ZeroPaid.com » youtube

How to Download Videos from YouTube

Jared Moya — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 21:31:03 +0000

Guide to downloading your favorite videos from the world's most popular video-streaming site.

Everybody has their favorite YouTube videos. From the baby who only calms down when hears the music of hip hop artist the Notorious B.I.G. to the to the hilarious "Double Rainbow" guy there's a never a shortage of entertaining videos to watch. For many, however it'd be nice to be able to download YouTube videos so that one could watch them wherever or whenever they want. Being able to download YouTube videos would also mean you could store them just in case they're deleted from the site and lost forever. In a few easy steps I'll show you how to download YouTube videos so that they'll be yours forever.

1. Download and install Google Chrome.

It's one of the safest and fastest Internet browsers around, and offers many extensions to customize your browsing experience.

2. Install the YouTube Downloader extension.

This free browser extension allows you to download any YouTube video as a .MP3 file, a HD MP4 video file, or an FLV. It adds a convenient "Download" button to every YouTube page that you then scroll down to choose your desired download format. 3. Go to your favorite YouTube video.

4. Choose what format you want and select "Download."

And that's it. You're all done. If you're looking for how to download more than just YouTube videos we also have a guide to BitTorrent and how to download your favorite movies, TV shows, and music albums. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com | @jaredmoya

Copyright Holder Fighting Fraudulent DMCA Notices on YouTube

Drew Wilson — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:07:12 +0000

YouTube has built a reputation for quickly pulling copyrighted material from its servers. Many have argued for years that YouTube pulls content a little too quickly and some have expressed frustration over re-instating content that was wrongfully yanked. One copyright holder, namely the creator of the Nyancat, is finding out how hard it is to undo the damage of a copyright imposter.

BoingBoing is pointing to a story of the trouble one rightsholder is having with material he has created. A DMCA notice was filed against several video's using the NyanCat, the famous poptart cat flying through space. The rightsholder was not happy about the video's, not that they were posted, but the fact that someone is using the DMCA to remove them. Understandably, the rightsholder is upset and has posted the following picture to let everyone know that whoever is taking the video's down via copyright, it was neither the real rights holder nor was it authorized: The owner has received several messages from angry users complaining about the takedown of the video and comments, "people are flagging my videos on Youtube and giving me death threats just like upstanding Internet citizens usually do. Good job." The owner is currently in the process of trying to have the video's re-instated, but complains that YouTube is making the owner jump through all these hoops just to reinstate the video's. Sometimes, I converse with people whether online or offline and I have received numerous funny looks over my belief that copyright has been a tool for censorship. For some, it just doesn't happen or it's an excuse to infringe on copyright. Here, we have a prime example of such a thing happening right now. I think that for other countries considering copyright laws more in line with the US, there are reasons why some demand there be stiff penalties for those who wish to abuse the law in order to take down material they neither own nor have any rights over. What's really sad is the idea that whoever is filing these fraudulent claims will no doubt keep doing so whenever and wherever they please. I don't see there being as many lobbyists out there saying to politicians, "Hey, we got to make sure people don't send fake DMCA notices!" as there are lobbyists saying, "Hey, we need to increase penalties for copyright infringement!" In all, I think this sends a message that free speech does not belong in a society with copyright laws, that free speech is incompatible with copyright. If you really want to have true free speech, do not use an outlet that are shackled by the DMCA. Instead, use overseas services and your video will stand a better chance at surviving censorship whether maliciously or otherwise. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

YouTube Infringers Must Now Attend “YouTube Copyright School”

Jared Moya — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:23:52 +0000

Says that if it receives a notice that one of your uploaded videos is copyright infringing you''ll now be required to attend “YouTube Copyright School" which entails watching a video and passing a quiz before being allowed to upload more content.

