New Software Will Scan Web for Content Copyright Violations

[Sapphire Blue]

New Software Will Scan Web for Content Copyright Violations
By E&P Staff
Published: December 18, 2006 3:30 PM ET

NEW YORK A new online tool has been developed by the California-based Attributor Corp. to help publishers and other content producers scan the internet for possible copyright violations, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal.

The tool uses new technology which Attributor says can scan Web pages more efficiently, and the company has said that there will be over 10 billion pages included in its index by the end of this month, according to the report.

The tool has been developed in response to a problem that has become more and more troublesome for publishers recently, as Web users have increasingly posted illegal copies of audio, video, and text content on personal blogs as well as public sites like the Google-owned YouTube. Until now, media companies have had mixed results in manually locating pirated content and enforcing copyrights online, the Journal article said.

To read the entire article, click here.

http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/departments/online/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003523005

[NJCher]

1. we couldn't re-think copyright law, could we?

No, this country's solution is to become more of a police state. Monitoring, spying, crackdowns, threats, lawsuits.

I am just so sick of it.



Cher

[Selatius]

2. Well, the US is built on capitalism, and it can't exist without copyright law and state force.

A good example is a landlord. A landlord can't charge you rent and expect you to pay for living on that piece of land if the state won't enforce his claim on that piece of land you're on. In the past, the landlord simply sent his knights to try to beat and terrorize it out of you or drive you off the land and retake the home. The state simply makes it easier for the landlord by serving as modern day knights and enforcers.

[tkmorris]

4. Not the same thing

Not even close in fact.

[Selatius]

5. What are you telling me?

Am I wrong to assume capitalism cannot exist without property law?

[tkmorris]

8. No

Merely that making an analogy between a landlord selling a fixed, individual section of space is a far, far, different thing than someone selling something ephemeral, something which infinite copies can be made of.

What you need to consider is the limitations of property law. Can you really enforce the copyright of the performance of a piece of music itself or merely the medium upon which it exists? Can I copyright my voice, and if someone copies it too closely can I sue? If I quote a book do I owe the author a royalty?

It gets hairy. It isn't nearly as black and white as the record corporations would have you believe. That's the rub.

[unpossibles]

10. the laws are pretty specific, and there are a number of

fair use loopholes which people sometimes get away with in non-profit use. You can copyright a piece of music and performance copyright the performance of it - two different things. You cannot copyright your voice, although you can perhaps trademark it if it is so unique and necessary to your style and can prove it so.

While I agree that people get a bit too draconian with the laws sometimes, this is not a bad thing. Many of the copyright holders are creative progressive people just trying to earn a living, although yes, many are also extremely wealthy already.

But if you create something, it is copyrighted, and if you choose to sell that something, you deserve to be paid for it. Or, you can choose to give it away and declare it public domain. Or you can sell licenses to use it cheaply.

See, the trick with the whole "ephemeral" argument, is this: let's say I shoot a photograph. I am trying to sell it without luck, so I instead put it on a stock service (like Getty or Reuters or AP or whatever). They get more exposure and it sells, but I do not get 100% of the selling price (which is also usually pretty cheap, depending) - the company who I sold it through gets a pretty sizable chunk of it, and deserves to because they were able to get more potential buyers to see my art. So to make up for that, I want my photo to sell to a wide audience; the multiple copies are what makes it a good deal for me as well as the stock agency.

Does that make sense? Yes, I agree the music and other media industries are largely being a bit greedy and short-sighted with this, but I do not understand why so many seem to hate copyright laws. As an artist, I generally do not mind if people use my work for personal use, but those laws protect me if Pepsi or someone tried to use my work commercially. I can tell them to stop or to pay me, and they have to.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Um, yah. I hate it when people enforce anti-theft laws too. Sheesh.

EDIT: *Especially* when the *true* victims are stupid, illiterate, dishonest American students who want nothing more than to cheat on their schoolwork.

[Yukari Yakumo]

3. Like this will be effective... {nt}

uguu

[Ian David]

6. FreeRepublic routinely posts entire articles on their forums without permission. n/t

[Gman]

9. FR has been sued for copyright infringements

there is a long list of publishers that they can't even exerpt from. I'm sure the rest of the publishers don't care (i.e. world nut daily, etc.)