Intriguing... I had the following email from Google today:

Quote:

---

Dear feline1973,

Your video "'Web' by The Rains", may have content that is owned or licensed by IODA, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it.

This claim is not penalising your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.

Yours sincerely,
- The YouTube Team

---

Their system appears to have generated this because I've used IODA as an aggregator to sell this tune, and IODA have submitted it to YouTube's audio fingerprinting service, and that has picked up that a (slightly mangled VHS dub of a 2 minute excerpt of it) appears in the song's promo video (which I'd put on YouTube myself).

I guess I'm mildly surprised that fingerprinting worked to the extent that their system would auto-generate that message!

Anyways, it meant I had to click on some thing on my YouTube account page and fill in a "copyright dispute" form... which included a field for free text which looks like it will be read by an actual human, not a fingerprint robot, where I explained that I am the rights holder and IODA simply have a non-exclusive license to flog the audio.

I wonder what they'll come back with? "This claim does not affect your account status." it says...

Quote feline1:

---

Intriguing... I had the following email from Google today:

Quote:

---

Dear feline1973,

Your video "'Web' by The Rains", may have content that is owned or licensed by IODA, but it’s still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it.

This claim is not penalising your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.

Yours sincerely,
- The YouTube Team

---

Their system appears to have generated this because I've used IODA as an aggregator to sell this tune, and IODA have submitted it to YouTube's audio fingerprinting service, and that has picked up that a (slightly mangled VHS dub of a 2 minute excerpt of it) appears in the song's promo video (which I'd put on YouTube myself).

I guess I'm mildly surprised that fingerprinting worked to the extent that their system would auto-generate that message!

Anyways, it meant I had to click on some thing on my YouTube account page and fill in a "copyright dispute" form... which included a field for free text which looks like it will be read by an actual human, not a fingerprint robot, where I explained that I am the rights holder and IODA simply have a non-exclusive license to flog the audio.

I wonder what they'll come back with? "This claim does not affect your account status." it says...

---

You like your headbang icon don't you?

Quote feline1:

---

Their system appears to have generated this because I've used IODA as an aggregator to sell this tune

---

Ha - as you've found, this is one of the flaws in automated policing of copyright material. Sometimes the material is entirely legit.

I guess you owe yourself some money, now, or something.

I don't see how this example of automated policing is flawed? It has simply spotted a potential conflict and flagged it up. I'm with the feline one here. Mildly impressed. It certainly flaws the argument of those who insist the internet is too big to police!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

I don't see how this example of automated policing is flawed?

---

My first reading was some of Feline's stuff was flagged as infringing, when it wasn't.

But I may have got that wrong.

Good luck getting some of the ad revenue, then.

Well it was a bit odd, cos they seemed to be saying "Hey! We caught you infringing! PWNED!!" but they also said they hadn't taken it down... instead they seemed to be implying they were going to put bloody *ads* on it?!

I was invited to "dispute" the infringement, at which point I was given this hilarious multiple choice set of trick questions, with answers along the lines of "I don't think this is infringing cos that would sooooooooo unfair, dude" or "because I only used a little bit and I'm not making any money off it".
However there was one option, which was "Cos it's my bloody material in the first place, duh!"

So I ticked that, and got some stern admonition about how frivilous or fraudulent claims would result in my account being deleted. (Really, Google? But you love my data! You wouldn't delete my data, would you? )

Anyways, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

But yes, I do think this reinforces what I've been banging on about for years: it's actually ought to be TRIVIAL for PRO's to fingerprint all their repertoire and works databases, and for content suppliers and ISPs to scan their servers and identify what stuff they're holding/supplying, and for me thus to be paid money. That it doesn't happen more often just shows how utterly incompetant the RIAA and the rest are.

Which reminds me - last year, yet again, PRS & PPL announced they'd be using someone to fingerprint all their stuff ('Soundmouse' it was this time... a few years before that it was Neilson...) ..... and yet again I tried to get in touch with them, was fobbed off about how it was "only a beta at the moment" and to this day have never had any of my catalogue fingerprinted by 'em.
Ho hum.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

I use Tunesat to monitor my stuff turning up on TV networks in the US, UK and EU, and it's the same concept: digital fingerprinting. Within an hour of the broadcast, the use of your music turns up in your dashboard, including the network, time of day, show title, length of use, AND - this is the cool part - and actual audio recording of the use in mp3 format that you can stream or download, so you have proof. The technology is absolutely mind-bending.

