Blog Insights: YouTube gets anti-piracy religion

What bloggers are saying about the latest in information technology


I've wondered aloud and within this space on numerous occasions, just what Google had in mind and if they were in fact in their right mind-when they bought YouTube. At the time of the acquisition, YouTube was a vehicle for marginally useful home-made videos of poor quality, with no apparent revenue model. But it seems that the Googlers may have been crazy like a fox in the acquisition, and it may yet transform YouTube into something worthwhile, and maybe even profitable. First, advertising was incorporated into videos, and now, last week Google unveiled their anti-piracy tool, just in time to head off a morass of Dickensian lawsuits that would have the potential to transform Google into the Bleak House of the Internet. Lawyers of course, always go for the deep pockets, and Google's pockets are deeper than most. Regardless of the flimsy arguments some YouTube aficionados put forth, legitimate companies cannot condone it, and must take action to stop it. Google, or any other company hoping to make a profit, would be committing corporate suicide to allow it to continue.

Cnet's tech news blog reveals a few of the details of the anti-piracy tool, which apparently puts most of the burden on content producers and owners to provide YouTube with copies of the content, with which they will create a database against which postings will be checked. The theory of the system is somewhat like signature-based anti-virus software. It's not perfect, but image recognition is a difficult thing. Some content providers disliked the idea that the burden will be placed on them to provide copies of content ahead of time, and one would hope that a more refined anti-piracy tool would be forthcoming. Still, not bad for a first effort.

A big variable is the Viacom lawsuit against Google for a cool billion. An interesting nugget in the Cnet posting is that the entertainment industry is likely to be a lot more aggressive in releasing content on the Internet once some proven anti-piracy technology is in place. A WebProNews blog sheds light on the whole episode, laying out some of the reservations and limitations of the new YouTube system. The anti-piracy tool doesn't handle poor quality video well, and YouTube has no shortage of poor-quality video. There is also some concern that the tool would not allow for clips that fall under the "fair use" doctrine.

I found an interesting quote on a Wired blog which definitely falls under the "not keeping up with the times" category: A digital rights honcho stated that they do not believe that any "automated process" would be able to determine when a consumer's rights are being violated. Someone needs to sit this individual down and explain the age of computers. YouTube is huge. An automated process is the only way it can be done.
What Google/YouTube must do now is take their existing anti-piracy technology and build on it, the same way that software security companies have developed anti-virus technology.