YouTube is ratcheting up its efforts to tackle the problem of users uploading copyright infringing content to the site with its new "YouTube Copyright Education" policy. "Because copyright law can be complicated, education is critical to ensure that our users understand the rules and continue to play by them," it says. "That’s why today we’re releasing a new tutorial on copyright and a redesigned copyright help center. We’re also making two changes to our copyright process to be sure that our users understand the rules, and that users who abide by those rules can remain active on the site." So what exactly does that mean? Now if YouTube receives a notice from a copyright holder claiming that you uploaded copyrighted material to the site you'll have to attend "YouTube Copyright School" before you can upload new material. The school entails watching a copyright law tutorial video along with passing a quiz afterwards to ensure that you "paid attention" to and understand YouTube's policies on copyrighted material. It says the new method is intended to rectify the current imbalances of the one-size-fits-all suspension rule whereby copyright notifications from the distant past are allowed to unfairly linger in the present. "Consider, for example, a long-time YouTube user who received two copyright notifications four years ago but who’s uploaded thousands of legitimate videos since then without a further copyright notification," it continues. "Until now, the four-year-old notifications would have stayed with the user forever despite a solid track record of good behavior, creating the risk that one new notification -- possibly even a fraudulent notification -- would result in the suspension of the account. We don’t think that’s reasonable." YouTube adds that it will begin removing old copyright strikes from user’s accounts in "certain limited circumstances" if they successfully complete YouTube Copyright School and demonstrate a consistent "record of good behavior over time." Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com ________________________

YouTube Copyright School

What Do We Really Know About Piracy?

Bruce Lidl — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:19:03 +0000

Despite years of debates over the morality, prevalence and impact of mass online copyright infringement, actual hard numbers, backed by statistically rigorous methods, are almost impossible to find. Most of what passes as “knowledge” about piracy is based far more on pre-conceived notions and anecdotal evidence. And that really should not surprise, since the fundamental questions about file-sharing generally have less to do with what has happened and more to do with what might have happened. That is, what purchases did not occur because of the existence of free alternatives, what sales did not take place if the pirate networks had not made sharing so easy. Speculative counter-factuals are really all we are left with, and such questions can never be answered with any sort of definitive confidence.

Nonetheless, researchers continue to put forth new studies of the file-sharing phenomenon and its possible effects, at least in limited test cases. The latest study to emerge comes from Japan and looks at one particular niche, Japanese TV animation programs. By examining how the uploading of the shows to YouTube and the popular Japanese sharing network Winny affected both sales and rentals, the researchers from The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) in Tokyo came to some tentative conclusions,

Estimated equations of 105 anime episodes show that (1) Youtube viewing does not negatively affect DVD rentals, and it appears to help raise DVD sales; and (2) although Winny file sharing negatively affects DVD rentals, it does not affect DVD sales. … YouTube can be interpreted as a promotion tool for DVD sales.

A clear statement in favor of broadening distribution channels and moving away from prosecuting file-sharers? Maybe, but as with any study of piracy, the questions raised end up overwhelming any attempt at generalization. Aside from the difficulty in linking statistical correlation with causation, we have no way of knowing how specific the dynamic the researchers see in this instance can be observed elsewhere. Do anime fans act differently than general TV or movie fans? Do Japanese fans act the same way as American or European fans? Are only specific kinds of anime or could it be applied to animation in general? And more broadly speaking, how does this kind of unauthorized distribution affect other forms of media, from music to movies to comic books? Ultimately, it seems to me, that no matter how rigorous and scientific any individual study about piracy may be, there will always exist far more questions and caveats than conclusions reached. Because so much is not, and cannot, be known about what might have happened had there not been any infringement, making generalizations both for or against piracy are more faith-based than anything else. The morality and ethics of file-sharing will continue to spark intense debates, but claims about its concrete indisputable effects should probably be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

RIAA Wants Mastercard to Cut Off MegaUpload

Drew Wilson — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:21:39 +0000

In a move seemingly inspired by the US government pressuring credit card companies and online payment services to cut off Wikileaks, the MPAA and RIAA are reportedly trying to get Mastercard, and presumably other credit card companies, to cut off sites like MegaUpload and other file-sharing and streaming sites. Some observers suggest that this is part of a new strategy for the conglomerate organizations.

