Would you check user uploaded videos against a copyrighted "do not use" list if you could?

Thank K0nr4d for the input - indeed for this to work, tube authors need to add it for sure. All I can provide are the tools (eg a compiled C script to fingerprint the movie and then developer notes on what to do with that). FWIW, false positives in my tests are extremely rare, but I'll get a POC up for people to test out before I make any more assumptions.

The clip concept is interesting - a content producer with a 60 minute movie adds that to the copyright db. They then release a 5 minute clip that does the rounds on the tubes. The 5-minute clip would of course match the 60-minute movie and get flagged, which isn't at all what we want.

hmmm...

The fingerprint of both movie and clip contains the video lengths, so it's possible to only raise a flag if the queried fingerprint is > xx% of the db fingerprint.
In that case, xx% would need to be configurable by the tube owner. Of course, the tube script could also allow flagging of certain user's to not be checked.. this is all down to the tube author to implement...

And herein lies the problem!
Manwin has pretty much assimilated all the major tubes and as they offer this as a paid-for service (really quite expensive paid for service to boot), they will never come on board with this....

Too late to edit my post, but:

perhaps better would be for the db server to reply something like:
result: (bool)
match_owner: {copyright owner contact or something}
match_video_length: (int)secs
query_video_length: (int)secs

That would give the tube script the freedom to do as they please?

All this is the reason why I said "discuss" - feedback, ideas are all good things

Yep something like that would work. You could go a little further then a boolean result though.
You could spit back:
result: (int)percentage_match

and then let the script end decide "if its more then x% match, flag as possible copyright", "if its more then y% match, delete immediately"

Also you'd need to compare more then just a few frames. Alot of videos have a black screen or copyright notice or intro video for the first x seconds of the clip, which could generate false positives as well since it could match quite a few frames of completely different movies as identical.

that's not really necessary - without going into the ins and outs of how the matching works, the matching algorithm will only match positives, and discard negatives or "similars". For example, if I created a video compilation of 3 different video clips, one after the other and one of those clips was from a video in the fingerprint db, the video compilation would get flagged, because it contained content within that was in the fingerprint db. It is possible for the return to tell you were in the query video (start time/end time) the match occurred, but that's a little more complicated and advanced and would slow down the return response.

How does the algorithm know it's a positive match and not something similar? Well, one ball busting method is once a match is found, the weeds are filtered out from the flowers by testing the match in reverse. Only identical videos will match in both forward and reverse (ie video playing in reverse) - the "similars" will fail the reverse test.

158 views and only 9 votes

ok so you have a video in the db, and people are uploading 3-5 min clips cut from the members area of that video, and the sponsor approves. would those uploads get flagged?

The content owner could specify if there's any shortened versions of these clips which are not copyrighted, and specify the lengths.

But then, what about trailers that are made up of short clips from multiple copyrighted video sources?

Edit: You could have a whitelist as well as a blacklist. The whitelist would have fingerprints of the promotional material in it, and would be checked against first. If theres a 'strong' match against any of these videos, it would flag as okay and not check the blacklist.

I don't quite follow - what do you mean "the sponsor approves"? The master db is created by content producers, not sponsors. Only verified content producers can add to it. Tube owners can then query this db to see if the uploaded content is allowed or not. If a member has ripped a 5minute clip from a member content video (and that member area video has been licensed to that site owner to show in their member area), then it will get flagged as not approved.

Yes, indeed these ideas need floating which is what I was hoping for, since I don't have all the answers

I like the whitelist/blacklist idea - that would solve a lot of problems. As I mentioned in the content producer's thread, an idea I thought of would be to flag a content with "allow 5 minute clips", but the whitelist would be a better solution, since it is a restrictive approved-of only clips list... anything else, unauthorized.

Great ideas folks

that's what i was asking. so might make your system useless for legal tubes that take legit uploads then?

I don't own a tube.

With that in mind I think it's a great idea, but I think it also puts the tube owner at a competitive disadvantage. Those who don't opt-in, have more (better?) content.

Just for thought, on a forum I run it has a spam service you can connect to, and based on the code returned (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) you configure how you want it to respond.

Code 0 means that the request could not be processed by the spam service, due to an out of date license key or other technical issue.

Code 1 is sent if the spam service determines that the account is unlikely to be spam.

Code 2 is sent by the service if the account is possibly spam

Code 3 is sent by the service if the account is likely spam

Code 4 is sent by the service if the account is a known spammer

Options are:
- Proceed with registration
- Flag as spammer
- Register account, but mark it banned

Seemed like a pretty good way to deal with a restriction system, whether for spam or blacklist/whitelist, users, etc..

No, I still don't get you! Maybe the confusion here is what a content owner licenses his content to be used for. That isn't this thread, but the other one I made. I don't know, I'm neither a content owner, nor a licensee, nor a tube owner, hence the discussion...

This master db is to be generated by content owners - how that db is generated is for them to decide over in the other thread ie, if they have content they never want on a tube, then that is clear cut. What is grey at the moment is 'approved' clips.

If a content producer licenses his content to people to do how they see fit (members are, promotion clips, affiliate clips etc), then this thread isn't for that. This is not about a site owner that has purchased content preventing that content getting on the tubes - it is higher up the hierachy than that. It is about trying to prevent content producer's content *that they control* getting onto the tubes.

There are *many* sites out there that are run by content producers - they are the ones sick to the back teeth of finding their content on the tubes and what this is trying to deal with. There are also content producers that run those sites that produce promotional clips to upload to tubes to drive traffic to their sites - this is what a 'whitelist' would be about...

Anyone that rips a 5 minute clip from a members area should never be allowed to be able to upload that to a tube, if the original was in the master content owners database....

Hence the poll

"yes I'd do anything to reduce the number of dmca requests"

I know if I owned a tube, I'd frikkin want something to auto-check user-uploads. It wouldn't be a "get out of jail free" card, but it would take off a lot of the burden. Youtube actually uses something like this, and I think, but not sure, in a way that manwin implements - opt-in copyright owners have to pay to have user-uploaded content verified it is copyright-free. Hence no movies appear on youtube, but TV streams do...