Kerry

If my "mind-bending" you mean "piss easy straightforward absolutely routine bog-standard stuff that any computer ought to be able to do in milliseconds", then I agree

But, the problem is, it's TOO easy for PRS. Oh no! They have to have people typing stuff into Excel and writing it out again on pink carbon copy forms and then putting onto the "new system" whilst Alisha in accounts faxes it over to Streatham etc etc

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

By "mindbending" I mean that it blows my mind that it's possible at all, and that it's insanely accurate.

ASCAP & BMI have rejected the technology here in the US, which doesn't make any logical sense: it's a fantastic method of tracking. And although I knew that to some extent EU TV stations were always using music willy-nilly, I had no idea the degree to which they're doing it... and doing it without bothering to record it on a cuesheet. I've gotten a lot of "but we've never had this complaint before" from German & French networks, and my response is always, "That's because you've been getting away with it for years, and your broadcasts aren't carried in the US. But now technology lets people track their music." And for the occasional broadcaster that says "we never used your music," I do enjoy replying to them with a log of the use: date, exact time, and a nice little mp3 copy of the infringement for their listening pleasure.

PRO's should be embracing this tech, but they're not. I think they just don't want to invest the money: they seem to be perfectly comfortable with their carbon paper copies and their typewriters and their white-out.

Kerry

The only thing that blows my mind is that the assclown PROs haven't all been using this technology for the last 15 years or more, and instead we still have the general dysfunctional crap that is disinterested admin clowns at either end failing to log about 80% of what's used ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Tunesat looks great - problem is, there's no way I could afford their rates (at least, I don't THINK I could lol - who knows, maybe my stuff is used 24-7 in Argentina or something...)

What makes me frankly ANGRY is that if things can be this watertight, then why the hell can PRS and PPL not already be using it? It would surely pay for itself in no time, as they could take a cut of the 80% increase in revenue!!

Moreover, colleagues and I have frequently been in situations where we have 100% concrete proof of usage on, say, the BBC, and tell PRS and PPL about it..... and after about a year all that's really happened is they go "oh, sorry.... Alisha was dealing with that one, she's left now. Well, we're relaunching the new system next year so this one will get processed next June, I expect" etc etc

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote chris...:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

I don't see how this example of automated policing is flawed?

---

My first reading was some of Feline's stuff was flagged as infringing, when it wasn't.

But I may have got that wrong.

Good luck getting some of the ad revenue, then.

---

Chris, how come you are so virrullently opposed to any sort of anti-piracy or copyright protection on the Internet? In the absence of complete information you always assume it's totally wrong to even attempt it...

Chris's original post took an entirely accurate inference from mine - i.e. that I was in the maw of an implacable Kafka-esque web-bot which was about to dismember me for owing myself money or summat.

All this will be solved when each human can be chipped and so the actual rights holders can receive a buzz on their beeper implant to notify them of the incident.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote chris...:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

I don't see how this example of automated policing is flawed?

---

My first reading was some of Feline's stuff was flagged as infringing, when it wasn't.

But I may have got that wrong.

Good luck getting some of the ad revenue, then.

---

Chris, how come you are so virrullently opposed to any sort of anti-piracy or copyright protection on the Internet? In the absence of complete information you always assume it's totally wrong to even attempt it...

---

I'm probably just as guilty of a presumption of innocence in favour of those attempting to police it. But the way the feline one put it, it sounded more to me like YouTube had spotted the potential infringement and flagged it up. Which I'd rather they did than not.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Well I *was* (am) pleased that their fingerprinting thingie worked! It proves the point that the technology is perfectly viable. All that needs to be done is to couple the technology to an effective bureaucracy rather than a kaftka-esque mess.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

for content suppliers and ISPs to scan their servers and identify what stuff they're holding/supplying, and for me thus to be paid money.

---

It's feasible for specific hosting companies (e.g YouTube) to run fingerprinting on the content sitting on their servers.

What's not feasible is for ISPs (companies who provide people with network access e.g BT, Virgin Media) to do that with stuff in transit over the network.

Quote johnny h:

---

Chris, how come you are so virrullently opposed to any sort of anti-piracy or copyright protection on the Internet?

---

You mis-understand.