A report is surfacing that the Recording Industry Association (RIAA) and the Motion Picture association of America (MPAA) are in talks with Mastercard and, presumably, other credit card companies and transaction services, to cut off cyber lockers and streaming sites. Explicitly mentioned was MegaUpload, a cyberlocker that hosts large files too large for e-mail. "MasterCard in particular deserves credit for its proactive approach to addressing rogue Web sites that dupe consumers," Mitch Glazier, executive vice president of government and industry relations said on behalf of the RIAA. "They have reached out to us and others in the entertainment community to forge what we think will be a productive and effective partnership." Cyber lockers often offer their services for free, but also offer premium services for increased bandwidth and an increase in multi-file download as well as the removal of wait times imposed. What's interesting is that Mastercard does earn profits from various transactions that happen daily. If Mastercard, American Express and Visa cut off their services to such businesses, these businesses can merely switch to other payment methods like Flattr and other smaller overseas payment methods off of US soil. What's also interesting in all of this is that there's very little that separates MegaUpload and YouTube given that MegaUpload has a system for removing copyrighted material. In essence, MegaUpload already respects the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the law YouTube also respects. The only difference is that MegaUpload hosts all kinds of files whereas YouTube streams videos. Both make money off of files whether infringing or not, yet YouTube seems to be able to operate with less negative stigma than MegaUpload. The only people that seem to stand to lose out on this deal is Mastercard and any other payment services who agree to cut off their services to these sites. Why these services are going along with this is actually somewhat baffling given that COICA, the law being cited in all of this, hasn't even passed the Senate or Congress at this point. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Viacom Appeals YouTube Court Ruling

Drew Wilson — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:00:51 +0000

Last month, YouTube prevailed in the Viacom vs. YouTube case. Under the ruling, YouTube does indeed qualify for the DMCA safe harbor provision. Today, Viacom served notice that they are appealing the ruling, but didn't specify how they plan on doing so.

The Viacom vs. YouTube case has been a long and drawn out case. With todays revelation that Viacom plans on appealing the ruling, it means that the case is not over yet. The case wasn't void of dramatic revelations. Accusations flew with Viacom saying that Google dragged its feet on copyright complaints while Google said that Viacom secretly uploaded video clips from their own content. Last month, Judge Stanton ruled that YouTube is not liable for copyright infringement and doesn't have to pay the $1 Billion sought by Viacom. Many observers feared that if Viacom was successful, it would put a major chilling effect on online innovation by dissuading entrepreneurs from creating anything online that could theoretically be used for copyright infringing purposes. I'd argue that if Viacom was successful, it would push even more businesses off shore for fear they could be put out of business by incumbent industries - either way you slice it, it would have been very bad for business. One of the points that worked against Viacom was that when Viacom sent 100,000 DMCA complaints, most of the videos were removed by the next business day. Modestly speaking, it didn't exactly help build a case for Viacom against YouTube. Fast forward to today, reports are surfacing that Viacom plans on appealing. The company recently gave notice that they plan on appealing the case, but on what grounds specifically remains to be seen. A Betanews report shows that Viacom is still sticking to their opinion that YouTube, in spite of having a DMCA notice and takedown system in place and responding to complaints quickly, is making a business out of infringing content. From the report:

"We are disappointed with the judge's ruling, but confident we will win on appeal," general counsel Michael Fricklas said at the time. "It is and should be illegal for companies to build their businesses with creative material they have stolen from others."

Whether or not the Fricklas is ignoring the fact that YouTube has secured deals in the past with major companies to distribute content legally or the fact that YouTube is mainly user generated is unclear. It'll be interesting to see how, or even if, Viacom comes up with anything new in their appeal or if they'll rely on typical copyright industry rhetoric. In any event, the case is not looking good for Viacom at this point and it might require a small miracle to get a judge to overturn the original ruling. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

YouTube Prevails in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case

Jared Moya — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:05:33 +0000

Judge rules the video hosting site does qualify for protection under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.

