An Analysis Of YouTube's Content Fingerprinting System

from the data-data-data dept

There have been plenty of questions about YouTube’s fingerprinting system and how it works, and the EFF notes that an enterprising YouTube user figured that with a little experimentation, he could perhaps figure out how the system worked. Basically, he uploaded 82 different versions of a song, to see what YouTube caught… and what it didn’t. He’s put together a list of what he found out that’s worth reading through, noting that it could still “catch” plenty of distorted content and that it reviews every video as soon as it’s uploaded. But perhaps the most interesting (and surprising) bit: it seems to only look at the beginning of the video. He found that if he left the first 30 seconds blank, the system didn’t catch anything. But if just played the first 30 seconds of a song, the video got flagged… There are some other interesting findings as well, that pretty much highlight how questionable some of these fingerprinting systems are in terms of accurately identifying the content in question.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “An Analysis Of YouTube's Content Fingerprinting System”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
16 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

I bet this doesn't observe Fair Use Laws

Um, does the fingerprinter also observe Fair Use? As in you can use 30 seconds of any song and not need to pay licensing, royalty, and it’s also not piracy?

For example, radio stations benefit from Fair Use for their bumps, and in-house produced advertisements.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I bet this doesn't observe Fair Use Laws

Um, does the fingerprinter also observe Fair Use? As in you can use 30 seconds of any song and not need to pay licensing, royalty, and it’s also not piracy?

For example, radio stations benefit from Fair Use for their bumps, and in-house produced advertisements.

It doesn’t really have to. It’s their service, so what they do is just flag it and offer the “contest” button. There would be a problem if they flagged it for DMCA take down or something, but since all it does is disable the sound through their service, they technically aren’t doing anything wrong and allow an avenue to contest the result.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I bet this doesn't observe Fair Use Laws

so what they do is just flag it and offer the “contest” button.

I was talking with a friend this last weekend who has been entertained by these issues as well, granted not to the depth of 84 videos, but similarly speaking. It’s simply justifying the system when itself does not observe fair use law, but so long as the ends justify the means, well… Waterboarding worked well also.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I bet this doesn't observe Fair Use Laws

Yea, Youtube muting audio tracks is the same as waterboarding. They don’t have to “observe fair use law.” It’s their service.

It appears you missed the point. To me, anyways, the actions seem more like wholesale denial that certain rights and even agreeable takedown processes exist. Are all rights being observed within the framework of the process?

Kindly reply as I am unsure, not a member of this Youtube thing, and remain quite unfamiliar with the terms and conditions of their service. You appear quite astute on this subject matter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I bet this doesn't observe Fair Use Laws

It’s not the (Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432) case itself, but it’s probably going to be existing caselaw used during this case.

The actual law for Fair Use is very spongy and subject to much interpretation. You’d be best to consult with an attorney in your area.

As for the other question, you’ll need a usage license from the copyright holder’s agent. Normally ASCAP manages these rights.

Tgeigs says:

Re: Re: Re: I bet this doesn't observe Fair Use Laws

Understood. Results:

1. I’m not consulting w/an attorney. I make less than a $100 in cash per night and only do it 3-4 nights a week depending on the season, so not worth any time/money to try to include the music round.

2. So, not doing the music round. Which ultimately means that the music won’t be heard. Which is dumb because I’m not reaching that many people, and those I am reaching I’m quizing on the name of the band/artist, meaning I’m doing extra to get their name recognition out.

And this is why I refer to ASCAP as NAMBLA.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I bet this doesn't observe Fair Use Laws

Yes, however, if it’s over x patrons, it may qualify as a public performance, and they’ll go after the bar owner for compensation.

It’s foundations are based on case law and interpretation. To make matters worse, no new laws are introduced by congress to to rectify the system after the court finds guilt/innocence.

To gather an idea of the complexity of the system, sit down and try to list out all the licensetypes sometime. It’s amazing.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...