1.
Slide 1
Automating Notice and Takedown
Bill Rosenblatt
GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies
billr@giantstepsmts.com
http://www.giantstepsmts.com
(212) 956 1045
© 2007
GiantSteps 1
Media Technology Strategies

2.
Slide 2
Two Competing Ideas
Notice and Takedown Filtering
 Provided for in copyright law  Private-sector technology
 Reactive  Proactive
 Observe one’s copyrighted  Network operator adopts
material on a network without technology to identify content
authorization  When conetent is uploaded to
 Send notice to network operator network, acoustic fingerprinting
 Operator removes work technology automatically
 Example: YouTube identifies and blocks it
 Technology vendors: Audible
Magic, Philips, Gracenote, others
 Examples: MySpace, iMesh
© 2007
GiantSteps 2
Media Technology Strategies

3.
Slide 3
Whose Responsibility?
Notice and Takedown Filtering
 Copyright owner:  Copyright owner:
– Monitor networks to identify works – Feed filtering technology vendor
it owns content and other info to enable
– Send notices identification
– Cost: expensive – Cost: cheap*
– Scalability: terrible – Scalability: excellent
 Network operator:  Network operator:
– Respond (reactively) to notices – Buy and maintain technology
– Cost: not expensive – Cost: more expensive
– Scalability: not very good – Scalability: unknown beyond a
certain point
 Technology vendor
– Maintain database of fingerprints
– Ensure accuracy of IDs
© 2007
GiantSteps 3 *Assuming small number of vendors.
Media Technology Strategies

4.
Slide 4
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?
© 2007
GiantSteps 4
Media Technology Strategies

5.
Slide 5
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
© 2007
GiantSteps 5
Media Technology Strategies

6.
Slide 6
Two Points Along the Continuum
Standardizing Notice and Takedown automation
Filtering plus copyright registration
© 2007
GiantSteps 6
Media Technology Strategies

7.
Slide 7
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
© 2007
GiantSteps 7
Media Technology Strategies

8.
Slide 8
Filtering Plus Copyright Registration
 Neutral entity* Issues:
– Standardizes on single acoustic  Choosing the technology
fingerprinting technology
– Antitrust concerns
– Provides service to network
– Open standards
operators on cost recovery basis
– Vendors want to make profits
 Add fingerprint registration to – Patent coverage
copyright registration process  No technology is 100% accurate
 For copyright owners, cheap and – how to adjudicate disputes?
scalable  Setting appropriate fees
 For network operators, not too  Who pays???
expensive, questionably scalable – Content owners don’t pay for
DRM…
© 2007
GiantSteps
Media Technology Strategies
8 *E.g., Copyright Office

9.
Slide 9
Comparison
1: Manual 2: Standardized 3: Fingerprint 4: Fingerprints
Notice and Notice Filtering With ©
Takedown Automation Registration
Proactive No No Yes Yes
Cost C: expensive C: somewhat C: cheap C: very cheap
N: not expensive cheaper than 1 N: more N: same as 3
N: same as 1 expensive
Scalability C: terrible C: a bit better C: very good C: excellent
N: not good than 1 N: unknown N: unknown
N: same as 1
C: Copyright Owners
GiantSteps
N: Network Operators
© 2007 Media Technology Strategies
9

10.
Slide 10
Issues that Technology Won’t Solve
Who verifies identity of allegedly copyrighted work?
Who gets benefit of doubt in disputes?
Who pays?
© 2007
GiantSteps 10
Media Technology Strategies