After more than three years of legal wrangling Google's YouTube has prevailed in the copyright infringement suit brought by Viacom over accusations that the video hosting site benefits from pirated material uploaded by users. US District Court Judge Louis Stanton ruled that YouTube does qualify for protection under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA, and in fact, observes that despite Viacom's concern the Act's "notification regime works efficiently." He notes that "when Viacom over a period of six months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them." So much for arguing that Google was dragging its feet. Judge Stanton says that under the DMCA the burden is on the owner of copyrighted material to identify it for removal not the other way around. "General knowledge that infringement is 'ubiquitous' does not impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its service for infringements," reads the ruling. He said that to require general filtering like "all works by Gershwin" would "eviscerate" the requirement that content owner notify service providers of infringement. The DMCA does not allow blanket infringement notices. "This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other," says Kent Walker, Google's Vice President and General Counsel. "We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world." Viacom, "disappointed" by the ruling, said it's "confident" it will win on appeal. "It is and should be illegal for companies to build their businesses with creative material they have stolen from others," said Michael Fricklas, Viacom's Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary. "Without this protection, investment in the development of art and entertainment would be discouraged, and the many artists and producers who devote their lives to creating it would be hurt. Copyright protection is also critical to the web– because consumers love professional content and because legitimate websites shouldn't have to compete with pirates." Unfortunately for Viacom legitimate websites will always have to compete with pirates. Offering consumers viable alternatives is the real solution, not suing YouTube because users are filling a gap in the marketplace it refuses to fill. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

A Detailed Look at Bill C-32 – Canada’s Copyright Reform Bill (Part 2)

Drew Wilson — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:30:55 +0000

Yesterday, we went through the first page of Canada's latest copyright reform bill (Bill C-32). It's a lengthy piece of legislation that requires multiple articles simply due to its size. We continue with part 2 of our detailed review to verify what was reported all along and, maybe, find something new that was otherwise missed.

Introduction Yesterday, we had a detailed examination of the first part of Canada's copyright reform legislation. We picked out things that were interesting in the legislation and discussed what we found. There were certainly a few things that were rather cryptic, but that might be because we are not lawyers. So, just like in part one, we are not lawyers, nor are we qualified to give legal advice. As such, none of this should be taken as legal advice in any way. This is merely one average Canadian citizen reading through the legislation and talking it through. We continue our review on page 2 of the legislation. Section 22 - The YouTube Provision? Note: If you are just opening up to page two of the legislation and only see the number 29, that is not the section because you have to look at page one on the very bottom to see that this is actually section 22 of the legislation. The header seems to just be poorly placed in the web pages is all. The very top of the section of page 2 is actually section 22 of the legislation. There was talk of a YouTube provision where users could take content and "remix" it for non-commercial purposes. This section appears to be that provision previous reports were talking about.

29.21 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to use an existing work or other subject-matter or copy of one, which has been published or otherwise made available to the public, in the creation of a new work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists and for the individual — or, with the individ- ual’s authorization, a member of their household — to use the new work or other subject-matter or to authorize an intermediary to disseminate it, if (a) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter is done solely for non-commercial purposes; (b) the source — and, if given in the source, the name of the author, performer, maker or broadcaster — of the existing work or other subject-matter or copy of it are mentioned, if it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so; (c) the individual had reasonable grounds to believe that the existing work or other subject-matter or copy of it, as the case may be, was not infringing copyright; and (d) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter — or copy of it — or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one.