I often attempt to point out the flaws in proposed plans, such that you guys might better spend your time working on plans that might have a chance of helping.

You are of course completely free to ignore me, and spend your time on plans that'll have little/zero benefit. That's your prerogative.

Quote chris...:

---

What's not feasible is for ISPs (companies who provide people with network access e.g BT, Virgin Media) to do that with stuff in transit over the network.

---

you say that EVERY TIME, and EVERY TIME I rejoinder "they can scan whatever amount of their servers/caches as they find feasible, and it will still be about 3 orders of magnitude more accurate than every current system that's in place, from the BBC and their Excel cue-sheets at the top, to pirate bay at the bottom. It is therefore eminently worth doing."

I forget what your co-rejoinder is EVERY TIME though, please remind me...?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

"they can scan whatever

---

Who's "they" ?

Hosters (e.g YouTube) - yes.

ISPs (e.g BT) - no.

BT provide a network, not "servers" or "caches".

Quote chris...:

---

Quote feline1:

---

"they can scan whatever

---

Who's "they" ?

Hosters (e.g YouTube) - yes.

ISPs (e.g BT) - no.

BT provide a network, not "servers" or "caches".

---

whatever hardware devices would be appropriate, I care not!
I'm pretty sure there'll be some caching storage somewhere, with files in it.
Failing that, scan traffic through whatever bits (routers? switches? broombleflops?) they can manage.
Just GET ON WITH IT and stop quibbling!

Anyways, websites ARE all hosted by ISPs of some sort or other.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure there'll be some caching storage somewhere, with files in it.

---

In the late 1990s / early 2000s, some ISPs used to run "web caches", but they never really worked, and have long been ditched.

And that was only for "web" i.e. HTTP. Other protocols (e.g BitTorrent) weren't cached.

Quote:

---

websites ARE all hosted by ISPs

---

Right, so the "ISP" (or whatever you want to call them) hosting the site (e.g YouTube) can scan stuff, with whatever's technology is available.

But the companies providing network access to consumers (I'd better not call them ISPs, as it seems to confuse you, even tho' it's the normal term) can't feasibly scan stuff in transit over the network.

As an analogy, you could ask Amazon not to sell anything pornographic. That would probably be achievable. But it wouldn't make sense to ask the Royal Mail to steam open every single package they're delivering, just in case there's something rude in it.

Quote chris...:

---

But it wouldn't make sense to ask the Royal Mail to steam open every single package they're delivering, just in case there's something rude in it.

---

That's about the stupidest analogy you could possibly give! lol

(despite the fact that many totalitarian regimes DO steam open all their mail!)

The whole point being that, unlike for paper mail, it basically *is* a piece of piss to scan packets in transit.
And even if it was too expensive to scan all of them, even if you only scanned some ludicrously small percentage (like 0.5% or sthg), that would still be a massive improvement on the current system.

But we've had this exact same conversation about 5 times already, so bizarrely I find myself in one of those rare situations where I begin to agree with Johnny H's assertion that you seem to have a maniacal desire to stamp upon any technological progress in this area.

Please see my answer for Johnny.

Or keep dreaming.

Quote feline1:

---

it basically *is* a piece of piss to scan packets in transit.

---

That's as maybe but if the file is ZIPped, RAR'ed, password protected, encrypted, whatever, how can this technology tell what the actual contents are?

Could be a totally legitimate ZIPped item of sound library from my site or the latest movie blockbuster someone's just ripped ... or your entire back catalogue!

I don't suppose Chris is any more against anti-piracy measures than he is against anti-shoplifting measures but at the same time, I think he realises that it's simply not practical for every citizen in the street to be stopped and have their shopping and handbags searched on the off chance they just might have shoplifted something.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote chris...:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Chris, how come you are so virrullently opposed to any sort of anti-piracy or copyright protection on the Internet?

---

You mis-understand.

I often attempt to point out the flaws in proposed plans, such that you guys might better spend your time working on plans that might have a chance of helping.

You are of course completely free to ignore me, and spend your time on plans that'll have little/zero benefit. That's your prerogative.

---

It's not my plan, Chris. I'm actually not working on any sort of anti piracy internet strategy. But let's examine your post again.

Quote:

---

Ha - as you've found, this is one of the flaws in automated policing of copyright material. Sometimes the material is entirely legit.

