap

N: same as 3

Scalability C: terrible

N: not good

C: a bit better than 1

N: same as 1

C: very good

N: unknown

C: excellent

N: unknown

C: Copyright Owners

N: Network Operators


Issues that Technology Won’t Solve

Who verifies identity of allegedly copyrighted work?

Who gets benefit of doubt in disputes?

Who pays?