One of the things that aids in the creation of new works is taking bits and pieces of previously made content and producing something completely unique. YouTube users in particular often take a few seconds of a copyrighted work and use it for, say, critical examination. A rather famous example of this on YouTube was the Rubik's cube viral video which features an alleged foot specialist solving a Rubik's cube in a short period of time with his feet only. Another YouTube user who saw the video re-posted parts of the video and created a critical analysis where he debunked the video and showed that the video was, in fact, played back in reverse and, thus, showing that the "foot specialist" was merely scrambling the cube instead. If you're thinking that the video that was critically analyzed wasn't really copyrighted because it was user generated, that would be incorrect because, at least in Canada for sure, copyright on content is made the moment it is fixated. Fixation is a French term that can mean the process of a liquid becoming a solid. In this case, it's referring to the moment something is recorded in a medium. If a song is recorded on vinyl, it has been fixated. If a movie is filmed, it's also been fixated. Sending content away in a sealed envelope to a copyright office is a way to confirm copyright, but it isn't technically necessary to obtain copyright in Canada. Reading through this particular provision is really uplifting to me because its very progressive because this can definitely help content creators make art and possibly not have to worry about whether their original work is infringement or not. It's particularly uplifting to see (d) because it appears to address the use of sampling. Does a quarter of a second of audio sprinkled through a brand new piece of work constitute copyright infringement? As long as it's not a substitute of the original work which, clearly, a short sample embedded in to an original work, is definitely not. The only setback that I see directly in this particular provision is the culture of video game modding because (d) in this section says that as long as it's not a substitute, it's fine. A lot of game mods practically is a substitute of the original work in one light because the whole game can be completely changed around. Perhaps (b) might be a saving grace for game modding because most, if not, all legit game modding does typically leave behind the original creators of the work. Unless the game being modded is open source and licensed under an open license, this could potentially be a grey zone for developers. The one thing that has come to my mind, and it is something that no one else has mentioned thus far, is what about international agreements? Say it's legal in our country to take a sample of an existing work and create something else. What if that sampled work originates from a country that disallows sampling? That is something that isn't real clear to me, but I'm not entirely sure if it was possible for this bill to be able to cover such issues. The more publicized issue, of course, is the issue with digital locks. We haven't gotten to those provisions, but it is something to keep in mind as we go through this legislation in detail. Section 22 Continued - Reproduction for Private Purposes Section 22 is definitely big and is covering a lot of ground. This next part of section 22 is definitely important:

29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if (a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy; (b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced; (c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; (d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and (e) the reproduction is used only for private purposes.

(c) is definitely worth noting in particular in all of this because this is where, suddenly, every fair dealing suddenly ends. It's also one provision that is definitely causing quite a substantial uproar because now, the laws of the land don't decide your rights, but rather, rights holders. So if there is anything that definitely needs to be removed in this legislation it's 29.22 (1) (c) as it's entirely uncalled for. There have been scholars in the past that argue that there is no way that rights holders would be locking everything down. That is likely because, in many cases, the legal framework isn't there to rely on. I would argue that once certain restrictive legal framework is in place, everything will be put under lock and key. It's already happening with BluRay and DVDs because the discs themselves come with a "digital lock". If you have a home movie recorded on a DVD and you back that movie up by ripping the content from that DVD and burning that movie on to another DVD, you've broken the anti-circumvention law. Say what you want about the extra digital locks put on top of content (i.e. RipGuard), but the real devil is the digital locks embedded in to a device or medium itself. Section 22 - Audio Work There's an interesting exception just shortly after this part and it does refer to the above part of section 22:

(3) In the case of a work or other subject-matter that is a musical work embodied in a sound recording, a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording or a sound recording in which a musical work or a performer’s performance of a musical work is embodied, subsection (1) does not apply if the reproduction is made onto an audio recording medium as defined in section 79.