I guess you owe yourself some money, now, or something.

---

Basically total glee that an anti piracy measure had failed in some way. I find it really odd that you behave this way every time the subject comes up. Do you have some ideological objection to control over the Internet? Or do you really believe its that difficult to make stuff on the internet hard to find, like has been achieved with underage sexual websites?

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote feline1:

---

it basically *is* a piece of piss to scan packets in transit.

---

That's as maybe but if the file is ZIPped, RAR'ed, password protected, encrypted, whatever, how can this technology tell what the actual contents are?

---

Come on, do you really think the few hundred milliseconds it might take a computer to unzip or un-RAR an archive and scan it are really that onerous compared to the 4 months it might take Cameron at the BBC to manually type all the ever-so-slightly-wrongly-named tracks up into a Cue-sheet in Excel and email them to PRS who then have to send it to Alisha in accounts who's going to put it onto 'the new system' but that's not ready yet so in the meantime she's writing it out in Word and then printing two copies for the Claims Team but they have to scan them first so........ ETC ETC ETC

Also, why would people be password protecting and encrypting music files if it wasn't illegal to share them? (just the way it's not illegal to listen to radio).

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote johnny h:

---

Or do you really believe its that difficult to make stuff on the internet hard to find, like has been achieved with underage sexual websites?

---

Well, Pete Townshend seemed to manage to find them.... I guess this means he also has the brains to solve music piracy too, eh?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Or do you really believe its that difficult to make stuff on the internet hard to find, like has been achieved with underage sexual websites?

---

Well, Pete Townshend seemed to manage to find them.... I guess this means he also has the brains to solve music piracy too, eh?

---

He was caught though...

I'm not saying its possible to stop piracy on the Internet. However, I do think it's possible to make it more difficult than it is right now. It's absurd that it's easier to pirate a song than buy it.

is it easier to pirate than buy? I guess it's what you're used to!

I would like to buy, for example, the 5.1 DVD-A of "Fragile" by Yes. But if I look on Amazon, it's out-of-print and going second-hand for silly money.

So I confess, yes, I googled to see if I could download it for free from a torrent site. But I just get to these dodgy-as-hell-spamtastic-sites that I don't really want to click on cos they make you donwload all these exe files and gubbins and really it would be easier to just mug people on the street and use the money I steal from them to buy the expensive version on Amazon. FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS, MUCH?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

I have that LP. Not for Sale though... I remember a rainy night listening to that album owned by a very old lady (his mum). I borrowed it, and never gave it back, because I still have needle things, and she only has cd's.

Quote johnny h:

---

I'm actually not working on any sort of anti piracy internet strategy.

---

That's a shame - were you to do so, I expect all the various problems of the recording industry would be quickly solved.

Quote johnny h:

---

Do you have some ideological objection to control over the Internet?

---

Again - I'm just letting you (and others) know what isn't going to work, so you (and others) needn't fruitlessly waste time on it, and can (hopefully) come up with something that might help.

Quote:

---

Or do you really believe its that difficult to make stuff on the internet hard to find, like has been achieved with underage sexual websites?

---

Where the enemy is those actively looking for something, that's extremely difficult.

The measures you're referring to are intended to reduce the risk of accidentally stumbling across the material in question. The problem of piracy is fundamentally different, where pirates are intentionally seeking the stuff. The technology used for the former is very much not up to the job of achieving the latter.

Quote feline1:

---

Come on, do you really think the few hundred milliseconds it might take a computer to unzip or un-RAR

---

You're advocating snooping on core Internet backbone links, which nowadays operate upto 100 Gigabits / sec. I'm not sure you've got a few hundred milliseconds...

Quote:

---

Cameron at the BBC to manually type all the ever-so-slightly-wrongly-named tracks up into a Cue-sheet in Excel and email them to PRS who then have to send it to Alisha in accounts who's going to put it onto 'the new system' but that's not ready yet so in the meantime she's writing it out in Word and then printing two copies for the Claims Team but they have to scan them first so........ ETC ETC ETC

---

That stuff clearly needs to get sorted - but it's got nothing to do with snooping on core Internet links.

Quote feline1:

---

is it easier to pirate than buy? I guess it's what you're used to!