This is interesting because Section 79 in the copyright act states the following:

79. In this Part, “audio recording medium” « support audio » “audio recording medium” means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;

I think it's outrageous that this section is even in there. So let's quickly review the youTube provision along with the exceptions. You can totally back anything you want up for personal use unless it's a DVD, BluRay, HDDVD, a music album, a musical mixtape or anything that can record audio. This renders the exception of backing up something for personal use meaningless because it's saying, "You can back something up for personal use unless it's something you plan on backing up." This is definitely the concept of, "We give you some rights, then take them all away at the same time." many observers have already pointed out. Definitely another provision that must be struck out of the bill because it's just silly and nonsensical. Tell me how it makes sense that you are allowed to back music up as long as the medium that work is being reproduced on to is incapable of reproducing sound. Is this two ministers idea of a joke? It's not funny. Update: I was informed by readers as well as Michael Geist that it is possible that this particular section may have something to do with the private copying levy. If that's the case, than this section of the bill is the most cryptic section I've come across so far. Another reader asked why I said that this is section 22 when it says it's section 29. To clarify, it's section 22 of the bill, section 29 in the act. Since we are talking about the bill more specifically and not the copyright act already enshrined in the law, it makes more sense to go by the sections of the bill, rather than the act - particularly since the bill section numbers jump around far less. Section 22 - Time Shifting

29.23 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to fix a communication signal, to reproduce a work or sound recording that is being broadcast or to fix or reproduce a performer’s performance that is being broadcast, in order to record a program for the purpose of listening to or viewing it later, if (a) the individual receives the program legally; (b) the individual, in order to record the program, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; (c) the individual makes no more than one recording of the program; (d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than is reasonably necessary in order to listen to or view the program at a more convenient time; (e) the individual does not give the recording away; and (f) the recording is used only for private purposes.

Again, another provision that sounds good unless you read (b). In this case, it's grounds for creating a broadcast flag that was so hugely controversial in the US. Another provision that is hugely controversial. I'd say (b) in this subsection should be struck down. The subsection also offers this important part:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the individual receives the work, performer’s performance or sound recording under an on-demand service.

So on-demand content does not count. Section 22 continued - More backing up This section appears to be directed at software, but it doesn't make that obvious:

29.24 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter for a person who owns — or has a licence to use — a copy of the work or subject-matter (in this section referred to as the “source copy”) to reproduce the source copy if (a) the person does so solely for backup purposes in case the source copy is lost, damaged or otherwise rendered unusable; (b) the source copy is not an infringing copy; (c) the person, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; and (d) the person does not give any of the reproductions away.

As usual, only this time it's (c), digital locks are, again, impeding fair dealing. As already said previously, that particular part should be struck down. Conclusion We're not all the way through page 2, but we have covered a lot of ground in this. A lot of the content covered is what is so hugely controversial. Personally, I think 29.22 (1) (c), 29.22 (3), 29.23 (1) (b), and 29.24 (1) (c) absolutely have to be removed from the bill if this bill can be considered "balanced". If this bill passes as is, no one in their right mind would be able to follow those provisions. We know CDs don't come encoded with a digital lock. I highly doubt that section 29.22 (3) was made without this knowledge - it was very intentionally directed at a specific technology. Previously: A Detailed Look at Bill C-32 – Canada’s Copyright Reform Bill (Part 1) ~~Stay tuned for part 3.~~ Update: A Detailed Look at Bill C-32 – Canada’s Copyright Reform Bill (Part 3) is now up. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Google Providing Focus to Future of Online Video

Bruce Lidl — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:07:47 +0000

Not long ago I wrote a piece discussing the possibility of Google doing something pretty revolutionary in the video space. Having recently purchased the video codec company On2, there developed a lot of hope among open source proponents that the search giant would take On2's technology and release it to the public as open source and patent-free. Why was there so much speculation in this direction? Partially because On2 had previously donated the code from VP3, their earlier codec, to the open source video project Ogg Theora, so there was precedent for such a move. Further, the timing of the On2 purchase put it squarely in the on-going discussion about the proposed shift from Flash to HTML5 for serving video on the web. Many proponents of open web standards (including famously the team behind Mozilla) would love to see online video delivered not via a proprietary technology such as Adobe's Flash, but instead through the much simpler element present in HTML5. As the proprietor of YouTube, anything Google does in regards to video is going to make noise, and a combination of HTML5 and a patent-free codec would make for an absolutely free (as in both beer and speech) video distribution for the Internet. Flash is of course a proprietary commercial product from Adobe, and H.264 while rapidly becoming the de facto standard for video today can be open source (see x264) but is only royalty free as long as MPEG-LA decides so (they have only promised to keep it free through 2015). In other words, Google's just leaked decision to release VP8 as open source and royalty free, in combination with YouTube's more tentative moves towards HTML5, combine to be a serious upheaval of the digital video world. That's not to say there aren't still a number of challenges ahead, for both Google and proponents of the HTML5/VP8 solution. First, Google and YouTube are very unlikely to make a large transition to VP8 encoded video until it can be shown that On2's former codec can really back up the claims of its quality. Google has previously admitted that using the open and patent free Ogg Theora codec as it exists currently would exponentially drive up YouTube streaming costs because of Theora's inferior bitate to quality ratio compared to H.264. Codec experts that I respect have been pretty skeptical of On2's inflated claims about the quality of VP8, and the product is, at this point, little more than vaporware, so comparative tests between VP8 and H.264 remain impossible. However, even if VP8 is released and proves to be an acceptable alternative to H.264, there remains a pretty daunting legal minefield. MPEG-LA has traditionally operated from a pretty broad interpretation of its IP holdings and there is a *very* good chance they could target VP8 (or an improved Ogg Theora) for infringing on what MPEG-LA's member companies have patented in H.264. On2 was certainly not as tempting a litigation target as Google and YouTube would be. An interesting question remains, though, as to why Google is going to such expense and effort to overturn the current online video situation. H.264 is after all an excellent choice for many reasons currently, and Flash has served YouTube well even from its pre-Google days. One very sharp observer suggested to me, however, that the real motivation for the HTML5/VP8 play by Google comes down ultimately to advertising, not a shocking point considering where the search giant actually earns its billions in revenue. By wresting control of online video delivery from Adobe's Flash and H.264, Google could reinforce its own its own dominant role in video advertising via YouTube, and at the same time head off any inroads Microsoft is hoping to make with IE and Silverlight (or any plans Apple has to build video ads upon Safari as well). The decision by Mozilla to opt out of natively supporting H.264 presented Apple and Microsoft with the chance to push their own browsers and build walls and possibly build walls (and advertising schemes) around compelling video content. If Google can really switch YouTube to HTML5/VP8, then the other browsers will have to follow suit, essentially giving Google a commanding position. Admittedly, some of this stuff is probably wildly speculative, but the reality is that decisions on such relatively obscure technologies like codecs and browser plug-ins can have a profound affect on the shape of the Internet, and the billions of dollars of commerce conducted upon that platform. Google has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the codec front, so they clearly understand video's strategic importance.

Drew Wilson — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:09:25 +0000

Eating ribs, a vlogger, and a class lecture are among a few that start our brand new monthly series on false accusations.

Imagine a world where false accusations are a new weapon to anyone, against anyone. There's no need for evidence, just a trio of simple accusations of copyright infringement. Those accusations would then, in turn, disconnect alleged infringers from the internet. The copyright industry has long hoped this would become a reality and with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, this hope by major copyright businesses could become a reality. We here at ZeroPaid were curious to know just how common false accusations really are and sent out a call for people's stories who were part of a false accusation for copyright infringement. You, the readers, certainly already delivered. Here are the false accusations we received from you as well as a few we found already hanging around the web.

Accusation #1

IslamWay Our first alleged false accusation comes from an anonymous submitter who simply passed along a YouTube clip of the story. In a nutshell, according to the video, the alleged false accusation came about when users who disagreed with this vlogger set up a website called “IslamWay” well after the vlog was started. After setting up the website, the users then sent a DMCA notice to YouTube to pull down any videos about IslamWay claiming copyright infringement. This does not constitute legal advice, nor is this an expert legal opinion, but as far as we know, at least in Canada, when an idea is transfixed onto a medium, the creator automatically gains a copyright on that given work. One can't simply have an idea and claim copyright as it has to be transfixed. Registering the work is another story, but if one can prove something was created prior to someone else producing an identical work, it would be difficult for the person who created that second work to go after the first person who created that work – especially if that idea also isn't registered. Are there legal questions to be made? Maybe. Does it matter? Not in a three strikes system.