---

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

Quote chris...:

---

Quote:

---

Cameron at the BBC to manually type all the ever-so-slightly-wrongly-named tracks up into a Cue-sheet in Excel and email them to PRS who then have to send it to Alisha in accounts who's going to put it onto 'the new system' but that's not ready yet so in the meantime she's writing it out in Word and then printing two copies for the Claims Team but they have to scan them first so........ ETC ETC ETC

---

That stuff clearly needs to get sorted - but it's got nothing to do with snooping on core Internet links.

---

And here Chris..., I fear, thou art hoist by thine own petard.
For you are living in a BLITHERING FANTASY WORLD if you expect "that stuff" to ever get "sorted out".
You are talking about *people*. Many of them WOMEN! And many of the men involved DON'T EVEN HAVE ASPERGERS! And many of the people supplying the source data are MUSICIANS - christ, some of them are **DRUMMERS**!! They simply are NOT going to EVER supply and process the data in a rigorous, accurate, efficient way. It's physically impossible. That is why it must be done with well-designed, well-programmed computer systems.
In other words, I am right as usual

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote chris...:

---

Quote feline1:

---

is it easier to pirate than buy? I guess it's what you're used to!

---

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

---

Yeah I know, but when I get to the page with MOAR TESTICL♪S, I get kinda anxious cos it usually asks me to install some stoopid exe file or sthg and then and I don't even know if it really WILL be the 720p version cos some doofus probably malencoded it with some stupid filmization plugin or sthg.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

That is why it must be done with well-designed, well-programmed computer systems.

---

Right - e.g YouTube fingerprinting. But snooping transit networks at 10G (let alone 40G or 100G) to determine what music's being shared is much much harder, and ain't gonna happen.

( and if it ever does, the networks in question will already be 400G... )

Quote chris...:

---

Quote feline1:

---

That is why it must be done with well-designed, well-programmed computer systems.

---

Right - e.g YouTube fingerprinting. But snooping transit networks at 10G (let alone 40G or 100G) to determine what music's being shared is much much harder, and ain't gonna happen.

( and if it ever does, the networks in question will already be 400G... )

---

People would not HAVE to "share" music if all the repertoire was available to stream on legit sites, e.g. came bundled as part of your home ISP package. Talk Talk £16.99 with free Spotify membership etc, that sort of thing. Free at the point of need. Like the NHS, "but with records..."

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote chris...:

---

Quote feline1:

---

is it easier to pirate than buy? I guess it's what you're used to!

---

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

---

Ha! That made me chuckle. I don't pirate things though, of course.

I agree that part of the problem is that obtaining legitimate copies of things purchased with Real Money can often be a painful, arduous and frustrating task, and that publishers really need to invest a lot of effort into making paying for their content as easy as possible to encourage people to buy it, rather than putting people off and making them more likely to source the same content illegally.

Speaking of which, still waiting for this to be available in the UK *sadface*



--------------------
SOS Web Editor, Support & Social Media
Friend SOS on Facebook | Follow SOS on Twitter

Quote chris...:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

I'm actually not working on any sort of anti piracy internet strategy.

---

That's a shame - were you to do so, I expect all the various problems of the recording industry would be quickly solved.

---

Not at all Chris. It would take a supreme being or perhaps a hyper intelligent alien race to solve the problem of being able to easily and quickly find pirated material without any risk of being caught...

Quote:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Do you have some ideological objection to control over the Internet?

---

Again - I'm just letting you (and others) know what isn't going to work, so you (and others) needn't fruitlessly waste time on it, and can (hopefully) come up with something that might help.

---

You have avoided my question.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Or do you really believe its that difficult to make stuff on the internet hard to find, like has been achieved with underage sexual websites?

---

Where the enemy is those actively looking for something, that's extremely difficult.

The measures you're referring to are intended to reduce the risk of accidentally stumbling across the material in question. The problem of piracy is fundamentally different, where pirates are intentionally seeking the stuff. The technology used for the former is very much not up to the job of achieving the latter.

---

I'm not suggesting that it would be possible to eradicate piracy, at least not without over authoritarian controls over Internet access. However, google do make money out of searching for pirate material. Typing in "xxxxxxxxx rapid share" and instantly getting a link is too easy. Kim dot com's arrest did indeed make it harder to find things and google could do more to make it harder. The problem is its in their interests for them to use links to copyright material to make money through search. If they were held in any way accountable for this, they would find a way to make it harder extremely quickly.