Accusation #2

Usher.mp3 This is a well known case clear back in 2003. Many articles surfaced describing the tale. Apparently, a teacher posted lectures on an FTP site. The problem was that the last name of that teacher was “Usher” and he posted his lecture as “Usher.mp3”. The file, along with another file with a similar story, caused the automated system the RIAA had to combat piracy shoot a DMCA notice against Penn State's department for astronomy and astrophysics. Administrators were puzzled and later communicated with the RIAA. The RIAA, pink in the face, were forced to apologize for the false accusation and withdrew its case saying that it was just some temporary employee. Was an error made? Yes according to both sides. Does it matter under a three strikes regime? Not really.

Accusation #3

A Ribbed Viacom Remember the Viacom case of 2007? That case where they sent thousands of DMCA notices to YouTube? Then Viacom discovered that some of those videos were not really there's? yup, that's the one! What a shame someone's rib dinner wound up being caught in the mix. The story goes that while talks between Viacom and Google over filtering technology were going on, Viacom sent a DMCA notice to YouTube demanding the removal of over 100,000 video's. The video takedown was brought to you by various keyword searches. As a result, someone's video of eating a rib dinner was caught up in what many consider the Viacom YouTube dragnet. It's unclear what became of the story, but it was pretty obvious a mistake was made somewhere along the line. Was a mistake made? Probably. Does it matter in a three strikes regime? Nope.

Accusation #4

I Downloaded What? Another anonymous user sent us the following e-mail:

Yup, got a warning notice from our provider saying I had downloaded a certain movie. I don't download movies. Just the same I scanned every computer in the house for the file I supposedly had--nada. We have a secure network, and I doubt it would be hacked since both our immediate neighbors have left theirs open. So I replied with a somewhat nasty letter saying they better not keep any sort of record saying I did this....never heard back.

This sort of thing has been known to happen for anyone who watched any popular file-sharing forum for a few years. It seems that sooner or later, a user receives a copyright complaint. Puzzled, the owner scans the computers in the household and finds nothing. From this point, some users realize they have an open wifi and it was highly probably that someone hijacked the WiFi point - a particularly common problem in densely populated cities. These days, Wifi security is much more commonly practised though since awareness has been boosted, in part, by problems in the past. Still, one cannot ignore one of two possibilities: 1) Wardriving has also become more sophisticated or 2) Someone managed to hijack an IP address (at which point, there's probably little a user can do to avoid receiving a legal complaint if they are innocent). Was the user innocent? More than likely. Is it good standard practise to secure a personal WiFi hotspot? Absolutely. Is there reasonable doubt should a case like this go to court? Definitely. Does it matter in a three strikes regime? Definitely not. --- It should be noted that, if you'd like to submit a false copyright infringement accusation story, it doesn't have to have happened immediately, that day or even that year. It could be several years old at this point and we'll be happy to take them. It also doesn't matter to us if the case is ongoing or settled through counter-notice DMCA claims. We do not provide legal advice nor do we have any professional legal opinions on the matters. You can also submit the stories anonymously and have all members in the case anonymous as well. We are just after stories about false accusations. If you'd like to submit a story, and similar stories to the ones mentioned above are more than welcome, to us about a false copyright infringement accusation, feel free to send me, Drew Wilson or Jared Moya an e-mail (At this time, stories submitted to Jared will probably be forwarded to me): Drew Wilson - drew@zeropaid.com Jared Moya – jared@zeropaid.com Total accusations: 4 Total people it could disconnect: 1 Stories don't have to be file-sharing related in particular – just as long as the accusation is related to use of the internet in some way. You can simply put “False Accusation” in the header of your e-mail with your story as this will help us sort out e-mails a little easier. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.